The immigration panel discussion hosted by the Metro-Republicans here in Springfield recently, bears out what I wrote a long time ago regarding the immigration debate.
THERE IS NO IMMIGRATION DEBATE
Those who support amnesty for illegal immigrants, for whatever their self-serving reasons, do not care about the law. They do not want to hear about the law and they do not want the law to be enforced.
Those who support illegal amnesty will give you all sorts of emotional reasons why we should allow illegals to continue to live here in America even though they broke our laws to get here, and most of them are strawmen arguments but,
THERE IS NO IMMIGRATION DEBATE
Get it? They don't hear your valid arguments. They don't want to hear your legitimate arguments and they more than likely never will hear your arguments but that is not to say that you shouldn't continue to give them. The truth ALWAYS has a way of winning out over lies and strawmen arguments eventually.
Now, one last little item on my agenda here and then I've got to move on to other business and won't have any more time for this for a while, and actually, don't anticipate returning to the non-topic anytime soon.
Vincent David Jericho is on the radio three hours a day, five days a week. He accepts callers who can ask him anything they want to ask him. Why would he need to do an interview with anyone? I mean, you get him (or can get him) three hours a day, five days a week. Those of you who would like to see the man lose his job, or provide material support to others who would like to see him lose his job, need an INTERVIEW???
What's the matter? Can't get enough of him???
Really, get a *life* and get over it.
People have formats and forums, blog pages like this one,* letters to the editor of their local paper, all sorts of recourse to defend themselves, condemn others or build others up and communicate any message they'd like to communicate. To pretend it cannot be done except in one particular forum or one particular fashion is not only ridiculous, it's...well, never mind.
I exercise my freedom of speech as often as I want right here, I can share any opinion I want right here. I can just do it, of course with it comes responsibility, responsibility to get my facts straight and having a legitimate foundation for my opinions doesn't hurt. People will either read it and respect it or they won't, and no one has any more power over any other person than they give them.
*If you are interested in creating your own blog but don't know how to get started, it's really very simple and if you will click on my profile link you will find my email address. I'd be happy to direct you to a blog server.
Showing posts with label immigration debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label immigration debate. Show all posts
Friday, March 21, 2008
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Twoop: "I WOULD stand in support behind Jericho..."
Note of introduction:
When I began this blog, I began it with a team mate (then later PJ was added).
My beginning team mate was "Momma Twoop." I have the utmost respect for my friend. Besides homeschooling her children she finds the time to tackle one of the most complex, and yes, divisive issues of our time, the issue of illegal immigration and what should be done about it.
She is an activist, not a journalist, though she could be a journalist if she chose to because I've yet to see her fail at anything she decides to do, maybe that's a part of the reason the immigration debate is such a frustration to her. She wins the arguments but loses the battle time and again because representatives are failing to represent the majority of the people in this matter.
One of the most cherished compliments I have ever received came before I even met my friend online, another commenter said, "I like her, she reminds me of Momma Twoop." I have since met her in person, met her children, her husband, broken bread with her and I can literally tell you that if she was the only friend I ever had, even though long distance, I would be rich in friendship.
Twoop recently responded to the ongoing turmoil surrounding the recent immigration panel discussion hosted by the Metro-Republicans. I felt her response to a commenter deserved to be moved to the front of the blog. She articulated many of my thoughts that I have been unable to articulate, but she does so with personal experience, with personal "battle" scars. I can't claim to have the scars she has acquired because I haven't been that active in the "battle," but I can say I have seen many of the things she writes about play out right here in Springfield, Missouri, most particularly in the editorial section of our local, daily newspaper.
So, the debate and the discussion over illegal immigration goes on:
Commenter:
Twoop's response, (very slight editing):
I respect your position 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-illegal/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. :)
When I began this blog, I began it with a team mate (then later PJ was added).
My beginning team mate was "Momma Twoop." I have the utmost respect for my friend. Besides homeschooling her children she finds the time to tackle one of the most complex, and yes, divisive issues of our time, the issue of illegal immigration and what should be done about it.
She is an activist, not a journalist, though she could be a journalist if she chose to because I've yet to see her fail at anything she decides to do, maybe that's a part of the reason the immigration debate is such a frustration to her. She wins the arguments but loses the battle time and again because representatives are failing to represent the majority of the people in this matter.
One of the most cherished compliments I have ever received came before I even met my friend online, another commenter said, "I like her, she reminds me of Momma Twoop." I have since met her in person, met her children, her husband, broken bread with her and I can literally tell you that if she was the only friend I ever had, even though long distance, I would be rich in friendship.
Twoop recently responded to the ongoing turmoil surrounding the recent immigration panel discussion hosted by the Metro-Republicans. I felt her response to a commenter deserved to be moved to the front of the blog. She articulated many of my thoughts that I have been unable to articulate, but she does so with personal experience, with personal "battle" scars. I can't claim to have the scars she has acquired because I haven't been that active in the "battle," but I can say I have seen many of the things she writes about play out right here in Springfield, Missouri, most particularly in the editorial section of our local, daily newspaper.
So, the debate and the discussion over illegal immigration goes on:
Commenter:
"...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."
Twoop's response, (very slight editing):
I respect your position 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-illegal/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. :)
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Radio talk show host's behavior more egregious than criminal activity?
One would think so in listening to the contention surrounding a recent immigration panel discussion
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:
and:
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.
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.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Recommended Reading 7
Post-mortems begin for immigration bill IndyStar.com
Excerpts:
Excerpts:
Under the legislation, companies that hired illegal immigrants could have had their business licenses suspended, or revoked after three instances....
Supporters accuse Hispanic activists of playing the race card and say lobbyists such as Livengood were more interested in preserving access to a low-wage work force that allows employers to reap fatter profits....
"This is a real tragedy," said Ray Mejia, a retired, Mexican-born Army Reserve officer who spoke out in favor of the illegal immigration bill.
"What took place in the last couple of days has been about the service industry, which seems to have gotten in with the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce."
Mejia, whose appearance earlier this year at a Statehouse news conference while wearing his uniform drew a reprimand from his superiors, said local Hispanic leaders have missed the point about setting the example for immigrants.
"When I came here as a student, I washed dishes, I bused tables, I pumped gas," he said. "But I never had to look over my shoulder to see if anyone was looking for me. Because I did it the legal way."
Taylor, who kept supporters updated with his Hoosiers for Secure Borders Web site, directed his anger at Hispanic leaders and the business lobby.
"I think the concerted effort by those who labeled the issue as racial was probably the predominant factor," Taylor said. "Running a close second is the inherent self-interest of certain business interests and their lobbyists and the effect they have on our state legislature."For more information visit: Hoosiers for Secure Borders
UPDATE: I thought readers might be interested to know that there have been 543 comments posted to the Indystar article so far. If you would like to read them or add your own comment, go to the article page, link listed at the beginning of this entry, and click on the "talkback" icon.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
The immigration debate
Yes, it's complicated, yes, it's divisive
Some time ago I used to try to make the case that people who are opposed to illegal immigrants receiving amnesty and people who wanted to see the law of the land of America regarding illegal immigration be enforced are not bigots, but you know what? I realized that just as on any issue and just as in any group of people, people band together for different reasons. For that reason, I realized that while I am not bigoted against brown skinned, black skinned, yellow skinned, red skinned, or purple fingered people who come into our country either legally or illegally, and the majority of people against amnesty for immigrants who came here illegally and would like to see our border laws enforced and employers pay a steep penalty for employing those immigrants who have entered our soveriegn nation illegally are not bigoted that some people may be. I have come to the realization that the motivations of some are convoluted and complicated and bigotry against people of different nationalities or skin color may play a part in some people's overall reason for opposing illegal immigrant amnesty, supporting border security and stricter laws against employers who hire such illegal immigrants. So I don't argue anymore that bigotry is not a factor for anyone, I argue that it isn't a factor for me and it shouldn't be a factor for anyone.
What is your definition of rude and uncivil behavior? What is your definition of civility and respect?
If someone throws a pair of tennis balls at a man and says, "Here, this is the only pair of these you'll ever have," a crowd of civil and respectful people might suck in some air and deplete the oxygen in the room. Those people might later issue scathing reviews of such behavior as "disrespectful," as "rude," as "crude" and as "uncivil," and I'll even concede that they would have a point.
The exclamation of tennis balls at the end of the sensationalized sentence could certainly be justified as an act of disrespect accompanied by such a comment coming from a radio talk show host at an immigration debate. But, in fact, he might have done so because he's tired of back-handed newspaper editorials that generalize and oversimply the issue of immigration reform themselves by repeatedly and regularly implying that all those who oppose amnesty, propose secure borders and would like to see the law of the land enforced are either bigoted xenophobes or ill-informed ignoramuses or a combination of the two. That, you see, is civil, in their opinion. That sweeping characterization is respectful. That sentiment is neither rude nor crude in the opinion of such an editorialist.
Let me tell you something, two wrongs don't make a right, but personally, I would much rather see the knife welded by the villan coming at me so that I would have an opportunity to defend myself against it than have it sneak, stealthily and silently from behind, never seeing it before it is slid so back-handly between my shoulder blades.
How many tennis balls does it take when given an opportunity to debate an issue for one to agree repeatedly with one's opponent, for one to offer no research and for one to just talk about how the divisive rhetoric on the part of the country needs to end? Zero.
