Update: Today Robb Pearson, featured in the videos below, joined the conversation and answered a host of questions and comments from Anti posters. Thanks Robb for your insights into anti-illegal immigrant psychology.
For those not familiar with Robb Pearson’s story, you should watch the Part 1 before Part 2. In Part 1 Robb tells us how a hunger for attention prompted his transition from popular blogger to infamous anti-illegal immigrant activist. His honesty here sheds some light on the psychology of Greg Letiecq, whom he briefly references in this part of the interview.
But Part 2 contains a surprising revelation about the anti-illegal immigration mindset. If you think you understand the mindset now, you will understand it differently after watching this.
I am one of many Prince William County residents who have lamented that the immigration issue seems to have compromised the morals of some good people. County Chairman Corey Stewart is the prime example, someone who I had invited into my home for a fundraiser, someone I voted for in 2006 (not 2007), liked as a person, and still like as a person. When the immigration issue got a hold of him, Corey defended the tactics of Greg Letiecq, he even went so far as to attack Chief Deane. He could forgive the most outrageously racist comments. He even uttered one of his own (Robb also references this).
How could this happen?
Here’s my take on what Robb is saying in Part 2: In order to politicize and rally around the anti-illegal immigration issue, you are going to run into and unfortunately collaborate with people who are anti-immigrant and/or racist. This is not fun, and not easy to do. But it’s as necessary as it is inevitable. So, you suck it up, and, in order to insulate your guilty conscience from the moral issues that naturally come up when you are rallying around racism, you learn to deny that racism is at all possible in any way when advocated on this issue. This forces you to defend just about ANYTHING said on behalf of your cause. The more racist it sounds, the more ferociously you have to defend it. And anyone who points out this weakness in your argument is your enemy for life. Sound familiar?
I used to think that politicians did this to avoid exposing themselves to criticism that could be politically damaging. But now I understand that the impetus is actually a lot more intimate. See, if you admit that even one person on your “side” of the issue is a racist, you have done much more than open yourself up to damaging criticism, you have opened yourself up to introspection and self-critique, which is a lot more dangerous, particularly when your very identity is tied up in taking a “side” on this issue.
I think this may explain why Supervisor Stirrup appointed Rob Duecaster to our Human Services committee. And, it explains why Chairman Stewart, Greg Letiecq, and so many HSM members supported the idea. It was a way of demonstrating to themselves that nothing can be racist if it is said on behalf of the HSM and the Immigration Resolution. It was a way of affirming their self-imposed blindness. In this way, the Duecaster appointment was really not about Prince William County government. It was a private matter between John Stirrup and himself. And, it was a private matter for many of our neighbors seeking to avoid introspection and self-critique, working in concert to convince, not us, but themselves, that anything goes and everything is allowable.
I picked this thread to come in off-topic and say we should really talk about this WSJ article that mentions PWC and describes the type of systematic mortgage fraud that lead to our mess – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111072368352309.html
If we’re going off topic and talk about the mortgage crisis, please listen to this episode of This American Life called “The Giant Pool of Money”
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=355
It’s long, but if you really want to understand why the mortgage crisis happened, it’s worth the time.
But if you’re too lazy, here’s my summation: Mortgage loans were being repackaged and sold to investors hungry for a good return on their “giant pool of money.” For some reason the regulators allowed the repackagers to lie about the risk involved and give themselves AAA bond ratings. The banks were making so much money on this, they lowered the standards for mortgages so that people didn’t even have to prove they had a job! When the hungry investors realized they had been defrauded, the stopped buying the toxic repackaged loans, and the credit world froze up.
It’s not really off-topic Rick, but yet another example of the very issues that Robb discussed in his video, and especially shows the ignorance of how people view the sub-prime crisis that has destroyed our economic stability and very likely our entire national/international economic competitiveness as a nation in a global economy.
This article points out the fatal flaw in what is wrong with looking at issues and fighting national issues based on race, religion, gender and ethnicity instead of looking at only those who are affecting the mortgage market because they are or were illegal at some point, and those who have never been illegal, and thus correclty blaming “illegals” and former “illegals” for the market insanity that was fueled by a huge population explosion and demand by poor people for sub-prime risky mortgages (pushed primarily by racist activists wanting to take care of only ther own gender, race, religion or ethnicity, rather than ALL individuals the same)
I’ll explain as follows, why this is the heart of racism, and racist political agendas, and major consequence of not following “rule of law”.
First the statistics in this article are FLAWED because they look at comparing race, religion, gender and ethnicity as reasons for bad behavior and as political reasons for justifying priviliged behavior. What is telling is the ratio of total numbers of people in one ethnic group compared to another (in fact all ethnic groups are not equally represented, and likely just lumped into a “white” column, instead of understanding “what is driving individual behavior, regardless of ethnicity”.
