Record Border Body Count
The failure to enact sensible, pragmatic immigration reform, just like the war in Iraq, also racks it up its ongoing death toll. And once again, thanks to the Clinton-Bush border policy of funneling migrants through the most brutal terrain we're on our way once again to setting a new record for those who died while trying to cross the Sonoran desert.
The 199th body of this season was just recovered on the Arizona-Sonora border. 205 deaths were recorded in that sector last year -- a number that will now surely be surpassed.
Of course you will remember, or maybe you won't, that the administration's surge of border patrol agents, national guard and virtual and physical fences were supposed to reduce the number of crossings, apprehensions and, yes, deaths.
Right.
Save your arguments about how if these reckless Mexicans would stop trying to butt in and calmly get into the invisible and mythical "line" that pols of both parties yammer on about, these fatalities could have been avoided.
Could have said the same thing to my grandparents as well I suppose -- warning them of the pestilence, disease and death that haunted those making the Atlantic crossing in steerage built for animals. But it wouldn't and didn't persuade them from fleeing Czarist Russia in search of a better life. Just the way it won't deter millions of Mexicans embarked on an exodus to some sort of future-- regardless of cost or risk.
When my grandfather couldn't get through Ellis Island because of health reasons he went to Canada instead. And then six months later, gasp, he illegally crossed into the U.S. with his wife and three young sons -- Yiddisher Wetbacks.
Almost two decades later, he and the rest of his family -- including my then teenage father-- were legalized thanks to an -- OMIGOD-- amnesty(!)Â declared by the FDR administration. We have been a great burden on the American economy and the native culture ever since.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
One exception doesn’t prove a rule, and the Cooper family isn’t exactly representative of the Mexican invasion. But, it makes a nice irrelevant story.
Since illegal immigrants are going to come here anyway, let’s build a water-ride to bring them safely across the border and desert land. It makes as much sense as blaming our government for their deaths.
August 14th, 2007 at 2:56 pm
>>>We have been a great burden on the American economy and the native culture ever since.
It’s true. Remember, you’re the “worst journalist in California”
You’re not welcome here, go back to your country!
August 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Woody
With all due respect, people like you were reading Henry Ford and warning about dirty Jews like my family (who similarly couldn’t get into the States but stayed in Canada and ran booze….) – and Marc’s. Nativism is nativism, against the Irish, the Jews – its no different than it is now against Mexicans.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
BTW, Woody, as a foreigner in Chile I get a lot of flak when I criticize local flaws, and a common response is “go back to your country” which is totally ridiculous, but I’ve always assumed that this is a reflection of an uneducated populace. Chilean schools are notoriously bad (read up on massive student protests last year) and there’s less diversity so casual jingoism is understandable. I think back to the US where laws and education work better, and there’s more diversity, and PC language is much more common, and I’ve been mistaken in thinking that US citizens are generally more respectful of foreigners. I’ve been rethinking that a lot lately, and you’re helping. Yes, “casual racism” isn’t as common in the US like it is here (Chileans shit-talking those “dirty” Peruvian immigrants invading the northern border). But at the same time I’m realizing that racism IS casual in the US, it’s just dressed up in political terms, because that’s acceptable public discourse brought to you by shock jocks, Fox News, fear-mongering conservative politicians, et al. It’s good that you continue to express your views, you’re doing your part to destroy the notion that US culture is more advanced than an insular third world nation, so keep it up.
Oh yeah, I just took a quick look at your blog, really only at the banner that says, “I stand with Israel”. Interesting stance for someone so anti-immigration as yourself…
August 14th, 2007 at 3:42 pm
jcummings and Chileno, both of you are wayyyyy off base.
People like me have always supported Jewish people and my brother-in-law is one. What you said would be a surprise to him. My church was started in a temple, where we were allowed to use the building for our new church on Sunday for services. I think that you can drop that misconception.
I’m respectful of foreigners but not deliberate law breakers. To imply that someone is racist because they respect the rule of law is grasping at straws. A lot of people would back up and say, “Oh, it’s okay. I’m not a racist, so do what you want. Please don’t call me names.” Not me. Calling me names doesn’t make me what you say or scare me off.
I would say that we are more advanced because I can express my views and because we do have a freedom of speech–PC speech not withstanding.
I have yet to hear any rational argument for our law enforcement officials to ignore their duties to enforce the laws. If you don’t agree with laws, try to change them. Breaking them using mob rule is anarchy and not acceptable.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
“People like me have always supported Jewish people”
Oy. We all know that southern conservatives- and you know I’m not a South-basher in general – have a tradition of Anti-Semitism, as do most white people. To reify Jews as people “you support” maybe you support Israel – which many Southern conservertive, but you don’t “support” Jews more than I “support” gentiles – don’t objectify people, positively or negatively. Jews were illegals. Most Jews were in teh same situation as Mexicans now. Same with Irish, same with Italians, etc.
I’m not saying opposition to immigration per se is racist, though an argument can be madei n that direction. I am however saying that whether its talking about a Mexican invasion or a Jewish invasion, bigotry is bigotry. If you want to talk about how you prefer some minorities to others, go ahead. At least you’ll be acknowledging your bigotry.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
To reitterate – you can make your arguments about the laws and lack of enforcement fairly, without stooping to bigotry. But you’d have been making these same arguments in the 1890s-1930s, and a lot more Jews would be dead.
August 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
>>>I have yet to hear any rational argument for our law enforcement officials to ignore their duties to enforce the laws.
That’s irrational. Saying “enforce a law because it’s a law” is a logical fallacy called Begging the Question. You learn that in High School, dude. And furthermore, the whole point of debating this is to try to change the law. You speak of mob rule and Mexican invasion, I’ll back up jcummings: when I visited the war memorial museum in Tel Aviv, the extremely Zionist exhibition makes it clear that the boatloads of Jews escaping the holocaust and going to Israel were technically illegal at the time.
If you want to talk about rationality, clean up your act. Yes, the Jews are a minority, but they are a WHITE minority. The Mexicans are a BROWN minority. Until YOU can rationally explain the difference between boatloads of Jews fleeing the holocaust, and droves of Mexicans fleeing poverty, then, following your own logic, what on earth is one left to conclude other than that you are favoring one minority over another?
And PLEASE be rational, don’t say “the holocaust was worse than the Mexican economy.” That’s another logical fallacy called “it could be worse”. The fact that hundreds of Mexicans are dying in the desert, escaping an economy in which over half the population makes less than $5/day, means it’s bad enough. They’re not “crazy mexican victims of reefer madness – they’re normal people forced into desperation.”
>>>I would say that we are more advanced because I can express my views and because we do have a freedom of speech–PC speech not withstanding.
There is free speech in Chile and many third world countries as well. There is also rampant ignorance. The same can be said for the US.
>>>Calling me names doesn’t make me what you say or scare me off.
Good. Like I said, the more go on, the more you typify institutionalized racism that is totally casual in the US. I hope more people become aware of this, and I commend you for doing your small part.
After all, the US is a country where a Mexican produce worker in an LA Whole Foods can be told that he’s illegal by a rich white xenophobe. They can’t call him “brown” or “dirty”, but they can call him “illegal” because a public policy confused by racist shock jocks won’t grant amnesty to a work force vital to the N. American economy.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
And the reason that Israel exists was that America and Canada were keeping out Jews even as they claimed to be saving them from Nazis.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Chilleno
Jews were neither consdiered White nor considered themselves White until about 40 years ago Much has been writenon the construction of “white” identity for immigrant communities. Irish were not “white” either for a long time. All of these thigns are constructs- and Latinos are Black, Brown and White (but it is the latter two who come to the States.)
There are actually a lot of Brown Jews, Jewish Latinos and Sephardim. And in the racist society of Israel, the darker Jewish you are (Arab Jew, Sephardic Jew, Ethiopian Jew Non-Jewish Arab) the more you are discriminated against by the Polish/German elite, followed by the Russians upon whom the Poles and Germans look down upon. This is not unlike Haiti, where the palest – even Cauccasian looking, Blacks are teh elite.
August 14th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
After all, the US is a country where a Mexican produce worker in an LA Whole Foods can be told that he’s illegal by a rich white xenophobe. They can’t call him “brown†or “dirtyâ€, but they can call him “illegal†because a public policy confused by racist shock jocks won’t grant amnesty to a work force vital to the N. American economy.
Whoa! Exquisitely articulated. Hope you don’t mind Chilleno, I’m gonna quote you. Attribution assured.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
We all know that southern conservatives- and you know I’m not a South-basher in general – have a tradition of Anti-Semitism
The reason why my last name is Paul and not Polsky, my father’s last name at birth, is because he was advised that if he didn’t change it in the small town in southern Georgia, people would not do business with a Jew. Given that this was less than twenty years after the lynching of Leo Frank he thought better of it and changed his name.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
I’m Cummings because my great grandfather thought Kamenetsky would be hard for his quebecois colleagues to pronounce.
August 14th, 2007 at 6:45 pm
I’m a LoCicero because we didn’t change names at Ellis Island. But then, back East they know how to pronounce it. More than I could say for California where everyone thinks its Latino.
(Well, I guess in a way it is)
August 14th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
>>>This is not unlike Haiti, where the palest – even Cauccasian looking, Blacks are teh elite
And the palest minority get Woody’s irrational bias. I’m referring to the Ashkenaz Jews escaping Europe, referenced in the museum exhibit I saw. But I should give Woody the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps when he thinks of “Israel”, he’s thinking of the dark black Ethiopian Jews who immigrated legally.
Meanwhile, the Europeans who immigrated illegally with the Holocaust nipping at their heels are a troubling question in the back of his mind which he hasn’t worked out yet, because if he were to support that, he would have absolutely no moral foundation on which to
condemn the “invasion” of Mexican immigrants.
I’m dying to know, Woody, what is your logic???
August 14th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
As an African-American I would have to dispute your generalization about the black elite and we are far from Hati.
Also with the immigrant thing again, as a black person, my descendants were never immigrants. Does that mean I have no say?
A great concern in other non white communities is the competition for resources and increasing violence especially on the gang side between Latinos and blacks. You can look at the Federal Civil Rights case in Highland Park and the recent shootings of the college students in Newark to reasonably understand why some may not be for amnesty without having to be some throw back racist.
How do we balance the needs of underserved native communities with those who seek anmesty? These are legitamate questions that always get glossed over by liberals and conservatives alike with no answers. How can you expect the public to get behind immigration reform when they do not see the benefits for themselves or families. No I don’t shop at Whole Foods as does the majority of Americans. because I can’t afford it.
August 14th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
I meant the Black elite in Haiti has been breeding among light-skin-light skin mixes over hundreds of years. This isn’t entirely the truth so I plead guilty to generalizing, but my own experience knowing Haitian elites, even elites from other African and Carribean countries – shows what I’m talking about…I am not trying to stererotype – , but a large part of post-colonial societies depend on mimicing white society, even in terms of skin color – lightening or straightening/dying hair – even in Asian countries, getting perms – or Jews, Arabs, Armenians and other semites getting nose jobs, etc.
It is uncontroversial to point this out. Speaking as a Jew, I know that the old Jewish bourgeois social clubs in Canada were specifically mimicing Anglofile culture, with British style get ups and names like Smith and Cummings and first names like William and Jack and Robert – somewhat like the tradition of Carribean folk from former British coloinies – like my girlfriedn – with names like Winifred and Gerald and some such.
In terms of being against amnesty – of course you can be against amnesty and not be a racist. But the implicationso f said position would be very scary at other points in human history. As well, Woody does use racist language.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
This reminds me a lot of one of the finest books I’ve read, Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson – everyone check it out.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
>>>How do we balance the needs of underserved native communities with those who seek anmesty?
The law in question is legal immigration. It’s not about laws that should protect people’s personal safety, I think those laws and their enforcement are a theme regardless of whether the accused is in the country legally.
