Not to open up old wounds but we would be remiss if we didn’t show part of an old thread (originally posted on Antibvbl.net on 4/19/08) as a brutal reminder of what can happen when people with an agenda take control. You might recognize some of the old characters like Dan Stein and Mike Hethmon. If you have any questions for these gentleman you will find them in Arizona as we speak.
It appears that the good people of PWC really were the immigration lab mice. Should we expect a thank you note from Arizona?
Just for Old Time’s Sake:
As soon as I saw the familiar face I didn’t go any further. A waste of my time!
Well, once a guy makes up his mind, I guess there is no changing it.
F.A.I.R. is very much involved with AZ.
SA, do you see a difference between undocumented workers and the horrible drug cartel violence taking place in order states? I believe in prioritizing problems. Those that could kill us, I want dealt with first.
Mike Hethmon ran for state delegate in Maryland in 2006. In 2008 he ran for Congress in the 5th congressional district. He was defeated.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/elections/2006/maryland/candidates/Mike_Hethmon.html
This is the version that was initially proposed in PWC and by the same attorney from Immigration Reform Law Institute. So much for this being a grassroots effort. It is absolutely astro-turf from a PROGRESSIVE organization – Federation for American Immigration Reform who advocates for POPULATION GROWTH!
Quite frankly, Moon, I think that what you see here is a rather natural reaction to the failure of one part of a government to do the job it was supposed to do. You can find identical or similar reactions at almost any time in history and even today in countries like France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Britain, where a native population is becoming antagonistic toward what is perceived as an undue encroachment by the Muslim immigrant sector. I have personally seen the same scenario repeated over and over in Africa involving basic tribalism.
In our case it was, in my opinion, the failure of Washington throughout both Republican and Democratic administrations to secure our borders and to bring some rational sense into a legal immigration mechanism overtaken by changed circumstances. I believe firmly that, if the government in Washington had focused first on its protective job as called for by the Constitution and if the politicians were sensible enough to get over this jousting for the so-called “Hispanic vote” and to put aside for the moment the much larger issue of “amnesty” and citizenship for those adults who are currently illegal, there might have been no “Resolution” in PWC and there would be no new law in Arizona. There would also be much less antagonism over “amnesty”, much less inter-racial bitterness, much less of a clash of cultures, and more willingness to work together to solve whatever problems still existed.
In fact, you might say that the ultimate blame lies in all of us for not rising as one people and demanding that our elected federal government take those rational constitutional steps which would have made this internal clash less likely. The result of that failure on our part and theirs is that we are now fighting amongst ourselves in a most bitter and unseemly way. And the illegal immigrant, who simply took advantage out of personal needs of the gross errors of a government which should have known better, has found himself caught in the middle, largely because he has been unable in many cases to adjust rapidly enough to the standards of the new society in which he finds himself. So, he also becomes bitter and defiant;and we have yet another element added to the battle.
I do not think it is too late, even at this advanced stage. As I advised in that previous post on another thread, we have to secure that border and revamp the legal immigration system now, without all the brouhaha about amnesty and pathways to citizenship. I agree with what Pinko said in another post. If we do these things now, we can wind up dealing with the problems of a single generation of immigrants who are having a difficult time adjusting, especially since we seem to agree that the first generation is now assimilating at a rate faster than expected, even under basically hostile circumstances. Secure the border and alleviate the threat of further waves of illegal immigration, and I definitely think the other problems become manageable and the fighting amongst us and with the current immigrant generation goes way down in tenor and scope.
In response to one of your questions, Mrs. Wolverine has asked me to add that, if the border is secure and the legal immigration system revamped into a fair and economically solid mechanism, she believes the first thing which might sail through into reality is the Dream Act. She says that those kids in the classroom are a sub-set of the current problem — a sub-set consisting of individuals who have done no wrong themselves. They were placed in their current circumstance through the actions of others. They are being assimilated into the American culture, and it would be foolish of us to cut them off at the knees by telling them that they can assimilate no further. At this stage, we would only instill in them hostility and foolishly send them back into an underclass of unskilled labor or possibly even into the arms of the gangs and other criminals organizations. How dumb would that be? Unfortunately, as she reads the history of the Dream Act proposal, it has been caught up in the implacable battle over amnesty and other parts of the illegal immigration issue when it should be taken up as a separate matter. Secure the border;and this is what will happen, in her opinion. In essence, we are dealing here with one generation of children who need our help. We can manage that and profit from it as a society. But, if we do not prevent through good border security successive waves of such children, we will continue to fight each other over the broader issue, and the kids with whom she deals now will be lost in the shuffle.