The ratios ARE THE SAME across all ethnic groups if you consider the number of “individuals” in a population group that are here or where previously here in the last 25 years as “illegal” individuals (regardless of ethnicity), because the ratios of sub-prime mortgages are equally distributed across the population of “illegal” or formerly “illegal” whites, “illegal” or formerly “illegal” hispanics and “illegal” or formerly “illegal” blacks, also asians and muslims and hindus as a percentage of the total “legal” populations in those demographic groups.
THe article wants you to believe it is a racist issue, when in reality it is a “legal” compared to “illegal” population demographic issue, specifically amoung the “illegal” and formerly “illegal” poor, who normally would NEVER get these sub-prime loans with their racist political counterparts advocating for specific programs and privileges just for certain ethnic, gender, religious and ethncity groups.
It is also true that people created ecomomic “coalitions” to benefit only members of thier own political group, based on thier perceived but illegal “right” to advocate for privilege and special humanitarian benefit based solely on their race, gender, religion and ethnicity. AND THAT CONCEPT IS A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE MORTGAGE LENDING ETHIC, because it breaks and ignores “rule of law”.
JustinT correctly points out that the effects of this “illegal” impact by an “illegal” or formerly “illegal” population growth that was out of control for 25 years, is to create a market bubble where significant corporate greed is now enabled, due to the huge population demand for sub-primes, the profits of sub-prime rates and the lack of ethics to self police (often based on ethnicity and who was ethnically related to ethnic centric politicians), and to self-regulated (i.e follow “rule of law”).
The truth is in the numbers that show what percentage of those sub-prime borrowers were “illegals or formerly “illegals” within the last 25 years and what percentage were also “lying” and misrepresenting their actual income or legal ability to pay those mortgages as the rates responded to other market demand forces (ergo, the bubble pops, and the poor are the ones who can’t and won’t pay their obligations, thereby grossly affecting the security, stability, rights and prosperity of the rest of us innocent victims who “follow rule of law” and do not cheat, lie, steal or discrimminate based on race, gender, religion, or ethnicity in order to have a social advantage over other “individuals”, that not all of us are “legally” entitled to.
ShellyB, you stated:
Tomorrow I will comment on forgiveness, and what my intentions were. And do I think it’s necessary for Stewart and Stirrup to take similar steps as I have done? Well, I think every person should do a serious re-inventory of themselves and their values and make transformative changes accordingly.
On my way to bed. I will catch you all tomorrow.
Be well.
ROBB
The mortgage crisis happened not because poor people where given access to loans they could not afford, but because “illegal” people and formerly “illegal” people, created such a huge population explosion in the past 25 years, and a significant increase in the number of “poor” people in the US over 25 years (a growth in total population change of around 15-20 million additional poor people (reflected in the number of peolple who NEEDED sub-prime loans to get into an house, regardless of their ability to pay or their income level.
This is the fundamental flaw with “social engineering” by group advocacy and by priviliging and politically helping people based only on their ethnicity, race, gender or religion, rather than whether they deserve help based on their situation as individuals and based on whether they are “illegal” or “legal” and held accountable to following a “common rule of law” that harms no innocent and protects no “illegal” person who harms another (in this case financially, and disastrously driving the US into deep economic depression).
The fundamental ethic issue in all of this is not how to help and advocate for a sepfici ethnic group, but how to advocate for the “legal” poor, to own homes, while ensuring they can pay for their loans for the duration of their loans, not how to politically advocate to support “illegal” people and formerly “illegal” people to continue to cause uncontrolled population growth, uncontrolled growth in the numbers of “illegal” poor and continued arrogance of supporting racism, religion and ethnicity as a means to benefit and support only your “ethnic groups” achievement of the American Dream.
These political activists and artivles that look only at race and ethnicity rather than “individuals” following “rule of law” are as racist as you can get and are thye main reason for our nations present political and economic demise.
Preventing “illegal” behavior and following “rule of law” are the only solutions that will protect ALL of us equally (regardless of ethnicity, gender, religion or race) from further economic and political disaster.
It is my hope that all of those lenders (regardless of ethnicity) who violated rule of law, ethics and made mortages available and sub-primes available to people based entirely on their ethnicity will be punished under “anti-discrimmination laws”, and that the people who lied on their sub-prime mortages, in order to get loans they should never be entitled to get if they “followed rule of law” will be punished by “anti-fraud laws” and FBI investigations into such massive fraud and ethnic-centric illegal behavior that caused such significant damage and loss of financial stability to the rest of us. The wide scale “victims” of this fraud is the rest of the “innocent” population, who do not lie, cheat, steal, de-fraud and ethnically privilige ourselves into having advantages over other individuals, and do not seriously harm innocent “individiuals” as a result of their “illegal” and ethnic-centric political behavior. “illegal” behavior and “illegal” politics must be punished, and severely or it will simply encourage more corruption and lawlessness the next time the opportunity for greed and dis-proportionate social advantage based on ethnicity and “illegality” happens.
