There has been some contention over Vincent David Jericho making a statement at a recent immigration panel discussion hosted by the Metro-Republicans in Springfield, Missouri. The statement he made was based on US CODE: Title 8,1324. Sections quoted by Mr. Jericho were:
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;
and:
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law; or....
Jericho asked those in attendance at the panel discussion to listen to what Yolanda Lorge, president of Grupo Latinoamericano, said at the panel discussion and to decide for themselves whether Lorge had violated that law. He said, if she violated that law it means she's a criminal.
Jericho cited federal law. There are many groups, organizations, businesses and/or individuals who could be considered as violators of that law. There are many federal laws regarding immigration that are not being enforced today. It is a part of the frustration that is today's illegal immigration debate.
When federal immigration laws are not enforced it causes economic, security and safety risk to all American people. That is why many people who argue for our existing laws to be enforced before any comprehensive immigration reform is considered are frustrated today. Comprehensive immigration reform seeks to change the existing law of the land to make it less "draconian" for those who have entered our country illegally and pose an economic and possible security and safety hazard to our legal population.
I think it is very unfortunate that, once again, rather than looking at the grave and serious issues that arise from our federal government's failure to enforce our existing immigration laws we are side swept into a debate of little consequence about whether this person respected or disrespected that person and the *proper* way "adults" carry on discussions. The bigger, more important issue of our federal government's failure to enforce our laws has gotten little or no attention in the aftermath of the immigration panel discussion, it seems almost by design.
That's the real insult in this situation.
It would almost seem as though some people consider civility to be a more important issue than whether our laws are enforced or not. That radio talk show hosts are a more egregious assault on our country than those who break the laws of our nation to come here illegally.
I say living under the law of our land is the most civil thing we can do.
16 comments:
Pretty much the response I expected from you. I'm just surprised it took you until Wednesday to post it. :)
You know, Jason, I allowed myself to be distracted for a while, that's why it took until Wednesday for me to articulate my thoughts on the subject.
I don't plan to let it happen again. :)
Boiling the situation down to its most basic, the question is:
Who's behavior is most egregious: the one who has broken, and continues to break, the law, or the one who behaved in a manner some find rude?
All emotion aside, the answer to that question should be clear to everyone.
If there's so much proof this woman is a criminal then why are people just talking about it instead of filing charges against her?
For the same reason the government isn't filing charges against the combined thousands of other businesses, employers and ethnocentric groups that are breaking the very concise and unambiguous law. It has been ignored for so long that no one wants to be the "bad guy" who restores the rule of law.
Do you deny that she is breaking the law?
Show me the proof she's breaking the law. I hear a lot of allegations but I don't see anyone presenting concrete evidence.
I didn't say Lorge was a criminal, Jason. If you want proof that she is then go get it. It wasn't my intention to condemn Lorge.
I reported the law and provided a link to it. I reported what was said at the immigration panel discussion and I stated that under that law there are "many groups, organizations, businesses and/or individuals who COULD be considered as violators of that law."
This entry was *intended* to be my final say on the topic. I said exactly what I wanted to say in it and didn't plan to write another entry in the comment section. I have a job that I need to get busy at now.
If you have questions about whether Lorge is breaking the law or not, by all means, investigate it.
Jacke, read the comment directly before mine. You're not Momma Twoop, are you? :)
If she isn't an agent or employee of a religious organization (Sec. C, below) and she is encouraging, aiding and abetting illegal aliens to remain in this country illegally, she is breaking the law.
*************************
TITLE 8 - ALIENS AND NATIONALITY
CHAPTER 12 - IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY
SUBCHAPTER II - IMMIGRATION
Part VIII - General Penalty Provisions
§ 1324. Bringing in and harboring certain aliens
(a) Criminal penalties
(1) (A) Any person who—
(i) knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States
in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry or
place other than as designated by the Commissioner, regardless of whether such alien has
received prior official authorization to come to, enter, or reside in the United States and
regardless of any future official action which may be taken with respect to such alien;
(ii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered,
or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts
to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or
otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law;
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered,
or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from
detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place,
including any building or any means of transportation;
(iv) encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States,
knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or
will be in violation of law; or
(v) (I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or
(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,
shall be punished as provided in subparagraph (B).