@Wolverine
Woverine, what we had in PWC was a bunch of hate mongering and grandstanding coming from extremist groups and politicians looking to make names for themselves. Yes, we had angry people who wanted a solution, but some of those angry people took it upon themselves to promote a hostile environment. There were too many casualties in that little “experiment” that put PWC on the map–and NOT in a good way.
MH, and there in lies the problem. We have no way of knowing the background of those sneaking across our border. We do have fairly good idea they aren’t doctors and lawyers, or any other professional types that would be a future asset to the US. Who knows, with Obamacare, and the need for more doctors, they too might be tempted to swim the Rio!
I agree with that Wolverine, but I want to add one point. I think anyone who naively blames “The Democrats” for the illegal immigration problem should remember it.
George W. Bush ran the country for 8 years when this problem became so large. It’s tempting to think that he just didn’t realize what was happening, but that’s not true. He deliberately did not take any action, believing that the problem would slowly become more intractible, while providing businesses with cheaper labor (a plus), and that an Amnesty would eventually become inevitable. In fact, he made the arguement circa 2006/2007 that it was now inevitable. He deliberately refused to make any attempt to uphold the laws he had sworn to uphold, and manipulated the American people’s goodwill, creating a problem so large that many still see it as intractible. Why did he do it? For the sake of cheap labor (hence the endless meetings early in his Presidency with Vincente Fox) and so that the GOP didn’t get on the bad side of the Latino vote.
The good side of all this is that, despite Bush’s best efforts, and his unique ability to get Republicans to follow him Pied-Piper style, Amnesty 2006 failed and it’s nowhere near happening any time soon.
Unfortunately platitudes like “secure the border” are like “cut taxes” and “reduce spending”. They sound great. They sound like common sense. The problem lies in the implementation. How do we secure the border? One that is thousands of miles long and two coastlines even longer? If we can’t even inquire as to as a persons residency status in most places how are we going to have the backbone to “secure” a border? Exactly how do we do that? A 20 foot fence with razor wire and mounted 50’s? A reverse Berlin wall? I don’t have the answer. I do know that we do need to somehow secure the porous border but I’ve yet to hear any politician or law enforcement official propose a feasible solution. What always intrigues me is the our northern border with Canada is unprotected but there doesnt seem to be a whole of people trying to sneak into Canada, that paragon of enlightened humanity. If you get arrested up there, they will check your residency status and if you dont belong your ass is gone. But down in here in xenophobic, racist, Jim Crow cracker US of by god A we can’t even check someone’s status because it’s offensive. Sometimes i dont get it. Try sneaking into another country and see what happens. But America is the bad guy…….
Pinko, since I do not live in PWC, I cannot say that I have a full understanding of what happened there. However, on a larger scale and from my own personal experiences, I have come to believe that true ethnic hatred is largely relegated to the fringes of most societies and generally comes out in strength only when an individual stumbles upon an acutely grave situation and develops the requisite tools to elevate that hatred to a point where he can use it as a excuse to seize and keep power. One has to wonder, for instance, what the alternative fate of European Jews might have been if the Allies had been more intelligent at Versailles and if the Weimar Republic had not collapsed under economic and fiscal problems.
