Recently, the Anti Defamation League delivered a strong repudiation of the current toxic atmosphere regarding illegal immigration. Here is a link to the full press release written by ADL.
For those who decry, “those anti people, they are the haters”, I wonder, how are we seen as haters, when in fact, seven major civil rights organizations ALL side with our concern over the scapegoating and extreme rhetoric directed at Hispanics. ANY day, I would rather be publicly seen as aligning myself with civil rights organizations than a group led by a man that talks about human beings as dog food.
It is time to start recognizing that a reasonable and humane resolution will come with this administration, and people need to ask themselves, in ten years, how do I want to remember my words and deeds. I believe, this quote by Michael Lieberman, encompasses everything antibvbl stand for, not only as it relates to solutions for immigration, but also our need to remember we are all a part of the human race.
Words have consequences. And we must use our words, our power of persuasion, our political clout, to condemn scapegoating, bias crimes, racism, and anti-Semitism and to press for fair and workable immigration reform.
For those who accuse Alanna and I of infiltrating and influencing ADL, ask yourselves, do you believe we are so powerful that we can also determine the agendas of six other national civil rights organizations?
Here is part of the press release:
Washington, DC, November 24, 2008 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) today joined with a coalition of seven national civil rights organizations to denounce the recent wave of hate crimes against Hispanics and other minorities, including the brutal murder of Marcelo Lucero, a Suffolk County, Long Island man of Ecuadoran descent.
“There is a direct connection between the tenor of the political debate and the daily lives of immigrants in our communities. It is no accident that as the immigration debate has demonized immigrants as “invaders” who poison our communities with disease and criminality, haters have taken matters into their own hands and hate crimes against Latinos are on the rise for the fourth consecutive year,” said Michael Lieberman, ADL Washington Counsel.
Michael Lieberman also said in his press release:
Reasonable people can and will disagree about the parameters of Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
But make no mistake. There is a direct connection between the tenor of this political debate and the daily lives of immigrants in our communities.
It is no accident that, as some voices in the immigration debate have demonized immigrants as “invaders” who poison our communities with disease and criminality, haters have taken matters into their own hands.
ADL has documented a growing atmosphere of bigotry and xenophobia and a disturbing increase in the number of violent assaults against Hispanics, legal, and undocumented immigrants – and those perceived to be immigrants. Across the nation, the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazis have exploited the immigration issue to advance their own agenda.
But we at ADL have also become increasingly concerned about the virulent anti-immigrant and anti-Latino rhetoric employed by a handful of groups and coalitions that have positioned themselves as legitimate, mainstream advocates against illegal immigration in America.
As previously mentioned, the FBI has documented that reported hate crimes against Latinos increased in 2007 for the fourth consecutive year.
The demonization of immigrants has led to an increased sense of fear in communities around the country and created a toxic environment in which hateful rhetoric targeting immigrants has become routine.
overpopulation? does this really have anything to do with legality? or is it just too many people?
Mr. Bentley:
FYI-The elderly women murdered by the Hispanic couple was Jewish. Does that count as a hate crime? Or is it because the perpetrator was Hispanic, he gets a pass because he probably had a ‘good reason” or maybe he is a victim himself. It is interesting how the ADL does not come out and voice their opposition to these crimes, or on this site, the folks ignore criminal behavior that doesn’t fit their agenda or storyline.
Ms. Mizell,the elderly Jewish woman killed by the Hispanic couple, was a kind human being who never bothered anyone. She was taken advantage of financially, brutally beaten, and then had her home set on fire by this couple. There is no mention of her death or the death of Mary Havenstein, another elderly victim of a illegal immigrant, who assaulted multiple senior citizens in Montgomery County, and who now live in constant fear, anywhere on this site. Again, it doesn’t fit the storyline of this groups agenda. They list other criminal acts when Hispanic’s are the victims, why not report these heinous acts on these elderly, defenseless human beings? A heinous act is a heinous act.
You can say amnesty means anything you want. I prefer to go by the standard disctionary definition.
Let’s be honest. Anti-immigration people want no way for anyone who is in the USA illegally to rectify that status. No fine, no hoop to jump through will ever be enough. Just admit that you and yours will accept no form of payment for legal residency.