The one offered the opportunity to debate in a forum in Springfield on last Thursday evening didn't offer any real and tangible reasons to support amnesty, to keep our borders unsecure and open and to continue to allow employers of illegal aliens to hire them with no or a mostly un-enforced penalty. In fact, anything like that, in his mind, would do more good than harm (?) but we don't know why because neither at the debate or in a recent editorial at the Springfield News-Leader does the proponent of those ideas tell us why those sentiments would be more good for our country than bad.
How many tennis balls does it take to slink back to the editorial board to form a consensus view on behalf of the Springfield News-Leader that slyly characterizes those who oppose illegal immigrant amnesty, support border security and tough employer penalty for the hiring of illegals as ill-informed, ignorant bigots?
It doesn't even take two.
I agree with the News-Leader, immigration reform is a complicated issue. The divisive rhetoric needs to stop on the part of those who are sympathetic to the illegal immigrant population. Those who want to talk out of both sides of their mouths, on the one hand stating, "It's complicated," and on the other hand refusing to even entertain the opinions of those who disagree with their sentiment for tangible and legitimate reasons and they need to stop characterizing those who disagree with them with generalized slander and assumption.
No, two wrongs don't make a right but lets at least recognize that there are two wrongs. Let's not pretend that when a debate takes place in the physical world and one party "rises above" disrespect and rudeness in that physical realm when he is face to face with his opponent and has the opportunity to make his case but fails to, then returns to his office, in quiet reflection and takes the hidden knife out of his pocket to carve away the credibility of those who feel so passionately about this issue for legitimate reasons and place in the cavity he has created the infection of generalized slander toward all is somehow more civil and respectful than the other.
Some time ago I used to try to make the case that people who are opposed to illegal immigrants receiving amnesty and people who wanted to see the law of the land of America regarding illegal immigration be enforced are not bigots, but you know what? I realized that just as on any issue and just as in any group of people, people band together for different reasons. For that reason, I realized that while I am not bigoted against brown skinned, black skinned, yellow skinned, red skinned, or purple fingered people who come into our country either legally or illegally, and the majority of people against amnesty for immigrants who came here illegally and would like to see our border laws enforced and employers pay a steep penalty for employing those immigrants who have entered our soveriegn nation illegally are not bigoted that some people may be. I have come to the realization that the motivations of some are convoluted and complicated and bigotry against people of different nationalities or skin color may play a part in some people's overall reason for opposing illegal immigrant amnesty, supporting border security and stricter laws against employers who hire such illegal immigrants. So I don't argue anymore that bigotry is not a factor for anyone, I argue that it isn't a factor for me and it shouldn't be a factor for anyone.
What is your definition of rude and uncivil behavior? What is your definition of civility and respect?
If someone throws a pair of tennis balls at a man and says, "Here, this is the only pair of these you'll ever have," a crowd of civil and respectful people might suck in some air and deplete the oxygen in the room. Those people might later issue scathing reviews of such behavior as "disrespectful," as "rude," as "crude" and as "uncivil," and I'll even concede that they would have a point.
The exclamation of tennis balls at the end of the sensationalized sentence could certainly be justified as an act of disrespect accompanied by such a comment coming from a radio talk show host at an immigration debate. But, in fact, he might have done so because he's tired of back-handed newspaper editorials that generalize and oversimply the issue of immigration reform themselves by repeatedly and regularly implying that all those who oppose amnesty, propose secure borders and would like to see the law of the land enforced are either bigoted xenophobes or ill-informed ignoramuses or a combination of the two. That, you see, is civil, in their opinion. That sweeping characterization is respectful. That sentiment is neither rude nor crude in the opinion of such an editorialist.
Let me tell you something, two wrongs don't make a right, but personally, I would much rather see the knife welded by the villan coming at me so that I would have an opportunity to defend myself against it than have it sneak, stealthily and silently from behind, never seeing it before it is slid so back-handly between my shoulder blades.
How many tennis balls does it take when given an opportunity to debate an issue for one to agree repeatedly with one's opponent, for one to offer no research and for one to just talk about how the divisive rhetoric on the part of the country needs to end? Zero.
The one offered the opportunity to debate in a forum in Springfield on last Thursday evening didn't offer any real and tangible reasons to support amnesty, to keep our borders unsecure and open and to continue to allow employers of illegal aliens to hire them with no or a mostly un-enforced penalty. In fact, anything like that, in his mind, would do more good than harm (?) but we don't know why because neither at the debate or in a recent editorial at the Springfield News-Leader does the proponent of those ideas tell us why those sentiments would be more good for our country than bad.
How many tennis balls does it take to slink back to the editorial board to form a consensus view on behalf of the Springfield News-Leader that slyly characterizes those who oppose illegal immigrant amnesty, support border security and tough employer penalty for the hiring of illegals as ill-informed, ignorant bigots?
It doesn't even take two.
I agree with the News-Leader, immigration reform is a complicated issue. The divisive rhetoric needs to stop on the part of those who are sympathetic to the illegal immigrant population. Those who want to talk out of both sides of their mouths, on the one hand stating, "It's complicated," and on the other hand refusing to even entertain the opinions of those who disagree with their sentiment for tangible and legitimate reasons and they need to stop characterizing those who disagree with them with generalized slander and assumption.
No, two wrongs don't make a right but lets at least recognize that there are two wrongs. Let's not pretend that when a debate takes place in the physical world and one party "rises above" disrespect and rudeness in that physical realm when he is face to face with his opponent and has the opportunity to make his case but fails to, then returns to his office, in quiet reflection and takes the hidden knife out of his pocket to carve away the credibility of those who feel so passionately about this issue for legitimate reasons and place in the cavity he has created the infection of generalized slander toward all is somehow more civil and respectful than the other.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Respect returns to Missouri Catholic Bishops
...as they display "courage and compassion."
I am so pleased to see that the editorial page editor of the News-Leader has mended fences with Missouri Catholic Bishops and is no longer questioning their motives. See: Bishops' letter on immigrants changes debate (here's an excerpt):
That's much better than the time the editorial editor questioned their motives when they came out in support of tax credits for benevolent contributors to the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program (failed HB808):
My guess is that supporting our State's poor students toward more choices for better education took a lot less "courage and compassion" on the part of Missouri Bishops.
Shucks, they were just talking about making tax credits available to benevolent contributors to Scholarships for Children in Failing Urban School Districts (the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program) to provide grants for low income parents so they could afford to send their children to the school of their choice, the school they educated themselves about and chose as one that could provide a better education to their failing child and heck, it could've even been a public school they chose. Shhh, let's not mention there were no vouchers (the tax credited scholarship program didn't quack like a duck and it didn't walk like a duck).
I'm just thankful that the News-Leader's editorial board has returned to an attitude of respect regarding opinions of Missouri Catholic Bishops. Aren't you?
*emphasis mine
I am so pleased to see that the editorial page editor of the News-Leader has mended fences with Missouri Catholic Bishops and is no longer questioning their motives. See: Bishops' letter on immigrants changes debate (here's an excerpt):
"Missouri Catholic bishops changed the nature* of the debate about illegal immigration in this state this week by sending a passionate letter* to the governor and lawmakers urging the politicians to stop their pandering attempts to look tough on immigration.
We offer a resounding "Amen!" to the bishops for their courage and compassion."*
That's much better than the time the editorial editor questioned their motives when they came out in support of tax credits for benevolent contributors to the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program (failed HB808):
"Other conservative supporters and Catholic schools say the tax credits help build scholarship funds for needy students and offer families more choices. Teachers groups say the vouchers and private-school tax credits take money away from public schools and undermine the education system."
"...what is the true motivation of those trying to get it passed?"*
My guess is that supporting our State's poor students toward more choices for better education took a lot less "courage and compassion" on the part of Missouri Bishops.
Shucks, they were just talking about making tax credits available to benevolent contributors to Scholarships for Children in Failing Urban School Districts (the Betty L.Thompson Scholarship Program) to provide grants for low income parents so they could afford to send their children to the school of their choice, the school they educated themselves about and chose as one that could provide a better education to their failing child and heck, it could've even been a public school they chose. Shhh, let's not mention there were no vouchers (the tax credited scholarship program didn't quack like a duck and it didn't walk like a duck).
I'm just thankful that the News-Leader's editorial board has returned to an attitude of respect regarding opinions of Missouri Catholic Bishops. Aren't you?
*emphasis mine
Saturday, October 06, 2007
Pictures of crying children whose mothers are being....
Joe Daues of KSPR News reported here:
But back on July 1 of this year, in an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, shortly after the comprehensive immigration reform bill failed to pass, Chertoff said:
Wallace pointed out that what came out of the debate on immigration reform was the recognition that the American people do not trust our government when it comes to enforcing the laws on illegal immigration. He asked Chertoff:
Chertoff then tries to go into a rant but is cut off when he pulls the...:
...sympathy card.
Wallace finally pins him down to answering his original question. The rest of the exchange:
I predicted in Something ventured, nothing gained: Status quo returns to Washington, that our representatives will return to status quo. Nothing substantial will be done to enforce our laws because the carrot that was being held out in the form of comprehensive immigration reform has been put back in the bushel basket and there's no longer any need to prove to the American people that the federal government takes it job to secure our borders seriously. I wrote:
Sometime, since late June, early July, Chertoff has had a change of heart from claiming not to "really have the ability to enforce the law with respect to illegal work" to doing something about illegal immigrant workers, remember, he told Chris Wallace:
Does this mean his ability to do so was always there but he simply didn't want to take action on enforcing the law?