*************************
Subparagraph B provides the penalties for breaking these laws.
*******************
(C) It is not a violation of clauses 1 (ii) or (iii) of subparagraph (A), or of clause (iv)
of subparagraph (A) except where a person encourages or induces an alien to come to
or enter the United States, for a religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit,
religious organization in the United States, or the agents or officers of such denomination
or organization, to encourage, invite, call, allow, or enable an alien who is present in the
United States to perform the vocation of a minister or missionary for the denomination or
organization in the United States as a volunteer who is not compensated as an employee,
notwithstanding the provision of room, board, travel, medical assistance, and other basic living
expenses, provided the minister or missionary has been a member of the denomination for at
least one year.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscprint.html
**********************
Only those organizations described in (C), working with illegal aliens already in the US, are exempt from this law. They are not exempt from the law if they encourage others to enter the US illegally.
Is Lorge's work done as part of a "religious denomination having a bona fide nonprofit,
religious organization in the United States?" Lacking that, she's breaking federal law.
I forgot to add, that if Lorge is not a member of the defined exempt organizations, she is breaking federal law....
ALONG WITH ABOUT ELEVENTY BILLION OTHER PEOPLE. :)
The question isn't whether one's actions were more egregious. The question is whether you would stand behind and support any of them. Now clearly, you are not going to stand behind and support someone that does not share your views and which you feel is wrong on the issue. However, it is also difficult to stand behind someone that you know is factually correct on the matter, but has burned bridges and made the discourse more difficult by their actions.
This is such a huge problem in the political discourse. Everyone is all too willing to assume that if person a is critical of person b that means that they fall on the far opposite side of the field, and are enemies. This is not at all the case.
It's also a problem when people assume when criticizing person b that person a disagrees with all of their positions, or can no longer see that they have ever done good work. Vince has done many good things for this community. He has taken on an interesting mix of roles. On the one hand he is a radio talk show host, and in the entertainment business, it's good business to be brash, rude, and otherwise flamboyant. It makes your radio program more popular. However, as a civil servant, and someone that is out to make changes in the community, I think that it requires more gracious and gentle speech to change the hearts and minds of those that disagree with you. Vince has put himself in a difficult position, and honestly, I don't think he can really do both extremely well at the same time. He seems to have chosen the attitudes of the popular radio talk show hosts as his modus operandi.
The bottom line is that I agree with Vince on this issue, and most issues for that matter. I just wouldn't have approached the matter the same way.
Jeremy, if the question isn't whether one's actions are more egregious then why have all the newspaper articles and blog entries been about somebody's actions, whether it be Jericho's or Freeman's, instead of the issue that the panel was designed to address?
I respect and understand your thoughts and they are valid thoughts but I do think, under the circumstances, that the Metro-Republicans original intention of bringing the question of how the immigration issue should be handled was a complete and utter failure.
Until I posted this today I think it was the first blog entry or newspaper article to come out of that panel discussion that even touched on the issue of illegal immigration rather than whether one's method of discussing it was rude or crude.
So, while respecting your opinion I respectfully disagree that the question isn't whether one's actions are more egregious and I believe it is a legitimate question that bore asking.
In fact, even your response had less to do with the law and whether it is being enforced or not than it did with furthering the focus on a radio talk show host's behavior. Was THAT the intention of the Metro-Republicans when they hosted this event? I don't believe for a minute that it was and it is not serving much of a purpose if we continue to make it about Jericho's behavior rather than the real, the legitimate issue. If we continue to do so, then yes, the answer is yes, apparently a radio talk show host's behavior IS more egregious than the illegal immigrants who break our laws. It's been the singular talk of the town and the only thing to come out of the Metro-Republican event thus far. Isn't that just the fact?