The dictionary definition rather obviously fits.
“Just admit that you and yours will accept no form of payment for legal residency.” EXACTLY, no form of payment should give advantage over those who played by teh rules and sought legal entry. This is my position and I’m proud of it. I want to shout it from rooftops. I’m hardly trying to hide it. i think that when the American people come to fully understand the issues and logic behind the alternatives proposed, they will agree with me by a wide margin.
And who grants permission to enter the country as a legal resident or an extended visitor? Why are some people allowed in and others not How come one person on the blog has a husband who changed his status and the other person has been waiting 8 years?
If you don’t see this as a discrepancy, than I don’t know discrepancy.
I believe your bottom line, Rick, is that no one from a latin American region gets in here legally or will be allowed to adjust to legal status. Am I correct? (there might be other regions you restrict also)
Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a $5000 fine is ‘amnesty?’
Rick,
I am wondering what you think of Robb’s posts at December 2008, 9:33 and 9:44 .
Elitistliberals,
As sad as the story is regarding Ms. Mizell, she was attacked because she was probably trusting and kind, not because she was Jewish. Are you doubting the credibility of the Anti Defamation League or their long history of fighting anti semitism and other groups targeted throughout history?
Actually, elitistliberls, we don’t often report crimes. If we do discuss crime, it is when Latinos have been singled out because they are Latinos, not because of the crimes.
Right now over in the reader comments of insidenova.com, there is much discussion over the rapist of a 10 year old child. Hideious act. Louse and psychopath. The victim was also an illegal alien, from what I have been told and have read. It is being handled in that venue. It isn’t a hate crime. It is a horrible crime regardless of who committed it..
I obviously not not feel Hispanics are exempt from commiting heinous crimes nor do others here on this site. You might be surprised to know that most of us support the 287(g) program. We don’t want criminals roaming the streets either.
“Most people,” Rick? I’ve neither met nor heard of a person who opposed hate crime laws other than flat out racists. But that aside, if you feel there is a connection between legal status and crime, great! We can require everyone to obtain legal status and presto! Zero crime in America.
Meanwhile, those of us who exist in reality will focus on more demonstrable cause of violent crime, like hate rhetoric and politicians who seek to capitalize on existing racial tension for election season, like Supervisor John Stirrup and Chairman Corey Stewart. Media outlets that stoke racial hysteria also lead to hate crimes. So I’ll tell you want. If I grant you this “presto” magic way of reducing crime, you grant me mine. We can make all the undocumented people get papers and we’ll vote out the politicians who ratchet up the hate for the purposes of electioneering. Deal?
“I believe your bottom line, Rick, is that no one from a latin American region gets in here legally or will be allowed to adjust to legal status. Am I correct? (there might be other regions you restrict also)”
Sigh
“Just out of curiosity, why do you feel that a $5000 fine is ‘amnesty?’ ”
Because it’s an pardon. If a give a theif a pardon and charge him 2 cents for it, it’s still a pardon. The idea of rewarding those who snuck in and disadvantaging everyone else is crazier than the other system anomolies you decry.
“I’ve neither met nor heard of a person who opposed hate crime laws other than flat out racists.”
You need to get out more.
Meanwhile, watch this – http://www.southparkstudios.com/guide/401/
“Rick,
I am wondering what you think of Robb’s posts at December 2008, 9:33 and 9:44 .”
Okay, here comes a critique of each.
Rick,
Seriously? Beevis and Butthead?! YOU need to get out more 🙂
“NotGregLetiecq, you stated:
I’m not sure what the real root cause is.
Answer: fear.
I know that seems over-simplified. But it is the answer.
“Fear of what?”, some may ask. Fear of becoming nothing. And the three major ways it’s felt are: (1) fear of losing identity; (2) fear of losing security; (3) fear of losing life (which is the main root of all fear).”
————————-
First off you can’t identify a singular “root” of all fear. I might fear getting raped, humiliated, turned into a wage slave, losing my job and income, etc. etc. and they don’t all relate to loss of life.