July 1, I wrote, nothing much was being done to enforce our immigration laws until the proponents wanted to pass this comprehesive immigration reform bill. Wasn't it convenient that, all of a sudden, when there was the hope of passing this legislation, that there were numerous ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country, that there was all this "tough" talk about securing our borders, that there was all this talk about pouring billions of dollars into homeland security coffers to take care of the illegal immigrant problem?
With the recent "Dream Act" proposal, now we're seeing another step up in ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country. More convenience? My suspicious nature makes me wonder about whether these raids are undertaken in the hopes it will stir up further sympathy via:
"pictures of crying children. ..." "... whose mothers are being..."
Remember, Joe Daues, KSPR News :
He continued:
October 7, Immigrants' dream nightmare for critics -- chicagotribune.com:
Oh, for the love of "...unfortunate pictures of crying children."
No doubt some will think I'm heartless because I seem to show no sympathy for young Rosa or young crying children, but we either enforce our laws or we don't and my main point is that there seems to be a pattern here. When legislators want to pass immigration bills that offer amnesty to illegal immigrants there is a step up in enforcement of law. When there is a step up in law enforcement the stories of crying children being torn away from their parents comes into play and, like I said, my suspicious mind wanders and wonders about that convenient pattern that always emerges when there is an amnesty bill offered. Politics and emotional blackmail have a consistent tendency of rearing their heads. Rosa's situation is a sad one, but is rewarding criminal activity the remedy to the problem?
*All emphasis mine
Currently the government is launching a quiet war against illegal immigrants, and it’s becoming increasingly visible and more intense by the day.
"I think we're talking about something the American people have never seen before," said Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff.
Across the country, federal agents have been raiding businesses and homes in an unprecedented campaign targeting illegal immigrants." I think we've gotta show the public that we are serious about enforcing the laws," Chertoff said.
In just the last month, federal agents conducted work-site raids in seven U.S. cities, arresting nearly 200 undocumented workers. They rounded up almost 2,400 illegal immigrants who were previously ordered deported.
In the last week, 1,300 illegal immigrants were arrested in California, in one of the biggest sweeps in recent memory.
More that 50 workers at McDonalds restaurants were recently arrested in Nevada. That sparked protests in a frightened and frustrated immigrant community.*
But back on July 1 of this year, in an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday, shortly after the comprehensive immigration reform bill failed to pass, Chertoff said:
"...there's one thing we haven't been able to do. We haven't been able to require every employer to enter a system in which they check the work status of their employees and determine whether they're legal.
And without that, we don't really have the ability to enforce the law with respect to illegal work in this country in a way that's truly effective. And that would be the single greatest additional weapon we could use if we're serious about tackling this problem."*
Wallace pointed out that what came out of the debate on immigration reform was the recognition that the American people do not trust our government when it comes to enforcing the laws on illegal immigration. He asked Chertoff:
"...why not take the lesson from this failure and go for enforcement first, resubmit the president's agreement to spend $4.4 billion on new enforcement?
You say you don't have some tools when it comes to employer verification. Why not resubmit all of those and challenge the Democrats on enforcement first?"
Chertoff then tries to go into a rant but is cut off when he pulls the...:
"700 criminal cases against employers, raids involving thousands of people, unfortunate pictures of crying children. ..." "... whose mothers are being..."
...sympathy card.
Wallace finally pins him down to answering his original question. The rest of the exchange:
WALLACE:I don't mean to interrupt you. I mean, are you going to submit the $4.4 billion? Are you going to resubmit the tamper- proof card? Are you going to resubmit the employer verification or not?
CHERTOFF: I think we're going to say to the members of Congress who think they have a better way that they should produce legislation and pass legislation, which they have not done for the past two years.
They've tried enforcement only. That didn't pass. We've tried comprehensive. That stalled. I think it's now time for Congress, which has the power to legislate, to make a determination about how it wants to help us solve this problem.
WALLACE: But the government, the president, is not going to submit his own plan.
CHERTOFF: Well, we've submitted a budget. We submitted a comprehensive immigration plan. We agreed on $4.4 billion which was going to be secured by the payments made by the illegals so it would not bust the budget.
In the absence of that plan, I think now those who have a better way ought to come forward with that better way. We're still going to work on our part to enforce the border using the tools that we have.
I predicted in Something ventured, nothing gained: Status quo returns to Washington, that our representatives will return to status quo. Nothing substantial will be done to enforce our laws because the carrot that was being held out in the form of comprehensive immigration reform has been put back in the bushel basket and there's no longer any need to prove to the American people that the federal government takes it job to secure our borders seriously. I wrote:
To those representatives:
Don't blame the opponents of the bill, do your job of securing our borders and then come back to us in a couple of years. The "ball's" still in your court and the "carrot" can be replaced but not unless you prove you are willing to do your job and do it consistently and do it long term.
Sometime, since late June, early July, Chertoff has had a change of heart from claiming not to "really have the ability to enforce the law with respect to illegal work" to doing something about illegal immigrant workers, remember, he told Chris Wallace:
"...We haven't been able to require every employer to enter a system in which they check the work status of their employees and determine whether they're legal.
And without that, we don't really have the ability to enforce the law with respect to illegal work in this country in a way that's truly effective."*
Does this mean his ability to do so was always there but he simply didn't want to take action on enforcing the law?
July 1, I wrote, nothing much was being done to enforce our immigration laws until the proponents wanted to pass this comprehesive immigration reform bill. Wasn't it convenient that, all of a sudden, when there was the hope of passing this legislation, that there were numerous ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country, that there was all this "tough" talk about securing our borders, that there was all this talk about pouring billions of dollars into homeland security coffers to take care of the illegal immigrant problem?
With the recent "Dream Act" proposal, now we're seeing another step up in ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country. More convenience? My suspicious nature makes me wonder about whether these raids are undertaken in the hopes it will stir up further sympathy via:
"pictures of crying children. ..." "... whose mothers are being..."
Remember, Joe Daues, KSPR News :
"In the last week, 1,300 illegal immigrants were arrested in California, in one of the biggest sweeps in recent memory. More that 50 workers at McDonalds restaurants were recently arrested in Nevada. That sparked protests in a frightened and frustrated immigrant community.*
He continued:
"They're not criminals. They want to work. We want to do things right for them and for this country," said one protester. But some are criminals. For the first time since a May 22nd raid in the Ozarks,immigration officers are accounting for more than 100 suspected illegal aliens rounded up from George's Poultry plant in Butterfield, MO."*
October 7, Immigrants' dream nightmare for critics -- chicagotribune.com:
"...Rosa, 17, a soft-spoken honors student, worries every day about something the typical American teenager never has to think about: being deported because she is an undocumented immigrant."
Some days I feel overwhelmed by it—just hopeless," said the young woman who came to Chicago with her parents at age 7. "But other days I have a lot of hope that things will be OK, that everything will work out somehow."
Under new and controversial legislation championed by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Rosa's dreams—graduating near the top of her class and attending college—could change her status as an illegal immigrant....
...the Dream Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act, the legislation would provide hundreds of thousands of undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship if they were brought to the U.S. as children, are younger than 30, have graduated from a U.S. high school and either enroll in college or enlist in the military.
"This bill means a lot to me," Durbin said recently. "But it means even more to a lot of young people across this country."
Yet the Dream Act, which Democrats have vowed to bring to a full Senate vote in November, faces an uphill fight. It was withdrawn last month as an amendment to a defense bill in the wake of intense public criticism. It has even raised the ire of traditionally pro-immigration groups that view the military-service component of the bill as a means of strong-arming desperate young men and women into uniform at a risky time of war. And it has infuriated anti-amnesty groups that say it has no safeguards against fraud, rewards those who have broken the law and does nothing to address future immigration enforcement."*
Oh, for the love of "...unfortunate pictures of crying children."
No doubt some will think I'm heartless because I seem to show no sympathy for young Rosa or young crying children, but we either enforce our laws or we don't and my main point is that there seems to be a pattern here. When legislators want to pass immigration bills that offer amnesty to illegal immigrants there is a step up in enforcement of law. When there is a step up in law enforcement the stories of crying children being torn away from their parents comes into play and, like I said, my suspicious mind wanders and wonders about that convenient pattern that always emerges when there is an amnesty bill offered. Politics and emotional blackmail have a consistent tendency of rearing their heads. Rosa's situation is a sad one, but is rewarding criminal activity the remedy to the problem?
*All emphasis mine
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
The account of a citizen at the front lines of the immigration (non) debate
My friend, Tish, sent me this account of what happened when she and three of her friends who have been on the front lines in the immigration (non) debate called on their Senators prior to the cloture vote. She was afraid she'd "bore" me. I was far from bored, in fact I found it fascinating to see what she and her friends went through that day.
I'll not make any comments. Readers can form their own opinions and I recognize that it is only one citizens account, the other side of the story was not sought. ~ Jacke M.