Not granting amnesty in order to root out a tiny percentage of Mexican nationals who are committing violent crimes (if immigration could do what normal police don’t) seems unfair to the vast majority who don’t commit violent crimes, but are here illegally, escaping the poverty (and, quite possibly, violent crime) of the communities they left behind in Mexico.
(Am I understanding your argument right?)
>>>I don’t shop at Whole Foods as does the majority of Americans. because I can’t afford it.
The Foods I reference is one that movie stars freWhole quent regularly, it’s no Food4Less
The Mexican who works in produce gets a 20% discount, he might be able to afford some items earning $10/hr.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
This debate sickens me. Everytime there is a downturn in the economy… blame the Mexicans. I’m 36 years old and I’ve personally witnessed it about 4 times in my life. It’s like clock work.
Think about this. When you have these not so subtle conversations regarding Mexicans, what message are you sending to those American citizens of Mexican descent? The game is so much more complex than most realize. All the xenophobic venom does is to disintegrate the republic.
The United States has only preemptively attacked twice during it’s short history. Mexico and Iraq. Your reap what you sew bitches.
August 14th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
Sorry, you reference the Newark murders which looks like they were done, in part, by a Peruvian. I haven’t really followed that story but it seems the other two are too young to have their identities released or something. Anyway, it’s an important issue you raise about unsafe communities, and it’s something I know nothing about. It just seems that violent communities aren’t going to be made safer by the INS raiding workplaces. Was the Peruvian murderer working? Will he receive less punishment now, because amnesty has not been granted to illegal immigrants?
August 14th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
Well, I had better things to do tonight than argue. I just go back from the ballpark after watching the Braves beat the Giants with a walk-off hit and Barry Bonds go hitless. Braves manager Bobby Cox set a major league record for being tossed out of games with his 132nd ejection. I wish that I could give some commenters the thumb and send them to the showers.
I’m not going to read all the nonsense, but jcummings, your prejudices are worse than a lot of blacks and whites that I encounter. I have NEVER, and I mean NEVER, had an ounce of anti-semitism in me. On a smaller business partnership that I have, the founder is Jewish and he asked me to be his partner because he trusted me more than anyone else.
Chileno, I’m going to have to wait another day to waste my time with you. It’s late here.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Woody, you will be wasting your time if you don’t advance a rational argument. Similarly, I’m afraid you probably won’t even read what I wrote. You failed to read jcummings, and the little you did read you read inaccurately. He never accused you of being anti-semitic, rather that your logic is the same as anti-semites, but applied to a different group. What a boor you are if you can’t make that simple distinction.
If you can’t discuss something rationally and intelligently, then please don’t waste MY time, or your own, by responding. That said, I would love to know:
What kind of logic allows you to favor Jewish immigrants to Israel over Mexican immigrants to the US?
That is the question. Clear as day. Since you made the initial calls for “rationality” I expect you to answer it with impeccable logic, or PLEASE don’t answer it at all. Thank You.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Right on Marc, Chileno, jcummings, Simon, and listener_on_the_sidelines! In John Sayles’ 1996 film, Lone Star, a bordertown sheriff goes into Mexico as part of a homicide investigation and has a conversation with a Mexican who owns a kind of salvage yard. The Mexican draws a line in the dirt and asks the sheriff if he thinks a gila monster or a bird sees that line when crossing it. Well, the sheriff says, when it suits them your government thinks that line is pretty important. “I’m not talking about governments,” the Mexican says, I’m talking about men! F*** governments!”
Amen.
August 14th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
Jcummings;
It’s funny how you are the first one to cry about anti-semitism, and the first to engage in anti-Israeli bigotry. It’s a real pathology.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:36 pm
Yes I am vigilant against both Anti-Semitism and the Occupation. This is not at all a contradiction. Unlike Zionists, I don’t make common cause with Anti-Semites.
August 14th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Woody – I didn’t accuse yo of Anti-Semitism, I said the implications of your position, one hundred years ago when the “illegals” aer Jews would have made you an Anti-Semite.
On the other hand, you are a borderline bigot about Mexicans.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 am
This reminds me of the burglar who sues the home owner when he cuts himself on the window he broke because all the doors are now locked tight.
But really, let’s be realistic about the number of deaths from hiking in the desert. First there are numerous hiking deaths each year by American citizens.
If you are upset with the 199 deaths of Illegal Aliens hiking in the desert, then compare them to other yearly mortality statistics in the USA..
Gosh maybe we should call out the National Guard to protect us from climbing on ladders and taking a bath alone.
There were 7,146 deaths from falls in the USA per year
There were 4,602 deaths from drowning in the USA per year.
http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/mor-mortality
August 15th, 2007 at 12:32 am
Good point, Pokey. Why keep a death toll for Iraq, anyway? After all, we’ve got so much gun violence in the states, a few thousand dead in Iraq is really…irrelevant. You should write to the NYT and tell them to stop publishing those numbers.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:32 am
The NYT reports 5 more US soldier deaths in Iraq today. Four of them are sergeants and one specialist. As I remarked earlier, higher ranking and thus generally more experienced soldiers have been overrepresented in the death toll in recent months, a bad sign for the future of the military.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Yeah, what does the death of one human being mean … or 199 … when there are so many other people dying? Besides, they’re like burglars, right Pokey? Except that burglars come into a place to steal and the immigrants come here to work. I’ve never heard of a burglar breaking i nto a home to fix it up and make it better.
August 15th, 2007 at 7:04 am
I’m not a bigot against Jews or Mexicans. I just expect EVERYONE coming to our country to respect our laws. It is you guys who want to make this an ethnic issue. Not me. Is that logical and clear enough?
August 15th, 2007 at 7:34 am
NO, they do NOT come here to fix it up and make it better
They come here make themselves richer. It is all about greed!
It is all about earning MORE money and getting a better life.
So if we open our boarders to everyone who wants a better life or is poor as you seem to advocate, what about the rest of the world, many who are really dying.
Over TWO MILLION Africans have died in the Sudan (not 2 hundred).
What about the Africans who want to come to the USA to fix it up and make it better?
Why should we let in a thousand times more Mexicans than Africans?
Who is the raciest?
August 15th, 2007 at 7:59 am
Don’t forget the Chinese. There are a couple hundred million Chinese that might do better in the U.S.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:14 am
Well said, Marc. There are illegals in my family tree, too. Story has it that they snuck across the border from Canada on sleighs in the dead of winter. That may be just family legend, but it captures what I suspect is a common trait of immigrants: gumption, grit, determination, “get-up-and-go,” whatever you want to call it. The dirty secret is that we gain from this (always have), and the home countries (Czarist Russia, Mexico, whoever) are the real losers.
August 15th, 2007 at 8:59 am
I can’t believe I’m about to defend Woody, but there’s a first time for everything…
Simply put, accusing others who believe that immigration needs tight (or tighter) controls of being racist (or that their argument is racist) is absolutely ridiculous, and intellectually dishonest.
Chileno (and jcummings), Woody says it here quite clearly:
“I just expect EVERYONE coming to our country to respect our laws. It is you guys who want to make this an ethnic issue.”
The question is a legal one: do we change the laws to allow increased immigration, or do we attempt to actually and more effectively enforce the laws we already have? If I may paraphrase Woody, if you want the former, work to change laws (and minds). But don’t cry racism if someone argues for the latter–it’s silly and a red herring, and makes it difficult to take you seriously.
Okay, Woody, now hell hath frozen over.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:00 am
HA! I never thought of leaving your family, arduously coming to a different country, and working at a minimum or below-minimum wage job as greedy. You guys are the best.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:09 am
“I just expect EVERYONE coming to our country to respect our laws. It is you guys who want to make this an ethnic issue.â€
That is what some white southerners said about laws against intermarriage and against sitting at the same lunch counter and going to the same schools, not to mention sodomy laws etc etc. Sometimes the law has to catch up with reality, and sometimes the law is wrong and disobeying it is the morally superior position.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Fine, if the law is wrong – change the law, but until then enforce it.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Please let us know what you would change about the law. Who would your new law favor?
August 15th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Hang on, Mavis, I think you’re missing Pokey’s point, as over-the-top as it was. He was responding to Lee’s argument that immigrants can hardly be considered lawbreakers like thieves, because rather than taking from the country they “fix it up and make it better”. Point made, though a slightly disingenous one, as Pokey notes, since immigrants are hardly motivated by altruistic reasons–they see a way to financially prosper (”greed” was a bit over the top, but an appropriate term when discussing economic theory), and will break the laws to do so. Pokey’s point then is that if you really want to argue that our immigration policy should be to open the door to those in dire economic need, why give preferential treatment to Mexico and Central America? Why not allow, say, any African or Chinese immigrant who can make it to our borders also enter? If there are any restrictions at all, then they should be motivated by policy that is consistent in its treatment of all immigrants.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:35 am
Sure. I get the point. But Pokey’s other point is that illegal immigrants are evil. That’s what we can’t forget. Either it’s cause they’re law breakers, or greedy, or refuse to assimilate, or whatever. Point is that they’re bad people and treating them like ordinary folks who want to improve their own lives and those of their families might allow one to see them with compassion, and that wouldn’t be very conservative, would it?
August 15th, 2007 at 9:37 am
If you wanted Jews to respect laws at points in history that they were being slaughtered, then they’d be dead. I repeat, most Jews who came to America were illegals until Roosevelt gave them an amnesty. Woody’s attitude would have them sent back to auschwitz.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:39 am
So Pokey, if you got a blow job in a certain state, yo’d be fine with jail?
August 15th, 2007 at 9:46 am
Some questions:
1) Do wereally want a “reserve Army of the Unemployed” to depress wages in this country.
2) Do we really wish to enable the financial and politcal elites of Mexico to use us as the “Safety Valve” for excess populations and avoid the tough job of restructuring what should be a very wealthy and advanced country given the resources available there.
3) Does anyone come to this debate with clean hands?
And finally: Can everyone come here? Or should we encourage policies that allow people to stay home by creating indigenous development opportunities.
We really have to start thinking about these issues and not just repeat the same bumper sticker points or quote Emma Lazarus – or Tom Tancredo – at each other.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:50 am
Mavis, you can argue that both ways: treating immigrants like ordinary folks, instead of powerless pawns manipulated and crushed by greater forces, might allow one to see them as rational actors who disregard the law to accomplish their economic goals, and that wouldn’t be very liberal, would it? In other words, I think we can move past the demonization on both sides: immigrants are breaking the law to work in the U.S. for rational reasons, but as long as we still have national borders (for now), this is still breaking the law. Now, should the laws be changed? And for what reasons? Those are the critical questions–not wasting time discussing whether immigrants are pobrecitos deserving compassion or thieves deserving punishment. That’s good for media ratings, perhaps, but not for resolving the underlying issues at hand.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:54 am
RLC: “And finally: Can everyone come here? Or should we encourage policies that allow people to stay home by creating indigenous development opportunities.”
Pokey: “So if we open our borders to everyone who wants a better life or is poor as you seem to advocate, what about the rest of the world, many who are really dying.”
See how that works? Proof that this issue is never a simple one of “conservative” vs. “liberal”.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:56 am
RLC, you have very reasonable questions. I disagree with you on many issues, but you are in no way phrasing it in a bigoted manner.
But to answer them:
1) Wages don’t need to be depressed if there is more labor militancy and less protectionism from craft-oriented unions.
2) We’re on the same page there, and the US shouldn’t have sabotaged AMLO.
3) Yes. Moy own principled humanist opposition to artificial lines (i.e. “borders”) – as in the scene from Lone Star alluded to in an earlier post – implies very clean hands. Mexican migrants fleeing poverty have very clean hands as well.