————————————
“When one ties up their identity so tightly and irrationally in something like their nation, a religion, a cause (such as a political cause), etc., any perceived disruption to that identity can elicit a defensive reaction (verbal or physical). Because that disruption means potential loss of identity. And to many, loss of identity is as good as being dead.”
——————————–
Perhaps some of you here see yourself identity-wise as liberal (tolerant, accepting of diversity) and well-meaning and when common sense (i.e. punish criminals rather than rewarding them) conflicts with that, you go with the self-image over what’s so obviously the rational course of action. Judging from the next paragraph Robb might agree with that.
————————————-
“And so they vigorously do what they can to preserve their identity. I witnessed this phenomenon firsthand when I was knee-deep in “anti-illegal immigration” activism, and it was evident on both sides.
It’s humanity’s greatest distraction: the failure to recognize that our core identity is found in our common humanity.”
————————————————-
I don’t agree with that categorization. Talk about simplification. That could be a great rationalization for not punishing any set of criminals. Our “core identity” is not so lofty as that. We are animals. Most of us have an innate sense to help rather than harm each other – but not everyone has it. Hence laws and law enforcement are necessary.
I have a better simplification of right and wrong that a wise man uttered circa 1969 (Captain Beefheart). When asked what evil was, he replied it was any distortion or lack of clarity. And that’s what i see as wrong with the whole eyes-closed, let’s-hope-for-the-best open borders crowd. They are willing to encourage much more illegal immigration, with no plan to stop it, and bypass logic. Rational discussion of this issue would lead to no Amnesty and increased deportation.
“Rick Bentley:
Laws are broad-spectrum treatments which attack the symptoms and effects of social ills (such as crime). And yes, law is necessary. But laws don’t solve the core causes of those ills. And until we attack the causes, all the laws we could possibly write will be ultimately inadequate.”
Sure.
And the root causes of Central and South American poverty – population control, cultural acceptance of corrupt governments and institutions – aren’t being addressed by anyone.
By all accounts, we would have had a regime change in Mexico in their last Presidential election had not 15% of their working class been over here instead of back home voting. And so things continue as they are, and oil-rich Mexico is ruled by an elitist class who grow rich through the status quo just as the rich in America remain content with the influx of workers into the US. Workers have less leverage there, and also less leverage here.
Ricardo Bentley,
If you were a Real American who cared about national security, you would be supporting 100% amnesty.
how do you figure that? Because to start with, an amnesty now only gives us MORE and MORE illegal immigration.
If you’re not a big South Park fan, just check out the presentation “Hate Crime Laws ; A Savage Hypocrisy” that the boys give at 16:30 – 17:50. that’s how I see it.
Rick Bentley, you stated:
Yes, we absolutely can identify the main root of all fear: it is fear of dying, the ultimate loss. With that, we fear anything that might diminish the life that we do have. And with that, we fear other types of loss, mainly (1) loss of identity, and (2) loss of security.
Which goes to your examples of being afraid of getting raped, being turned into a wage slave, losing your job and income, etc. All those relate to a fear of losing security. And with such losses of security, our very lives can be jeopardized.
Ricardo,
I figure that undocumented workers are no threat at all. If we gave amnesty and revised the immigration system to make it realistic, then we could actually put resources into increasing security rather than persecuting innocent working class people.
But since you’re not a Real American I don’t expect you to agree.
Rick Bentley, what is it about “illegal immigration” that centrally bothers you?
Mackie, what is a “real” American?
I don’t know but whenever you use this term it really gets under the skin of the nativists. It’s fun to use.
Of course, all crimes are inexcusable and horrific. How does someone avoid being victimized? They take precautions. But, what precautions can somebody take against being targeted because of their skin color?
I suppose this would be a good time to explain something to the contributors on this thread, and future threads, who leap to the defense of John Stirrup and Corey Stewart whenever the words “hate” or “racism” are mentioned here.
Shall I call them “Hate And Racism Apologists,” since “Stewart and Stirrup Apologists” somehow seem to fall under the same category? Here goes.
