The following interview with Anabel Park and Eric Byler was on tonight on Channel 4:
106 Thoughts to “Film Turns Camera on Prince William County Immigration Debate”
Comments are closed.
Archives
Categories
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
All contents copyright Moonhowlings.net
Blogroll
- 9500Liberty
- Bacons' Rebellion Blogspot
- Bearing Drift
- Blue Virginia
- Citizen Tom
- Counts of Monte Cristo. The
- Derecho, The
- Dixie Pig, The
- My Side of the Fence
- My Star Journey
- NARAL Pro-Choice VA Blog
- New Dominion Project
- Nova Common Sense
- NovaTownHall Blog
- One Libertarians's Point of View by Al Alborn
- Pete Candland's Blog
- Potomac Local
- Prince William Muckraker
- PW Conservation Alliance
- PWC Moms
- PWCPolitics.com
- PWCPolitics.com
- Red NoVA
- Shad Plank, The
- She the People
- State of NoVA, the
- The Jeffersoniad
- Townhall
- VEA Daily Reports
- VivianPaige
- WDGolden.com
- You, Me and the Lamp Post
Hello, what do you care what Elena sees or doesn’t see or where she lives. No one here is saying that the day labor 7-11s are a good thing. No one has to see one every day to know that they can be annoying. Smart people who don’t want to be annoyed take their business elsewhere.
When I see day laborers waving signs, praying the rosary, and pushing empty strollers on Sudley Road, trying to attract attention to swing me over to their point of view, then I will agree with you all that there are similarities.
Unfortunately, any attempts to re-route demonstrations will not be accomplished because first amendment issues.
Pinko, I am not willing to expend much more time on this. I am not upset; I simply don’t have motivation to defend the man beyond saying this:
“‘Coward”p’ is a pejoritive, and it is quite easy to impeach Letiecq and his vision of America without such words. I will grant you the tactics you described are cowardly. But perhaps it is best to denounce the tactics than the man.
@Last Best Hope
I am glad you aren’t upset. It wasn’t my intent to insult you.
In GL’s case, I have a REALLY hard time separating the tactics from the man because I’m not sure they are just tactics with him.
Most people behave poorly under certain circumstances. There are many people who behave poorly often. But that’s behavior, and it is usually limited in scope. Behavior can be changed or at the very least, it can be overlooked if the person is doing good elsewhere. We’ve all known terribly annoying people who really do “mean well.” They do the wrong things for the right reasons.
We’ve even known very poor politicians who aren’t malicious. They are poor politicians and lack wisdom. True, they have destructive capacity, but they aren’t doing it from any sense of hatred. (I think of George Bush in this way.)
But then there is something else that goes deeper–the personhood–the something that allows someone to continually take action and conduct themselves in such a destructive manner that many, many people suffer. Personhood usually can’t be changed unless the person changes his/her values AND behaviors. I don’t see that happening with GL or Duecaster or other hard-core HSM followers.
I respect GL as a human being. I would never wish him ill will or pain or joblessness or anything of that nature. But I maintain he is a coward because he continues to use any tactics necessary to achieve his goals. His goals are to persecute until he gets what he wants. He doesn’t “mean well.”
Anyway, don’t take up more time on this if you don’t want to. I am merely discussing my philosophies on humanity at this point.
Red Dawn! I’ve missed the fun 🙂
I read this week that in the time it takes to look down at a mobile device and back up again, a driver can go the distance of a football field. I’m a heck of a lot more worried about the texters these days (and the phone yakkers) distracting themselves into killing me while I’m driving home than I am about the distraction of some folks praying the rosary and holding signs next to the road.
As you should be, Emma. It is extremely dangerous to text while driving or to do other things. I am so disappointed in our limp wristed law that passed last year. It doesn’t even amount to a slap on the wrist.
Having said that, I am the one who brought up that demonstrations along Sudley Road have caused wrecks and are a distraction to drivers. Taking your eyes off the road to see what a sign says is no different than looking at an iphone app or texting.
I don’t care which ‘side’ is out there, protesting on a busy street is a distraction. The intent, obviously, is to have the drivers see your message. That goes for all protests–regardless of cause.
