The MJM Dives To A New Low
By Greg L | 13 March 2008 | Manassas City, Prince William County | 57 Comments
After initially predicting that Help Save Manassas would have no discernible impact in the public policy debate, the Manassas Urinal-Massager seems to have finally figured out that the thousands of members of Help Save Manassas have indeed made a collective difference, and that difference is dramatically improving not only the quality of life in the community but the fiscal position of our local governments. Yet that critical story, which demonstrates the effects of adopting policies that discourage the unlawful presence of illegal aliens in our community remains untold by the very newspaper supposedly dedicated to informing this community. Instead of making any attempt to provide readers with information about the dramatic and positive transformation happening in the area as a result of the Rule of Law Resolution, the paper has instead decided to attack me for being one of the leaders who fought so long and hard to see this effort succeed.
They attack me as a “nativist”, which is defined in this editorial as anyone “battling the influx of illegal immigrants into our country.” A Rasmussen survey of Virginia voters released last October found that vast majorities of Virginians would probably fall into this category, since 79% of respondents thought local police should check the immigration status of anyone encountered during the normal course of their duties, and 86% believed that taxpayer-funded public benefits should not be given to illegal aliens. By expanding the definition of a “nativist” such that it will encompass anyone who believes that illegal aliens should be held accountable for their unlawful actions, the MJM is engaging in precisely the same behavior they seem to decry in this editorial.
Based on this “nativist” branding, the MJM claims that “this serves only to cement the image of Prince William County and the surrounding jurisdictions as a haven for intolerance.” Intolerance of what? Breaking the law, perhaps? After claiming that anyone “battling the influx of illegal aliens” is somehow engaging in morally reprehensible behavior, the MJM then claims the inevitable result of that behavior is that a jurisdiction will be perceived as “intolerant”. Heaven help us should anyone express their righteous intolerance of human trafficking and sexual slavery in the community and attempt to combat it, lest they be slapped with some derogatory label by the politically correct and accused of making the community appear “intolerant” for their trouble.
Sometimes intolerance is actually the right response when confronted with outrageous behavior that harms a community. In fact, the carefully considered intolerance of wrongful behavior is the motive behind every positive social reform this nation has ever made, and played an important part in the founding of our nation. The principled opposition by American colonists towards unjust laws passed by the British Parliament was the inspiration for the “The Boston Tea Party”, for example. If blind tolerance of wrongful behavior is now a requirement for responsible political debate in this country, we have forgotten our history and thrown away the core principles of liberty that are the foundation of America.
The MJM concludes this bizarre contrivance by endorsing the final determination of the SPLC’s wildly inaccurate hit piece, which paints our community as an irresponsible gaggle of gun-toting rednecks on the verge of wholesale ethnic cleansing. Should the MJM actually be as concerned about damaging the reputation of the community as it alleges, giving credence to hyperbole such as this probably isn’t the wisest means:
“A dangerous mix of nativist intolerance, armed and untrained civilians, and wild-eyed conspiracy theories could easily explode into violence.”
In case the editorial board of the MJM has been neglecting to read their own paper, it’s pretty clear in their past issues that there’s already an unacceptable level of violence in the community, and it’s not coming from some gaggle of “armed and untrained civilians”, nor is it a “conspiracy theory”. All too often it is coming from illegal aliens, many associated with the brutal MS-13 gang, which were responsible for over half of the murders in Prince William County in 2007. Efforts to promote the Rule of Law Resolution are a legitimate effort to have law enforcement agencies identify and deal with these dangerous criminals before they kill or maim more of our law abiding residents, and discourage those who might do so and have so far evaded the law from residing here. By obtaining effective policy reforms that are abating this problem right now, if anything these efforts reduce the potential for violence by demonstrating to the community that government is serious about addressing these very real and troubling problems.