Tish wrote:
The four of us met outside Lugar’s and Bayh’s offices at around 9 a.m. Our plan was to go into each Senator’s office and register our opposition to SB 1639, the Grand Amnesty, and to formally request that each Senator vote against cloture on that bill later that morning.
I expected to have the same experiences I’ve had in the past: a staffer takes notes of our points, our suggestions, and our requests, followed by a shaking of hands all around and a quick exit from the office; nothing but a semi-friendly exchange of time and pleasantries for all. That is not what happened at all.
The meeting in Lugar’s office, which was conducted with two Lugar staffers, Lane Ralph, Deputy State Director, and Bob Healey, Staff Assistant, started out with Cheree giving points of why we were against the bill. They listened politely – at first.
When I suggested that it was “sheer lunacy” (my words exactly) for our Senators to even be debating amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegals and doubling legal immigration at a time when our system couldn’t even keep up with our current immigration, Lane Ralph said that was my “philosophy” and dismissed me with a wave of his hand. He said, none too friendly, he wasn’t here to discuss philosophical issues. I said it was “reality,” not merely my philosophy and that the people of Indiana agreed with me. I said 90% of the people in Indiana are against amnesty and want our borders secured. He yelled – yelled – “80% of the people in Indiana want change!” He shook his head in a cocky sort of way as he said it. I came back with, “EXACTLY! Giving amnesty is what has always been done. It’s maintaining the status quo.” His intellectual response was, “No it isn’t.” “Sure it is!” I said. He then leaned toward me (he was sitting directly to my right) and condescendingly “explained” what status quo meant, as if to suggest I was too stupid to understand the term. He said it very slowly, as if he was speaking to a mentally impaired person, “Status quo means ‘no change’.” “Yes,” I said, “this will be the 8th amnesty in 20 years. The change people want is for current laws to be enforced.” How the idiot could even suggest with a straight face that giving amnesty is not the same ol’, same ol’ is beyond me!
At this point, rather than discussing something substantive, or doing his job which was to take notes so he could give our message to the Senator, he was more comfortable with insulting me yet again, as if pretending my comments were nothing more than the “philosophical” rantings of an ignorant, mentally impaired woman weren’t enough of an insult. He said, “That is an emotional issue! This shouldn’t be an emotional issue!” I said, “Excuse me, but it is an emotional issue for many and,” kind of laughingly, I said, “I’m not a robot; if you rouse my emotions, you’re gonna see them.” He said, “Well, perhaps you’d be better off discussing this some other place then.” Cheree said, “Oh? Where should we be discussing this issue?” He responded, “Emotional counseling.” I looked at Cheree with a “WTF?!” look on my face because I could not believe what I was hearing. The cat had my tongue! I was so shocked that I couldn’t respond.
Helen spoke at length about various things and the entire time she spoke, he would shout over her, as though he was trying to “out” her as ignorant or something. He would aggressively shout over her, throw out demanding questions as if trying to get her to reveal that she didn’t really know what she was talking about. I watched him as he did this, half thinking of striking him, and I noticed his hands were shaking as he yelled. I started wondering if he was, perhaps, a bit unstable because of the amount of outpouring from the public over this issue. Poor staffer, made to deal with the unruly, uneducated, unwashed pestilence called the “American people.” As the meeting progressed, he made it abundantly clear that was HIS philosophy!
When Cheree made the comment about the unusual process the Senate was taking in their attempts to shove amnesty down our throats, Lane Ralph practically jumped out of his chair and, condescendingly, shouted, “You’re wrong! That’s the system. That’s the way the system works! Republicans do it to Democrats when they’re in charge and Democrats do it to Republicans when they’re in charge! That’s our system and it happens all the time!” From all of us came the question, “Senators vote on laws they don’t read all the time?!” He continued yelling “No, they don’t read every word of every bill, but someone does! Senators read summaries of the bills.” He then went into a missive about how our government works. How amendments are made to make bills better or fix them when they’re bad, etc. Cheree said that Senators weren’t being allowed to offer amendments, that they were cherry picked by a select few. Again, he yelled “That’s how it works!”
At this point, Cheree, being every bit as upset as I was, grabbed the picture of her son and said that if that was the system, it was WRONG. She held up the picture. For a moment, I thought she was going to start crying. Bless her heart, she let them have it! “This is my son. He has served and bled for this country, and he’s still being treated at Walter Reed for injuries received in Iraq. He has to fight to get anything from the government. He was just turned down by our government for vocational rehabilitation. His chosen career was law enforcement, but now he’s blind in one eye because of his service to the country. The government is denying him help, but is trying to give rights to people who have broken our laws! Don’t you tell me what’s going on is “right”!" She slid the picture across the table and she was angry as hell. The only one who bothered to pick up Troy’s picture was Bob Healey. He asked a few questions about him, like how old he was, and laid the picture down. If my memory serves me correctly, Lane Ralph never glanced at the picture. He wasn’t there for anything but a fight, it seemed. I know I most likely have Cheree’s comments botched, but that was the gist of them. I felt like standing up and applauding when she was done!
I think it was at this time that Tina said that Senator Lugar should listen to and respect the wishes of his constituents. Lane Ralph began yelling something at her again, something about “hundreds of years ago when this government was formed, Senators were sent to do what they felt was best for their constituents.” I smarted off, “Oh oh, that’s a philosophical issue,” but he apparently didn’t hear me because he kept ranting. I interrupted and said things aren’t like they were 100 years ago and that Senators have the ability to learn how their constituents feel. I said a law should be introduced where issues have to be put before the people of the states and that Senators should be forced to vote according to the majority of their constituents. He whipped his head around to look at me, and demanded, “Oh! Like the 55 mph laws?!” Not sure what he was trying to get at, I said yes, maybe “sure”, I don’t really remember. He snorted, like he had “caught” me being stupid or something and yelled, “Oh yeah! People really follow THAT law, don’t they?” and turned away. Again I looked at Cheree and said quietly, “I’m ready to go. This isn’t getting anywhere.”
I didn’t get up to leave because I didn’t want to be rude or leave my group. I can’t remember much of what was said after that, except those times I smartassishly piped in, “And yet ANOTHER philosophical issue!” or “Oh, that’s your philosophy.” I remember I said that when he felt it necessary to give us uneducated four a history lesson in government and immigration, particularly at those points when he said everyone who had ever come to America was an “illegal,” that “we are all immigrants,” and that we didn’t know who the indigenous peoples of this land were, that it might even be the Hispanics who are coming here illegally. The man wasn’t there to discuss philosophies – except his own.
The point was made again that the Senator wasn’t listening to Hoosiers on this issue, as evidenced by his votes, and he blew his lid. He was glaring at Tina, I believe, and shouting, “Don’t we take your names, addresses and numbers when you contact us?! We don’t do it because WE want to, we do it BECAUSE THE SENATOR REQUESTS THAT INFORMATION!!! The Senator gets a list every day of those who contact us and why they contacted us!!!!” He was slamming the tip of his finger on the notepad in front of him as he yelled.
I finally had enough of his shouting, arguing, condescension and outright contempt towards us. I said, “That’s it!” and jumped up to leave. I knocked the chair over backwards. I said, “Sorry about the chair,” none too friendly, as I picked it up. I think I told Cheree I was going to the restroom, I don’t really remember. I just had to get away from that condescending, shouting maniac before I did something to land myself in jail. I stormed out, closing the door without taking any precautions to make sure it shut quietly. I found the restroom and my husband called seconds after I walked in it. As soon as I heard his voice, I started bawling. I hate getting that angry. And then when it makes me cry, which it always does, I get even angrier for not being strong enough not to cry. I hollered, vented really, in hubby’s ears for a couple of minutes and started working on calming down. I washed my hands, wiped the tears away, and left the restroom to walk around and compose myself. Once that was done, I headed back up to Lugar’s office. I walked in and went straight to the conference room. When I walked through the door, the shouting maniac, Lane Ralph, was standing there as the meeting was coming to an end. He said, “Oh, hey, I’m sorry.” It didn’t seem genuine in the least. I responded through clenched lips which had begun quivering again, threatening tears because I was so angry, “I didn’t come here for a civics lesson. I didn’t come here for a history lesson and I didn’t come here for condescension.” He turned around and walked away. I turned and shook Bob Healey’s hand and said, as Lane Ralph stood on the far side of the conference table, “It was a pleasure meeting YOU,” and thanked him for his time. The next time I looked over, I saw Lane Ralph leaving the conference room through a back door. Good. Prick.
The whole experience was a negative, infuriating one. It left me drained and shaking. I’m shaking now, just typing this brief and remembering.
While Mr. Healey was much more friendly and affable than Lane Ralph, he still approached us from the perspective that we were really just too stupid to understand how things really work. He went through a rather lengthy explanation of how the contacts to the Senator’s office are logged and sent to the Senator at one point in the discussion. What they refuse to understand is that no one cares HOW it’s done! If the Senator is going to ignore what the large majority of his constituents want anyway, it makes no difference HOW it’s done or even IF it is done!
None of us deserved the treatment Mr. Ralph unleashed on us that day. We did not go to our Senator’s office to argue, to receive a history lesson, a civics lesson, or to be dismissed as irrelevant and ignorant. Thanks to Lane Ralph, that is precisely what happened.
It was quite clear that these staffers were more interested in telling us HOW to think and intimidating us into adopting their stance rather than listening to anything we had to say. And when we said things they didn’t like or with which they disagreed, the tactic of the day was to shout us down and insult us.