To imply that emma lazarus is a pole opposite a Klansman like Tancredo is quite offensive. Lazarus is teh way to go, and it is beyond immoral and a betrayal of the ideas of America that attracted so many immigrants and continues to do so, to deviate from the Statue of Liberty’s welcoming words.
Also – the US can best help indigineous devlopment by stopping the sabotage of the Left, and stopping their protectionism/free trdae hypocrisy (free trade for us to get into your markets, protectionism to prevent you from getting into ours.)
August 15th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Good point jcummings, law abiding Germans obeyed the Nuremberg Laws; not only obeyed them, but enforced them with passion and conviction.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:33 am
My two cents. Ignoring the dictate of Ockham’s Razor for the moment…
We’re not giving “preferential” treatment to other Americans (given the continent stretches from Canada to Latin America) per se. They are benefiting by virtue of proximity. That is, they can get here on their own two feet, albeit facing enormous odds. For better or worse, this country needs a cheap labor supply. And, if you are willing to accept the Solow model of economic growth, as population increases, so does the economy grow. It is a known fact that as populations’ education increases, their birth rate falls. We have an additional wrinkle in the works, compliments of multinational corporations and outsourcing, of which economists are just beginning to recognize, and grapple with, the unintended effects that appear to be making a hash out of their international trade models. Because our southern border is porous (it’s assumed that Canadians don’t want to sneak in here – and, I don’t blame them), we don’t need a formal, and enforceable, immigration policy when that swiss-cheese southern border allows a steady supply of labor to trickle in. In some ways, it is the worst enforcement of Social Darwinism; only the most hardy and cunning of souls are going to make it. More efficient than those old health evaluations at Ellis Island after weeks in steerage, eh?
Robert Frank wrote a book; Falling Behind. It was reviewed recently in the NY Times. One of the arguments embedded in this narrative, IIRC, is it’s getting ever harder to “keep up with the Joneses.” And, the drive to keep up with one’s neighbors is an inherent drive. I believe Frank’s argument goes along the lines of, defining financial well-being in relative terms through material assets has taken us into uncharted territory given the stratospheric incomes of that top 1-10%.
It’s important to keep reminding ourselves under Capitalism, it’s not supposed to be nice to be poor. In fact, it’s punishing to be poor. JC can add the whole piece about the function of the Reserve Army which I’m going to skip. My thoughts tend to run in the direction of a tiny little problem that Capitalism either fails to acknowledge or address. We have an absolute floor on poverty – ie, death. It is possible to be so poor that you die of starvation, exposure or disease. What we do not have is an absolute ceiling on wealth. There is no upper bound beyond which wealth cannot go. Sky’s the limit. And, what we’ve been seeing over the past decade is an ever increasing concentration of wealth at the very top which nothing can slow. How that happened is a matter of some conjecture, but I give a lot of credit to an array of government policies.
Now, if – for the sake of social stability – you need “vast middle class” to continue to perceive themselves as keeping their hold on the middle, as you’re willing to let upper incomes go into the stratosphere unchecked – and, in fact, if not help them along – what do you do? I have my own way of connecting these dots. Others are welcome to connect them differently, or ignore the dots altogether. I’m not advocating the existence of a conspiracy. I doubt any of these events were thought out. Stuff happened. And, a de facto policy arouse in response to a need to hold a perception on the one hand, against a growing bifurcation on the other. If we want to address immigration in any rational way, I think we are simultaneously going to have to address corporate advantages on the other, keeping an eye on the fact that as much as we claim to be a classless society, we truly aren’t.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:48 am
“treating immigrants like ordinary folks, instead of powerless pawns manipulated and crushed by greater forces, might allow one to see them as rational actors who disregard the law to accomplish their economic goals, and that wouldn’t be very liberal, would it? ”
What? What does this have to do with anything? Most illegal immigrants are acting rationally and they are, just like all of us, pushed and pulled by larger economic forces. I don’t think there’s much debate about that.
Samuel, I agree with you that it’d be nice to focus on the issues and not the spin and characterization of immigrants themselves, but the anti-immigrant right is hell-bent on making Americans see that immigrants are bad people. And they’re using this image of “Mexican invaders” to drive policy. I think there are plenty of decent folks, like Reg and RLC and maybe you, who have a more restrictive view of immigration than I do. But a real discussion of policy doesn’t start with fear-mongering (”invaders!”) or name-calling (”criminals!”). Illegal immigrants are ordinary people looking for a better life. They’ve also broken a (in my view, not particularly wise, well-enforced, or serious) law. Fine. Any serious policy ought to start by recognizing that both of those statements are true. Course then you need to add in things like economic demand, wage depression, the reality that people are already here and will keep coming, and other equally controversial issues. Those are areas where it’s easy to have good-faith disagreement. But all this crap about criminals and invaders is just a bunch of crap designed to stir up xenophobia and avoid realistic policy solutions.
August 15th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Let me also add that when Pokey reads, “What we do not have is an absolute ceiling on wealth. There is no upper bound beyond which wealth cannot go. Sky’s the limit,” he does not think about the greed of plutocrats. For him, “greed” is a term limited to the monetary desires of the wretched. It is only the poor who can’t squeeze through the eye of the needle.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Mavis, I think we can all agree that 95% of illegal aliens just want to improve their lives and make more money than they can make at home. My point is using the word GREED was to put it in pure unambiguous economic terms.
There is no army of killers pursuing the illegal aliens with machetes and machine guns, nor are they starving to death. The motivation to break the laws of the United States is purely for the desire of gold (or at least make minimum wage which is gold compared to wages in Mexico).
My other point which no one seems to be able to answer is why should we favor the Mexicans over people in other parts of the world who really are escaping horrible persecution.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Jcummings;
I don’t want to divert the discussion, but your classification of Israel as “racist” was due to the treatment of sephardic Jews, not the occupation. You are intellectually dishonest, on top of everything else.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Israel is a racist society, though less so recently, against Sephardic Jews, and especially against Ethiopian Jews – and especially against the Darfuri Refugees – and even moreso against Palestinians.
This is uncontroversial, and alluded to in al lbut the most extreme-right of Israeli media, and certainly was apparent to me in Israel, and as reported by Israeli friends and family, many of whom don’t share my anti-zionism.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
See Max Blumenthal’s great video on Christians United for Israel for Israel’s anti-semite allies.
August 15th, 2007 at 11:52 am
My other point which no one seems to be able to answer is why should we favor the Mexicans over people in other parts of the world who really are escaping horrible persecution.
Because we would need to explicitly state an immigration policy that enjoins them to serve the same function as the immigrant labor crossing our southern border. That policy explication would carry a political cost. Eg, African Americans would be no more pleased at our actively allowing low wage Africans to immigrate, than they are at the Mexicans who cross, come, and stay. The cost is avoided by throwing our hands up at the pourous nature of our southern border. Policing our shores and airports is easier than the boundary of the US and Mexico. I disagree that any favoritism is being demonstrated. Others simply need to parachute in, in the dead of night.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:14 pm
“favoritism is being demonstratedâ€
Liberals seem to suggest that we should not protect our porous borders, and instead open the border to anyone who wants to walk across.
Immigrants from Tanzania, Kenya & Somalia have come here in large numbers (mostly legal) to escape persecution and death. One young man I know who came from Tanzania two years ago now works at Hughes Aircraft, while his sister who arrived 12 months ago just graduated from high school.
I find letting people into our country who really want to live here and become American Citizens a much better policy than letting in people who just want more GOLD.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Jcummings;
You don’t know what the hell you are talking about, but never mind. By now that is abundantly clear to everyone who reads your posts.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:28 pm
Others simply need to parachute in, in the dead of night.
LOTS,
Not entirely true. A number of Brazilians have crossed the border from Mexico into the US to the extent that Mexico now requires – under pressure from the US – Brazilians to have a visa to go to Mexico. Indeed, the trend was so significant, it led to the development of a telenovela about the subject: http://tinyurl.com/2myb8a
Of course the Brazilians have merely followed a long tradition that includes Guatemalans, Salvadorans and Hondurans that also entered through the southern border. The number is increasing to the point where BICE has a category called OTM’s meaning other than Mexicans. It’s believed about 98,000 “OTM’s” came in through the southern border last year.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Mark
Cite me something that disproves any of my contentions.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
jcummings: Woody’s attitude would have them sent back to auschwitz.
Boy, does your credibility keep plummeting. Now I’m like Hitler.
We already have a law that allows immigrants who suffer political persecution to enter the country legally. I support that. It was the Democrats under FDR that refused to let the ship with Jews escaping from Hitler to dock in the U.S.
Samuel, thanks for coming to my defense to make clearer the truth of what I said and how that is different than what Chileno and jcummings want others to believe. I thought that the Earth stopped turning for a moment.
August 15th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Yes, Roosevelt fucked Jews over. We agree there.
I didn’t say you were Hitler, but you are taking Roosevelt’s fuck-over-the-illegals attitude on the Mexican Migrant issue.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I suggest that anyone here who wants to know the true history of Israel’s attitude towards the Arabs read Ilan Pappe’s book “The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine” for starters.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
“F” over the illegals? I believe that there is a difference between people coming here to escape concentration camps and death versus those who come here to get paid higher wages and obtain government benefits. I’d suggest that the latter go back to their country and make changes rather than come here and thumb their noese at our laws.
You get weirder and weirder.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Don’t disagree, Randy. I am guilty of over simplification, I believe. I was trying to address a different aspect of the argument. Our southern border, becuase it is so porous, is an easy entry point for any individual who wants to sneak in regardlessof nationality. If our administration can coerce Mexico to insure that their visitors have visas, that complicates life for a Brazilian enterning Mexico. However, once in Mexico, our border is no more secure to them, than it is to any Mexican. To the extent that a preference exists, I argue it is the preference we have for not securing that border. It’s not a preference for Mexico, per se. If our southern border were with Brazil, perhaps we’d have applied pressure such that Brazil would require visas of Mexico. I’m arguing it’s more a geographical issue than an issue of specific nationality.
August 15th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Should have said,
I’m arguing it’s more a geographical issue than an issue of specific nationality, ceteris paribus.
August 15th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
Woody. Woody, Woody. I asked you clearly to lay out a rational argument, and you are obviously failing. Now, considering I don’t normally expect rationality on Internet forums, but considering YOU are the one who called for it, I’d expect you to live up to you own standards.
Simply telling me that I’m haven’t got it right isn’t enough. You have to explain WHY I haven’t got it right. You got close, but you fell into the logical fallacy that I warned you about. You say:
>>>I believe that there is a difference between people coming here to escape concentration camps and death versus those who come here to get paid higher wages and obtain government benefits.
That is a shining example of the fallacy called “it could be worse”. Because Mexicans aren’t escaping Hitler, then their economic problems are not valid. That’s your argument.
Now, if you were able to thoughtfully explain exactly how Mexicans would be able to change their government in a democratic manner, while supporting their families, then I’d listen to you. I’ve maintained that their poverty is extreme. According to the BBC, over half the population makes less than $5/day. If you can cite statistics and analysis proving that their situation really isn’t that bad, that if they wanted to improve their government, they could, that if they had hours to wank around on internet forums like us, they could debate changes in laws…do you really think they’d be risking their lives to cross the border? To be successful, only to face 10 people like you on a daily basis? People like you who have absolutely no understanding for the plight from which they flee, because it’s not the Holocaust?
Samuel, I recognize that I’m being a bit controversial by pulling the race card. But in my experience here in Chile, I see that a lot of people are casually racist. I think it’s a human condition, when unchecked, and I don’t think that north americans are inclined to be less racist, simply because they’re from north america. I just think n. american society is such that casual racism needs to be dressed up a little bit in political terms. So I SUSPECT that underlying many people’s anti-immigration sentiment is race. I become even more suspicious when I see someone defending illegal Jewish immigration, but condemning Mexican immigration. I pose the question, jcummings is able to discuss it intelligently, and Woody…well, if it weren’t based on race, then Woody has yet to clearly demonstrate it. He can say “no”, and not give an explanation, and that’s fine but neither is it rational, and HE called for rationality.