If anything, the potential for violence is likely much higher in communities where citizens believe that their local government has refused to address the issue of illegal immigration and has dismissed their legitimate concerns as being nothing other than the expression racist sentiments. That’s the intent of free political speech, to provide a means of settling political disputes through debate rather than brawls. It might not always be pleasant, and may even be enraging and sometimes inflammatory, but throughout the history of this nation it has been proven time after time as the best means of developing public policy. You’d imagine that the MJM would seek to promote this behavior, rather than attempt to stifle it as they have done with this editorial, which signals to anyone who may be interested in promoting lawful behavior in our community that the MJM will impose a harsh personal penalty on anyone who dares to confront their political orthodoxy. Instead of encouraging the debate, they join with the SPLC in trying to shut it down, which is hardly an effective means of reducing the potential for violence.
When one dedicated community activist manages to help build consensus for policies that have contributed to the near eradication of residential overcrowding, resulted in the deportation of hundreds of criminal aliens including those which would have otherwise been released back into our communities and entered in the Sex Offender Registry, and saved millions of taxpayer dollars from being used to support the unlawful presence of illegal aliens, one would imagine the local paper would be congratulatory, and seek to encourage others to perform similar acts of volunteer public service. School overcrowding is finally abating, our health care system is no longer being crushed under the weight of illegal aliens who evade their bills, our communities are safer, and public facilities are more available to lawful residents than they have been in years. My efforts to help achieve these goals have come at great personal sacrifice, and while I require no thanks or public recognition for the role I played in achieving these stunning successes, being attacked for helping our community like this is utterly outrageous.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
57 Comments
Views: 1203
Loading ...
The rhetoric is going to EXPLODE now that the gravy train is moving on to more accomodating locales.
Maybe this will be the final nail in MJM’s coffin. We can only hope…
I wonder if their paid circulation is larger than the free spanish version?
One of the comments I left:
To all the readers that find “our opinion” offensive and feel HSM is fighting the good fight, please speak with your wallets and CANCEL your subscription. There can only be so many hypocritical subscribers like phdee living in their curiously segregated communities. Of course they’re up in arms. Their slave labor is becoming scarce.
Lets see if it gets posted.
MJM is using the old ploy of attacking the message by attacking the messenger. It will not work. They don’t realize that many members of HSM are not white males. I also know a member who is an immigrant. I wonder what they think of the lady in Maryland who is the head of the local chapter of Help Save Maryland and happens to be black. I guess the editorial board of MJM didn’t read the Post article about her.
When will someone start a decent newspaper in Prince William County? It is a travesty that this county has a newspaper that prints fiction instead facts. I think the National Inquirer prints more factual information than MJM and Potomac News combined.
The MJM is not worth using as toilet paper. It is a shame that some trees had to be sacrificed for MJM to print its trash.
What delusional water is the Potomac News drinking? It certainly is seems to be quite some powerful stuff. I and others in the community are getting very tired about seeing the local paper trying to divide the community by using divisive names. When you use terms like “racist, discrimination, mean spirited” you only breed contempt and destruction for what the majority of law abiding citizens are demanding. The community has spoken clearly time and time again–they want to have people that are breaking our laws be held to account. The Potomac News seems to believe if you have a good enough of sob story then you can commit a crime. Last year 4 of 7 murders were committed by an illegal immigrant. A majority of assaults in the community were committed by illegal immigrants. Does the Potomac News justify this? The Potomac News leadership is disconnected from this community and seems hell bent on promoting their political agenda no matter what the effect.
Greg Letiecq has led a grassroots group and along with the leadership of John Stirrup and Corey Stewart we have already had positive results. He should win an award but not from the Potomac News or a maligned marginal group such as Southern Poverty Law Center. He should be awarded as a Patriot and he has my thanks for being a fortified leader on protecting our community.
Just my Thoughts-
Trent A Barton
MJM editors must be self-deluded elites who hold the belief that the use of tired allegations about xenophobia is the best way to show their vision of a superior world order. Come to think of it whatever did happened to those old editors of Pravda…..?
Don’t know why you keep giving these clowns space and discussion on your blog. They are a joke and nobody cares what they print or ultimately if they succeed or fail. They are irrelevant.
Hit a nerve, eh?
Agree w/ Park’d. Neither the SPLC nor the Potomac Fish Wrap is worthy of aresponse.