I agree about texting. Here’s a very graphic PSA from England about texting. I posted it on my FaceBook wall, and many friends shared on their wall as well. I personally think every teenager should have to watch this video. And to think my daughter’s upset because she’s the only kid in high school WITHOUT a cell phone. 😉
http://maniacworld.com/Texting-While-Driving-PSA.html
I agree with you Moon about people carrying signs can be a distraction to drivers, I was only saying that 20 or more guys standing on the side of rt 1 (which I think gets a bit more traffic) can be just as distracting at times. That’s all…
Don’t get me started on the annoyance part of it or the fact that someone was murdered next to the one by my house last summer, I was strictly talking about the driving distraction side of it.
Also, this is a sign that may be causing some issues for drivers as well: http://www.kctv5.com/news/21176602/detail.html
That 7-11 has been problematic for years, even before there was much of an Hispanic community in PWC.
It is up to that 7-11 to get rid of people loitering here. Apparently it isn’t hurting their business. As long as people continue to shop there and not complain, they will allow people to just hang out, I guess.
I suppose the legality of the sign in the link depends on where it is and what the ordinances are about billboards. It seems like whoever commissioned it really has no clue about what’s going on. Considering no one has ever heard Obama mention first amendment or gun laws, I am not sure why all the hype.
Speaking of distractions again, the demonstrations near the clinic were hyped up by a certain blog meister. When I called several days ago, there was no mention of Planned Parenthood as the permit holder–just a the name of an individual, not that it matters.
Pro-choice people don’t generally feel the need to ‘defend the clinic.’
The clinic, by the way, has been there for 20 years. Despite reports to the contrary, very little has changed. It is what it is and the owners save advertizing money because of the daily demonstrators. It really makes very little difference which ‘side’ is out demonstrating. What makes the real difference is supreme court appointments and legislative elections.
Every thing else is simply to rally the troops.
Since I’m a little grumpy this morning (email broken), I’m going to ask how many pro life protesters have been anti-immigrant, anchor-baby-touting HSM members. What an irony they don’t like those anchor babies (citizens) but they want to protect them. How about treating the already born the way you want to treat the unborn?
Not that I am pro-abortion in the LEAST. I’m just noting the irony.
Pro-abortion? I don’t know very many people who are pro-abortion.
I am pro-choice. That is not being pro-abortion.
But you do ask a good question, Pink.
Do you think some people advocate so much for abortion and promote abortion as a primary, viable choice are actually pro-abortion? I’ve never met anyone like this, but I suppose they are out there.
No. I have never met a person like that and I have met lots in the movement. Most pro-choice people feel that abortion is an agonizing, gut-wrenching decision but that the woman should be making it. Pro-choice people usually respect the delineations made within Roe vs Wade.
I have no idea what you mean by ‘primary, viable choice.’ That sounds like Bob-Marshall-speak to me.
Are there people who are irresponsible and who continue to have multiple abortions? Of course, but not many. Abortion is expensive and an invasive medical procedure. I am not sure I would be willing to say that these same irresponsible women, few that there are, should be parents, as punishment for their irresponsibility. I hardly consider them to be a viable consideration in any discussion of pro/anti choice.
Emma, she asked a question. She asked how many of the pro-life demonstrators had been HSM members. I thinks she asks a valid question. Since BVBL has advertized the Sat. demonstration and said that dreaded Planned Parenthood was going to be there, one can assume that someone going might be an HSM member.
I think, if I may be so bold, she is asking how railing against Anchor babies can be reconciled with anti-abortion sentiments. I don’t think that is hateful. She was NOT making a sweeping generalization about the entire pro life movement.
Emma, many people do a great deal to help women with unwanted or untimely pregancies. I agree with you. Many people put their money, time and effort where their mouth is.
My only disagreement with any of these people’s actions would be when they set up phony situations to lure people in, collect confidential information, and use it to try to persuade. I think that is dead wrong. And yes it does happen certain places.
Having said that, I disagree with many from a policy/legal point of view while I might very well agree with them on a personal level. But we have discussed that…..
There are also many Protestant and Jewish organizations that also do a great deal for women in troubled pregnancy situations. I would be more sympathetic to the Catholic stance on abortion if they relaxed their dogma against contraception. It desperately needs to start in third world countries.
That probably is not a discussion for this blog however.
You’re talking Apples and oranges. I have never heard a pro-life person suggest “anchor babies” should be aborted, nor have I ever heard them use that term in the first place. They are busy assisting the needy who are here, whatever their status, but many legitimately feel that something more should be done to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into this country. How is that “railing against Anchor babies”?
Your opposition to the the pro-lifer’s stance does not validate grossly false generalizations. Pinko did not just pose an innocent question; it was deliberately inflammatory.