Thank you for your comment. :)
Jacke,
I agree that it is a shame, an injustice really, that the issue became about the panelists (well one panelist) and not about immigration.
Have you ever considered that it was Jericho, himself, who rerouted the discourse by saying the things he said, by taking the approach he took, by throwing the tennis balls?
The truth is, I would not have chosen Jericho or Messenger for that panel. I would have preferred experts in the field, people who work directly with (or against) illegals. Certainly not journalists or entertainers. As a side note, going through the immigration process does not an expert make.
So sad because the issue got a pass and no movement was made on the issue.
Nice topic, Jacke.
Jeremy said:
The question isn't whether one's actions were more egregious. The question is whether you would stand behind and support any of them. Now clearly, you are not going to stand behind and support someone that does not share your views and which you feel is wrong on the issue. However, it is also difficult to stand behind someone that you know is factually correct on the matter, but has burned bridges and made the discourse more difficult by their actions.
I respect your position, Jeremy, and under normal circumstances, I would agree 100%. However, these circumstances are, in my opinion, anything but normal.
I have been active in addressing illegal immigration, its costs and impact to our country, for almost 6 years. There is not a racist bone in my body, yet for 6 years I have been called a Nazi, Klan member, xenophobe, racist, bigot, white supremacist, and just about any other vile name you can think of.
For years, I have been writing and calling politicians about this and, until recently, most of them told me, in essence, don't worry about it, "It's a federal thing. Don't worry yer purdy lil haid about it none. We're handling it."
In 2003, I took a more active role when I found out that two buses of illegal aliens would be stopping in my city on their way to DC to demand "rights." They were part of the Immigrant Workers' Freedom Ride. I stood - 5 months pregnant with twins - on a sidewalk opposite the church where the buses were to stop, holding a sign that said, "Honk if you support ending illegal immigration." It would not be an exaggeration to say that 99% of the vehicles passing slowly by reacted in some way to show their support and agreement. Those supporting the "Freedom Ride," while waiting for the arrival of the buses called me every name you can think of, several suggested my twin fetuses would be better off if they died, and a few suggested I jump in front of passing cars to "make the world a better place." All this simply because I wanted our laws enforced, and people called me a "racist hater?!" That is NOT normal by any means.
Repeatedly over the past decade, the American people have made their voices crystal clear - they want illegal immigration stopped or, at the very least, slowed, our borders secured and no amnesty, and repeatedly our government has proven itself beholden to businesses that can make an extra buck and ethnocentric groups who support porous borders. The elected elite repeatedly present "comprehensive" immigration reform proposals until we, the American people who elected them to office, scream "NO! This is not right!" at the top of our lungs. At the same time, any meaningful legislation aimed at enforcement only is either watered down and passed or not passed at all. A majority of elected politicians openly supporting lawbreakers against the will of the majority of their constituents is not normal.
And throughout the years, the accusations of racism and bigotry fly without fail and without any supporting evidence. The ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center, two groups that are supposed to point out hatred where it exists, have, in essence, labeled every group that supports enforcing our laws "extremist hate groups." A local protest at the Mexican Consulate's office against the Mexican government's meddling in our political process was labeled an "extremist event" by the ADL. *eyeroll* (I was there. Nothing approached "extreme," believe me. Quite boring actually. :)
Yet, these professional professed seekers of hate give openly hateful, and at times, violent, groups on the other side of this issue a pass - groups that have consistently and adamantly tried to stifle debate and discussion of this issue by yelling "Racist!" "Hater!" at every opportunity. That is not normal.