Potomac News probably would not have picked this story up if you had not highlighted it on this blog, Greg. Unless you want to become the center of the debate and want to take the place of the issue, you’re going to have to suffer some slings and arrows without rising up and responding to each and every personal attack.
Tonto translates to foolish or stupido!
It’s interesting to read the many comments about the irrevelance of statements written by those who disagree with the majority on this blogg. How can you have a discussion if everyone agrees. A mutual admiration society doesn’t produce a discussion. You might as well just write “yes, Greg, we agree with you”, “yes, Greg is RIGHT ON”, etc. etc Don’t you want to know what others think? Some comments might make a one-track mind take a little detour.
I am proud to be nativistically intolerant of criminals. Let the MJM bleat in defeat, call names to it’s heart’s content. Let the soccer players move to Fairfax and Montgomery Counties. Just don’t send them to Hampton Roads!
Krutis,
Let’s see. It’s blog. It isn’t that they disagree that makes them irrelevant. Do you seriously not see or know why newspapers are quickly becoming irrelevant? Why most newspapers are just barely hanging on, financially speaking? Why their subscriber base is melting away? I’ll give you a hint, you just took part in a little piece of the reason. The fact that they’re completely leftist is just a little part of it.
Mando said on 13 Mar 2008 at 3:05 pm:
It was there when I checked it.
I left this one, let’s see if it gets in there:
I canceled my subscription to this paper a LONG time ago because of this type of “journalism” you decided to show today. I would think a paper would appreciate the fact that those here ILLEGALLY are leaving PWC providing more room in the classrooms for the LEGAL residents, allowing people to play in the parks that are no longer crowded with ILLEGAL aliens playing soccer and the use of the roads which they pay no tax for. People, we have to wake up and wake up soon. The US is under an invasion and it will not be long before the ILLEGALS have enough people within to overtake us. I know I am not ready to let this country go, how about anyone else?
People who want everyone to follow the law of the land is not a racist, xenophobe, nativist or a member of some cult.
I support those in Gov’t who wish to make this country stronger and maintain the rule of law.
The best way to protest is to cancel your subscription to this “newspaper”. My life has been better since I did.
BattleCat said on 13 Mar 2008 at 5:05 pm
You hit the nail on the head!!!
Battle Cat - I’m sorry for the extra G; won’t happen again. I’m not talking about newspapers becoming irrelevant. I was talking about comments from PEOPLE who disagree with you.
So, let me get this straight-
The illegal alien supporters have replaced “racism” (which wasn’t working) with “nativism”. Do they think that all “isms” are bad?
I loved this comment on the MJM site:
Posted by ( The Ghost of WFB ) on March 13, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Reading your “Opinion” every day is like watching some large beast in the throes of death. Your comments regarding a local citizen who has done absolutley nothing illegal palce you, the “editors” beneath contempt. I have to ask your publisher/owner: When are you going to sack these feckless editors who are turning your paper into a local joke?
And you call yourselves “journalists”? HA!
I find it interesting that the MJM tries to equate those who irresponsibly bandy about the term “racist” with those who identify the behavior of illegal alien apologists. It’s like they’re buying into this whole thought crime ideology and can’t distinguish between behavior and attitudes.
Branding someone as racist is claiming that your godlike powers to look into someone’s soul is infallible. People who do this seem to expect that the rest of us just trust that their evaluation of what someone holds in their heart is nothing but evil. I don’t buy it for a minute.
When someone accurately points out that a person’s actions have consistently been to apologize for those that break the law, that’s an entirely different matter, and the MJM can’t see that at all. We can clearly see behavior. We can’t see someone’s soul.
Blurring the lines between motivations and behavior is a classic leftist stunt, and the MJM again proves it’s nothing but a leftist rag. Why anyone bothers reading it is beyond me.
Can someone explain to me how this word is even relevant?
American Heritage Dictionary
na·tiv·ism (nā’tĭ-vĭz’əm) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A sociopolitical policy, especially in the United States in the 19th century, favoring the interests of established inhabitants over those of immigrants.