I cannot speak for the people of PWC. However, in my own community and my own personal circles I have seen arise what some might describe as “hatred” but, when looked at more closely, would be better attributed to frustration and fear over circumstances which affect them directly in a negative way and which they feel totally unable to change. Yes, indeed, politicians can make use of that as well for their own purposes; and they certainly do on all sides of the political spectrum. I tend personally to examine such politicians more closely, looking for a determinate factor of whether they are simply responding to the genuine complaints of their constituents or seem inclined to use a contentious issue only as a stepping stone to higher political stature. But, going back to the non-politicians within my own circles, I have heard people utter things that sounded like hatred of an entire group; whereas under normal circumstances these same people would never think of directing racial dislike at that same group. In fact, something which has amazed me in my volunteer role as the Neighborhood Watch patrol for almost six years is that I have heard legal Latino immigrants, other legal immigrants of color, and Hispanic-American citizens speak at times of the negative effects of illegal Latino immigration on their personal lives in as strong or even stronger terms than I have heard from people of European racial origins. This makes me believe that what I am seeing is not “racial hatred” but, rather, “behaviorial hatred” in response to cross-cultural encounters which are simply not working out very well at the moment. That’s why I think it so urgent to take certain steps which can make the problem more manageable and less contentious. You are currently seeing the problem boil over seriously in Arizona because the Federal government did not take the security steps which would have prevented it. There is an equitable way to contain this, if only we get up the gumption to do it.
Really good post Wolverine.
Great post actually. I agree 100%.
I can give examples of things I’ve heard people (not me and mostly not my wife) say, who aren’t really bigots :
“Oh no” when a Latino person moves into the neighborhood
“I hope whoever moves into the house next aren’t Hispanics”
“Keep driving” (away from this block) “Jose” (to an unknown male)
“This area (in DC) is called Juliotown. The Julios moved in and tore it up like they always do”.
“The damn julios move in and tear up the houses”
These are reactions to things seen and lived through, that the person (accurately) felt powerless to do much about.
The politically correct response is to criticize the bigot. The more thoughtful thing to do is to examine the root problems (illegal immigration, cultural differences, overcrowding).
criticize the supposed bigot I should say.
And Idon’t think anyone has ever denied that there were some difficult problems to deal with in the neighborhoods.
The choices seem to be : do nothing, do something that will make the problem worse, or use existing and new laws to ease the problem.
(“The problem” to me is not just noise or overcrowding – it’s illegal immigration itself which lowers standard of living for vilnerable Americans, to make our rich richer).
First, the Arizona law will not pass muster in even a conservative court.
But those who are fighting illegal immigration, including the AZ Gov.,
can declare they “tried to do something” and the other side can
claim they “fought back the racist bigots”. Each group will
applaud themselves and denouce the “others” as they all pack up the
carnival and move to the next venue.
The U.S. Congress refuses to resolve the issue and the U.S. Courts
won’t let local govenments address it. We are stuck and that makes many
folks frustrated and angry.
Poor Richard, you have just made an excellent point: ‘the next venue.’
Folks are angry and frustrated. However, any time anyone attempts new legislation, the cry of No Amnesty comes up and it stonewalls everything. Something has to be done. It is going to require compromise. People can’t call everything ‘amnesty’ that stops short of rounding up all illegal immigrants and hauling them away in cattle cars.
I agree that bigotry stems from real problems that have never been addressed. Anger stems from the same place. But when people are out there intimidating and threatening others because they assume those others are illegal or they just don’t like Hispanics or other racial groups, then I say they are haters who just want to promote hate, not solutions. Wolverine, we had (and have) such people in this county and in this area. Most places have such people. But when you combine poor government with a manipulative local government pandering to haters, what you get is the tragedy we saw in 2007.
Rick, comments like you post above bug me, and I believe they are bigoted, but those comments don’t make people haters, persecutors or proponents of hatred, anger and self-centered resolutions. Those comments don’t help, and I would prefer not to hear them because they are hurtful and they make things worse. But saying such things is not the same as, for example, threatening to show up at a 7-11 with a gun or writing intimidating emails to people who write/say that you don’t like. Or passing a policy that puts our police at risk for racial profiling. Or ranting and raving to local extremist groups to rile them up even more.
Historically there was no such thing as illegal immigration before 1907. Bill 4 Dog Catcher had a great article on his blog.
http://bill4dogcatcher.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/a-short-history-of-illegal-immigration-in-the-usa/
So how’s that Rule of Law thingy been working our for you?