What is this talk of loans based on ethnicity. It’s all B.S. They made loans to anyone they could find, regardless of ethnicity. People were encouraged to lie about their incomes by sharks looking for commissions. And when they still wanted more mortgages to repackage and sell off, they fixed it so no one had to lie about their income because they weren’t even asked.
I don’t even see the purpose of trying to hang this crisis on anything to do with race.
Please keep up the good work on this blog. You present the other side of the story. It helps to keep the society healthy.
Welcome to Anti blog, Simon. We are glad you are here.
“They made loans to anyone they could find, regardless of ethnicity.”
A big factor in this, and the decision to tell lies so boldly about personal income and assets, was the language difference. And the people knew that if some bank official or someone else realized they were lying and breaking the law, they could just pull a “No Habla Englais” and they wouldn’t get the punishment an English-speaking citizen would. Point of fact, American citizens wouldn’t have gotten away with this en masse.
Two Americas, two sets of rules.
“Well, I think every person should do a serious re-inventory of themselves and their values and make transformative changes accordingly.”
“Transformative changes”. Well some of us don’t have our identity tied up in false religions or feel-good philosophies, some of us are happy enough with reality, have our feet on planet earth and don’t feel a need to “transform”, just to occasionally make moderate-sized changes to ourselves. The same people who gravitate to religion are usually the ones eager to make “transformative changes” to theuir lives periodically.
Perhaps Robb will someday make another “transformative change” and feel as he originally did. Heck perhaps it would be accelerated if his neighborhood gets surrounded by flophouses as mine was 3 years ago and he feels his family is becoming less safe.
I don’t buy it, Rick. Looks to me like WSJ and other conservative media outlets are trying one more time to divide and conquer by blaming the housing/credit crisis on Hispanics and Blacks. There was money in it for these mortgage brokers if they confused people into signing their names on these predatory loans.
In the NPR radio story I posted above, one of the brokers convinces an English speaking Marine NOT to go with a military subsidized mortgage that would have saved him money, because he would earn a higher commission on a mortgage that, sure enough, led to a foreclosure.
Also, I think anyone could get confused by these slimy sharks with their fine print and hidden fees. Most people don’t comprehend financial stuff and are too trusting of people who do.
Language, skin color are non-issues here.
Elena, I thank you for posting my interview. I hope my experience and my story in some way encourages others to make radically positive and transformative change in their lives.
And to everyone who has responded, whether kindly or not, I thank you. Inasmuch as my story can encourage constructive dialogue, I am pleased.
Now, on to some responses to what’s been written here over the past few days . . .
WhyHereWhyNow, you stated:
Corey Stewart’s issue may be worse than racism. His may be a problem of calculated intolerance embraced for the sake of advancing a personal political agenda. And his agenda, I suspect, is nothing more than to move up the political ladder. Undocumented immigrants become politically objectified and end up being relegated to nothing more than convenient rungs on that ladder. Which is convenient because of the limited recourse undocumented immigrants have in this country.
But was his intolerance conscious? Hard to tell. But what was conscious was his choice of political allies. And people choose political allies only if they think those people can help advance one’s agenda. And when that happens — especially if one is consumed by the hunger for their agenda — it’s easy to be influenced by the views of those allies.
Let’s not forget Corey Stewart’s famous words when he learned that 4.5 percent of the Citizen Satisfaction Survey interviews were conducted in Spanish: “Do we know whether those persons were legal residents or not?”
I’ll repeat here what I wrote on my blog recently:
Mackie, you stated:
The key part in your remarks is “as long as they can do it in a way that allows them to plausibly deny their bigotry.”
This is exactly what happened, and is still happening, in the “anti-illegal immigrant” lobby. It’s called deflection, and I wrote about this very thing recently, and I’ll repeat it (again) here:
And yes, immigration law can be misused to advance bigotry. Just like the “Rule of Law Resolution” in PWC was nothing more than legislated intolerance.
Opinion, you wrote:
I highly doubt my interview will engender the interest of O’Reilly or Olbermann. Lou Dobbs actually might raise an eyebrow to it, but only because he reported on my rally on his show back in 2007. But nothing more than raise an eyebrow, even if that.
But in either case, I am certain my interview and my story is of zero interest to high-end politics-focused media programs.
Robb here is the math in my head.
Enforcing “rule of law” and causing discomfort to some will cause some people to see my community as bigoted, or at a minimum unfriendly and unwelcoming.
Not doing it will cause my community to continue a trend of overcrowding and paying less per capita property tax, eroding any ability to pay for our own needs and transforming my community into a “ghetto” rather than the suburban area I meant to buy a house and raise a family in. It also makes my family less safe.