Perhaps the burden of proof is on my side. “Racism” is a strong accusation, and I focus on Woody only because his argument typifies shock-jock, discriminatory rhetoric, that I suspect is largely race-based. So, in the absence of an intelligent explanation by Woody, I’ll leave “racism” as one POSSIBILITY. I can think of another possibility: historical hindsight makes it easier to defend illegal Jewish immigration, because it’s something that happened in the past, and we can see clearly what would have happened if they had not been able to escape Europe. Hindsight is 20-20. Obviously, that’s no defense. So, race isn’t a red-herring. Nor is the “hindsight is 20-20″ possibility. These are possible causes for anti-immigration sentiment that I suspect.
I would love it if Woody could rationally explain what is the underlying difference. Up to now he hasn’t been able to. And, as a rule in Internet forums, people generally reveal their true colors right off the bat, so based on how he’s discussed things up to now in this thread, I don’t expect much. Sorry.
August 15th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Somehow I doubt that Canada will get up in arms about American illegals, even after this story…
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2007/08/15/pandhandling-stabbing.html
August 15th, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Chileno, one thing that you haven’t learned about me is that I don’t read long comments. Normally 250-400 words is my limit before I lose interest or figure that the person can’t explain themselves well enough to keep it short.
Your type of argumentation is to keep asking for a little more so that no one ever gets to a “final” answer in your view, as each answer takes you to another question, so you never have to admit that maybe you don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not playing that game.
Perhaps you can explain why twenty-something million Mexicans have crossed over here to escape political persecution but manage to go back home regularly without being persecuted.
BTW, you’re one possibility of this being racism is phony and a futile attempt to claim the high ground, and you’re just not quite the intellectual that you pretend to be.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
Chileno, I am opposed to Illegal Immigration, but also happen to love my God daughter who is a junior in college and also Mexican/American.
I am also not a fan of the cultural attitudes regarding education and marriage that seem to be part of the Hispanic culture in Los Angeles.
The Asian/Indian cultural attitudes in these areas (Education & Marriage) enable them to contribute greatly to our society.
So perhaps call me a culturist but not a raciest.
August 15th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Note: this is a gross generalization about people (yes I know this).
August 15th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
“…like my family (who similarly couldn’t get into the States but stayed in Canada and ran booze….)” My family quite possibly bought and drank your booze. And we were fortunate enough to keep all the glorious consonents in our name.
Late to this thread. Some outstanding points, especially RLC’s question block, and ‘lots’ commentary. Educational.
Here’s an outline of how to end a border policy that will likely claim north of 300 this year from folks trying to enter the country:
Let them in. But first, organize an orderly entry. How about four 2-3 week periods, corresponding either seasonally with agriculture production and building? Everyone wanting in from Latin America gets in (with conditions, more below), but only during these set periods. Otherwise, entry into the US will be aggressively denied. Allows US border security to maximize resources corresponding to traffic flows.
The US and Mexico would jointly build about half a dozen or so massive processing centers along the border. Centers paid for by those corportations needing the most labor. At these centers, inbound candidates have to agree to basic health & and background checks. Unhealthy and unlawful need not apply.
Next step: match them up with employers. But before anyone reports to work, US based unions get to organize them first. The UFW, UAW, Building & Trades, Teamsters, the whole solidarity alphabet soup gets to add these new workers into their ranks. Guanrantee x% of prevailing wages w/ union membership to prevent a wage race to the bottem.
THe corporations get to add critical labor to shore up parts of the economy. Organized Labor grows; John Sweeney passes out the green cards. Immigrants get to earn more, remit home more, and are fully protected by US laws. Nobody dies in the desert. Could add some points provision that time worked in US goes towards earning citizenship; higher points total for those who entered illegally. Or not.
THe above is just an outline. Please feel free to edit.
August 15th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Thank you, Rob Grocholski. I have argued over and over again, that our southern border has to be as much psychological as a physical ’space.’ Having an assured mechanism for the their ability to cross the border with advantages to us for having migration occur in an orderly and measured way beats a superficial NO, that no one believes we mean, and no one thinks we’ll be able to enforce. The carrot you suggest (But before anyone reports to work, US based unions get to organize them first. The UFW, UAW, Building & Trades, Teamsters, the whole solidarity alphabet soup gets to add these new workers into their ranks….) makes far more sense than anything I’ve seen proposed to date. It’s less expensive than a fence, and it avoids the draconian employer-to-employer search and deport.
For anyone who wants to look at remittances, The Upjohn Institute features Immigrant Remittances as the lead article in this month’s newsletter. You can access it (pdf) at: http://tinyurl.com/2ld5jq
I’ve only taken a quick look, but it appears to me that Mexico is not the recipient of the largest dollar amount of remittances from the US. Nor is Mexico the largest as a percentage of their GDP.
August 15th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
What’s most interesting to me is is NOT being said ( a notable exception is ” L on the S”)here :
If we want to address immigration in any rational way, I think we are simultaneously going to have to address corporate advantages on the other, keeping an eye on the fact that as much as we claim to be a classless society, we truly aren’t.
And WHO is not saying anything: the socioeconomic status quo masturbators –especially online ones– who call themselves “left” or “progressive” or “Democrats”.
Shillary Clinton will as President will effect little change in cheap labor acquisition ( ” immigration”) policy. I’ll bet on it .
August 15th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Excuse this brief side note to Randy Paul….
Here’s a reminder from your former Democratic governor that you were entitled to free textbooks.
George Wallace
Return to normal commenting.
August 15th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
What rlc said.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Thanks for injecting a typical non-sequitur into the discussion, Woodrow.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Hardly typical, and I informed people of it and directed the discussion back. I thought that you might find it interesting. Yet, you actually made this more of a distraction, Randall.
—
Rob Grocholski: But before anyone reports to work, US based unions get to organize them first.
How cruel. You would force someone to join a union just to let him into the country. That might force some to try to get around that and die in the desert. This isn’t about compassion and saving lives. It’s about who can gain the most from the immigrants. The unions want part of their paychecks. Well, let the unions build your proposed processing centers.
What about this? Put rattlesnakes all in the border area and signs warning of the snakes–in English and Spanish–to offer more encouragement to enter the country legally.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Yet, you actually made this more of a distraction, Randall.
En sus sueños.
August 16th, 2007 at 7:43 am
Well. It’s really what rlc asked, isn’t it?
1.) We already have a reserve army of the unemployed. We also have a reserve army of the under-employed. As well as, a reserve army of the poor. And, since employment conditions are often regional, I’ll note that meat packing plant that Marc wrote about last winter has since been sold to a Brazilian company who is having trouble filling it’s second shift at wages that are within spitting distance of a living wage for that area.
2.) No, of course not.
3.) Since we do not have a centralized economy, the answer to this is NoYesNoYes; ie; everyone one involved simultaneously does and doesn’t have clean hands. Anyone who purchases produce raised in California likely has dirty hands. I don’t understand the motivation for the question. Should I stop purchasing California produce?
Finally.) I’m all for creating opportunities for indigenous development. But there are a couple of pre-reqs for that, aren’t there? Not the least of which might be a climate at home that is necessary; laws, law enforcement, gov’t policy, resources, capital investment, etc. Does that “infrastructure” – even at the most basic level – exist for those who are trekking here? I sure don’t know, but I’m guessing not. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be trekking here. Unless there is something they intend to gain here that they’ll take back home with them to accomplish what you suggest.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:00 am
I don’t know Woody, if organizing work seekers from Latin America into unions is so cruel, maybe that would be the ’silver bullet’ that reduces the numbers of those trying to come into the U.S. Call Tancredo!
What I tried to do above was actually plot an outline that addressed RLC’s questions (I admit I have some reservations myself):
Processing centers to match candidates to employers so as NOT to contribute to the ‘reserve army of the unemployed’
My outline turned the second question on its head. Remittances. So bad? Actually, aren’t they in fact a very effective form of foreign aid? Money is ‘Western Unioned’ directly to the poor, bypassing incompetent beaucrats and corrupt officials.
I think the strongest part of the outline/idea above is to recognize the economic lure of the US economy and the ready desire of so many to work in the US, that we ought to organize the entry. Formalize it in as fair (and humane) way as possible.
NAFTA liberated capital. Shouldn’t Labor get a chance to catch up?
Last question, in re indigenous development: Well, who is not in favor of that? I think ‘lots’ is on to something.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:41 am
My outline turned the second question on its head. Remittances. So bad? Actually, aren’t they in fact a very effective form of foreign aid? Money is ‘Western Unioned’ directly to the poor, bypassing incompetent beaucrats and corrupt officials.
Boy, didn’t reading that zip my head into an uncharted – soon to be decried – space. What if we took all of the money we currently offer to Mexico as foreign aid, and used it to subsidize employers in the US who were willing to hire immigrant labor? Use our own employers as a time limited “college” for the acquisition of skills needed by the Mexican workforce to pursue entrepreneurial efforts as home. Technology transfer? Mexico would probably build the fence for us if they saw an subversive labor force re-entering their country. Might be the weirdest re-indoctrination camp ever established. We already provide a substantial amount of foreign aid to college bound “elites” from other countries in our postsecondary institutions. Why not tailor an educational program that better meets the needs of Mexico’s wider citizenry?
August 16th, 2007 at 10:53 am
“used it to subsidize employers in the US who were willing to hire immigrant labor? “
Sounds like an idea from someone who hasn’t had their wages lowered from an unskilled (or skilled) labor glut. In other words, a great idea for a global capitalist or ivory tower yuppie, terrible idea for the rest of us. Uncharted head-zipping, indeed.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
I’m actually with Samuel here. This is why I’m not a reformist – often reforms are tedious and enrich better-organized sectors of capital. The only way to really solve this problem is to overcome capitalism.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:10 pm
This might sound like a lame brain idea but here goes. We have an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in this country and we have a storage of combat troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Give these people the opportunity that if they serve in the military for 4-5 years, upon return, they would be given full citizenship.
August 16th, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Rob, one more condition. They must be proficient in English. Think how much money would be saved if instructions didn’t have to be printed in multiple languages, plus I wouldn’t get hacked off by someone not understanding my directions.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
Not lame brain, Irish Lad. But can you understand my reluctance to allow Cheney access to more troops who can’t vote?
August 16th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
shoulda been …. more troops, and troops from a group who can’t vote until they’ve served x years.
August 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
We don’t need a bunch of foreigners defending the U.S. and its interests. I suspect that they would be harder to manage and would less enthusiasm to fight for a country which isn’t their own.
Their thoughts would be something on the order of don’t take any chances and don’t do anything to get yourself killed until you can get a pass back home–pretty similar to what John Kerry did.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Woody’s denigration of John Kerry proves he’s got zero respect for those who actually serve and is, not to put too fine a point on it, a disgusting, lying slimeball whose partisan indecency knows no bounds. The Hate America Right wends its way through the sewers of “conservative” discourse.
Here’s the entry on Kerry’s Silver Star from Wikopedia -
Silver Star
Kerry’s Silver Star medal has been called into question by George Elliott, Kerry’s former commanding officer and a member of SBVT. Elliott’s stated position on the award changed during the course of the 2004 Presidential campaign.