Dear H&RA’s,
Please do not take it personally when this blog and/or other news and information outlets discuss hate or racism. The authors of this blog are not criticizing John Stirrup or Corey Stewart … at least not directly … when they express concern about hate and racism.
I believe I speak for most residents of the county when I say that our concern about Stewart and Stirrup’s associations and memberships in groups like FAIR and Help Save Manassas has little to do with the label or classifications “hate group” or “nativist extremist.” We are uncomfortable with those two organizations having undue influence on our county government because they don’t represent the views of the majority of citizens in this county.
If you recall, it was only with the help of technological tricks like automated faxes and email spam machines that these two groups working together were able to seize control of our government,
and force it fight against itself, over a single issue for the better part of a year … an issue that fell outside their jurisdiction and their sphere of influence. In the process, they managed to waste millions of dollars of taxpayer money and cause irreversible damage to our county’s economy, to the value of our homes, and to the ability of our government to function effectively for at least the foreseeable future.
Now, there will always be Hate Groups, and there will always be Extremist Groups, but what was unique to Prince William County was that they had members inside the government. With John Stirrup and Corey Stewart in their pockets, FAIR and Help Save Manassas were able to plot a surprise attack that superseded the other Board Members, the Police Department, the County Attorney’s office, and the County Executive’s office. Worst of all, they robbed the other 99.9 percent of this community of our faith and trust in our elected officials. Up until July 10, 2007, we had trusted that our government was a representative democracy that we would not need to fight tooth and nail to keep.
That’s what we hold against Stewart and Stirrup. Get it?
You don’t have to pop up here every time you see the word “hate” or “racism.” You don’t have to worry about the hate group classification … after all, FAIR was not classified as a “hate group” until after the damage was done.
If you want to defend Stewart and Stirrup, defend their decision to circumvent the democratic process and create a false hysteria as part of an election year strategy, employing legislation crafted by a lobbying firm that viewed this county as a macabre laboratory experiment.
(And yes, hate crimes are awful and they should be prosecuted as such. But anyone who attributes hate crimes that occur outside county lines to Stewart and Stirrup is stretching plausibility. Stewart and Stirrup have played a small role, if any, with all the national press they earned for us, in building the kind of hatred and hysteria that led to racially motivated murders in other states. There hasn’t been one here, unless you count a murder that preceded Stewart and Stirrup’s decision to exploit this issue.)
The real crime for which we must hold Stewart and Stirrup responsible is the hijacking of our local government, which they so proudly handed over to lobbying firms and radical groups that, regardless of their classification by civil rights organizations, did not represent the views nor the best interests of the people of Prince William County.
Rick,
Does removing the ‘Welcome Mat” work?
Does attrition work?
Does enforcement work?
If so, then why are you convinced ‘amnesty’ will encourage other ‘illegals’? I get this whole concept of not rewarding bad behavior but there are equally compelling arguments for permitting some of these people the opportunity to gain legal standing.
“we could actually put resources into increasing security rather than persecuting innocent working class people”
you’ll only encourage further border crossings and an even greater anarchy
“why are you convinced ‘amnesty’ will encourage other ‘illegals’?”
It already has, this is not some type of theory which we haven’t seen manifest itself already. The 1986 Amnesty lead to what we have now.
“Rick Bentley, what is it about “illegal immigration” that centrally bothers you?”
A. The way our elites bend and manipulate our system for their own profit and in this case most notably for the sake of artificially lowering wages in America.
B. Rewarding lawless behavior and making a joke out of the rules that so many Americans were naively raised to follow, believing our leaders and government had some integrity
C. The way whole continents are being abandoned rather than improved, leading to the wealthy as usual buying up land there and owning a greater chunk of the world than working people
D. The transformation of my own neighborhood circa 2005-2006 into a much less safe place and into an urban rather than suburban environment (overcrowding, lack of parking, lack of courtesy, noise, shady unknown figures walking around at all hours, men leering at young women, someone showering on my lawn late at night, someone trying to siphon my gas late at night. etc. etc.)
D is probably most important to me but rest assured that A-C really anger me also.
“Does removing the ‘Welcome Mat” work?
Does attrition work?