So, call me a bigot, in big block letters if you want to, world at large! I prefer that of the two alternatives. I don’t think that I particularly am one. But if enforcing US law makes some Latinos think this is the land of “El Diablo” and so forth, cool. That’s fine.
Sticks and stones …
Mackie, you stated:
Firstly, the group is called “New Jersey Citizens for Immigration Control” (NJCIC). And while I wouldn’t say the group is entirely “HSM-like”, it does partner with other HSM-like groups to do weekly 4-person to 5-person protests at a day-laborer site at a town in northern New Jersey.
Here’s a brief story about the meeting I had with NJCIC.
For starters, I was invited by the head of a group called “United Patriots of America”, which was a partner with NJCIC. At the meeting were representatives from two other partner groups, one being “You Don’t Speak For Me”; the other one’s name I can’t remember. “You Don’t Speak For Me” is a group of Hispanic-Americans who are against illegal immigration.
When it came time for me to speak about my upcoming rally, I mentioned that one of my themes was to speak out against racism, particularly anti-Hispanic intolerance. When I brought that up, I thought they were going to throw me out the second-story window. They were absolutely outraged.
Their chief objection was this: to include anti-racism talk in an anti-illegal immigration rally would be an admission that racism was actually a problem in the overall movement. Therefore that would undermine the movement’s image, and therefore invalidate its efforts.
And that’s when I said, “Well, um, hello! We’re already perceived as racist and in order to kill the perception you have to engage the issue, not ignore it.”
Of course, they disagreed, and then said they wouldn’t come to my rally if I insisted on speaking out against racism.
I was, to say the least, utterly astounded and could not understand the objections.
But what I neglected to mention in the interview is that after that meeting there was so much suspicion about me being a “plant” from the “other side” that an email had been circulated accusing me of “ulterior motives”. I I’ll try to find that email and post it on my blog. It was ridiculous.
And all because I wanted to engage the issue of racism.
By contrast Greg L addressed that issue from the start of HSM. And I was there at I think the second HSM meeting when he made it very plain to an audience that included some big, scary guys in it (who were muttering) that this organization was not about anything anti-Latino or anti-minority. It was somewhat dramatic and striking. He is not nearly the closeted bigot that some on this board want to see him as.
ShellyB:
Perhaps the most, and best, I could say on forgiveness is that it should be something everyone engages in. As for my intentions: at least in terms of the interview, to do nothing more than share my story and hope it encourages others look inside themselves, take an inventory of their core motivations, and make changes where change is needed.
Let’s talk about Corey Stewart for a moment. As an elected official his accountability to the public requires that he be under constant scrutiny, insofar as his public duties are concerned. And yet in recognizing whatever issues of intolerance he has evidently embraced, we have to guard against two things: (1) vilifying him, and (2) making him out to be the preeminent model of intolerance in PWC (which he in fact isn’t), and therefore the one upon whom we cast all disparagements for the “sins” of intolerance that have been fomented in PWC over the past two years.
Now, I’m not saying anyone here has done any of those two things. I’m just saying let’s be mindful that appropriate criticism not turn into inappropriate castigation.
One of the things that was edited out of the final cut of the interview is when I said this isn’t about Corey Stewart, or Greg Letiecq, or Robert Duecaster. It’s about all of us, and how we all can potentially possess the “bad inner soil” in which the seeds of fear and hate and intolerance can take root.
And so inasmuch as we can recognize the errors in others, in doing so we must first doubly recognize the errors in ourselves. And only then can we achieve a spirit of humility, compassion, and forgiveness which is the only viable means of creating the genuine reform of our fellow neighbor.
Rick Bentley, you stated:
Well when enforcement of a “Rule of Law Resolution” designed to combat illegal immigration ended up yielding deficient results far below madly inflated expectation, then of course people are going to reexamine the law’s intent and arrive at conclusions which, in PWC’s case, would reasonably include racism.
Chief Deane himself in July 2007 predicted that’s what would happen. And, alas, he was right.
Rick Bentley, you stated:
No, all Greg Letiecq wants to do is “send the home with love.” The absurdity of that notion cannot be overstated.
Like I’ve stated a number of times today already, intolerance is not only present when it is obvious or openly announced. To allude to some words of Jesus, “you will know the tree by its fruit.”
Robb, thanks for taking the time to respond to our ideas and comments. That is a pearl of wisdom, that intolerance is not only present when it is obvious or openly announced.
By the same token, the fact that Letiecq has made a habit of announcing that his fear-mongering-and-hate-mongering-for-political-gain website was NOT intended to target Hispanics, well, that doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth about that. Same with his leadership of Help Save Manassas. He had those people frightened out of their minds. Where fear goes hate is sure to follow.