When we left the office, we met outside to kind of gather ourselves and calm down before going to Bayh's office. We couldn’t believe what had just happened. I went to put some change in the parking meter because I had only filled up 40 minutes’ worth at around 9 a.m. The meter showed that my time ran out 59 minutes before. We had been in there for approximately an hour and a half.
I don’t know if Lane Ralph was merely at his breaking point because of the stress of his duties and the pressure from the public or not. I’m inclined to think his treatment of us is merely an extension of his boss’ view towards us, “Those pesky Americans! Why can’t they sit down, shut up and leave us smart people alone so we can do our job?!” They don’t realize that WE are their employers. I hope Hoosiers join me in reminding them at every opportunity that they WORK FOR US and WE PAY THEM. We aren’t their “subjects,” though it’s very clear that is how they would prefer it to be.
I'll not make any comments. Readers can form their own opinions and I recognize that it is only one citizens account, the other side of the story was not sought. ~ Jacke M.
Tish wrote:
The four of us met outside Lugar’s and Bayh’s offices at around 9 a.m. Our plan was to go into each Senator’s office and register our opposition to SB 1639, the Grand Amnesty, and to formally request that each Senator vote against cloture on that bill later that morning.
I expected to have the same experiences I’ve had in the past: a staffer takes notes of our points, our suggestions, and our requests, followed by a shaking of hands all around and a quick exit from the office; nothing but a semi-friendly exchange of time and pleasantries for all. That is not what happened at all.
The meeting in Lugar’s office, which was conducted with two Lugar staffers, Lane Ralph, Deputy State Director, and Bob Healey, Staff Assistant, started out with Cheree giving points of why we were against the bill. They listened politely – at first.
When I suggested that it was “sheer lunacy” (my words exactly) for our Senators to even be debating amnesty for 12 to 20 million illegals and doubling legal immigration at a time when our system couldn’t even keep up with our current immigration, Lane Ralph said that was my “philosophy” and dismissed me with a wave of his hand. He said, none too friendly, he wasn’t here to discuss philosophical issues. I said it was “reality,” not merely my philosophy and that the people of Indiana agreed with me. I said 90% of the people in Indiana are against amnesty and want our borders secured. He yelled – yelled – “80% of the people in Indiana want change!” He shook his head in a cocky sort of way as he said it. I came back with, “EXACTLY! Giving amnesty is what has always been done. It’s maintaining the status quo.” His intellectual response was, “No it isn’t.” “Sure it is!” I said. He then leaned toward me (he was sitting directly to my right) and condescendingly “explained” what status quo meant, as if to suggest I was too stupid to understand the term. He said it very slowly, as if he was speaking to a mentally impaired person, “Status quo means ‘no change’.” “Yes,” I said, “this will be the 8th amnesty in 20 years. The change people want is for current laws to be enforced.” How the idiot could even suggest with a straight face that giving amnesty is not the same ol’, same ol’ is beyond me!
At this point, rather than discussing something substantive, or doing his job which was to take notes so he could give our message to the Senator, he was more comfortable with insulting me yet again, as if pretending my comments were nothing more than the “philosophical” rantings of an ignorant, mentally impaired woman weren’t enough of an insult. He said, “That is an emotional issue! This shouldn’t be an emotional issue!” I said, “Excuse me, but it is an emotional issue for many and,” kind of laughingly, I said, “I’m not a robot; if you rouse my emotions, you’re gonna see them.” He said, “Well, perhaps you’d be better off discussing this some other place then.” Cheree said, “Oh? Where should we be discussing this issue?” He responded, “Emotional counseling.” I looked at Cheree with a “WTF?!” look on my face because I could not believe what I was hearing. The cat had my tongue! I was so shocked that I couldn’t respond.
Helen spoke at length about various things and the entire time she spoke, he would shout over her, as though he was trying to “out” her as ignorant or something. He would aggressively shout over her, throw out demanding questions as if trying to get her to reveal that she didn’t really know what she was talking about. I watched him as he did this, half thinking of striking him, and I noticed his hands were shaking as he yelled. I started wondering if he was, perhaps, a bit unstable because of the amount of outpouring from the public over this issue. Poor staffer, made to deal with the unruly, uneducated, unwashed pestilence called the “American people.” As the meeting progressed, he made it abundantly clear that was HIS philosophy!
When Cheree made the comment about the unusual process the Senate was taking in their attempts to shove amnesty down our throats, Lane Ralph practically jumped out of his chair and, condescendingly, shouted, “You’re wrong! That’s the system. That’s the way the system works! Republicans do it to Democrats when they’re in charge and Democrats do it to Republicans when they’re in charge! That’s our system and it happens all the time!” From all of us came the question, “Senators vote on laws they don’t read all the time?!” He continued yelling “No, they don’t read every word of every bill, but someone does! Senators read summaries of the bills.” He then went into a missive about how our government works. How amendments are made to make bills better or fix them when they’re bad, etc. Cheree said that Senators weren’t being allowed to offer amendments, that they were cherry picked by a select few. Again, he yelled “That’s how it works!”
At this point, Cheree, being every bit as upset as I was, grabbed the picture of her son and said that if that was the system, it was WRONG. She held up the picture. For a moment, I thought she was going to start crying. Bless her heart, she let them have it! “This is my son. He has served and bled for this country, and he’s still being treated at Walter Reed for injuries received in Iraq. He has to fight to get anything from the government. He was just turned down by our government for vocational rehabilitation. His chosen career was law enforcement, but now he’s blind in one eye because of his service to the country. The government is denying him help, but is trying to give rights to people who have broken our laws! Don’t you tell me what’s going on is “right”!" She slid the picture across the table and she was angry as hell. The only one who bothered to pick up Troy’s picture was Bob Healey. He asked a few questions about him, like how old he was, and laid the picture down. If my memory serves me correctly, Lane Ralph never glanced at the picture. He wasn’t there for anything but a fight, it seemed. I know I most likely have Cheree’s comments botched, but that was the gist of them. I felt like standing up and applauding when she was done!
I think it was at this time that Tina said that Senator Lugar should listen to and respect the wishes of his constituents. Lane Ralph began yelling something at her again, something about “hundreds of years ago when this government was formed, Senators were sent to do what they felt was best for their constituents.” I smarted off, “Oh oh, that’s a philosophical issue,” but he apparently didn’t hear me because he kept ranting. I interrupted and said things aren’t like they were 100 years ago and that Senators have the ability to learn how their constituents feel. I said a law should be introduced where issues have to be put before the people of the states and that Senators should be forced to vote according to the majority of their constituents. He whipped his head around to look at me, and demanded, “Oh! Like the 55 mph laws?!” Not sure what he was trying to get at, I said yes, maybe “sure”, I don’t really remember. He snorted, like he had “caught” me being stupid or something and yelled, “Oh yeah! People really follow THAT law, don’t they?” and turned away. Again I looked at Cheree and said quietly, “I’m ready to go. This isn’t getting anywhere.”
I didn’t get up to leave because I didn’t want to be rude or leave my group. I can’t remember much of what was said after that, except those times I smartassishly piped in, “And yet ANOTHER philosophical issue!” or “Oh, that’s your philosophy.” I remember I said that when he felt it necessary to give us uneducated four a history lesson in government and immigration, particularly at those points when he said everyone who had ever come to America was an “illegal,” that “we are all immigrants,” and that we didn’t know who the indigenous peoples of this land were, that it might even be the Hispanics who are coming here illegally. The man wasn’t there to discuss philosophies – except his own.
The point was made again that the Senator wasn’t listening to Hoosiers on this issue, as evidenced by his votes, and he blew his lid. He was glaring at Tina, I believe, and shouting, “Don’t we take your names, addresses and numbers when you contact us?! We don’t do it because WE want to, we do it BECAUSE THE SENATOR REQUESTS THAT INFORMATION!!! The Senator gets a list every day of those who contact us and why they contacted us!!!!” He was slamming the tip of his finger on the notepad in front of him as he yelled.
I finally had enough of his shouting, arguing, condescension and outright contempt towards us. I said, “That’s it!” and jumped up to leave. I knocked the chair over backwards. I said, “Sorry about the chair,” none too friendly, as I picked it up. I think I told Cheree I was going to the restroom, I don’t really remember. I just had to get away from that condescending, shouting maniac before I did something to land myself in jail. I stormed out, closing the door without taking any precautions to make sure it shut quietly. I found the restroom and my husband called seconds after I walked in it. As soon as I heard his voice, I started bawling. I hate getting that angry. And then when it makes me cry, which it always does, I get even angrier for not being strong enough not to cry. I hollered, vented really, in hubby’s ears for a couple of minutes and started working on calming down. I washed my hands, wiped the tears away, and left the restroom to walk around and compose myself. Once that was done, I headed back up to Lugar’s office. I walked in and went straight to the conference room. When I walked through the door, the shouting maniac, Lane Ralph, was standing there as the meeting was coming to an end. He said, “Oh, hey, I’m sorry.” It didn’t seem genuine in the least. I responded through clenched lips which had begun quivering again, threatening tears because I was so angry, “I didn’t come here for a civics lesson. I didn’t come here for a history lesson and I didn’t come here for condescension.” He turned around and walked away. I turned and shook Bob Healey’s hand and said, as Lane Ralph stood on the far side of the conference table, “It was a pleasure meeting YOU,” and thanked him for his time. The next time I looked over, I saw Lane Ralph leaving the conference room through a back door. Good. Prick.