2. The reestablishment or perpetuation of native cultural traits, especially in opposition to acculturation.
3. Philosophy The doctrine that the mind produces ideas that are not derived from external sources.
UHH??? Help?!?!
I personally do not see how this word fits.
Definition 1 doesn’t
Definition 2 doesn’t
Definition 3 doesn’t
hmmm, I guess someone thought they would use a big wird and no one would look it up to make sure their understanding of the word was indeed what they had learned. More of the dumbing down of America by allowing ILLEGAL aliens to take up classroom resources and teachers time.
As I see it we do allow acculturation:
American Heritage Dictionary
ac·cul·tur·a·tion (ə-kŭl’chə-rā’shən) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. The modification of the culture of a group or individual as a result of contact with a different culture.
2. The process by which the culture of a particular society is instilled in a human from infancy onward.
We have accepted the culture of those who came here LEGALLY and those who do not try to force feed it down our throats.
I am “intolerant” of illegal aliens (who are all involved in criminal behavior…stealing identities, stealing benefits, setting up “bunk houses”, etc.) and their legal supporters (who “aid and abet”…which is a FELONY)! Someone please ask the “reporters” what their definition of a “nativist” is. Also, please ask the same “reporters” if members of the “You Don’t Speak for Me” organization would be considered “racist” or “nativist” too since they are against illegal immigration.
I find it all so sad. The MJM has made it clear they support illegals, and have gone out of their many more times to insult and sling mud at those who are trying to do something about the issue.
I simply do not understand how fighting law breaking and criminals gets one branded a racist or naivest.
Are people who fight against drunk driving only going after people who drink alcohol? Or, are they just going after people who drink too much and then break the law by driving and getting caught with a higher BAC then the law allows?
Funny how the MJM never has gone after Mexicans without borders. They simply view them as the victims in this whole debate.
WOW, my post made it. I am totally surprised.
I gave up on the Potomlack News quite awhile ago.
Mr. Greg:
You’re a great American.
We do all agree that Krusty is disagreeable
WHO CARES what some ridiculous paper says….we shall carry on with our efforts to eliminate illegal immigration in our community.
F em. Who cares.
Mexicans without borders = Free range natavists
Johnson said on 13 Mar 2008 at 5:13 pm:
“Do they think that all “isms” are bad?”
‘Course not! Communism, socialism………..
Excellent comment following the MJM “opinion”:
“Posted by ( MikeG ) on March 13, 2008 at 4:01 pm
the Manassas Journal, who has made no secret of their support for a hands-off policy with regards to illegal aliens in our midst, must be chortling in their green tea today since the SPLC has given them a new buzz word to throw at those people who disagree with a leniency policy for people who willingly and willfully disregard and disrespect the laws of this country. Now that the MJM and the SPLC and their ilk have such an easily bandied catch word, no one will dare stand up against a blanket accusation of racism, hatred and who knows what other anti-minority slur they can think of, right? Those of us who sincerely care about not only the current state of affairs in our county, state and nation, but also its future in the face of unrelenting lawlessness on the part of a not-insignificant segment of our total population. We have upwards of 20 million people in this country who have decided to break our laws to get here, and who have decided to break our laws to say here, and who waste no opportunity to throw their disdain for our laws, our culture, our national identity, and even our right to self-preservation and sustainment of our way of life in our faces. We are racist because we demand feasance and lawful behavior from those who would claim to be citizens of this nation? We have 280 million people in this nation who are composed of immigrants, including many hundreds of thousands of whom have fairly recently won their citizenship or legal status here by legal and respected means. We have 20 million illegal aliens here who not only disrespect those of us who were born here, but who also dishonor all other immigrants who have done things the right way and deserve to be here. If I am supportive of a system whereby our county, state and nation works to eradicate the scourge of illegal aliens from our midst, and you wish to label me a nativist and by extension a racist, well do your worst. In my opinion, you are by far the greater racist and a much more serious threat to our way of life in that you would attack our very ability to stand up for our constitutional rights by making the expression of our views something evil. It is your newfound buzzword “nativist” that is evil, and I would contend creates an even greater threat of escalating this debate by putting such slurs into the hands of those whose presence here isn’t protected by our constitution.”