NotGL,
I really don’t think Greg had people frightened out their minds. There were many that were already frightened to some of the things that were going on in their neighborhood, etc. They have/had valid concerns. I still have the same concern over taggings(often letter before thirteen). I will not state the gang names, as they do dont deserve the publicity. You know the ones, and have seen my pictures of these taggings. There are many other crimes going on that do have people fearful. Everyone should want to live in a clean and safe community.
Now, I don’t know who was and wasn’t illegal. However, I was in a car accident in the 1993. The drunken fool that total a brand new car I was in while pregnant was an illegal alien, and his side kick also, the admited to this. This scared me, and I’ve been in another accident where the lady had no ID, no proof of insurance, and no drivers license while driving someone elses car. Oh, she also, left the scene of an accident. The officer was not allowed to ask of her legal status. However, he made no bones about all indications would be she was. Hell, she didn’t know her address. This should could concern anyone that travel in a vehicle in the Commonwealth. My issuse with illegal immigration was going on over a decade before HSM was born.
These are just some minor things many have concerns about. I think most would. imho
I don’t think you give some credit for being able to have their own thoughts.
To allude to some words of Jesus, “you will know the tree by its fruit.”
Well let’s look at the fruit of the permissive society created by bleeding hearts who embrace diversity at the cost of sovereignty and who see everyone as a victim.
Mortgage fraud systematically perpetrated, Americans’ wages reduced systematically, and government bailouts for the crooks who enabled all this in the first place. Continued massive transfer of wealth to our ruling class, usually sold to us as Christian charity. Hooray. Three cheers for America.
Robb 6 Jan 11:13
You are absolutely right. Speaking out about racisim and preventing it entirely is the only way to show people that the “rule of law” is focused only on finding and convicting “illegal” people. It cannot be about anything else. What I find interesting is that neither side of the social activism bandwagon can recognize the racisim in their own cultures and actions, and both sides use racism and ethnicity arguments to prove they are victims of the others racially activist accusations. They cannot admit it is simply wrong to break the law, and Ignore “rule of law” by committing “illegal” acts and harming innocents who do not commit “illegal” acts. The people who support the “illegals” are most often members of ethnicities affiliated with “illegals”, or are sympathetic only to specifc ethnic groups, or in politics to only support specific ethnic groups, and the people who are against “illegals” often erroneously make comments that define their anger based on race (as you warn people about over and over). The problem is, anger can only be directed justly and ethically against those “individuals” who break law, are “illegal” and harm innocents as a resiult of their “illegal” activities.
There are many of us, like myself, and I suspect you as well, who are aware of the difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigration, and are fighting as hard as we can to stop “illegal” activity which harms millions of innocent people when you consider the rights of the ENTIRE Population of humans and the harm done by individual behaviors toward others, by focusing only on the “illegal” activity, and doing so without favoring any racial, gender, religious or ethnic group. We focus only on “individual” accountability to the “rule of law”, and get very upset when either side confuses and obfuscates the morality issues by sympathizing with, or demonizing “individuals” based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
The only thing I think I diasagree with you about is you seem to advocate that the “innocents” are the people who break the law, because people are angry with them for breaking the law, and the damage on them the breaking of the law causes.
I do not agree with you if you have “transformed” by guilt to think like that, I prefer to protect the innocents and not the criminals. I agree with you we must protect all individuals from racism, but in doing so we MUST NOT protect “illegal” criminals, just because we feel sorry for them, or can claim they are “affected” by racism that exists on all issues, and on both “sides” by people who cannot express their politcal opinions unless they convey them in terms of race, gender, religion or ethnicity advocacy, and bel;ong to groups and organizations which politically divide themselves by race, gender, religion and ethnicity concepts, while ignoring innocent victims of those “illegal” activities because one “individual” has harmed another “individual” by committing “rule of law” illegal acts.
I think that is the only social justice concept you have yet to grasp and made an un-biased decision regarding who is the most right and who is the most wrong.
When you remove all racial, gender, religious, and ethnicity group elements that cloud the issue, that decision is easy to make based solely on “legal” and “illegal” behavior.
I think your other philosophical error is that you believe all humans are equally good. They in reality are not, and are not morally and ethically the same. Some humans gleefully harm innocents for their own personal and social gain. It is these “INNOCENTS” who MUST BE protected by the rule of law.
HSM must engage and prevent racism by any and all of its members. They cannot fairly enforce rule of law without also engaging and preventing racism in their actions against “illegal” activities. I have told them this many times. Many have listened. MWB and other pro-immigrant groups, must ALSO engage and prevent racism by their OWN members and prevent politically ethnic centric advocacy as a form of racisim that must be equally prevented. I have told all on this blog they need to self-police their own members who are racists, and think only ethnically-centric solutions are justified, but they are just as guilty of this as any HSM member doing the same.