I drove by there about 9 am and saw many pro-life demonstrators, and only a single pro-choice demonstrator there, and all of it was peaceful and orderly.
And it gets tiresome hearing what non-Catholics think that the Church should or shouldn’t do to suit their personal political agendas. The Church has survived all these centuries precisely BECAUSE it has not bowed down to every social trend that non-believers think it should embrace, and that is a source of comfort to many of the faithful. Change within the church happens slowly, but it happens, and certainly not at the dictates of those who would continue to trash it no matter what.
Emma, you might want to ask why people are ‘non-Cathoics.’ Many people have left the church over this very issue–that and divorce. I think those non-Catholics have very much right to address the issues–as much right as those who remain Catholic.
I don’t know anyone who has left the church over ‘personal political agendas.’ In fact, I know very few people who have political agendas.
Emma, you are shutting your ears and hearing what you want to hear re Pinko’s question. You have the conditional totally bass-akwards.
Let’s try it this way: Some HSM people rail against anchor babies. Some of them are strongly pro-life. How do they reconcile their feelings?
If you have never heard anyone rail about anchor babies, then the answer to the question just might be ‘I don’t know.’ Don’t assume you know Pinko’s intent. And she and I have been fencing over related issues all morning.
Emma, back to our church discussion…I hope you are not accusing me of trashing the Catholic Church. I have not done that nor will I go on the defensive over it. I have every right to object to certain edicts of the Church, the same as those who object to the charity work it does with immigrants. I fail to see the difference.
Actually, I have not expounded on my relationship with the Catholic Church on this blog. Like all religions, It has some very strong components and some very questionable ones. People should question their religion if they feel it is going down the wrong path. My hat is off to many of the brave nuns who have been very outspoken, often to their own detriment, over the exclusion of women from the priesthood.
How do you feel about the Muslim faith and the way women are treated in many predominantly Muslim countries? Do you find that that is a more forward-thinking religion than Catholicism?
And your rush to defend Pinko shows that you are making some assumptions here about her intent. She can certainly speak for herself, can’t she?
Info on the clinic protest: http://meedeeuhguy.blogspot.com/2009/10/dont-threaten-reporters-dont-trust-all.html
Apparently, Planned Parenthood showing up was a myth.
Deflection. What difference does it make what I think of Muslims? We aren’t talking about that and I sure didn’t see any out demonstrating today.
I didn’t rush to defend Pinko. I had been discussing this subject with her most of the morning. I understood what she was asking. You were trying to rearrange what she was asking also. Just setting the record straight.
I tend to be able to discuss any thing with people if they don’t try the deflection game…that borders on ‘yea but how about…..’ (which is usually something no one is discussing.)
@Moon-howler
Correct, MH. I in no way think pro-life people are bad! My goodness, Emma, my own brother, whom I am very close to, is one of these pro-life folks! HOWEVER, he isn’t someone who wants to protect the unborn and then turns around and persecutes the already born. That is what I am saying.
I have rather favorable opinions about Catholics, though I don’t believe in all their doctrine. The church does some extraordinary things to help people regardless of who those people are. Yet, they have been accused of “aiding and abetting illegals.” They have been accused of supporting anchor babies and encouraging Hispanics to overpopulate the world. The people making these accusations are some of the same people who claim to be pro-life. Shame on them! The pro-lifers don’t need those types.
Is that clearer?
Incidentally, while I loathe abortion and advocate other solutions, I find the sign carrying annoying. I see it almost every day when I drive through Manassas, and I just start saying, “OKAY! I KNOW! I hate abortion, OKAY? Please, no more signs!” I get that way with any signs being held up on a daily basis. It’s distracting and annoying and I do wonder how effective it is.
Let’s try it this way: Some HSM people rail against anchor babies. Some of them are strongly pro-life. How do they reconcile their feelings?”
This doesn’t compute, unless you are suggesting that they advocate for the death of what you call “anchor babies.” Have they done that?
@Emma
Emma, first…when you have or support a blog that advocates persecuting families…and you allow people on there who advocate ‘gassing them all’…then you have no business representing people who want to protect babies.
When you call those babies anchor babies and blame them for all the woes in our school and stir up every hate group in the United States which pose a bodily threat to CHILDREN…and you align yourself with hateful, extreme political tactics that bring racism and bigotry into our government…and you make life miserable for people who are disadvantaged and have protection…and you persecute those who wish to help the disadvantaged…you have no business claiming to be “pro life.”