I think that they are just being over the top to try to sell more papers. I agree with Rick, F’em.
The upside is the increase in the number of web hits here.
While I think some of those terms are applicable to some — not all and probably not even most — of your commenters (indeed, some embrace them), I thought this editorial painted with too broad a brush, and certainly was unfair to you, Greg.
I won’t hold my breath for the editorial attacking the grievance lobby for its support from Marxists and other socialists.
You know you’ve really made it when a newspaper attacks you! LOL
Seriously . . . Greg, are you going to write them a letter to the editor to respond? I think you should, even if they don’t print it. It might be interesting to try to get the editors of the MJM to state exactly what level of lawbreaking they are willing to tolerate, what amount of tax dollars should be spent on illegal immigrants (I’m sorry, “undocumented workers), and what are their own specific solutions to address this issue. I notice a pattern that those on the left are quick to complain, but never offer specific policies. They need to put up or shut up.
Speaking of which, maybe one of the nice editors of the MJM is willing to meet you for a public debate?
I disagree, the MJM is spot on here. The nativists have grown restless…and they must be stopped or else the invasivists will leave.
FROM THE MJM DICTIONARY (idiots version):
invasivsitism (invāsive - atism) Pronunciation Key
n.
1. A politically correct orthodoxy of breaking into ones neighboring country and doing whatever the hell you want, especially in the United States in the late 20th and early 21st century, and then whining when the natives get upset.
2. The imposition of law-breaking cultural traits, especially in opposition to assimilation; often accompanied by Devils impesonating Santa Clause.
3. The doctrine that the mind is a terrible thing and should not produce ideas derived from COMMON SENSE.
I would flat out ask the MJM why they seem to only support illegal law breakers. Would they openly support drunk drivers? Would they openly support child molesters? If not, why do they support illegals?
Funny how the MJM does not mind stereotyping everyone who is against illegal aliens, but they sure do not like people who stereotype illegals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWX9gvrtAYE&eurl=http://www.illegalaliens.us/
what the hell, it’s comedy night on BVBL.
This really is surreal that people who expect people to obey the laws of this country are considered somehow flawed. Unbelievable, yet totally believable in today’s PC world.
Keep kicking their ass, Greg.
“armed and untrained civilians”
Yes urinal messenger, just what the Constitution called for, And wasn’t Greg in the Military? And Steve Thomas? And Plenty of other HSM Members I’m sure. I Doubt they are exactly “Untrained”
But to be fair, I Haven’t reached enlistment age and I own a Few Firearms, So they must be talking about me. Oh Wait, I’m not a member of HSM.
Huh Must be someone else.
The sad thing is that Latino’s I have met are some of the most racist self inclusive individuals that I have ever met. The published study by Duke University showed that the majority of Latino’s have very racist views of African Americans. Why is it that views such as these are never brought up by rags like the Messenger? My guess is that this is a parting shot in their death throws of defeat of their planned socialist state.
Hahahahahahahahaha!
The irony here is too rich. A day after posting that Jim Gilmore is a cry baby because his campaign issues a press release criticizing an attack on Gilmore by Bob Marshall, Greg writes this interminable, whiney junior high rant because the MJM is now giving him the notoriety he’s been clamoring for.
Comparing himself to the patriots of the American Revolution?! Great personal sacrifice?! What’s been your great personal sacrifice Greg? Please, you whip this out every now and then when you’re being criticized, enlighten those of us who don’t live in your echo chamber so we can feel your pain.
You’re a real hero. Let’s see, you focused the bulk of your efforts during this campaign on the weakest and most vulnerable link in the chain, the powerless workers and their families who have no vote and little access to any sort of stable safety net, some of whom fled violence and terror in their home countries. Whenever possible you used hate-tinged rhetoric and took no steps to denounce or repudiate those who did, adding to the life of fear so many of these folks already experience–and then boasting about how your tactics have “scared” these people into leaving.