Does enforcement work?”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Alanna,
I think that’s a very elucidating observation. People of color have learned from experience, that they will be targeted simply because of their skin color. They will be targeted with housing discrimination. Millions of times each year. They will be targeted by this farce called the drug war that is just a tool for politicians to look tough on crime by locking up young black and hispanic males in poor neighborhoods while white men and women in universities across our nation get stoned every night…and stoned is just the tip of the iceberg for many of them. I know.
People of color know they will be targeted by the police. So many simply don’t call the police unless they absolutely have to. Just like a highly educated black coworker earning 6 figures advised me, the best way to protect yourself from the police is to simply never call them and never talk to them when they come uncalled.
The reality for people of color is that bigotry can impact your life at any moment, at any time. You must never forget, you are in a white world.
White people on the other hand, barely ever think about being white. They can’t conceive of the notion that the police would charge them with crimes they didn’t commit. They honestly never entertain the notion that they will be shot for pulling out their cell phone. They live in an alternate reality. And since they are the majority, a majority of naive people, even the well meaning ones support abusive laws like 287(g). Here’s a perfect example of the disconnect between these 2 worlds and how painful reality can be when it comes crashing in. It’s also a testament to the power of denial. It’s not a few bad apples. It’s institutional. It’s embedded everywhere:
http://www.lipmagazine.org/~timwise/sexacrosscolorline.html
You have missed one very important point in your otherwise valid rational for this thread.
You assume that all actions to stop “illegal” immigration into our country, and all actions to enforce the current immigration law, and all actions by any community to stop “illegal” immigration and all actions to stop execution of a lawful 287G program that legally removes criminal “illegal” immigrants from our country, are all just a “SUBSET” of your real anger at “hate crimes” and “hate groups”, denounced by civil rights leaders.
By blurring the lines of “legal” and “illegal” you have simply created a tangled web of deceit, a web of lies and a web of “veiled implication arguments” against legal and proper actions taken by a community to stop “illegal” immigration.
When you can erroneously relate and associate “guilt by implication” and “wrongness by associated rhetoric” and “guilt by abstraction and inference” you blur (intentionally) the real and wrong actions of hate and hate groups with the real and right actions of legal and lawful steps taken by the nation and by community members to prevent and stop “illegal” immigration and the harm it does to our country and our community.
Your logic for this thread and your entire manifesto for “morality” hinges on the following erroneous and flawed logic process.
1. Hate crimes and hate groups as well as violent acts and verbally hurtful acts against any individual regardless of race, gender, religion and ethnic group are wrong.
(no one will disagree with that statement).
2. International and national civil rights groups condem hate crimes and actions of hatred toward all people based on race, gender, religion and ethnic group.
(no one will disagree with that statement)
3. Legal immigration is legal and no-one who is legal should be subjected to hate crimes or discrimmination based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
(no one will disagree with that statement, but some people are incapable of making the distinction between illegal and legal behavior, and apply that concept regardless of race, religion, gender or ethnic group the individuals who commit illegal acts come from)
4. “illegal” immigration can be made to sound like “legal” immigration, if you abstract it and only think of all forms of “immigration” as an intentional and misleading abstract concept which can mask all attempts to properly assign right or wrong to human behaviors.
(people who intentionally mislead and what to win rhetorical debates will agree that abstraction is a technique to diffuse and obfuscate reality and truth, so it cannot be discerned from fiction, deceit, lie and misconceptualization. It becomes just an abstract image of “good” or “bad”, with no “truth” qualifiers. It can make “true” become “false” and “false” become “true” with the proper level of abstraction and misleading inference and association.
5. A 287G program to stop “illegal” criminals and deport them, can be reconceptualized as a 287G program to stop “legal” immigrants and “legal” criminals and make gullible people believe you want to “deport them”, when legally you cannot and in truth you intend no such thing. Such a concept can obfuscate a “legal” and moral program to reduce the impact of crime, with an “illegal” abstraction, so it can be more easily attacked with misinformation, obfuscation, lies, partial truths, and unproven accusations.