It’s not all about killing babies, and it’s not apples and oranges. It’s about how we treat HUMAN BEINGS, whether they are born or not.
If you are going to respect life, then respect PEOPLE. Don’t be a hypocrite.
“…who are disadvantaged and have protection”
“No” protection, that is.
BTW, I’m using the editorial “you.” I don’t mean “YOU” as in “Emma.”
But in your initial post you seemed to be talking about the protesters. What do they have to do with “a blog that advocates persecuting families…..” etc.? Those protesters are peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights to protest abortion. I simply do not see the connection between what they are doing and with your personal editorializing about some blog.
Emma, think subset…not all protestors.
No one is denying the protestors right to be there.
Obviously Planned Parenthood had nothing to do with the protest. It makes no sense that PP would go demonstrate at a clinic that is a non-affiliate.
It begs the question why Planned Parenthood was ever posted as the permit holder on bvbl.net. Let’s see…why might that have happened?
I would like to know what was going on 234 yesterday about 1:10 pm. From Coverstone Dr to Ballsford Rd. there were about 20 people out on the median with huge signs under each arm and two-sided with some very gross pictures on them. Well, I thought I was going to vomit when I saw these signs(very weak stomach here). Then I noticed one lane of traffic was closed, yes I said closed. There were two PWCPD cruisers on the median talking to a car pulled over. Then I looked ahead towards Ballsford Rd and saw more of these signs and people, but they were getting off the median. These protesters probably were NOT supposed to be there yesterday. I do understand that today they will be out there in full force for the chain of life. I think my daughter got pictures of the 234 incident yesterday. I will be adding them to my webshots. I can’t decide do I file them under the album. Signs(MrF’s sign) or The Masses Gather(various rallies hosted by MSF). 😉
Emma, think subset…not all protestors.
Hmmmm…I’ll remember your tactics the next time you accuse me of “backpedaling” or “deflection” when I am simply trying to clarify my point. Your repeated defenses do not take away from the inflammatory nature of Pinko’s initial posting. She meant a slam, and she delivered one at the expense of some very good, well-meaning people who really do a lot of good in trying to help mothers and their babies.
How on earth do you know what Pinko’s intent was? Do you read minds?
I don’t kid myself into thinking everyone out there on the street is a good and noble person. I know otherwise. People do things for different reasons. Being on the street with a sign or working one of those charities doesn’t automatically qualify anyone for sainthood. I judge that one on an individual basis.
The mock rage is because there is no answer. The people who have railed against ‘anchor babies’ and who are out being well meaning folks must have conflicts. Are they providing the same charity to those mothers and ‘anchor’ babies?
All the weasel words in the world won’t eliminate Pinko’s question.
Anchor babies is a disgusting term and the people I have heard use it “espouse” to be anti choice also. Robert Duecaster accused latino’s of coming over the border as being the same as an armed invasion. And the weapons they used were not guns but “their anchor babies”. Now, what is the connotation there? Guns are dangerous therefor “anchor babies” are dangerous and to be feared. THAT is NOT a “pro life” stance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THAT is disgusting and dehumanizing to children, there is NO excuse.
@Emma
Emma, from what I heard, some HSM were planning on joining the pro-life march. My comments are directed at those people.
“People do things for different reasons. Being on the street with a sign or working one of those charities doesn’t automatically qualify anyone for sainthood.” Right, MH.
“Now, what is the connotation there? Guns are dangerous therefor “anchor babies” are dangerous and to be feared. THAT is NOT a “pro life” stance!!” And since GL and Duecaster use their war terminology when discussing how they fight illegal immigrants–and they have their “frontline” newsletter, complete with tactics to persecute people–and they say “buy lots of guns”–we can only assume that when the shooting starts, kids aren’t out of the question. And even if kids aren’t killed, they are being persecuted by these extremists and haters. And what about their parents? I guess the HSM people want a war and orphans, eh?
“Anchor babies is a disgusting term ”
What’s a better one?
“Taxpayer funded alien births”?
“Biological entry pass”?
It’d be nice to come up with a better term but I don’t find the current one as offensive as Elena does. It’s just a fact of life that families do chain migrate in after they have a baby in the US and that the baby becomes a citizen. We’ve recently had an Attorney General of the US was who was an “anchor baby”.
What do you prefer? “First-generation Documented”?