I’m sure these folks are grateful for the great personal sacrifice you made by devoting so much of your time to stopping sex trafficing. And I’m sure that the people who left the county out of fear were the hardened criminal element. After all, they’re real wusses.
Get real Greg and all those who Greg wannabes. You’re not heros or great Americans. Heros and great Americans don’t attack and exploit the weakest and the most vulnerable. They work to solve problems, not blame someone for them who cannot defend themselves. Face it, the problem here Greg is that you wanted to be well known for this effort, but now that an ever brighter light is being shown on you, you’re coming to realize that the bigotry you’ve been providing cover for is something likely to define any legacy you leave. If known a decade from now, and I hope you are, it will be as a representative of that unfortunate cyclical strain of prejudice that emerges every few decades in America to attack society’s weakest. Your descendents will be so proud.
Is there a full moon?
Good gracious, I’m going to agree with James Young on something.
While the MJM editorial is unfair in ascribing so much of this to Greg personally, there are some in HSM and (as James points out) some on this list that do hold nativists views (whether they want to admit it or not). As the head of HSM and the man in charge at BVBL, then, Greg is going to be painted as at least sympathetic to those views (whether that is his intent or not). It’s the price you pay for being the guy in charge.
To those who are bristling at the idea of being called a nativist, I think you need to refresh your history lessons and look at where and how the term originated. Contrary to your assertion, Medic, that none of the definitions fit, the first definition you posted is spot on for some of the “regulars” here who help set the tone for the blog (and do so with Greg’s blessing). Here are just some of the positions of 19th and early 20th century American nativists (keep in mind that the concept of illegal versus legal immigration is a relatively new focus of attention):
- Immigrants don’t assimilate (but should).
- English should be the first and only language. Immigrants should learn English.
- Immigrants are corrupting our culture and trying to install their own in its place.
- Immigrants are a drain on government resources.
- Immigrants are taking away our jobs.
- Immigrants are damaging our communities and destroying property.
- Immigrants have no respect for personal property.
- Immigrants are a drain on social and medical services.
- Immigrants are the root of increases in crime.
Any of these sound familiar? Seen any such senitments posted on this very blog? I seem to recall sentiments such as these posted from time to time. Sure, you couch it all in “We don’t care about *legal* immigrants–it’s the illegal ones we’re talking about.” But if that’s the case, then why the diatribes about making English the official language? Why the complaints about Hispanics urinating on the dumpster beside 7-11? Why the complaints about hearing salsa music at every stop light? Why the complaints (complete with pictures) of neglected properties and trash along the roadside? Why the assumption that every Hispanic man arrested for a crime is illegal? Why the outrage over ESOL spending (when 50% or more the the current PWCS ESOL population was born in the US)?
Nativism didn’t end in the 19th century. It is ironic, though, that today’s nativists are probably descendants of the very people the 19th century nativists were talking about. Any of you Irish? Chinese? German? Catholic? All of these immigrant groups were targeted by earlier nativist movements.
Sorry, folks. For some of you the nativist term is apt. For Greg, so long as you associate with such comments (and in some ways encourage them) and don’t denounce them (and I mean a true renunciation, not a statement made with a wink), you will considered sympathetic to those views.
Anonymous said on 14 Mar 2008 at 8:23 am:
The sad thing is that Latino’s I have met are some of the most racist self inclusive individuals that I have ever met.
Remember the stage and movie, WEST SIDE STORY?
es_la_ley said on 14 Mar 2008 at 10:20 am:
It has to be a full moon!!!
_________________________________
Turn,
This term is being used today, not in the early 19th century. Things have changed since then. I was looking at the definition from the LEGAL immigrant’s point of view, not ILLEGAL aliens. They are not immigrants. So again, the definition does not fit. I have no quarrel with LEGAL immigrants coming into my neighborhood and keeping their culture as long as it isn’t shoved down my throat and I am called a racist if I do not accept it.