Kerry’s medal citation indicates that he charged into an ambush, killing an enemy preparing to launch a rocket. In his 1969 performance evaluation, Elliot wrote “In a combat environment often requiring independent, decisive action, LTJG [Lieutenant Junior Grade] Kerry was unsurpassed. He constantly reviewed tactics and lessons learned in river operations and applied his experience at every opportunity. On one occasion, while in tactical command of a three boat operation his units were taken under fire from ambush. LTJG Kerry rapidly assessed the situation and ordered his units to turn directly into the ambush. This decision resulted in routing the attackers with several KIA [Killed in Action]. LTJG Kerry emerges as the acknowledged leader in his peer group. His bearing and appearance are above reproach.” [37]
During Kerry’s 1996 Senate re-election campaign, when there was criticism of his Silver Star, Elliott responded: “The fact that he chased armed enemies down is not something to be looked down on.” [38] In June 2003, Elliott was quoted as saying the award was “well deserved” and that he had “no regrets or second thoughts at all about that.” [39]
During the 2004 campaign, however, Elliott signed two affidavits that criticize the award. The first, in July 2004, stated in part, “When Kerry came back to the United States, he lied about what occurred in Vietnam…” After the release of this first affidavit, Michael Kranish of the Boston Globe quoted Elliott saying, “It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I’m the one in trouble here…I knew it was wrong…In a hurry I signed it and faxed it back. That was a mistake.” [40] Elliott contended that Kranish had substantially misquoted him, but the Globe stood by its account, calling the disputed quotes “absolutely accurate”. [41]
The story prompted Elliott to release a second affidavit, in August 2004, in which he stated, “Had I known the facts, I would not have recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for simply pursuing and dispatching a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong.” [42]. The second affidavit made what Elliott called an “immaterial clarification”, in that he admitted that he had no personal knowledge of the circumstances of the shooting. Rather, his initial statement that Kerry had been dishonest was based on unspecified sources and a passage contributed by Kranish to a biography of Kerry.
However, although Elliott claims that he was not in possession of the facts of the event, the original citation that Elliott wrote (which is not the citation that appears in “Unfit for Command”) incorporates most of the details in the after action report. The report states that Kerry chased and shot a single wounded, fleeing Viet Cong. In addition, it states that the PCFs were filled with troops, that all three boats turned into the first ambush and beached, that the troops conducted the first sweep, and that while Kerry led the first landing party during the second sweep, the other landing parties and troops followed and took out the VC.
Kerry’s crew members who were there that day do not agree with Elliott’s characterization of the event in his 2004 affidavits. They contend that the enemy soldier, although wounded, was still a threat. For example, one of them, Fred Short said, “The guy was getting ready to stand up with a rocket on his shoulder, coming up. And Mr. Kerry took him out … he would have been about a 30-yard shot. … [T]here’s no way he could miss us.” [43] Del Sandusky, Kerry’s second in command, described the consequences to the lightly armored Swift boat: “Charlie would have lit us up like a Roman candle because we’re full of fuel, we’re full of ammunition.” [44] Another witness stated that the VC “had an entry wound at the side of his chest and exit wound at the opposite side of the chest cavity, a wound that was consistent with reports of the man turning to fire a second B-40 rocket.”[Gibson interview, Springfield Republican, September 5, 2004]
The only member of SBVT who was present that day, Larry Clayton Lee, has stated he believes Kerry earned the Silver Star. [45].
Another eyewitness, William Rood, now a Chicago Tribune editor, recently gave an account that supports Kerry’s version of the events of that day. Rood was commander of PCF-23, which was one of the two Swift boats that accompanied Kerry’s PCF-94.
Rood discounted several specific charges made by SBVT about the incident. In his (second-hand) book account, O’Neill implied that Kerry chased down a lone “teenager in a loincloth clutching a grenade launcher which may or may not have been loaded,” without coming under enemy fire himself. In contrast, Rood stated that there were multiple attackers, there was heavy hostile fire, and the guerrilla Kerry shot was “a grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the Viet Cong usually wore” armed with a “loaded B-40 rocket launcher”. Also, O’Neill called Kerry’s tactic of charging the beach “stupidity, not courage.” Similarly, Hoffman characterized Kerry’s actions as reckless and impulsive. However, Rood stated that Kerry’s tactic of charging the beach was discussed and mutually agreed with the other Swift boat commanders beforehand. He also notes that, at the time, Hoffman praised all three Swift boat commanders and called the tactics developed “a shining example of completely overwhelming the enemy” and that they “may be the most efficacious method of dealing with small numbers of ambushers.” [46] [47] O’Neill responded that Rood’s criticism was “extremely unfair” and stated that Rood’s account of events is not substantially different from what appeared in his book Unfit for Command, for which Rood had declined an interview. [48] However, despite this protestation, O’Neill’s account in the book is in fact substantially different from Rood’s and all of the U.S. Navy documentation for the mission and the medals produced in Vietnam at the time. [49] [50] Moreover, contrary to O’Neill’s claim, the American eyewitnesses to the second sweep, including SBVT member Larry Clayton Lee, have stated that there were multiple VC at the scene of the second sweep (”Tour of Duty,” p.292); (”John F. Kerry, the Complete Biography by the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best,” p.102);[51];
The accounts of Vietnamese witnesses are consistent on several points with Rood’s. Ba Thanh, the guerrilla killed while carrying the B-40 rocket launcher, was “big and strong” and in his late 20’s. Return fire was also intense, according to Vo Van Tam, who was then a local Viet Cong commander: “I led Ba Thanh’s comrades, the whole unit, to fight back. And we ran around the back and fought the Americans from behind. We worked with the city soldiers to fire on the American boats.” No Vietnamese witnesses saw how Thanh died or saw him being chased by an American. [52]
No individual who was present that day has disputed Kerry’s version of events, nor suggested that he did not earn the Silver Star.
O’Neill states that the Silver Star was awarded after only two days, “with no review” (”Unfit For Command,” p. 81). However, the medal was awarded on March 6, six days after the action, and Hoffmann and Lonsdale stated in 1996 that all proper review procedures were followed.
Commenting on the Silver Star issue, Republican Sen. John Warner, who was Under Secretary of the Navy at the time, stated “We did extraordinary, careful checking on that type of medal, a very high one, when it goes through the secretary…I’d stand by the process that awarded that medal, and I think we best acknowledge that his heroism did gain that recognition.” [53] Elmo Zumwalt, Commander of the United States Naval Forces in Vietnam at that time, signed Kerry’s original Silver Star citation and defended the award in 1996, saying “It is a disgrace to the United States Navy that there’s any inference that the [medal] process was anything other than totally honest.” Boston Herald, October 28, 1996.
August 16th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
Shorter Woody: Immigrant blood isn’t good enough to spill on America’s behalf.
August 16th, 2007 at 8:04 pm
LOTS,
It already is being spilled: http://tinyurl.com/yovmbt
Recognizing the growing importance of immigrants in an Army that has struggled to meet its recruiting goals, the government is hastening citizenship for those who serve in the Armed Forces long term. There were 28,000 immigrant soldiers five years ago; that number has climbed to 39,000 today, not counting the thousands of foreign contractors hired since 9/11. So far, 59 immigrant casualties have been granted posthumous citizenship – and a new rule allows their families to use the deceased as a sponsor for their own residency papers. Even illegal immigrants who enter the forces under false pretenses have a chance at legal residency if they see combat.
They’re fighting so these clowns don’t have to: http://maxblumenthal.com/archives/171
August 16th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
What a laugh, reg. Here you’re quoting Wikipedia, a source that anyone can edit to anything that he wants, as we have found recently when people at the NY Times were caught making phony changes to entries about Repulbicans.
reg, you may present what you researched through google (another laugh) but what’s more important than what was reported is what is left out.
Here’s the real John Kerry…
That interview was on 01/30/2005. To this day, John Kerry has refused to sign Form 180 to make public his military medical records about the “wounds” that gave him a pass back home.
Next,
Of course, John Kerry could easily clear this up by signing Form 180. At least no one has made up “Fake but Accurate” reports on him.
—
LotS, you said something that I didn’t. Nice try, but very weak and intentionally misleading. (1) Soldiers who speak English are easier to command in the U.S. military. (2) Soldiers defending their own country fight better than mercenaries.
—
Randy Paul, can you prove that immigrants are fighting so that college Republicans don’t have to, or is that just a cute and inaccurate statement?
—
All three of you are pathetic.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:07 pm
Dispute the facts on Kerry’s Silver Star with counter evidence or shut the fuck up, you sorry little weasel. You made a statement that is truly despicable and demonstrably false regarding Kerry.
August 16th, 2007 at 9:11 pm
Not that anyone should give a shit, but here’s Woody’s source for that statement he quotes above, without sourcing:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1406760/posts
What a ridiculous clown…
August 16th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Is this 2004? Does it matter? Why let this arouse such indignation?
August 16th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
If that story that Woody spun about Kerry workign with the heroes of the Vietnamese national struggle, then I actually admire him. Why deny such a gallant move?
August 16th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
I made an absolutely true statement about John Kerry. He promised to sign Form 180 to make his military medical records open for public scrutiny and he has consistently refused to do that.
The implications of that is what bothers reg, and Kerry could ease his pain by being open rather than continuing to hide the truth.
jcummings, of course, it’s public knowledge that Kerry met with the North Vietnamese in Paris while our State Department was in peace negotiations with them and he met in violation of military regulations, which made him subject to the dishonorable discharge.
Prove me wrong.
August 16th, 2007 at 10:16 pm
“don’t take any chances and don’t do anything to get yourself killed until you can get a pass back home–pretty similar to what John Kerry did”
“I made an absolutely true statement about John Kerry”
You’re a lying sack of shit…
August 16th, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Here’s a clip from a 2000 primary article by ultra-rightist Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation:
Ted Sampley of North Carolina…brands McCain “The Manchurian candidate,” a reference to a 1962 movie about a presidential candidate who was under the control of the Chinese Communists.
Sampley even has a website detailing charges against McCain: http://www.usvetdsp.com/main.shtml . He says he fears that the Vietnamese have something on McCain. He and Hopper both point to a 1993 meeting between McCain, Pete Peterson, who was to become ambassador to Vietnam, and Vietnamese officials. McCain and Peterson, according to Sampley, begged the Vietnamese never to make their files on the POWs public.
Hopper fervently believes that McCain’s forgiving attitude toward his captors (he has led the fight for normalization of relations with Vietnam) is traceable to whatever is in those files. The Cambodian Khmer Rouge has claimed that “McCain is a Vietnamese agent” for whatever that is worth.
The charges against McCain seem to center around the question of whether or not McCain violated his oath of office while a prisoner. McCain himself vaguely suggests that he wishes that he had been stronger in his service over there.
Hopper contends that McCain gave information to the Vietnamese in exchange for being in a hospital for six weeks. Hopper and a number of the families associated with the POW effort want McCain to explain his absence of nearly two years. McCain says he was in solitary confinement during that time, but POW families cite information from the North Vietnamese and our own U.S. intelligence service to the contrary…
I know of no other POW who has been branded a traitor by his own base of supporters. It may not always be true that where there is smoke there is fire, but many times it is true. It just seems to me that voters need to know a great deal more about John McCain before they say thumbs up or thumbs down.
(end clip)
I’m no fan of John McCains politically, but I consider pushing this kind of crap innuendo against veterans to be utterly despicable. It’s the same thing Woody does regarding Kerry – claiming that, for one example, the documented actions he took that won him a Silver Star never happened and that Kerry was simply some kind of ass-covering coward who never risked his life in Vietnam.
People like Weyrich and Woody are degenerates, IMHO. Of course, this is a stock right-wing tactic. I have NEVER heard of any Democrats or pro-Democratic group pushing the “McCain is a tool of the Vietnamese” or whatever other innuendo Weyrich is trading in above. Perhaps there’s some comments in some liberal blog somewhere, but Woody’s lies were generated by an overtly pro-GOP election-year action committee, with some folks involved with direct RNC ties, just as the smears against John McCain’s service were generated by folks actively working to promote George Bush in the GOP primaries. Fouls stuff. Folks who trade in this crap should be treated with the contempt they’ve earned for themselves – nothing more and nothing less.