PAP, are you really in a reality where you think GL and duecaster are going to shoot kids?
Out here in the real world we have real problems we could collectively address if we weren’t splintered into factions that think they’re the line in the sand against weird fantasies of right-wingers shooting anchor babies, genocide of Latinos, government Death Squads putting down Terry Schiavo before she can snap out of her coma, rabid lesbians promoting abortion, etc. etc. The two ***-clowns running for Governor can only happen because of all the miscommunication and fear that inhabits politics.
Rick, I am not saying GL and Duecaster are out there shooting children. What I AM saying is that when you persecute families because of their documentation status, you are persecuting children. In some cases, you are literally signing their death warrants. Let’s think about the teens that are killed just because they are Hispanic and suspected of being here illegally.
Now let’s think about people who want to throw kids out of school because their parents are undocumented. And let’s think about people who are angry when a church gives out food to immigrants because those immigrants (must all be Mexican, huh?) might be illegal. Some of those ladies are pregnant. Should we starve them all?
If you are pro-life then respect life dammit! The vulnerable are the vulnerable no matter who they are or what their legal status is. If you want to end illegal immigration, then fine. But don’t do it at the expense of human beings–which is exactly what this county promoted via its first resolution. Our county SUPPORTED HATRED.
Does that clarify?
@Rick Bentley
How about just “children”?
Sure, they are children. No one disputes that. And imbued with certain human rights. I personally think that citizenship should not be one of them. It’s nothing against the people, or the children they grow up into.
“Biological border pass” maybe?
“What I AM saying is that when you persecute families because of their documentation status, you are persecuting children. In some cases, you are literally signing their death warrants.”
That’s a stretch. I can use your same arguement for not penalizing drug addicts, rapists, pedophiles, murderers. And (other) tax cheats.
“Weapon of mass migration”?
“Cellular proof of residency”?
If you don’t want people to think you are going to go around shooting ‘anchor babies’ and immigrants, don’t use rhetoric that make people unsure of your intent. It might also be helpful not to walk around armed making innuendo to what you want to do. The intent is to scare.
While I personally do not think they are going to harm anyone, I am not sure that the average person has the same frames of reference that I do.
@Rick Bentley
Not really. Most people aren’t out there on a blog in a group agreeing that saying “gas them all” when referring to drug dealers is okay. Most people aren’t out there advocating we pull over everyone because we suspect s/he MIGHT be a drug dealer or a killer. Most people aren’t trying to kick kids out of school because their parents are criminals. There is just such a huge difference, Rick.
And I agree, MH. If you don’t want to be viewed as a potential threat, then stop talking about yourself as a damn foot soldier.
However, I disagree about them harming others. I think they already have with their extreme agendas that they actually got passed through our local government. I think they hurt this economy and our communities. And there is no doubt in my mind that some day, one of them is going to blow. The red flags are there, IMO.
@Posting As Pinko
Or the red circles, as it were.
“And there is no doubt in my mind that some day, one of them is going to blow. The red flags are there, IMO.”
PAP, are you familiar with the psychological term “projection”?
Having read this debate summary on someone’s blog, I think maybe I’ll actually vote for McDonnell.
Question from Bryan Nehman on illegal immigration. Mention of Prince William County.
Deeds: People who are here should be here legally. This is a federal government responsibility per the constitution. How can we afford to pay for what the federal government has failed to do. We need comprehensive immigration reform at federal level. I don’t support hysteria over immigration. We are all sons and daughters of immigrants. We need to be a welcoming society. We are better because we are more diverse. NOVA is where the fabric is richest, we need to promote that kind of culture. Work with federal government to enforce the law, don’t use state and local resources on this.
McDonnell: Promote more lawful immigration, it’s a strength to this country. We ought to welcome people willing to play by the rules and contribute. Federal government has to allow more lawful immigration based on economic needs. People who come here illegally and commit crimes should be detained and deported. Local officials should be able to assists federal authorities on this. That’s a correct function of government.
Deeds: This gets a lot of publicity, but it’s primarily a federal issue. We need to focus on rebuilding economy of Virginia, that’s why I have a business plan. We have to be about creating jobs in every corner of Virginia. This [immigration] issue takes too much energy out of the debate.
“Local officials should be able to assists federal authorities on this. That’s a correct function of government. ”
That gets my vote. An unenthusiastic one. I trust McDonnell as far as I can spit, minus two, divided by three.