The ONLY defense I have ever seen for enforcing the LAW is this fear of racial profiling. Big deal, just who do you think is sneaking across our southern border anyway? Norwegians, Italians, Canadians, Pakistanies, Chinese, etc.? Give me a break, no, they’re Latinos! Remember the old movie Airport when security was frisking an elderly white woman while 4 or 5 heavily armed far Easterners walked through the metal detector? That is how ridiculous some would have us react to the situation. They want us to spend even more money questioning everyone so as to avoid the ‘appearance’ of profiling, and yet they are the ones that use cost of implementation as a detractor. Profiling is a law enforcement TOOL. They give a description of the criminal’s PROFILE so that they can single them out for apprehension. What would you have them do, round up people at random just to avoid criticism? We either come down hard on enforcement, or we should just open the borders and dissolve the sovereign status of this nation. Which do you want for your children?
“Something has to be done.”
Yes. How about expecting that those who represent us uphold the laws they swear to uphold, the laws which already make it possible to provide disincentive to illegal immigrants? Or is it too much to expect that our politicians could do this even if their national parties are both chasing ethnic voting blocs.
“It is going to require compromise. People can’t call everything ‘amnesty’ that stops short of rounding up all illegal immigrants and hauling them away in cattle cars.”
We’ve already let our whole nation be “compromised” by our government officials and their refusal to protect us, our safety and our wages. I think we’ve “compromised” enough. The situation is soluble with responsible leadership. And with Arizona’s approach.
Most people, a definite majority, around 60% at least, agree with my “no leniency” logic more than with any call for Amnesty or Virtual Amnesty.
If the arguement is framed as during an economic downturn with unemployment around 20% should we sit and watch illegal immigrants take American jobs, i.e. framed correctly, it’ll be more dramatic than that.
Now it’s just a question of whether to accept what our two parties have been dishing out to us, or to insist on some level of integrity. Our President, again, disappoints me. And fails to lead. He is merely mining the issue for supposed political gain, racial identity politics.
PAP, I think that “poor government” is the one that ignores the core issue and play-acts with phrases like “It’s a Federal matter, our hands are tied”, or “I hesitate to do anything to protect my citizens’ safety and wages if it might possibly offend someone’s civil rights at some point”.
Meanwhile there are 10 plus people living in a 3-bedroom house next to me, music booming through the walls, anonymous people who may or may not be sex offenders walking around at all hours.
That’s “bad government” and I’ll always remember the way I felt about it. Safety should be key; not allowing wages to diminish should be key.
“Good government” would have an awareness if property values were skyrocketing because townhomes were being bought to be converted to flophouses; “good government” would be concerned if homes were being marketed in Spanish on the sides of walls and mortgage lenders hitting quick bucks selling unsustainable mortgages. “Good government” would react or at least analyze, not ignore.
So to me, only Stirrup and Stewart reflected “good governance”.
Correction, I think the movie title I was referring to was Airplane (the comedy) not Airport.
@Rick Bentley
Rick, I completely agree that neighborhood issues like you name should be addressed. No doubt about that.
However, those issues were used as excuses for a “crackdown on illegal immigration” on the county level, a crackdown conveniently taking place at election time.
Immigration is indeed a federal issue. That means we can be effective in some ways but not others. Can we get neighborhoods cleaned up? Of course. Can we get the criminal illegal immigrants out of here? Yes, and we should. But should we be reporting anyone who “seems” illegal, as the original resolution required? No way.
You said, ““Good government” would react or at least analyze, not ignore.” The problem was, there was NO analysis. There were anecdotal evidence and major issues that had never been treated on the neighborhood level. Then there was FAIR manipulating the Board. I won’t go into Stirrup and Stewart, since we will not agree about them.
You can’t jump from, “Turn the speakers down” to “I’m going to get you deported” without causing some serious harm, and that’s what happened in this county.
Please don’t misunderstand–the problems you list are serious ones. But IMO, they were not addressed in a healthy, productive way.
“You can’t jump from, “Turn the speakers down” to “I’m going to get you deported” without causing some serious harm”
To me it’s turn the speakers down, stop taking jobs illegally because you suppress American wages, stop living next to me if you’re not a known quantity (pre-screened for sex offender status), stop putting your kids in my schools if I have to pay for their ESOL classes, stop taking any and all welfare or subsidies intended for poor Americans, and really just go home and spread the word that there is a real border here and that while it’s in the interests of American employers for you to come here, the American people don’t want it, never agreed to it, won’t tolerate it.