August 16th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Woody once again makes himself useful as a flagrant demonstration of why liberals are wasting their time trying to avoid offending the macho-insecurity constinuency.
No facts or evidence will ever disabuse these people of their petty worldview, as it is based entirely on their emotional needs. Details such as whether or not John Kerry was legitimately injured in the war mean nothing whatsoever to them, other than when they offer any opportunity to accuse the other side of something, anything, bad.
Liberals who worry about nutters like Cindy Sheehan or firebrands like George Galloway somehow exposing the left to criticism need only to look at Woody and his ilk to see plainly that they need no factual excuse whatsoever to fire away…
August 16th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Well, we’ve obviously moved on from the topic of Latinos dying in the desert. So it goes.
From the short shrift you gave to Randy Paul, it seems to me Woody, that you might not have actually viewed the Blumenthal video. Warning, Blumenthal is out to make the Republicans look bad. However, I don’t see how Blumenthal could have forced anyone to say what they said. Just in case you didn’t see it and don’t feel like scrolling up, here it is again:
http://maxblumenthal.com/archives/171
No Teddy Roosevelts in that crowd.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:25 am
BB, well said, and it’s one reason Clinton getting the nomination is a occurance promises both dread and a perverse facination. Hannity has already run a Vince Foster special, but what will the Balters and Coopers say when Hitchens opens up the sewer THIS time? All this was seen as good fun when the Country was (compariitely) fat and sassy; Hillary leading in the polls would really give the shame-o-metors a work out.
Well, at least She was nowhere near Vietnam…..
August 17th, 2007 at 12:53 am
as for Hitchens, I’ve come around to the view that he’s been a shrewd careerist as much as a silver-tongued turd slinger.
The man’s just about everywhere these days on chat shows across the spectrum and is welcome widely in all manner of media.
Were he railing instead so eloquently against the Iraq war, rather than for it, he’d be relegated to the media fringe status of people like George Galloway, who is every inch as well-spoken and erudite…
I have a feeling Hitchens is shrewd enough not to get behind a GOP loser in 2008. He likes to play the apostate card, but I’d bet he knows when to fold that hand.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:36 am
Cute, reg, you took two statements from different comments, one about immingrants, and put them together to call me a liar. Maybe your lying comment reflects better on you. Here’s the comments in proper order.
To this day, John Kerry has refused to sign Form 180 to make public his military medical records about the “wounds†that gave him a pass back home.
…I made an absolutely true statement about John Kerry. He promised to sign Form 180 to make his military medical records open for public scrutiny and he has consistently refused to do that.
The implications of that is what bothers reg, and Kerry could ease his pain by being open rather than continuing to hide the truth.
Prove me wrong.
You can’t because it’s true, no matter how much you try to deflect the truth.
August 17th, 2007 at 5:43 am
Rob, you’re right. We need to get back on topic. I make one comparison and reg goes into his serial rage, which, of course, had to be addressed and corrected.
I didn’t watch the video, since it was about 1:00 AM, my time. However, nothing in it could prove Randy’s statement of “They’re fighting so these clowns don’t have to…” He cannot show me one case where an immigrant, legal or illegal, took the place of one of the people in the video. It’s simply not true.
At least this is partially on topic.
August 17th, 2007 at 6:46 am
Ahh, Woody, you don’t know snark when you see it and you accuse the left of having no sense of humor. You redefine the entire concept of peckerwood.
Those young republican chickenhawks all support the war, they just don’t want to fight it. Just as someone who accuses others of having no sense of humor, while displaying none of it himself, they should be branded hypocrites.
How about right in the middle all of your foreheads?
August 17th, 2007 at 7:18 am
“You took two statements from different comments”
My original response to you was on the basis of the first charge you made about Kerry avoiding any risks in Vietnam. Then, typically, you shift to something else that frankly I don’t give a damn about. Take some goddam responsibility for what you say in this forum. Not only are you ignorant and, apparently, a willful liar but you’re a weasel and a coward.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:53 am
Not that I’m a Democrat or a Hillary booster, but there are NY Fire Department, 911 rescue workers, Black folks, cops, etc. who could swift boat Rudy more truthfully and with far more damage than even was done to Kerry. Dems should not fear sliming Rudy, who is far more dangerous than Bush even.
August 17th, 2007 at 7:55 am
I part ways with some of the liberal left on the issue of chicken hawk. My ontology says taht results matter more than intent, so less people fighting in wars, for whatever the reason, is good. I don’t fault anyone for not fighting in a war they support. I supported Clinton returning Aristide to power (though I thought he ended up screwing him with IMF mandates), against the wishes of the right. Should I have gone and fought?
August 17th, 2007 at 8:32 am
@ Randy Paul, 8:04 on 8/16.
Yeah, Randy. Actually, I knew that. I started to go search for similar link and, stopped. I have to keep reminding myself that there is no earthly reason to try to counter Woody’s nonsense. It’s pointless. My mental image of Woody is of one of those children’s inflatable toys that has sand in the bottom, and when you knock it down, it just bounces right back upright? I’ve come to realize it’s all always about him, and it’s almost always right wing noise. The odd nugget or two the man actually has to offer isn’t worth wading through the sewer to retrieve. So, I fired off the quip, and shut my computer, and went on to other things. I’m getting better at just reading right by his comments. It takes practice because I tend to automatically assign good faith to folks. Woody has become an exception. There is no good faith to be had when ninety-nine out of a hundred remarks are functionally dishonest. Best wishes (and have fun) over at EK’s CC. I’ll watch for you there
August 17th, 2007 at 10:06 am
I’d say that a guy who goes to the doctor over a scratch, from an unknown source, and the doctor sees that no treatment is necessary, but that the “wounded” insists and writes up his own injury report to get a “three cuts and you’re out” pass from the war zone, is “avoiding risks” and his duties. He wasn’t in long enough to learn how to salute correctly. What a disgrace. It must be terribly hard defending Kerry.
I wonder what immigrant took his place when he left.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:20 am
My mental image of Woody is of one of those children’s inflatable toys that has sand in the bottom, and when you knock it down, it just bounces right back upright? I’ve come to realize it’s all always about him, and it’s almost always right wing noise.
I think you’ve nailed it.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:35 am
When I got back from Vietnam and processed into my new post I had to go around to various offices to drop off my records. One of those places was Finance (very important since I sorta liked the idea of getting paid). Whenever I dropped off the finance records the clerk would note that the cover was singed as were the documents inside.; And I would explain that it semed that a VC RPG attack in Nha Trang had hit the Finance Office and burned it half down. The records were in metal file drawers and got backed.
I mention this because I image that our accounting friend from Deliverance Land would have been in the Finance Corps (and no problem with that) but I see him spoiling his fatigues when that missle came a calling!
What goddamn nerve you’ve got my ignorant racist friend. The SecNav (Warner) and the CNO at the time (Zumwalt) as well as all the contemporary reports in Kerry’s DD214’s say he earned the medals but you and some right wing ideologs know better! Know what one of the authors of that book is peddling today? Well he’s warning the nation about the “NAFTA Highway” – it is a road that will be the width of three football fieds and will run from the Mexican ports where non-union labor will offload ships and unregulated and dangerous Mexican Trucks will carry the containers north on the road that will bisect the country along the Mississippi and deliver them to Chicago and then Canada for points East and West.
There’s only one problem with this story. Not a word of it is true. See the current NATION. See the words of the Bush Administration’s Transportation Dept. But it is an article of faith that the highway is coming and that it will be built by illegals and also funnel drugs and terrorists.
But why I am surprised that you’d swallow this swill. After all your state defeated a triple amputee (Max Cleland) after the scuralous attacks by a draft dodger (Fairclough) compared him to Osama. Oh how I wish Cleland would run again but apparently he is too disgusted to take on the good ol boys down there in “Dukes of Hazard” Country.
Course you don’t have to be a Dem. Ask John McCain about the “Veterans groups” that slimed him in South Carolina to help that coke addict in the White House.
What a fine bunch of patriots. Go marry your cousin or whatever else you yokels do down there for entertainment.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
You guys are dumber than even I thought. All Kerry has to do is sign Form 180 and all questions get cleared up. Talk to him–not me.
Also, Max Cleland was defeated because he chose to put his loyalty with the liberal Democrat Party rather than the people of Georgia whom he represented–not because of the nonsense that you read and believe.
You guys remind me of that arcade game where there are the gophers that pop their heads up through some holes and you hit them down with a mallet to score. My points are ringing up.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
P.S. Once I held a building door open for Stumpy and he didn’t even say thank you.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
Anyone who calls a vet who gave so much to his country “Stumpy” is unworthy of debating. Go back to helping your clients cheat on their taxes and leave discussions of public issues to the grown-ups here.
August 17th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
Hey, I didn’t make up the name. That’s what he’s called by a lot of people. Did you ever call Republican politicians any names? No, of course not.
Taxes aren’t public issues? Then who is do the collecting and spending?
August 17th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
At least I held the door open for him.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Woody, you’re stumpy comment, and defence of it, shows the part of you (that as Cummings would have it) is quite authentic.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
I respect vets. In this case, Cleland changed colors and became a spokesman for left-wing Democratic politics. It’s pathetic that he and anyone would attempt to deflect criticism of his statements and actions by saying, “Hey, he’s a vet! You can’t say anything about him.”
Oh, yeah. He gave up his cover when he entered a new field. At some point, he has to tell the truth and defend what he says rather than hide behind getting blasted in a non-combat situation when they went on a copter-beer run.
Anyway, you can’t say anything about me. I had asthma as a kid.
August 17th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
That explains the cerebral hypoxia.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
I was cured before I could become a Democrat.
Bam! Another mole hit on the head.
August 17th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
Woody’s Game with Liberals
August 17th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
I think this little news item adds something to Marc’s original post.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_6645367
August 17th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Bam! Another mole hit on the head.
Stay out of the sun, peckerwood. Never had asthma dipshit. My brain has always had a steady supply of oxygen.
It’s pathetic that he and anyone would attempt to deflect criticism of his statements and actions by saying, “Hey, he’s a vet! You can’t say anything about him.”
I don’t recall anyone ever saying that, but calling him Stumpy is beneath contempt.
As much contempt as I hold for Charles Krauthammer, I would NEVER joke about the fact that he’s confined to a wheelchair. As much as I can’t stand Bob Dole, I would NEVER joke about his war wounds. As much as I couldn’t stand Ronald Reagan, my heart goes out to his family for his suffering with that horrible disease.
Your use of the word “Stumpy” to describe Max Cleland is disgusting and puerile. That’s par for the course.
August 17th, 2007 at 4:22 pm
Here’s something lighter that’s also “on topic”.
Tom Russell – “Who’s Gonna Build Your Wall?”
http://tinyurl.com/2wevx7
August 17th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Jc and Chileno both of you need to know that Woody had nothing to do with the design of my blog nor does he have any say in what banners I put up, or take down. I too am a southerner (for the most part) though I’ve lived in central America and in Europe and I have chosen the Rio Grande Valley because of it’s proximity to Mexico and the blending of two cultures and have lived here for 30 years. I’ve witnessed illegal immegration and appreciate the good and the bad that it brings, but I also don’t believe that we are helping Mexico (or any other country for that matter) by reinforcing illegal immegration. If you think that makes me a racist, kiss my ass, you don’t know a God Damned thing about me.
jcummings, you berate Woody for being prejudiced and then rant about how “southerners are typically anti-semites” and while complaining about the mote in his eye, say nothing about the log in your own?
I am against illegal immegration period. Whether it be from europe, the middle east (and that absolutely includes the jewish settlements in the west bank), Mexicans, Javanese, you name it. I am FOR a modification in the 14th amendment to end the troubles caused by anchor babies (who, are absolutely blameless, but if you don’t think that the move is a calculated event to get an anchor baby, then you have either never spent time on the border, or you have your head up your ass.)