You only have to read how peole are “classified” in how people write, to see their underlying racism at work, although they deny it. This denial is especially prevalent in the “pro-illegal” community when I compare political advocacy concepts with “rule of law enforcement” concepts.
Common humanity (as idealistic and un-measurable as it is) can only “occur” when we have common law, and common enforcement of the “rule of law” so that ALL people treat everyone the same politically and socially, unless they have broken the law or harmed another, then they must be punished according to the law they have broken.
I am not a member of HSM, and I intend to follow my own moral compass and to judge people only by observation of their “illegal” or “legal” activities, and not by what race, religion, gender or ethnicity they belong to. Because of this I must also morally fight against the use of racist ideology, bigotry by both sides, gender-centric ideology, religious preference, and use of ethnicity as a tool to politically advantage one segment of the population over another, and to chose or ignore one law over another to discrimminate one segment of the population over another, such as what illegally happened with advantaging mortgage lending practices by unlawfully advantaging different groups of people based on target ethnicities and races that Realtors promoted and preferred over others, primarility based on their own racist based political beliefs.
I can’t help but remind people that the “rule of law” resolution in this county was actually written word for word to simply give police officers official guidance that they had no choice but to identify “illegal” people from “legal” people anf follow the law. Under previous guidance by the police shief they where given permission to let certain people slide around the law, based on their own personal political beliefs rather than equal enforcement of the law. The support of the 287G program and rule of law resolution, was not a charter to make any law enforcement based on ethnicity. I read it, cover to cover. It was ONLY about “illegal” and “legal” behavior, and NEVER guided by racism guidance. It was the people upset about the possibility that more “illegal” people might actually be caught, especially “illegal” criminals under the 287G program, that caused “ethnic-centric” communties and “ethnic-centric” community leaders who supported only those people of their own ethnicity to claim racism, in order to prevent members of thier own ethnic communities (who had greater numbers of “illegals” than other ethnic communities, who DID NOT GET UPSET ABOUT THE RESOLUTION. By claiming racism, racist based communities could mis-represent the real context of the actual law enforcement policy which was to simply cleave “legal” people from “illegal” people, and in so claiming this created an ethnic, racist-based war by design,. The very people who use “racism” to protect their ethnic community from prosecution by the law, used “racism” to call other people racists. If they could find a few racists in the group, they could then wrongly claim everyone in favor of the rule of law is a racist.
THAT IS A VICIOUS LIE, that impacts ALL innocent people like myself that only want the rule of law to prevail on ALL “illegals” regardless of their race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
This Robb is why you are SO RIGHT that “rule of law” cannot be enforced and ethically discussed without ALSO preventing ALL use of racist’s political tactics by both sides.
That community of advocates was VERY WRONG not to let you discuss the destructive nature of RACISM and racists political beliefs used by both sides.
This is why I do not advocate “rule of law” resolution and enforcement on “illegals” only, without ALSO preventing all racism and judgement of “individuals” based on race, gender, religion or ethnicity.
Until people can do this, NEITHER SIDE will be RIGHT.
Michael, can I ask you, based on your desire to separate law enforcement from prejudice/racial profiling, are you happy with the repeal of the “Probable Cause” standard that mandated police officers to use their judgment as to who looks “illegal” and who does not?
I just don’t understand how the wacko’s on the old blog could be calling for riots with pitchforks and shovels over this change if they’re not simply racist and desirous of a culture of fear that would make people who “look illegal” afraid to live here.
Forgive me if you’ve stated this before.
Chris, it was a perverse type of fear and hate celebration, that seemed to tell people they could be empowered by their fear, and empowered by their hate, if they learned certain catch phases, repeated them often, and voted a certain way.
If you weren’t already afraid of the people Greg wanted you to be afraid of, you were immune. If his pictures of terrorists with machine guns couldn’t convince you that “we arrr being invaded!!!!” like it did Mr. Duecaster, then you were immune.
But if fear someone how got a hold of you, because of a car accident, or because of something you read on Greg’s blog, or because of something you saw on Lou Dobbs, or just the sense of anxiety from seeing a lot of dark skinned people all of the sudden in your home town, if that fear somehow got a hold of you, well then you were putty in Greg’s hand.
First he told you you were in real danger, under attack, and only he could protect you. But in return you had to do things he told you to do. Once you gave in to that, yeah, there was a lot of neat talk about getting involved with John Stirrup our wonderful elected official and fellow HSM member. I’m sure it felt cool and all, and hats off to Greg for being such a good community organizer (note to Freedom Fry Voters, you don’t have to hate community organizers any more, election’s over).
Chris, all the things you are concerned about, public urination, grafitti, etc. those are behavioral, you know that. You didn’t need to be afraid or hateful to be proactive and fix those things.