And…you prove my point, thank you. ONLY latino’s are illegal? My guess is that YOU don’t look latino…lucky you I guess 🙄
Elena,
In all fairness I don’t see anywhere in the above paragraph where it states or even implies that “only latinos are illegal”. I think SA makes a valid point regarding common sense enforcement techniques. It’s probably not a stretch to imagine that illegal Nigerians or British citizens are not the ones running through the desert at night at Nuevo Laredo. Before a serious debate can ever take place in this country all sides have to at least be willing to be honest about the situation and avoid fallacious conclusions that don’t lead to any type of progress.
As I read through these posts it occurred to me that there is a very stark subconcious philosophical divide on this issue that is clearly demonstrated in one of them.
As PAP wrote “Can we get neighborhoods cleaned up? Of course. Can we get the criminal illegal immigrants out of here? Yes, and we should.”
One thought process says that there is a category of “criminal” illegal immigrant and one side that feels that being here illegally inherently implies criminality on some level.
indeed.
“The nice ones are okay” so they should get a pass
As should particularly charming pedophiles, or murderers who give significant sums to charity.
Hey RB!
Check the latest crime numbers!
94% of all crimes in PWC are not committed by ‘illegals’.
Kinda blows a hole in your theory.
That “billfordogcatcher” item cited in #23 is a bit misleading, in my opinion, with regard to immigration. It is true that only a few were excluded on the basis of race — specifically the Chinese in 1882. However, during the 1890’s, a strong debate began over Eastern European immigrants as well, because many thought they were not capable of assimilating sufficiently. It never came to the point of banning such immigrants, but the controversy was there nevertheless.
In point of fact, America was a much different place in the 19th century, an era when we were by concensus recruiting immigrants to come here to fill jobs and settle our Western farmlands. Comparing the 19th and 20th centuries in this regard brings you into an apples and oranges routine. Nevertheless, there were exclusions based on things other than race. In fact, we do have an example of something which was done by states with regard to immigration precisely because the Federal government did not take responsibility — sort of a la Arizona in 2010.
During the 1840’s, when the first great Irish emigration began during the potato famine, many of the Irish arrived here ill with contagious diseases. During that period, in fact, the ships which brought the Irish were called “coffin ships” because so many of the immigrant passengers died at sea. The possibility of the spread of contagious disease frightened the people of New York and Massachusetts to a point that they set up immigrant health qualification checkpoints in New York and Boston. New York even built an immigrant quarantine station on Staten Island. This caused some of the companies running immigrant ships to redirect toward Quebec in Canada so that their passengers could avoid New York and Boston as entry points. About the only time those ships redirected back to New York or Boston was when the St. Lawrence was blocked by ice. If you have tried and tried and just cannot trace your immigrant ancestors to the normal US ports of entry, try looking at Quebec. That’s precisely how I solved several of my own Swedish family mysteries — by going back to the data on the official emigration records in Sweden.
Immigrant arrival states were also concerned then as now about potential costs to the taxpayers. New York demanded that the captains of immigrant ships pay $1 for every immigrant passenger in order to help defray taxpayer expenses if any of the arriving immigrants became a pauper on the public dole. Either that or the arriving immigrant himself had to put up a bond. New York took even greater control of the immigrant arrival situation in 1855 when Castle Garden in the Battery was opened as the receiving station. This was done to regularize the arrival and registration process and to prevent the immigrants from being scammed by local con artists and criminals. You did not just get on a boat in Europe and waltz ashore free as a bird when you got to New York. You had to go through Castle Garden, register, show that you had the means to survive financially, and undergo a health check. You also got help with finding local accommodations and arranging your onward transportation, if you needed it. Interestingly enough, one of the greatest health fears was trachoma, so the health officer usually began his work with a quick visual assessment of the immigrant’s eyes. Much of what was being done was later transferred when the Federal government took full control of the process, beginning even before the opening of the first Ellis Island facility in 1892. It is a fact, that arriving immigrant families could actually be broken up if one or more of them were found to be too ill for entry. Those families had to make a decision — either all returned to their country of origin or only those members who were deemed to be too sick for admission. There must have been some heart rending moments.