6. If you can associate an organization or persons(s) who do legal and lawful acgtivities, with illegal and unlawful concepts and ideas, you can make their actions, though legal, lawful and moral, sound illegal, unlawful and immoral, by blurring the distinction between “illegal” immigrant and “legal” immigrant, “law enforcement” with “unlawful enforcement”, “hate and hate crimes” with legal language, legal actions, law enforcement activities and otherwise moral activities with abstract and erroneous association with offending and illegal activities, by use of abstraction, obfuscation of the truth, anectdotal evidence, association with “like”, “similar”, implied, weakly linked, deliberately misleading but not “correct” concepts, and can attack individuals and associations, and groups with guilt by association rather than guilt by action, or guilt by truth. Since you do not have to stand up to a court of law to prove this, you can use “contempt of the court” to win your illogical debate.
(This is your pitiful logical error, and why you hate people who want to enforce “legal” laws against “illegal” people, and take verbally abusive, punitive and hateful actions gainst any person and any group who takes lawful and moral actions against “individuals” who are doing “illegal” damage to “lawful citizens”.
7. With this logical error conviction you can turn “lawlessness” into “lawfullness”, and “immoral acts” into “moral acts”, believable by all people who do not possess the truth, the facts, the distinctions and the evidence, but simply possess the abstract erroneous convictions and hatred of the truth.
(This is why anything you do to try to stop “illegal” immigration, is immoral and wrong, when you believe that ALL you are “innocently” doing is “stopping hatred and discrimmination”, when in addition to stopping hatred and discrimmination, you are also stopping lawful and legal action, effectively with your actions letting criminals, “illegal” people and “illegal” actions go unpunished, and continue to grow under you misguided protective umbrella of indignance and ignorance.).
You continuously (and gleefully) shoot at the wrong target in pursuit of your self-inflicted “illegal” means “legal” false morality.
The real reality is people (“individuals” break laws. Those that do are hunted down by the police and punished by a judge, court and legal, lawful actions toward criminals. This happens to “individuals”. This includes “indivudlas” who break “immigration law” and by doing so are labeled “illegal” immigrants or “illegal aliens” Those of you who leap from blaming indivduals, to sympathizing with and socially defending groups for individuals in those groups behaviorsa (regardless of how many people belong to those groups who break the law), are the problem, rather than the solution.
How can 287G possibly be abusive? (except in the minds of the misinformed and the angry, and those who stand to gain from crimnal behavior or personal gain by overturning lawlessness). 287G is a program to remove “criminals” who are also “illegal” immigrants from our streets. Who could possibly confuse that with “abuse”? Except Mackie and a few others who blur everything into “save the poor, especially if you can put a skin color on it”
Michael,
In your post you said “3. Legal immigration is legal and no-one who is legal should be subjected to hate crimes or discrimmination based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.”
Are you suggesting that only “illegal” immigrants “should” be subjected to hate crimes? I think maybe you should clarify that point.
WHWN,
EXCELLENT post, as usual!
Alanna, I have to ask you a few “questions” regarding your statement to Rick Bently (who has taken an ethical position of the impact to him of “illegal” immigration by others lawlessness) to assess your level of “right-doing and ethical convictions” so I can hope to possibly understand why you “seem”to support illegal behavior, “illegal immigration” and the consequances of illegal immigration behavior on innocent people.
If you had committed a illegal act or crime, and a law said you should be punished for that crime, but if you never got caught, never had the law punish you, even though your actions harmed many, many others, while it benefitted only you and your immediate family…would you continue doing this crime without guilt knowing it would harm others outside of your family?
Would you make the leap like so many people do, to believe your crime was not a crime, but actually a lawful and moral act that should be rewarded, given amnesty for, never punished and never held accountable for, even though thousands, even millions of people are harmfully affected by your continued illegal behavior?
If you got amnesty or a pardon for that behavior, even though it was illegal, would others be encouraged or discouraged to try to duplicate what you did to benefit only yourself and your immediate family, even though it would continue to hurt thousands, even millions of others not in your family?
“illegal” immigration is not a “victimless” crime, though so many of you believe it harms no-one.