The whole experience was a negative, infuriating one. It left me drained and shaking. I’m shaking now, just typing this brief and remembering.
While Mr. Healey was much more friendly and affable than Lane Ralph, he still approached us from the perspective that we were really just too stupid to understand how things really work. He went through a rather lengthy explanation of how the contacts to the Senator’s office are logged and sent to the Senator at one point in the discussion. What they refuse to understand is that no one cares HOW it’s done! If the Senator is going to ignore what the large majority of his constituents want anyway, it makes no difference HOW it’s done or even IF it is done!
None of us deserved the treatment Mr. Ralph unleashed on us that day. We did not go to our Senator’s office to argue, to receive a history lesson, a civics lesson, or to be dismissed as irrelevant and ignorant. Thanks to Lane Ralph, that is precisely what happened.
It was quite clear that these staffers were more interested in telling us HOW to think and intimidating us into adopting their stance rather than listening to anything we had to say. And when we said things they didn’t like or with which they disagreed, the tactic of the day was to shout us down and insult us.
When we left the office, we met outside to kind of gather ourselves and calm down before going to Bayh's office. We couldn’t believe what had just happened. I went to put some change in the parking meter because I had only filled up 40 minutes’ worth at around 9 a.m. The meter showed that my time ran out 59 minutes before. We had been in there for approximately an hour and a half.
I don’t know if Lane Ralph was merely at his breaking point because of the stress of his duties and the pressure from the public or not. I’m inclined to think his treatment of us is merely an extension of his boss’ view towards us, “Those pesky Americans! Why can’t they sit down, shut up and leave us smart people alone so we can do our job?!” They don’t realize that WE are their employers. I hope Hoosiers join me in reminding them at every opportunity that they WORK FOR US and WE PAY THEM. We aren’t their “subjects,” though it’s very clear that is how they would prefer it to be.
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Something ventured, nothing gained: Status quo returns to Washington
In Congressional passion gives hope, Springfield News-Leader's Tony Messenger wrote:
I would argue that true change did occur on a key issue. I would argue that Republicans and Democrats did work together and they worked together all across the country. I would argue that the true hope that was discovered was that the people, as a whole, set aside partisan politics and reached across party aisles to effect the outcome of policy. I would argue that Tony, in his wish to see comprehensive immigration reform passed, failed to see what he wished come to full realization.
People stood up for America rather than political parties! People stood up for what they believed, and stood up passionately, and stood up because they did know what was in the bill, not because (as the News-Leader has implied in the past) they are ignorant, emotional, racist, bigoted, xenophobes! People knew better than the politicians in Washington what was good for the country and could not be denied their voice and when their voices were heard in such large numbers their "representatives" were forced to listen.
We could have a celebration in watching the system work as it should, in true representative fashion, but for the fact that in the end, after the dust has settled the proponents of immigration reform lost and the proponents of border security and law enforcement lost.
When we ask the questions, "What's next? Securing the border so that the American people will be more receptive to the idea of immigration reform in the future?"
We'd be logical to think that securing the border would be next, but that isn't going to happen. That isn't going to happen because just as the American people suspected all along, politicians were just trying to appease us and get us to shut up long enough to pass this legislation.
Nothing much was being done to enforce our immigration laws until the proponents wanted to pass this comprehesive immigration reform bill. Wasn't it convenient that, all of a sudden, when there was the hope of passing this legislation, that there were numerous ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country, that there was all this "tough" talk about securing our borders, that there was all this talk about pouring billions of dollars into homeland security coffers to take care of the illegal immigrant problem?
So, you'd think that if border security was so important in the lead up to the debate on comprehensive immigration reform that it would be that important today, right? Uh huh.
President Bush Disappointed by Congress's Failure to Act on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
Bush is ready to move on. No more talk about how important it is to secure our borders in the interest of national security.
On FOX News Sunday, July 1, Chris Wallace interviewed Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and I think this excerpt of that interview is telling:
We will see just how diligent you will remain, Secretary Chertoff, now that you aren't trying to convince the American people that securing the border is important to you in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
The sad thing is that even though the American people were heard loud and clear, nothing tangible will be done to secure our borders. Those who supported the comprehensive immigration reform will say it is the fault of those who opposed that legislation.
Those who opposed it because they wanted to see if the government could enforce the laws it already has on the books before considering another amnesty will be validated by the continued lack of effort on the part of our federal government to secure our borders and enforce those existing laws.
Our representatives will return to status quo.
Nothing substantial will be done to enforce our laws because the carrot that was being held out in the form of comprehensive immigration reform has been put back in the bushel basket and there's no longer any need to prove to the American people that the federal government takes it job to secure our borders seriously.
To those representatives:
Don't blame the opponents of the bill, do your job of securing our borders and then come back to us in a couple of years. The "ball's" still in your court and the "carrot" can be replaced but not unless you prove you are willing to do your job and do it consistently and do it long term.
Author's note: This post has been edited for content and the title changed.
"For true change to occur on the state and national level on key issues, it takes Republicans and Democrats working together, not simply using the various issues as great dividers that build one party up while leaving the other in the dust.
Frankly, my hope was that the debate over illegal immigration would lead to the sort of grand compromise that would stand as a testament to our ability to reach across party aisles and work together on complicated issues. That didn't happen, but the fact that the issue, and not the party, was the driving force in this debate is still worth a nugget of hope."
I would argue that true change did occur on a key issue. I would argue that Republicans and Democrats did work together and they worked together all across the country. I would argue that the true hope that was discovered was that the people, as a whole, set aside partisan politics and reached across party aisles to effect the outcome of policy. I would argue that Tony, in his wish to see comprehensive immigration reform passed, failed to see what he wished come to full realization.
People stood up for America rather than political parties! People stood up for what they believed, and stood up passionately, and stood up because they did know what was in the bill, not because (as the News-Leader has implied in the past) they are ignorant, emotional, racist, bigoted, xenophobes! People knew better than the politicians in Washington what was good for the country and could not be denied their voice and when their voices were heard in such large numbers their "representatives" were forced to listen.
We could have a celebration in watching the system work as it should, in true representative fashion, but for the fact that in the end, after the dust has settled the proponents of immigration reform lost and the proponents of border security and law enforcement lost.
When we ask the questions, "What's next? Securing the border so that the American people will be more receptive to the idea of immigration reform in the future?"
We'd be logical to think that securing the border would be next, but that isn't going to happen. That isn't going to happen because just as the American people suspected all along, politicians were just trying to appease us and get us to shut up long enough to pass this legislation.
Nothing much was being done to enforce our immigration laws until the proponents wanted to pass this comprehesive immigration reform bill. Wasn't it convenient that, all of a sudden, when there was the hope of passing this legislation, that there were numerous ICE raids of businesses employing illegal aliens across the country, that there was all this "tough" talk about securing our borders, that there was all this talk about pouring billions of dollars into homeland security coffers to take care of the illegal immigrant problem?
So, you'd think that if border security was so important in the lead up to the debate on comprehensive immigration reform that it would be that important today, right? Uh huh.
President Bush Disappointed by Congress's Failure to Act on Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
Congress really needs to prove to the American people that it can come together on hard issues. The Congress needs to work on comprehensive energy policy and good health care; make sure health care is affordable without inviting the federal government to run the health care system. We've got to work together to make sure we can balance this federal budget, and not overspend or raise taxes on the American people. We've got a lot of work to do.
When they come back from the summer -- from the July recess, before the summer break begins, we'll be focusing on the appropriations process. And I look forward to working with Congress to balance our budgets and to be wise about how we spend the people's money.
Bush is ready to move on. No more talk about how important it is to secure our borders in the interest of national security.
On FOX News Sunday, July 1, Chris Wallace interviewed Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff and I think this excerpt of that interview is telling:
WALLACE: Mr. Secretary, we have about a minute left. Clearly, what came out of this debate and the failure of immigration reform is that a lot of people in this country don't trust you, don't trust the government, to enforce the border.
So why not take the lesson from this failure and go for enforcement first, resubmit the president's agreement to spend $4.4 billion on new enforcement?
You say you don't have some tools when it comes to employer verification. Why not resubmit all of those and challenge the Democrats on enforcement first?CHERTOFF: Well, Chris, first of all, anybody who says we haven't been enforcing is woefully blind to the facts. We have done more in terms -- and unfortunately, it's been some painful stuff in terms of arrests, 700 criminal cases against employers, raids involving thousands of people, unfortunate pictures of crying children. ...
WALLACE: But, Mr. Secretary, we're running out of...
CHERTOFF:... whose mothers are being...
WALLACE:I don't mean to interrupt you. I mean, are you going to submit the $4.4 billion? Are you going to resubmit the tamper- proof card? Are you going to resubmit the employer verification or not?
CHERTOFF: I think we're going to say to the members of Congress who think they have a better way that they should produce legislation and pass legislation, which they have not done for the past two years.
They've tried enforcement only. That didn't pass. We've tried comprehensive. That stalled. I think it's now time for Congress, which has the power to legislate, to make a determination about how it wants to help us solve this problem.