It is in this context that Jericho and those who believe as he does are acting. For far too long, the people who claim they want to "openly discuss" this issue have made every effort to prevent that discussion by yelling "racist, bigot, Nazi, klansman," etc., etc. ad nauseum at the drop of a pin and when it is far from the truth. Yes, there are some racists on the anti-illegal immigration side, although I have never met one in all my years in working with border security groups. It has been my experience that anyone revealing racist tendencies is immediately kicked to the curb. However, no one will deny that those kind of people exist. For years, though, people like Messenger, my local op-ed writers included, have attempted to portray us ALL as such. Yes, there are some racists on the pro-illegal immigration/amnesty side, many of whom I have met, but for years, everyone has DENIED their existence and most still do, including those professional groups that are supposed to monitor and report hatred and bigotry where it exists! Seeing hatred where it does not exist and ignoring it where it does, is not normal, nor is it healthy.
My point in writing all of this is that, I WOULD stand in support behind Jericho because what I have listed are the realities of our situation. IMO, Jericho didn't burn a bridge with his actions. There was no bridge there to burn. That bridge was burned the instant the pro-illega/amnesty supporters started calling people racists, nazis and xenophobes simply because they want our laws respected and enforced.
It is also my opinion that Jericho didn't make the political discourse more difficult. He merely acted in accordance with existing discourse, the tone of which was set by the pro-illegal immigrant/amnesty side and their supporters, not us, and one which they seem loathe to let die.
Jericho's actions, while viewed as inappropriate and over-the-top by some, are completely understandable in light of this reality, one wherein anyone who wants those who knowingly break our laws to be held accountable is mercilessly attacked. Then, when we take a stand and attempt to stop those attacks, we're chastised for being "divisive." That is our, and Jericho's, long-standing situation in the immigration debate.
As an aside, I don't have the testicular fortitude to toss tennis balls in someone's direction, but lately I have been thinking of mailing some to a few state representatives who seem to be lacking those appendages. I haven't figured out yet how to put a spine in an envelope. :)
Jacke said:
Jeremy, if the question isn't whether one's actions are more egregious then why have all the newspaper articles and blog entries been about somebody's actions, whether it be Jericho's or Freeman's, instead of the issue that the panel was designed to address?
Very fair. I guess I shouldn't have stated it in such absolute terms. I should have said that for me the issue is as I stated.
I also agree that we should stop talking about Vince and Tony and start talking about the real issues of Illegal Immigration. It's a very difficult issue since we have illegals that have been living, working and raising their children in this country for 20 years.
I'll make an on-topic post on my blog and link it when I have the opportunity.
It appears everyone got exactly what they wanted. NO one is discussing the topic of illegal immigrants or in any manner those that break current law by being here. Everyone is concentrating on the participants of the event which is normally what happens in these types of forums. The event was held just too bring attention to those that participated not on the topic, if the topic were the main concern more knowledgeable people would've been asked to be on the panel NOT two journalist.
There are distinct parallels for Messenger and Jericho that require them both to keep the attention of those that they are directing their topic to. Vince uses his voice while Tony uses his pen. Generally one that uses their pen to perform are outclassed in the verbal arena because it just isn't an area where they have the most comfort.
In either regard the attention the participants are getting over shadow the topic of discussion, which on it's own merit is worth debating. Less than 50% of people believe we have some obligation to those that broke the laws of this nation in getting here and staying here. We have employers breaking laws in hiring these individuals, states are breaking laws by providing government services to these individuals and the list goes on and yet nothing is done about it. I will bet a couple years from now we will be having this same discussion since there is NO candidate running, that has a legitimate chance to win, that is going to change or solve the issue.
We are stuck in a cycle of amnesty means more illegal immigrants, while stopping immigration gets you labeled as an extreme racist or some other vile name. Hard stances need to be taken and the first should be that if your parents are here illegally you are not a citizen even if you are born here. No government entitlements to those individuals that don't have a proper US birth certificate or immigration paperwork. Personally entitlements should be cut off all together but we have people and industries addicted to the government drug of entitlements.
A hard stance has to be taken but none of the political parties in existence today have to gonads large enough to create a movement which will institute change.
Post a Comment