Oh, and I didn’t mean to say you were hateful. I was using the word you like “one” didn’t need to be hateful.
NotGL,
Those were just a couple of things that concern me. There’s much more. I’ve had to run drunks off of my mom’s porch from the nearby flophouse, because they couldn’t remember where they “lived”. These along with many other things have a lot to do with my concerns. I read the newspapers and the addresses of some of the criminals, and yes some were illegal aliens. We’ve had several horrible incidents in nearby subdivision that involved illegal aliens as well. So yes, I had MANY good reasons to be concerned/worried/scared about. These are just the tip of the iceberg of some truce incidents.
For me personally I never addressed the issue using “talking points” and/or statistics. I spoke of true unembelished incidents. I would also, add I often had pictures of my concerns.
Greg may have said a lot of things, but I can assure that doesn’t mean everyone bought into to his every word.
No problem I don’t take your comments to say I was hateful.
Forgive me, I am going to go to bat for some of the HSM folks. There were some people who had some pretty rotten things going on in their neighgborhoods that affected their quality of life. There was overcrowding and things going on that made people uncomfortable. I don’t fault these people for seeking out solutions. They were going on the ‘in unity there is strength’ theory.
I blame the politicians and some of the leadership for seeking solutions that fed the fear and the anger. I blame these same people for using people’s uncomfortable situations for political gain and to win elections.
I do not blame the people who had lived in middle class neighborhoods for years when they revolted over their neighborhoods turning into NON-middle class neighborhoods. They felt like they were being overrun and they saw their biggest investment, their home, being devalued because of the behavior of others.
It’s actually kind of funny to watch you folks get all frothed up.
Care to elaborate on that one Slow? If the past couple of comments are fun for you, it sure doesn’t take much. I can assure you I wasn’t frothed up. I just had a touch of humanitarian in me momentarily. Perhaps the operative word here is momentarily…..
No, No, not the last couple of comments, this thread and the similar one that preceded it generally. Many messages had been posted before I got to see it, so I didn’t have much of a choice to jump in at the right time. I’ve been watching in general, in fact, I haven’t even read the last couple of posts. Come to think of it, much of the post stuff I read had little to do with the story itself.
It moved so I got all confused. I am a linear thinker. Move something and I don’t handle it well. I don’t think anyone here is too rigid about where you get to comment, unless there are special circumstances.
Robb,
Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts, as usual, very calming and insightful 🙂
You’re very welcome Elena. 🙂
That’s really interesting Chris. So those people who didn’t buy a lot of Greg’s hyperbole, I wonder how many of them are still in the crucible. If you are able to question even one thing he says, then you probably lost all respect for him by now.
Perhaps that’s why the Help Save Manassas membership is now in single digits.
NGL, I’m one of the one’s who did not buy Greg’s hyperbole, preferring instead to make my own judgment of the situation. In that regard, I totally agree with what moonhowler just said, citizen’s were watching their neighborhoods deteriorate way before Greg got into the political solution, and most of those people joined as the only available means to protect their rights and community, against an on-slaught of rising indifference, arrogance, and downright racism on the part of ethnic-centric politicians advocating for preference and special treatment based only on people’s gender, race, religion and ethnicity, and those same ethnic-centric communities they represented who were becoming politically active in supporting “illegal behavior” rather than “deporting” illegal aliens.
That is the fundamental problem, people began to see their neighborhoods (including me) were being seriously affected by wide spread indifference and lack of respect for law and law enforcement, lack of respect for other people in the community, a rise in gang activity and ethnic racism by minority groups, and lack of law enforcement on “illegal” immigration.
People only had to connect the decline in their neighborhoods with the very visible increase in support for “illegal” aliens, and witness a growing awareness that local police officers were not asking, inquiring, or even checking on the legal status of people at traffic stops and other arrests, even though “illegal immigration” is “illegal, carrying a federal and civil penalty.
THIS pissed a LOT of law-abiding citizens off, so tmany joined HSM. I did not join HSM however because I saw that a very “FEW” racists and racists comments were going to cause “pro-illegal” activists to scream “racism” and distort the issue by evasive and corrupt politics, even though they themselves were promoting and openly practicing ethnic and religious racism, growing militism, and racially based politics.
I got upset when I saw the resolution was not going to “REQUIRE” officers to check the legal status of ALL people at ALL encounters with law enforcement. Forget a “probable cause” sentence, it is no better and no different than the current policy that still allows officers to determine, and report “illegal” status based on their own “judgement”. “judgement” is not ever a “standard of law”, that is what judges do. It is up to the police to enforce the law, period, regardless of what they “judge” to be the case, the issue, or what they politically believe in. By checking EVERYONE at any encounter with the police for legal or “illegal” status, then there is no judgment, only the burden of “proof” by proper presentation of ID and legal documentation on everyone the same.