That is really my main problem, they do not assimilate and think we should be accepting of their culture, which I do accept it, but not as the MAIN culture. It is a sub-culture of the AMERICAN culture. This is to include all Americans, not hyphenated ones. The hyphenation of Americans is what started a bunch of crap anyway. We are Americans, not whatever-Americans. Once we get away from the politically correctness, the sooner we can join together as one. By hyphenating the American, you automatically set yourself up as a separate group.
To address some of your questions:
1) Why the diatribes about making English the official language?
Because this is the language of America. It is the basic way to function within the society. If they do not want to learn it, then they are not assimilating.
2) Why the complaints about Hispanics urinating on the dumpster beside 7-11?
Because this is America, not a third world country. We have decency laws and should respect other peoples property. By urinating in public, they disregard the law and show disrespect to the property they urinate on.
3) Why the complaints about hearing salsa music at every stop light?
I have not seen any of these complaints. If you have them, please post the archive showing them. I personally have issues with ANY music loud enough that I can hear it with my car windows up. As a former Paramedic/Fire Fighter that had to drive through traffic to get to a fire or rescue call, I have come across people with their car stereo’s so loud they could not hear an air horn. This is dangerous for them and others on the road.
4) Why the assumption that every Hispanic man arrested for a crime is illegal?
I do not assume he is an ILLEGAL alien. Odds are good that he is, but it is not an assumption of mine. I do not look at Hispanic people as ILLEGAL aliens. I see them as folks that are trying to make a living, however, if they are not here LEGALLY, then they need to be punished for breaking the law and deported no questions asked. It is a good chance that those urinating on the dumpsters at the 7-11 are ILLEGAL aliens.
5) Why the outrage over ESOL spending (when 50% or more the the current PWCS ESOL population was born in the US)?
The only reason they were born in the US is because of a poor interpretation of the 14th amendment. I like the idea of updating the 14th so at least one of the parents is a LEGAL US citizen. Then citizenship can be granted. If you look at the debates for the 14th amendment, they did not intend for it to be interpreted the way it has been. If the people using the ESOL service are LEGAL immigrants, then I have no quarrel with it. I do have a quarrel with educating the ILLEGAL aliens. Why should my tax dollars go to fund educating a child that should not be here in the first place. No the child didn’t have a choice to come along for the ride across the border, but their parents did. Why should the law breaking behavior be rewarded with a free AMERICAN education or any other services they can get?
You can not equate the immigration movement of the earlier years to what it is today. Those immigrants assimilated where the ones coming in today only talk of taking back what they THINK is rightfully theirs, which does not exist. The land they say is theirs was negotiated over and concessions made by both sides for it. It belongs to America rightfully and legally!!
Tell me how much of this you agree with:
When the hordes of other lands are permitted to come here, as is the case daily; when ignorance, poverty, crime is allowed to land upon our shores and be transformed, hardly without ceremony, and with no time to learn the nature of our institutions, into what is called the ‘American’ citizens—when these things are done, it is time that good men lifted their arms and sounded their voices against the abomination.
No man has a right to perform an act of injustice to a nation. We care not whether the offense is defined in a written law, or not. There is a right and a wrong in this as in other matters. Every man of intelligence must understand it. Making citizens of such stuff as too often seeks our land is an injustice, the grossness of which can hardly be described. It should no longer be tolerated. The laws which permit the crime should at once be abolished.
Because it is every day weakening the strength, and destroying the character of the country. America can only be America by keeping it American. Its halls of legislation must reflect American sentiment, uttered by American tongues. There is no avoiding this position. Americans must fill our offices, great and small. To do this we must cut off all chance of foreigners getting such. How? By saying to foreigners, ‘Gentlemen, you are welcome to live in our country if you conduct yourself in a worthy manner, but you must have no offices. This is our land. We own it. We mean to take care of it. If you don’t like things as you find them, you can leave. We only demand in this country what we should expect in yours.’
Are these from a recent speech by a proponent of the rule of law? Nope, they’re taken from the pages of a nativist pamphlet published in 1854. The sentiments expressed don’t sound very different from what I’ve seen written here by others.
Geez, TurnBlue, you don’t agree with Medic64 that a lot has changed since 1854?