I also happen to think a wall is stupid and pointless, unless you build one from Brownsville to San Diego and patrol every inch of it. But, a country (any country) has the right to control its borders. I suspect that you probably think the Mexican border laws are equally unscrupulous, but when was the last time you went to Mexico City to protest?
Some of you guys are so riddled with the “help the downtrodden” meme that you have gotten rid of all common sense, except for reg who didn’t have any to begin with. Help them? Sure, how about holding their countries accountable for their treatment of their poor.
Asshats!
August 17th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Some substantive discussion here, but also the predictable bile and sputum.
In the name of God, can’t some of you Lefties ever talk about issues affecting non-Scandinavians without calling people who disagree with you racists? Your preoccupation with mental hygeine has gone well past the point of parody. At this point there has to be a minimum of 10 million American non-whites who want our current immigration laws enforced, our borders sealed.
Calling someone a racist doesn’t explain anything about how to formulate law and policy. It doesn’t even make somone who might be, at the bottom of her heart, an actual racist, wrong on any given matter of policy.
August 17th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
>>>you don’t know a God Damned thing about me.
Relax, buddy. I never expressed any interest in knowing anything about you. I simply asked Woody why he might be support one group of illegal immigrants over another group. (Okay, I also introduced a couple possibilities, but he neither affirmed or negated them in any coherent manner). I also backed up his own appeal to logic. Woody failed to respond by both his and my standards, both of which seemed more than reasonable. (Woody’s “rationality” and my request that he, er, clearly answer the questions I’d asked him).
If he doesn’t favor one group of immigrants over another (by which we’d be forced to deduce that he’d be against massive illegal immigration to Israel by Jews escaping Hitler), then he failed to clearly state that.
Anyway, I’ve given up on Woody because he admits to an unwillingness to even read what I write, or if 619 words was too much, he still didn’t respond to the first 400 words
. He’s certainly “whacked” this “liberal” down, by golly. I think this is what he does to make himself happy, a pet form of therapy by claiming victory without doing the work it takes to win. I’m happy for his happiness, and his thrifty means of achieving it (although I’m sure he could find a way to make a therapist’s bill tax-deductible, save everyone else a lot of grief…but that’s just us being selfish).
In the meantime, I’m glad you appeared here because I really am curious. You say you’re against illegal immigration period. By that same logic, you would be against the illegal immigration of the Jews to Israel, when they were escaping Hitler. I’m obviously not calling you an anti-Semite, I’m just saying that this really does seem like wrongheaded thinking. Or are you against illegal immigration…after a certain date? Please tell me, what IS the logic??? (Please shed some light on this, pretty please with a cherry on top!)
Samuel Stott:
>>>10 million American non-whites…
Does that make them non-racist?
August 17th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
BTW, is this “Record Body Count” thread accumulating a “Record Number of Posts”???
(Once it hits 250, we can point to the families of the dead immigrants and tell them, “hey, it could be worse!”)
August 17th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
>>>10 million American non-whites…
Does that make them non-racist?
Not if you define racism as having a policy disagreement with yourself it doesn’t, but if you define racism as believing in the inferior worth or desert of a person because of his “race,” (a scientifically meaningless term), genetic heritage, or skin color, than it most emphatically does not make them racist.
Try to get just a little bit liberal and quit slandering people with whom you disagree.
August 18th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Thanks for a roundly incoherent response, Samuel. U wanna try again?
August 18th, 2007 at 7:40 am
Chileno, thanks for your reply. OK, here goes my response and I hope it makes sense to you. The immigration of Jews to the middle east following WWII was both “legal” and “illegal.” Legal in the sense that numerous governments sanctioned the return including the then infant UN. The Brits on the other hand, who had a League of Nations mandate to “supervise” palestine (from 1920-1948) and disagreed and tried to keep them out. Palestine was NOT part of England and following WWII, there can be legitimate argument regarding the Brit presence there. At any rate, the UN sanctoned the partition and a state of Israel was born. (of course, the Arab states tried to kill the baby and had their ass handed to them by the baby.) but that is neither here nor there. The question is did the Brits have a moral or legal right to keep a jewish people out of a jewish land? I say no, you say yes. OK, disagreement there.
Too, there were other considerations here. For example, Mexicans who come here illegally are NOT being subjected to a pogrom or holocaust as were the Jews in Europe.
That being said, so what? That was then, this is now. My ancestors came to the US in a variety of ways, maybe even some of them illegally. Again, that was then, this is now. Neither you nor I was there to influence the return of the Jews or how our ancestors would come to any given country. Here, now we have a say. By the way, using the same type of “logic” I’m sure you are against “trial by combat” as a way to settle disputes, but it was legal in the past, should that make it legal now?
The stale argument of what happened in the past being justification or non-justification now is silly. Lets keep the discussion on the present.
August 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
The Merriam Webster online dictionary definition of racism is:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
It doesn’t mean:
1. a belief in ideas or policies disapproved of by Chileano
2. a belief in ideas or policies arguably contrary to the interests of specific racial or ethnic groups.
August 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
GM Roper, thanks for the thoughtful response!
>>>The question is did the Brits have a moral or legal right to keep a jewish people out of a jewish land? I say no, you say yes. OK, disagreement there.
I don’t say “yes”. All I say is that the law of the land was such at the time, and the Jews broke it in order to save their lives (I’m definitely not against them saving their lives!).
As you point out, the British mandate was a pretty sketchy affair, etc. My point has never been to justify today’s policy by past historical examples, but rather quite the opposite:
To call you and Woody out on your “because it’s the law” logic.
You obviously do a better job than Woody, by beginning to point out the difference between today’s law here and yesterday’s law there, and hence begins a more intelligent, nuanced discussion. I appreciate that.
Still, I disagree with the basic two arguments you make, and hope you could shed more light on them.
1. >>> Mexicans who come here illegally are NOT being subjected to a pogrom or holocaust as were the Jews in Europe.
OK, you’re right. Holocaust is worse than poverty. Still, I think that way of thinking sets a dangerous precedent. Does a massive group of immigrants’ plight have to measure up to the Holocaust before we acknowledge that their situation is dire? I’ll submit that Latin American poverty is really bad, people risking their lives and dying in order to escape it is a testament to that (although you can find plenty other testaments to the misery of poverty if you like, perhaps you’ve experienced poverty?).
2.>>>That was then, this is now. My ancestors came to the US in a variety of ways, maybe even some of them illegally.
What makes the past different from the present? Why could your ancestors possibly come here illegally, (and, it seems, you’re fine with that notion because it was in the past) but today a whole new set of rules apply?
>>>The stale argument of what happened in the past being justification or non-justification now is silly. Lets keep the discussion on the present.
Just a thought: I think the point of looking back into history is learning from examples, and although cliche: unless you study the past, history will repeat itself. It just seems like a no-brainer that you would want to look at how people who think like you acted in the past. Hindsight in some ways IS 20/20, let that vision be a guide.
August 18th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Samuel -
First of all, I don’t think the definition of racism is in dispute. What I was initially reacting to was what appeared to be an assumption on your part that non-whites could not be racist. That to me seems totally absurd.
Your two “anti-definitions”:
>>>1. a belief in ideas or policies disapproved of by Chileno
Listen, if you go back and look at what I said, I admitted right off the bat that my thoughts were the result of a re-thinking of personal assumptions, and that Woody was helping me develop a different impression.
Please note that I never called Woody racist. The unanalyzed immigration debate, however, often does fall into casual jingoism, although I think xenophobia is the word I was looking for, and as Woody hardly epitomizes thoughtfulness, then his argumentation represented that to me. Casual, not thought out, and representative of a trend that allows people to disguise their xenophobia/racism through political rhetoric promulgated by shock jocks, etc.
Furthermore, over various comments I pointed out that he was illogically preferring one group of immigrants over another, and that those could either be black Ethiopian Jews or White European Jews immigrated to Israel. Yes, I brought up the subject of race as a possibility, because I think it’s a very, very important possibility. But I also pointed out that it could just be his poor logic.
>>>2. a belief in ideas or policies arguably contrary to the interests of specific racial or ethnic groups.
Like I say above, it’s precisely this anti-definition of yours that allows xenophobes to mask their prejudice in political terms. I’ll remind you again of the anecdote I heard where a Mexican produce worker at a LA Whole Foods was called “illegal” based on his physical appearance. I don’t think Woody has gone that far in this forum, but my point to begin with is that his stance typifies that which many real xenophobes do get behind, and so I would hope he were more self-aware before spouting out rhetoric.
That’s why I appealed to his sense of “rationality” so that he can logically analyze his position, and come up with a strong argument that’s completely free of race.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
… the Jewish Holocaust-the inhuman destruction of 6,000,000 people-was not an abominably unique event.(It was.) So, too, for reasons of its own, was the mass murder of about 1,000,000 Armenians in Turkey a few decades prior to the Holocaust. So, too, was the deliberately caused “terror-famine” in Stalin’s Soviet Union in the 1930s, which killed more than 14,000,000 people. So, too, have been each of the genocidal slaughters of many millions more, decades after the Holocaust, in Burundi, Bangladesh, Kampuchea, East Timor, the Brazilian Amazon, and elsewhere. Additionally, within the framework of the Holocaust itself, there were aspects that were unique in the campaign of genocide conducted by the Nazis against Europe’s Romani (Gypsy) people, which resulted in the mass murder of perhaps 1,500,000 men, women, and children. Of course, there also were the unique horrors of the African slave trade, during the course of which at least 30,000,000-and possibly as many as 40,000,000 to 60,000,000-Africans were killed, most of them in the prime of their lives, before they even had a chance to begin working as human chattel on plantations in the Indies and the Americas. And finally, there is the unique subject of this book, the total extermination of many American Indian peoples and the near-extermination of others, in numbers that eventually totaled close to 100,000,000.
Each of these genocides was distinct and unique, for one reason or another (as were (and are) others that go unmentioned here. In one case the sheer numbers of people killed may make it unique. In another case, the percentage of people killed may make it unique. In still a different case, the greatly compressed time period in which the genocide took place may make it unique. In a further case, the greatly extended time period in which the genocide took place may make it unique. No doubt the targeting of a specific group or groups for extermination by a particular nation’s official policy may mark a given genocide as unique. So too might another group’s being unofficially (but unmistakably) targeted for elimination by the actions of a multinational phalanx bent on total extirpation. Certainly the chilling utilization of technological instruments of destruction, such as gas chambers, and its assembly-line, bureaucratic, systematic methods of destruction makes the Holocaust unique. On the other hand, the savage employment of non-technological instruments of destruction, such as the unleashing of trained and hungry dogs to devour infants, and the burning and crude hacking to death of the inhabitants of entire cities, also makes the Spanish anti-Indian genocide unique.
A list of distinctions marking the uniqueness of one or another group that has suffered from genocidal mass destruction or near (or total) extermination could go on at length. Additional problems emerge because of a looseness in the terminology commonly used to describe categories and communities of genocidal victims. A traditional Eurocentric bias that lumps undifferentiated masses of “Africans” into one single category and undifferentiated masses of “Indians” into another, while making fine distinctions among the different populations of Europe, permits the ignoring of cases in which genocide against Africans and American Indians has resulted in the total extermination-purposefully carried out-of entire cultural, social, religious, and ethnic groups.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:15 pm
And not to be outdone by the exalted likes of Morton, Parkman, Holmes, Howells, Adams, or Hall, the man who became America’s first truly twentieth century President, Theodore Roosevelt, added his opinion that the extermination of the American Indians and the expropriation of their lands “was as ultimately beneficial as it was inevitable. Such conquests,” he continued, “are sure to come when a masterful people, still in its raw barbarian prime, finds itself face to face with the weaker and wholly alien race which holds a coveted prize in its feeble grasp.” It is perhaps not surprising, then, that this beloved American hero and Nobel Peace Prize recipient (who once happily remarked that “I don’t go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn’t like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth”) also believed that “degenerates” as well as “criminals . . . and feeble-minded persons [should] be forbidden to leave offspring behind them.” The better classes of white Americans were being overwhelmed, he feared, by “the unrestricted breeding” of inferior racial stocks, the “utterly shiftless,” and the “worthless.”