Everyone here legally in this country has access to almost immediate proof of status (even if they have to show it later), when their driver’s license is checked for either a DMV reference to citizenship status, or a valid passport, birth certificate or visa/I-94. I personally believe we should all be required to show this status on our driver’s license or another document issued by the government that proves our legal right to be and our legal right to citizen’s and legal resident rights here (such as national ID), even if we just want to use a national park resource we all are paying for. If the driver’s license does not have that legal status proof on it today (and most records at DMV can be verified for legal status accuracy in time, provided we prevent continued falsification and fraud on those driver’s records. It is a simple matter to present a driver’s license and get cleared in a computer as to legal status, and to arrest EVERYONE at ANY encounter with police that cannot produce a valid driver’s license, pass a records check, and pass a background check for legal status with the INS, via an INS/police record computer database, regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnicity.
The main reason everyone is upset about driver’s licenses, is they one’s supporting “illegal” behavior don’t want it to be accurate or proof of status, because the one’s with false status will get caught. Ther are enough political supporters for “illegals” now in the government, and in politics that they roadblock all such laws that would require honesty and integrity. THAT IS RACISM, when it supports your own ethnic group advantage over the LAW.
The current DMV records system for legal status, is not perfect, but is getting better, and only people who can’t pass a DMV records check and quick background check, need to be asked to return to court with a summons to prove their legal status in front of a judge if they can’t prove it to a police officer who stopped them.
If we do this to everyone the same, there IS NO RACIAL PROFILING, NO JUDGEMENT, and no NEED for a “probable cause clause”. It quickly weeds out “legals” from “illegals” in a community. THEN people can’t complain, and just have to deal with LEGAL POVERTY.
All we need is proof of “legal status” presented to a judge. If you are not legal, the judge then issues you a deportation order along with your ticket summons. Almost every country in the world does this except the US (what a buch of political idiots we are, at the cost of further destruction of our own country, financially and ethically)
While there is PROOF that militant political elements ARE IN the country, 99% of them would be found and caught by this simple CHECK EVERYONE procedure.
The problem is mis-guided support for “illegals” as if they are “innocents” rather than the lawbreakers they are, and this is why I continue to fight with this group, who seem to be supportive and ONLY sympathetic to “illegal” people, and I’m angry that they are essentially supporting lawlessness, allowing criminals to go un-noticed, allowing “illegals” to go un-caught, and allowing neighborhoods to continue to decline into ghettos due to the massive influx of “illegal” people over the past 25 years, and rapid rise in the number of people in poverty in our communities, as a result of the “actions” and “attitudes” of “illegal” people and those ethnic centric communities who support only their own gender, race, religion and ethnicity, regardless of how many innocent people that support harms.
I could care less about probable cause tight-rope walking, I simply support that ALL police check ALL individuals legal status at ALL encounters with the police. No preferences, no advantages, no profiling, based on your race, gender, religion, or ethnicity.
I have questioned Greg’s statements, especially his religious fanaticism,when it mirrors the gender, racial, religious, and ethnic bigotry that is also prevalent on this blog. He has never denied my those comments, and never banned me from the blog, because just like I do to people here, I try to argue thier lack of “ethics and morality” respectfully. You can cange a mind only with truth, honestly and lack of malice, by showing people their views are wrong when they question motives, personal ethics and personal emotional outbursts. But when I was frequenting that sight (BVBL), instead of this sight (anti-bvbl), I more more often questioned the racism and bigotry of some of the other “racist and pro-illegal”commentators that greg also questioned but could not control or prevent from commenting except in the cases of the worst and most morally disgusting hate dialogs (just like elena, allana and moonhowler, can’t control racists and bigoted comments here, banning people only if it violates “their” rules. I also know just like here, some people were blocked because of spam filters and initial “probation” periods, untill they showed themselves to be respectful of others views. I do not think Greg, Corey, John Stirrup, Elena, Allana, Moon-howler (I really like her cool head and respectful perspective), and even NGL who often disagrees with me, are as wrong as people on both sides who don’t know the issues claim them to be. A lot od “proof” is mis-represented and mis-understood third party character assasination without valid proof of truth in context. Making out of context arguments IS THE NATURE OF POLITICAL MANIPULATION. That is why I try to hold to a very solid and common ethical path, thought through as well, straight and narrow as I can. It is hard to rebutt, ethical logic, with malicious political commentary, as many find out. I have also grown in respect for
Robb because he too has tried to walk an ethical path, even if I don’t agree with his concept of “common, equitable humanity” that assumes ALL people are innocents. They are not. Some deserve your respect, some deserve punishment for how they treat and harm others. This is why “illegal” behavior is unlawful, because it harms innocents.