WALLACE: But the government, the president, is not going to submit his own plan.
CHERTOFF: Well, we've submitted a budget. We submitted a comprehensive immigration plan. We agreed on $4.4 billion which was going to be secured by the payments made by the illegals so it would not bust the budget.
In the absence of that plan, I think now those who have a better way ought to come forward with that better way. We're still going to work on our part to enforce the border using the tools that we have. (emphasis mine)
We will see just how diligent you will remain, Secretary Chertoff, now that you aren't trying to convince the American people that securing the border is important to you in order to pass comprehensive immigration reform.
The sad thing is that even though the American people were heard loud and clear, nothing tangible will be done to secure our borders. Those who supported the comprehensive immigration reform will say it is the fault of those who opposed that legislation.
Those who opposed it because they wanted to see if the government could enforce the laws it already has on the books before considering another amnesty will be validated by the continued lack of effort on the part of our federal government to secure our borders and enforce those existing laws.
Our representatives will return to status quo.
Nothing substantial will be done to enforce our laws because the carrot that was being held out in the form of comprehensive immigration reform has been put back in the bushel basket and there's no longer any need to prove to the American people that the federal government takes it job to secure our borders seriously.
To those representatives:
Don't blame the opponents of the bill, do your job of securing our borders and then come back to us in a couple of years. The "ball's" still in your court and the "carrot" can be replaced but not unless you prove you are willing to do your job and do it consistently and do it long term.
Author's note: This post has been edited for content and the title changed.
Friday, June 29, 2007
The Waaaah Factor: Calderon on Senators' "Grave Error"
From the Houston Chronicle:
VDARE.com's Allan Wall did an exhaustive piece exploring the Immigration policy of Mexico in his "Memo From Mexico: Learning About Immigration Policy From Mexico"
Wall lives in Mexico legally but is an American citizen.
It's good to see that Mexico has not made any "grave errors" and has such a "sensible, rational solution," to how immigration should be handled (sarcasm, for those who don't recognize it).
"President Felipe Calderon of Mexico today blasted the U.S. Senate's rejection of the immigration bill, calling the senators' action "a grave error" that avoided a "sensible, rational and legal solution....""
VDARE.com's Allan Wall did an exhaustive piece exploring the Immigration policy of Mexico in his "Memo From Mexico: Learning About Immigration Policy From Mexico"
Wall lives in Mexico legally but is an American citizen.
It's good to see that Mexico has not made any "grave errors" and has such a "sensible, rational solution," to how immigration should be handled (sarcasm, for those who don't recognize it).
"Somebody's Gotta Say It...."
...and Boortz certainly did at Nealz Nuze this morning. :)
Read: MORE ON THE AMNESTY MESS and NOW PELOSI IS CHIMING IN.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw! ;)
Read: MORE ON THE AMNESTY MESS and NOW PELOSI IS CHIMING IN.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaw! ;)
Friday, June 01, 2007
More on Immigration Debate
Carried from another blog's comment section because the blog owner did not wish to have the "serious" discussion continue there.
I could have found Ron's email address based on information given me and sent this to him privately but there are some things that need to be said in the open about this issue.
Ron of CHATTER, you replied:
What I actually wrote:
I think it was obvious who I was talking about. I was very specific. I'll be more specific. If there's ever been an apology made by any News-Leader editorialist for implying that any person who might oppose the comprehensive immigration bill that is before the Senate, or any person who supported the Missouri English language law has no reason but ignorance and xenophobia for their opposition and support of same, respectively, then I have missed that apology.
Those were harsh words and they were delivered at ALL Missourians who support the Missouri English language law, see this if you need your memory refreshed.
According to this May 2, 2007 Rasmussen Report, 60% of Americans favor all government documents being printed in English and only 29% of Americans disagree with that. The same report says that only 36% of Americans prefer a Presidential candidate for 2008 who wants to expand legal opportunities to illegal aliens for the purpose of finding jobs. As far as those who oppose this comprehensive immigration reform Rasmussen found that those who favored an enforcement first policy also favored a generous policy for LEGAL immigration...sorta shooting in the foot those who claim that people who oppose the current comprehensive immigration reform bill are bigoted xenophobes.
The Rasmussen Report Poll is in sharp contrast to this New York Times poll, Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll - New York Times.
The immigration issue has been treated unfairly in the media. People who oppose this comprehensive immigration reform bill have been treated unfairly in the media. Certainly, there may be a few people who oppose the bill for less than optimal reasons but to present the entire group of supporters of the English language law in Missouri as bigoted xenophobes is over the top, in my opinion. Show me an indication that one of the News-Leader editorialists has had a few sleepless nights over making this unfounded and outrageous charge and I'll apologize, in fact, I'll apologize anyway, but I will apologize for taking part in a dialog that has such vitriol at its center. I'll apologize for being sucked in to such a terrible argument, for not ignoring such an ignorant charge and stooping to involve myself. I've always had a problem with keeping my mouth shut when I feel someone is being unjust.
And I'm not the only one who does this. Look at the recent exchange between Larry Litle of Simple Thoughts of a Complex Mind and Doc Larry of Lost Chord, some people on the left, including Doc Larry, took offense because they perceived that Larry Litle was accusing everyone on the left of celebrating Jerry Falwell's death. They wanted to defend themselves against the charge.
People, not just me don't like condemning generalizations and will defend themselves against them. I'm no different than anyone else and I don't think Larry Litle wrote anything particularly untoward, certainly not anywhere near as untoward as I have seen coming from Doc Larry in the past, but that's different? No, we know it isn't different, the only difference was that Larry Litle made an effort to clarify himself, the News-Leader's "Our Voice" editorialist hasn't, unless I missed it and you'd like to point it out to me?
I've not issued a sweeping generalization about journalists not being human and I think you know that. Let's make the argument about the argument just this once. Please.
An "Our Voice" editorialist once wrote about HB808, "We don't care..." whether you call it a voucher bill or a tax credit bill...well, I don't care whether you call the "Our Voice" piece that smeared every Missourian who supported the English language law as a bigoted xenophobe an "article," a "column" or an "editorial." It still smells.
I could have found Ron's email address based on information given me and sent this to him privately but there are some things that need to be said in the open about this issue.
Ron of CHATTER, you replied:
"You’re selling too many journalists short when you say you “get the feeling” they “never regret” what they’ve written. Journalists don’t stop being humans when they take jobs in the mainstream (or alternative) media."
What I actually wrote:
"I do apologize for being overly blunt at times at my blog, but even during those times when I think I might have been hard on, in this case Tony Messenger, I remember WHY I was overly hard on him. I simply don’t take blanket statements and generalizations about wide groups of people well and I see it all the time in his and the other editorialist’s columns in the News-Leader.
Why do I get the feeling that they (see immediately preceding paragraph) never regret making these blunt statements about others, never caring who they’ve hurt in the process while I am laying in bed unable to sleep at night because I’m afraid I was too hard on Tony or someone else?"
I think it was obvious who I was talking about. I was very specific. I'll be more specific. If there's ever been an apology made by any News-Leader editorialist for implying that any person who might oppose the comprehensive immigration bill that is before the Senate, or any person who supported the Missouri English language law has no reason but ignorance and xenophobia for their opposition and support of same, respectively, then I have missed that apology.
Those were harsh words and they were delivered at ALL Missourians who support the Missouri English language law, see this if you need your memory refreshed.
According to this May 2, 2007 Rasmussen Report, 60% of Americans favor all government documents being printed in English and only 29% of Americans disagree with that. The same report says that only 36% of Americans prefer a Presidential candidate for 2008 who wants to expand legal opportunities to illegal aliens for the purpose of finding jobs. As far as those who oppose this comprehensive immigration reform Rasmussen found that those who favored an enforcement first policy also favored a generous policy for LEGAL immigration...sorta shooting in the foot those who claim that people who oppose the current comprehensive immigration reform bill are bigoted xenophobes.
The Rasmussen Report Poll is in sharp contrast to this New York Times poll, Immigration Bill Provisions Gain Wide Support in Poll - New York Times.
The immigration issue has been treated unfairly in the media. People who oppose this comprehensive immigration reform bill have been treated unfairly in the media. Certainly, there may be a few people who oppose the bill for less than optimal reasons but to present the entire group of supporters of the English language law in Missouri as bigoted xenophobes is over the top, in my opinion. Show me an indication that one of the News-Leader editorialists has had a few sleepless nights over making this unfounded and outrageous charge and I'll apologize, in fact, I'll apologize anyway, but I will apologize for taking part in a dialog that has such vitriol at its center. I'll apologize for being sucked in to such a terrible argument, for not ignoring such an ignorant charge and stooping to involve myself. I've always had a problem with keeping my mouth shut when I feel someone is being unjust.
And I'm not the only one who does this. Look at the recent exchange between Larry Litle of Simple Thoughts of a Complex Mind and Doc Larry of Lost Chord, some people on the left, including Doc Larry, took offense because they perceived that Larry Litle was accusing everyone on the left of celebrating Jerry Falwell's death. They wanted to defend themselves against the charge.
People, not just me don't like condemning generalizations and will defend themselves against them. I'm no different than anyone else and I don't think Larry Litle wrote anything particularly untoward, certainly not anywhere near as untoward as I have seen coming from Doc Larry in the past, but that's different? No, we know it isn't different, the only difference was that Larry Litle made an effort to clarify himself, the News-Leader's "Our Voice" editorialist hasn't, unless I missed it and you'd like to point it out to me?