These were sentiments, applied to others, that the world would hear much of during the 1930s and 1940s. (Indeed, one well-known scholar of the history of race and racism, Pierre L. van den Berghe, places Roosevelt within an unholy triumvirate of the modern world’s leading racist statesmen; the other two, according to van den Berghe, are Adolf Hitler and Hendrik Verwoerd, South Africa’s original architect of apartheid.)’47 For the “extirpation” of the “lower races” that Hall and Roosevelt were celebrating drew its justification from the same updated version of the Great Chain of Being that eventually inspired Nazi pseudoscience. Nothing could be more evident than the fundamental agreement of both these men (and countless others who preceded them) with the central moral principle underlying that pseudoscience, as expressed by the man who has been called Germany’s “major prophet of political biology,” Ernst Haeckel, when he wrote that the “lower races”-Sepulveda’s “homunculi” with few “vestiges of humanity”; Mather’s “ravenous howling wolves”; Holmes’s “half-filled outline of humanity”; Howells’s “hideous demons”; Hall’s “weeds in the human garden”; Roosevelt’s “weaker and wholly alien races”-were so fundamentally different from the “civilized Europeans [that] we must, therefore, assign a totally different value to their lives.” Nor could anything be clearer, as Robert Jay Lifton has pointed out in his exhaustive study of the psychology of genocide, than that such thinking was nothing less than the “harsh, apocalyptic, deadly rationality” that drove forward the perverse holy war of the Nazi extermination campaign.
The first Europeans to visit the continents of North and South America and the islands of the Caribbean, like the Nazis in Europe after them, produced many volumes of grandiloquently racist apologia for the genocidal holocaust they carried out. Not only were the “lower races” they encountered in the New World dark and sinful, carnal and exotic, proud, inhuman, un-Christian inhabitants of the nether territories of humanity- contact with whom, by civilized people, threatened morally fatal contamination-but God, as always, was on the Christians’ side. And God’s desire, which became the Christians’ marching orders, was that such dangerous beasts and brutes must be annihilated.
Elie Wiesel is right: the road to Auschwitz was being paved in the earliest days of Christendom. But another conclusion now is equally evident: on the way to Auschwitz the road’s pathway led straight through the heart of the Indies and of North and South America.
August 18th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
The above passages were taken from:
Sex, Race and Holy War
excerpted from the book
American Holocaust
by David Stannard
Oxford University Press, 1992
August 18th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Chileano,
The only thing I have noticed about Woody is that he is a right-winger and a Republican partisan. That puts him in the company of about 40 to 60 per cent of the American population, depending upon how you figure such things, but I do realize that many Americans self-segregate, fear the “Other,” assume that those “Others” operate in bad faith and feel free to accuse them of stupidity and mean motives.
As for your description of my correct definition of racism as an “anti-definition,” I don’t even know where to begin, except to surmise that you don’t believe that words have meanings, and that you consider yourself both more intelligent and authoritative than numerous committees of lexicographers.
On the current immigration debate I admit to being diffident. I can’t find fault with people who demand that American laws be enforced or changed any more than I can with people who express sympathy and solidarity with the economic refugees who stream over our borders. I tend to think that a humane solution will be proposed and accepted sometime in the future.
STS
August 19th, 2007 at 12:03 am
Woody?
No, he woudn’t, and hasn’t, and never will.
August 19th, 2007 at 4:49 am
Well, imho this a**hole Woody is typical for the stance of right wingers towards veterans. No respect for their service, just ridicule and neglect. Really, typical.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Samuel:
Dude, by “anti-definition” I was referring to your two-pronged explanation of what “[Racism] doesn’t mean:”
Sorry if I was being too fancy by using the word “anti-definition”, but do you understand what I was referring to?
I DON’T disagree with your Merriam Webster definition of what racism is at all, in fact it’s a total non-issue, I obviously accept that definition, and like I already said it’s not something being debated. I responded to your improvised “it is not” definition, and I myself improvised a name for that, an “anti-definition”. Again, are we clear? Let me know and if not I’ll try again.
In the meantime, moving right along:
>>>accuse them of stupidity and mean motives.
Woody demonstrated “stupidity,” that’s all I had to work with, I didn’t start out accusing him of that. Rather, HE failed to respond intelligently and even admitted to not even reading one of my comments, that’s dumb afaik, so he’s sortuva lost cause.
Sure I did suggest mean motives as a possibility, kinda, although as I’ve tried to clarify, I think his type of rhetoric is an enabler of mean motives, whether or not he personally possesses them.
But if you care to take a short look back, the guy who designed Woody’s site is a lot more rational and civil and I haven’t called him “stupid” or working on “mean motives”. I disagree with his views, but I treated him with due respect (as he did me) and our discussion up to now has been civil.
Woody, on the other hand, started off the discussion with a inflammatory, jingoist terminology, the “Mexican invasion”. Subsequent discourse and inability to respond to direct questions shows that he doesn’t have any real interest in behaving civilly or listening to the other side of the debate. You just won’t find that on his list of “Woody’s reasons why he goes online”, would you?
So any impression you have that I’m totally intolerant just because someone doesn’t agree with me is wrongheaded. I’ve demonstrated that it’s the WAY people discuss things that determines how they’ll be treated by me, or anybody else. Make sense?
August 19th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
Chileno, thanks for the intelligent conversation, it is rare here to find someone from the left and from the right willing to do so. OK, you’ve asked some interesting questions.
Actually, with the fall of the Ottoman Empire the British mandate was for the purpose of “establishing in Palestine a national home for the Jewish people.” (palestinefacts.org), the Brits did a lot of fancy land trading and blocking of jews but not of arabs and then, following immediately after Germany’s surrender and the liberation of the concentration camps, many slavic and european jews decided to take the new UN’s offer up. However, Brit control was still essentially anti-semitic and tried to block much of the immigration. I won’t say illegal, because it was still an “occupying powers” mandate and not local laws. I again iterate my assertion that every country has a right to defend it’s own borders. Be that as it may, the period of time from roughly December 1945 through the recognition of Israel in 1948 was the highest period of inflow, and the only law broken, was that of the Brits who were probably not governing according to their mandate anyway. This site has a pretty good history, also note there that much of what should have been part of israel (gaza, the negev, the west bank, the golan heights, were given away by the brits or refused for admission of jews.
Well, I’ve never been third world country poor, but I have been by american standards, of the two, notpoor is better.
I lived in Panama during some college years and have seen upclose and personal the poverty there. I do not blame the Mexicans or anyone for trying to escape abject poverty, in their shoes I would do the same, but I also wouldn’t ask for special favors, “constitutional rights” in a country that I’m not a citizen of, or anything else, I’d try to sneak in (repeatedly if necessary and I were poor enough) and get a job and then get the hell out. Having said that, before I tried that I would have already tried to better myself in my country of origin. I started out here without a college ed (I put myself through college cause I didn’t like making minimum wage – Uncle Sam via the GI Bill paid for my grad degree). I would like to think I would be pretty successful in overcoming barriers there as well. Maybe not, I can’t play fantasy life as well as some. 
I didn’t say it was OK, I said that there may have been some illegal immigrants among my ancestors. I don’t know, but I had nothing to do with that, I can only be responsible for my actions here in the present. What my great grandfather or someone else did may be a statement of fact, but not something I had any control over.
True enough, but including in the argument that because it was done in the past makes it ok now is senseless. That seems to me to be the point here, it was illegal immigration by many into the US, illegal immigration into Israel, and that makes it OK now for illegal immigration into the United States. Stating that something happened in the past does not imply that it is acceptable in the present. For example, what would you say would be the punishment of soldiers today if they did the same as the Romans did in in the perhaps mythical “rape of the sabine women?” Would the fact that historically, conquering armies killed the aged men, enslaved the young and raped the women make it OK now? I know you aren’t saying that, but I’m trying to show why I’m not overly concerned with historical precident except to the extent it can teach me what not to do now.
August 19th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
>>>it was illegal immigration by many into the US, illegal immigration into Israel, and that makes it OK now for illegal immigration into the United States.
Despite throwing around terms I learned in high school speech and debate, I don’t really know logic, I did horribly in college semantics (i think the professor was a robot, tho), so anyway if your above summary really is the logical extension of the arguments I’ve been making, then you’ve got me.
However, it seems like a turning of the tables and “running with” of a simple, limited point I was trying to make. My argument was that your proposed reaction toward the present situation in the US would have had disastrous consequences if applied to the past situation in Israel. My intention wasn’t trying to point out historical precedent, but rather to show inconsistency in your argument.
Your “historical precedent” interpretation could very well be the logical equivalent/conclusion of my intended argument. I honestly don’t know.
Yet your further extension that my argumentation would somehow justify “rape of the sabine women?” is facile. I, too, could easily go off about how the Iquisition was the “Law” and because of your advocacy of the immigration “law” that you’re therefore pro-Inquisition. That’s ridiculous.
But I do appreciate your careful explanation of the complexity of the British mandate, it’s flaws. I feel that adds value to the discussion. So does Marc’s discussion of the complexity of immigration law here and now. Why IS it the “law”? What strange forces of bureaucracy or prejudice are at work so that the n. American economy would lose out on so much cheap labor? It’s very strange…
August 19th, 2007 at 8:08 pm
The rape of the sabine women was meant to be hyperbole to point out that old behavior that was OK, isn’t necessarily OK behavior now The history of the Rape of the Sabine Women is very interesting (and largely mythological in nature) http://sights.seindal.dk/sight/720_Rape_of_the_Sabine_Women.html
“I did horribly in college semantics (i think the professor was a robot, tho),”
I think we must have been in the same class.
As to cheap labor, its only Mexicans this go round. Before, it had been Chinese, it has been Irish, and it has been Italians as well as slaves.
Current law doesn’t make sense to me either, there has to be a better way, but blanket amnesty when so many HAVE played by the rules doesn’t seem fair either. I know a few former Mexican citizens who saved, scrimped and played by the rules to get here (I live less than ten miles from the border with Mexico) and they are pissed as hell about the illegals. I also know a few legal immegrants that aren’t pissed, but would like to see some controls.
August 19th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Why do European Jews and Anglo-Protestants (Britian) get to claim land that had a relationship with Middle Eastern Jews and Roman Pagans, thousands of years ago?
August 19th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I’m sure the Southerners, on this thread, are all for Affirmative Action and slavery reparations.
GM Roper, you for reparations?
August 20th, 2007 at 6:23 am
Since the Southerners are so intent on getting land back for things that transpired thousands of years ago, why aren’t you phoneys trying to get Mexico its land back?
August 20th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Somedarkdude… Dude, what have you been smoking? And can I have some?
I have no problem with affirmative action for someone who has been discriminated against, I do have a problem with slavery reparations. I held no slaves and I owe no one slave reprations. Whom do you suppose should pay that particular piper? And what land do I think ought to be given back? If you are talking about Israel that is pretty much a stretch. “Palistine” was part of the Ottoman Empire which was defeated in WWI (The Ottoman Turks were part of the enemy dude, they lost, their holdings were conficscated by the winners… that is the way the real world works fellow.
On second thought, I really don’t want any of what you may be smoking, I think it probably addles the brain.
September 17th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Hi all!
Very interesting information! Thanks!
G’night