Also banned as early as 1872 were criminals and prostitutes. The first general immigration act of 1882 also banned immigrants who were likely to become public charges. Moreover, it was not a good idea to arrive here and tell the immigration reception staff that you already had a job offer in hand. The Foran Act of 1885 forbid the importation of contract labor. Many contested cases, whether on grounds of health or other issues, went to a Board of Special Inquiry which made the decision on whether you were admitted or were sent back home.
So, by implying that immigration prior to 1907 was just a matter of buying a ticket for America, provided you had the requisite skin color, is just a tad too simplistic.
In the 1920’s, there was a backlash against all the “darker” skinned immigrants, primarily eastern european. THe KKK spearheaded the Johnson-Reed Act, which called out quotas for the first time regarding immigration. Clearly, the quoatas were targeted at Italians, Poles, Jews, etc. It passed, resoundingly, unfortunately.
From one brave congressman:
Every American Has Foreign Ancestors
The foreign born of my district writhe under the charge of being called “hyphenates.” The people of my own family were all hyphenates—English-Americans, German-Americans, Irish-Americans. They began to come in the first ship or so after the Mayflower. But they did not come too early to miss the charge of anti-Americanism. Roger Williams was driven out of the Puritan colony of Salem to die in the wilderness because he objected “violently” to blue laws and the burning or hanging of rheumatic old women on witchcraft charges. He would not “assimilate” and was “a grave menace to American Institutions and democratic government.”
My family put 11 men and boys into the Revolutionary War, and I am sure they and their women and children did not suffer so bitterly and sacrifice until it hurt to establish the autocracy of bigotry and intolerance which exists in many quarters to-day in this country. Some of these men and boys shed their blood and left their bodies to rot on American battle fields. To me real Americanism and the American flag are the product of the blood of men and of the tears of women and children of a different type than the rampant “Americanizers” of to-day.
My mother’s father fought in the Civil War, leaving his six small children in Detroit when he marched away to the southern battle fields to fight against racial distinctions and protect his country.
My mother’s little brother, about 14 years old, and the eldest child, fired by the traditions of his family, plodded off to the battle fields to do his bit. He aspired to be a drummer boy and inspire the men in battle, but he was found too small to carry a drum and was put at the ignominious task of driving army mules, hauling cannons and wagons.
I learned more of the spirit of American history at my mother’s knee than I ever learned in my four years of high school study of American history and in my five and a half years of study at the great University of Michigan.
All that study convinces me that the racial discriminations of this bill are un-American. . . .
It must never be forgotten also that the Johnson bill, although it claims to favor the northern and western European peoples only, does so on a basis of comparison with the southern and western European peoples. The Johnson bill cuts down materially the number of immigrants allowed to come from northern and western Europe, the so-called Nordic peoples. . . .
Then I would be true to the principles for which my forefathers fought and true to the real spirit of the magnificent United States of to-day. I can not stultify myself by voting for the present bill and overwhelm my country with racial hatreds and racial lines and antagonisms drawn even tighter than they are to-day. [Applause.]
Source: Speech by Robert H. Clancy, April 8, 1924, Congressional Record, 68th Congress, 1st Session (Washington DC: Government Printing Office, 1924), vol. 65, 5929–5932.
Couldn’t you hide the fact you were a hooker or a criminal?
Toofunny, you’re not looking at the statistics properly. First, what PERCENTAGE of the crimes committed in PWC are committed by illegal immigrants, and then is it proportional to the number of illegal immigrants thought to live in PWC. That is how you determine the severity of crime relative to illegal immigrants. Just because the majority of crimes may not be committed by a certain group doesn’t mean that a high percentage of the group aren’t criminals. Example: A gang of five who all commit crimes. That’s 100% of the gang, but out of all crimes committed it may only amount 3%. Based on your analysis I guess you’d have no problem having this group of 5 live next door.
SA, the 2009 crime Stats are posted in the second thread from the top.
I think what you ran in to were property crimes and annoyances that happened when there is overcrowding, not violent crimes against people. Is that correct?
I will get those crime stats here also:
PWC 2009 Crime Statistics