No Elena, I’m very clearly suggesting that only “illegal” individuals and “illegal” immigrants, regardless of race, religion, gender or ethnic group should be subjected to LAW ENFORCEMENT, and that, that action of LAW ENFORCEMENT is moral, legal and beneficial to our entire society, regardless of what group, individual, or member of society is supporting it or helping it along.
Law enforcement is NOT a HATE CRIME, as this illogical thread would have you believe.
michael,
Exhibit A: White Denial
Michael, the problem is more that you are confusing hate crime with law enforcement; not that Elena is confusing law enforcement with hate crime.
If you come on this blog to defend Corey Stewart, John Stirrup, and the Immigration Resolution just because the subject of the thread is “hate,” “racism,” “anti-immigrant zealotry,” or “hate crime,” it says more about your perceptions than it does about Elena’s.
Mackie, you are a racist, blind to your own hatred of white people…
WHWN, No the issue is that I support what is said in stopping hate crime. I do not defend hate crime, nor do I defend any “hate crime” you can accuse others of “including Stewart or others” but first you should determine if they are angry at “illegal” behavior, or angry at other races, before you accuse them of the implied crime of “hatred”.
I do not confuse hate crime with law enforcement, law enforcement is what stops hate crimes. I’m just acusing most of you for focusing only on hate crimes, and other social isues and those who commit hate crimes, while ignoring other forms of crime also damaging millions and millions of innocent people. You support “illegal” immigration criminals when you want the 287G program removed, and you support “victimization of innocents when you support “illegal immigration” Your ethics are selective and skewed, when you associate “hate crimes” with enforcement of law on “illegals”, and when you support people as “individuals” who commit “illegal” immigration lawbreaking as lawful and deserving of sympathy and pardon. You hypocritically support one form of law enforcement and make a mockery out of the other. The impact of such “selective” law enforcement and “selective “ethics” is a loss of ethics in our nation, an increase in crime and “illegal” activity, and an increase in the damage caused by ignoring “illegal” immigration.
This is your legacy and lunacy to the destruction of our future legal system and sense of “legal” ethics by supporting “criminals and lawbreakers that you have sympathy toward just because they are “illegal” immigrants. Nothing else matters to you, except your focus on reasons to justify it, like associating law enforcement on “illegals” and those who support law enforcement on “illegals” with hate crimes and groups who commit hate crimes.
This is proof of our nations’s decaying ethics and increased support for criminals and those who break our laws.
Michael, you have the word “you” in several sentences that don’t describe me or anyone who posts on this blog. I have perhaps seen one person advocate against 287g. I have not. Elena has not. Alanna has not. M-H has not.
We don’t equate violent murder with an elapsed student visa. If you want to write a “you” sentence, start with that. Otherwise you’re just talking to yourself.
Michael,
Therein lies the problem. Maybe you can throw stones from your glass house, but me, I’ve had a few speeding tickes, not recently, but I’ve had some. I paid my fine, and I was done with my “legal” obligation. There are many people who have had their status adjusted from “illegal” or undocumented to “legal”. Are those people still criminals in your mind? I loved NGL’s “dare” to Rick. We adjust everyone’s status to “legal” and crime miraculously disappears. But I wonder, what happens if crime doesn’t disappear?
I also wonder why the national police chief association, I presume trained individuals in law enforcement, are reluctant to take on this federal issue? Do they not want safety for all citizens? Maybe you should listen again to Chief Deanes comments back in October, advice that was clearly ignored by the BOCS. Are you more qualifted then Chief Deane?
I do support 287G, however, this program does NOT address the underlying issues and reasons behind the impacts of a broken immigration system. Furthermore, the idea of “soccer moms” sitting in jail is not what I imagine the purpose of 287g. I would hope that felony offenders are the ones being detained, not the stories that Lucky Duck has shared about “soccer moms” being detained.