I've not issued a sweeping generalization about journalists not being human and I think you know that. Let's make the argument about the argument just this once. Please.
An "Our Voice" editorialist once wrote about HB808, "We don't care..." whether you call it a voucher bill or a tax credit bill...well, I don't care whether you call the "Our Voice" piece that smeared every Missourian who supported the English language law as a bigoted xenophobe an "article," a "column" or an "editorial." It still smells.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
The continuing immigration non-debate
I'm finished (for the time being) with trying to convince people that there are legitimate arguments that are made every single day for non-support of ILLEGAL immigration.
The latest attempt I made to discuss a legitimate argument related to immigration, legal and/or illegal, came in the form of sharing a legitimate reason why Missouri's language law might NOT be "nothing but talk," as the Springfield News-Leader presented it.
That attempt was a perfect example of what I wrote in this blog piece in summation of the intentions of the News-Leader, but it is much broader than just the News-Leader, this attitude applies to just about any non-discussion of the issue between just about any two debate opponents, I wrote:
"By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens."
For a further example of this in play read the exchanges in the comment section here.
No matter how I tried to stick to the general topic of non-English speaking legal immigrant voters, my opponent, "hillbilly," tried every way possible to insert Hispanics or, as he called them, "browns" into the discussion, as if it was my intention to single them out when that was never my intent.
In my own opinion the entire discussion on his part was an effort to somehow turn the conversation in such a way as to be able to call me a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe. By doing so he had the luxury of ignoring my legitimate argument supporting an English language law in Missouri. If he could manage to find a single reason to call me a racist, a bigot or a xenophobe then my credible argument would not stand, it would no longer be credible. So instead of taking the argument I made at face value and addressing it, he worked to discern a less than honorable motive for my support of such a bill (and failed).
The discussion was going nowhere and never would have gone anywhere. There can never be real discussion about the ILLEGAL immigration problem we face in the United States or in Missouri when the argument cannot even begin to be about the argument but, instead, always becomes about the motive of the debate's opponents.
Dr. Andrew Cline is continuing his discussion on "What a Quote Means" at The Rhetorica Network, for those interested in that aspect of the discussion. I plan to continue to read his entries, he's a good "source." ;)
UPDATE: For another example of how the immigration debate always turns to anyone who opposes the current comprehensive immigration reform bill is a bigot, read the comment section here.
The latest attempt I made to discuss a legitimate argument related to immigration, legal and/or illegal, came in the form of sharing a legitimate reason why Missouri's language law might NOT be "nothing but talk," as the Springfield News-Leader presented it.
That attempt was a perfect example of what I wrote in this blog piece in summation of the intentions of the News-Leader, but it is much broader than just the News-Leader, this attitude applies to just about any non-discussion of the issue between just about any two debate opponents, I wrote:
"By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens."
For a further example of this in play read the exchanges in the comment section here.
No matter how I tried to stick to the general topic of non-English speaking legal immigrant voters, my opponent, "hillbilly," tried every way possible to insert Hispanics or, as he called them, "browns" into the discussion, as if it was my intention to single them out when that was never my intent.
In my own opinion the entire discussion on his part was an effort to somehow turn the conversation in such a way as to be able to call me a racist, a bigot, a xenophobe. By doing so he had the luxury of ignoring my legitimate argument supporting an English language law in Missouri. If he could manage to find a single reason to call me a racist, a bigot or a xenophobe then my credible argument would not stand, it would no longer be credible. So instead of taking the argument I made at face value and addressing it, he worked to discern a less than honorable motive for my support of such a bill (and failed).
The discussion was going nowhere and never would have gone anywhere. There can never be real discussion about the ILLEGAL immigration problem we face in the United States or in Missouri when the argument cannot even begin to be about the argument but, instead, always becomes about the motive of the debate's opponents.
Dr. Andrew Cline is continuing his discussion on "What a Quote Means" at The Rhetorica Network, for those interested in that aspect of the discussion. I plan to continue to read his entries, he's a good "source." ;)
UPDATE: For another example of how the immigration debate always turns to anyone who opposes the current comprehensive immigration reform bill is a bigot, read the comment section here.
Monday, May 28, 2007
Dr. Cline replies to my previous entry
Because this is an important issue to me and I want to be fully understood in the position that I am taking regarding the Springfield News-Leader, I have decided to post Dr. Andrew Cline's comment to my previous entry: On Dr. Andrew Cline's "What a Quote Means," here as a primary entry rather than in the comment section, along with my response to him. Cline wrote:
Well, Dr. Cline, I don't know what your definition of "simplistic ideas of political bias" means (yet). I don't know that people are as "simplistic" in their opinions or their determinations about media bias as you may think they are. It has been my experience that oftentimes people have a better understanding of what is going on in our culture than they are given credit. At least I am hopeful that this is the case. I like to think, rather than being "simplistic," that not all people are able to accurately articulate their thoughts and are caught in traps set up by their political opposition because they are unable to state those thoughts well. When they inarticulately reply they are then set out for display by their opponents and are misrepresented by their later sensationalized words.
I have been watching the immigration debate for some time. There is no debate. What there is is an effort by those who are sympathetic to the cause of illegal aliens to paint anyone less sympathetic than they as a bigot, as a racist, as a xenophobe. There is an effort to shut debate down, not listen to debate, not consider the views of the other side.
The Springfield News-Leader has been using this tactic for some time. They threw chum into the water over the weekend and then this morning in their most recent Our Voice column they stated:
By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens.
The ILLEGAL immigration debate has nothing to do with race but no matter how many times those who disagree with the News-Leader repeat that it will never make a difference because the News-Leader's ears are closed. They are COMMITTED to continuing the erroneous charge that anyone who is concerned about our borders is a racist, bigoted xenophobe.
When the News-Leader becomes a sensational rag with no respect for its readers who have a differing viewpoint, when the News-Leader's "subtlety" is as subtle as a rhetorical nuclear bomb, one has to wonder if they are in the news biz to educate the public or to propagandize it.
Just look over the flavor of the online edition of the News-Leader over the last weeks. It CANNOT be missed. Unless you happen to be one of those people requiring a brick to the head.
I thank you for your reply. It isn't my intention to drag you into this discussion about the News-Leader but since I have been very disgusted over the last weeks with the News-Leader's coverage I naturally, couldn't help but consider your words from that viewpoint.
re: "criticized" all journalists as having an agenda
Yes, but not in the way usually meant by those stuck on simplistic ideas of political bias in the news media. The truth is more complex and far more interesting. And, in a very important way, it is far more harmful to journalism's purpose than the occasional instances of political bias (that break both ways). I left that last line--the one you quote--hanging there for a reason, which I hope will become clear as I continue discussing quotes.
Well, Dr. Cline, I don't know what your definition of "simplistic ideas of political bias" means (yet). I don't know that people are as "simplistic" in their opinions or their determinations about media bias as you may think they are. It has been my experience that oftentimes people have a better understanding of what is going on in our culture than they are given credit. At least I am hopeful that this is the case. I like to think, rather than being "simplistic," that not all people are able to accurately articulate their thoughts and are caught in traps set up by their political opposition because they are unable to state those thoughts well. When they inarticulately reply they are then set out for display by their opponents and are misrepresented by their later sensationalized words.
I have been watching the immigration debate for some time. There is no debate. What there is is an effort by those who are sympathetic to the cause of illegal aliens to paint anyone less sympathetic than they as a bigot, as a racist, as a xenophobe. There is an effort to shut debate down, not listen to debate, not consider the views of the other side.
The Springfield News-Leader has been using this tactic for some time. They threw chum into the water over the weekend and then this morning in their most recent Our Voice column they stated:
"It allows us (Missourians, but they have already identified Republicans as the ones who support this bill) to say that we're so afraid of immigrants of a different color, and we're so ignorant of existing state law and how the state conducts its business, that we'll make an unnecessary change to our constitution because it makes us feel better."
By summing up Republicans or those who support an English language law in such a way (as IGNORANT XENOPHOBES), by polarizing people in such a fashion they do not seek debate, they do not seek to truly represent the two sides of the ILLEGAL immigration argument, they do not seek balance or diversity of thought, what they seek are vitriolic and angry responses which they can then use against those who supported the English language laws and would like to see our borders enforced against illegal aliens.
The ILLEGAL immigration debate has nothing to do with race but no matter how many times those who disagree with the News-Leader repeat that it will never make a difference because the News-Leader's ears are closed. They are COMMITTED to continuing the erroneous charge that anyone who is concerned about our borders is a racist, bigoted xenophobe.
When the News-Leader becomes a sensational rag with no respect for its readers who have a differing viewpoint, when the News-Leader's "subtlety" is as subtle as a rhetorical nuclear bomb, one has to wonder if they are in the news biz to educate the public or to propagandize it.
Just look over the flavor of the online edition of the News-Leader over the last weeks. It CANNOT be missed. Unless you happen to be one of those people requiring a brick to the head.
I thank you for your reply. It isn't my intention to drag you into this discussion about the News-Leader but since I have been very disgusted over the last weeks with the News-Leader's coverage I naturally, couldn't help but consider your words from that viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