Corr: qualified
Oh good grief! I think I have learned ANOTHER lesson tonight.I think the debate STARTS from within oneself. Race, religion,economic status, CONFIDENCE… so on and so on 🙂
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbNPotsAFxg
Tomorrow is not a promise, it is TOMORROW. I know I am chillin’ back and thanking ( MY-yours might be different ) God for all the blessings I have and had in my life. I am actually enjoying the adversities and struggles in life as they are teaching me VALUABLE lessons of gratitude and keeps me humble. 🙂
Peace out 🙂 LOL
RD
No one has said anything about 287(g) but Mackie. Address him. The rest of us support it. We don’t want criminals on the street. Frankly, I am tired of black velvets telling me what I think.
Mackie, tell us why you think 287 g is a bad thing.
Rick, tell us why you feel you can change the meaning of amnesty. let’s see, if there is an amnesty day at the library, it means I can bring my overdue books back and not get a fine. All is forgiven. If an illegal immigrant has to pay a fine and jump through some hoops to acquire legal status, why is that amnesty? It isn’t.
No Elena, any person who has paid for a crime, caught by law enforcement and given suitable punishment to deterred repeated offenses, should not be continued to be punished by that crime unless they keep committing that crime.
I don’t live in a glass house, I simply believe that crime should never pay, and criminal behavior can never be bought or outlasted politically. That’s what people do in third world countries with corrupt governments and corrupt legal systems, and maybe that’s why so many people believe this is the right ethic today (buy your crime away), because we have had such a large infusion of foreign ethics into our society. I for one am tired of it, and I want LAW ENFORCEMENT to enforce law , NOT look the other way for a fee when crimes are committed.
NO PERSON who is legal is a criminal in my mind, including my own wife who had her status adjusted legally.
Look, let’s cut to the chase. Any person who is still illegally in this country, must pay for that illegal behavior by following law. My wife followed law, and so should everyone else. In most people’s minds if you are caught “illegal” that means “return to your country and get in line”. It does not mean, pay a fine and we will then give you a green card for that fee proving to everyone that crime and law enforcement can be bought for a price. That is a road to criminal decay, increased lawlessness because it is rewarded, and has little consequence on the perpetrator and because of the vast impact that “amnesty” precedant has set in the past and will set in the future.
“illegal” immigration is not a crime that can be deterred by any fine. It can only be deterred by finding illegal people, deporting them, and having them clearly get the message that “illegal” behavior will not result in your “capture of a green card and US citizenship ahead of anyone else who waits in line.
The only effective solution is “get to the back of the line, and leave the country, until you are invited in”.
When people are sent to jail for a crime, their family is in no way obligated to go with them, but they are affected by the loss of that individual for the duration of the punishment period. “illegal” people should suffer the same consequence of their actions, soccor mom or not. Soccor mom’s ans Soccor Dad’s go to jail when they have broken a law and the whole family suffers for one person’s lawlessness. Their is no pardon for family inconvenience, while a criminal serves jail time, nor should their be any pardon for family inconvience while a lawbreaker pays for their lawlessness.
We’ve all had speeding tickets and most of us pay the price designed by justice to be a deterrent to doing it again. Drunk driver;s have deterrants appropriate to preventing them from continuing to commit the crime. “illegal” immigrants should have deterrants sufficient to prevent them and followers from continuing to commit the crime, when the damge is not just one drunk driver killing one person, but millions and millions of people affected by an “illegal” commiting the crime of “illegal” immigration.
I do not agree with Chief Dean. I think his officer’s should do more than just enforce the 287G program. I think whenever they find a law breaker, by definition a person that breaks law, they are morally obligated to the rest of us citizen’s and green card holders to uphold the law, and let Justice Departments (courts) determine what the proper punishment is for breaking the law. We also let elected politicans in a democracy who represent “we the people” decide what the law is, not Chief Dean. Dean’s policy to not arrest illegal immigrants is circumventing our legal system because of his personal beliefs and political convictions. I do not believe he has a right to make that decision, only a judge has that right, representing “we the people”, against ALL of those including “illegal” immigrants who commit crimes against “we the people”.
The immigration system is not “broken”. We already have paths to citizenship and work visa’s and a legal process for legal immigration. People only SAY ITS BROKEN because it won’t allow “illegal” people (their “illegal” family members) overnight to become “legal” and allow everyone they want to come into the US come TOMORROW. I don’t agree with that misguided concept to “FIX IT”.