@ Turn PW Blue
Nativists (like the author of your pamphlet) have a problem with LEGAL immagration. I don’t nor does anyone else on this blog that I know of.
More LEGAL immagration is a good thing as long as legitimate jobs are filled.
legal2–the more things change, the more they stay the same. Look at the language of some of the comments on this blog over the last year then look at the language of the nativist pamphlet. Many of the same words, phrases and ideas come through.
—–
Mando–You need to pay better attention then. While you don’t have an issue with legal immigration, others here have made such statements and/or are affiliated with or sympathetic to organizations that are seeking to fight not only illegal immigration but also stop or severely curtail legal immigration. Both NumbersUSA and FAIR have taken a strong anti-immigration angle advocating a revision not only of illegal alien laws but a drastic reduction in the number *legal* immigrants allowed into the United States (not surprising since both groups have a common ancestry and founder). Those organizations DO have a problem with legal immigration. Several on this list have expressed support for FAIR and have relied on NumbersUSA for data and information. NumbersUSA also provided legal assistance and advocacy within PWC for the “Rule of Law” resolution and is allied with Save the Old Dominion (which has links to both NumbersUSA and FAIR on its main page and which Greg, in a previous blog entry, welcomed into the fight against illegal immigration in Virginia). As an organizational member of Save the Old Dominion, HSM is also, then, tied to both FAIR and NumbersUSA.
This is not an issue of nativism. It is an issue of reaction to policies that have been forced on the people by corporate interests and by a government who is all too happy to foster the same interests to the dismay of the legal population, which is in truth being disenfranchised when unable to oppose policies that are counter to the interest of the nation, themselves and the future of their children. To rebel or group around the fire to plan a response to such selfish and destructive policies will be immediately countered with insults such as racism, ostracism, nativism and so forth.
When a government imposes policies that only benefit the illegal immigrant and the employer or big corporation, the common CITIZEN (read american) becomes disarmed and any revolt is met with cries of subversion or in our case of racism, which are in their intent and effect equivalent.
If people are willing to contemplate or suffer such injury in silence, then the same people will be defenseless because it is a false argument. To the issue of nativism or racism one should respond by negating such accusation and proclaiming and reclaiming the rights that have been neglected by the government.
Turn PW Blue said on 14 Mar 2008 at 3:16 pm:
You really do not get it do you? We are talking about 2008, not 1854. Things are no where near the same. We have immigration laws now, which are not being obeyed!! I have to ask, what part of ILLEGAL do you not understand?
American Heritage Dictionary
il·le·gal (ĭ-lē’gəl) Pronunciation Key
adj.
1. Prohibited by law.
2. Prohibited by official rules: an illegal pass in football.
3. Unacceptable to or not performable by a computer: an illegal operation.
OBVIOUSLY the first definition fits the sue of this word. We are not in 1854 where gun toting individuals set out to their lawless ways. We are now a nation of laws and rules. Things are not the same as they were then. The old cliche, “The more things change, the more they stay the same.”, does not apply here. These people have entered the US unlawfully. You and your apologetic ilk will turn this entire country over to the ILLEGAL aliens when they come up and say, We are here now and there are more of us than there are of you, so we are in charge now. I will not allow this to happen on my watch. I will do everything I can legally to prevent it from happening.
I am for LEGAL immigration, but I will say we need to make sure those we allow in can support themselves. We do not need to allow LEGAL immigrants into the country that can not support themselves.
We have enough free loaders on the public dole as it is. I am tired of paying for them as well. As a 60% service connected disabled veteran, I get out of bed everyday and go to work. I could qualify for public assistance and a welfare check, but I choose NOT to do it.
I think you need to read those sites again and read them with an open mind. You see, it appears you have not had the chance to live in another country. Once you have lived in a third world country for 18+ months, come back to me and tell me the things you are spouting off.
You are reaching for straws by putting the numbersusa.com and FAIR organizations together with HSM. Yes they are for ILLEGAL alien removal and possibly setting up a quota for the number of LEGAL immigrants we accept. We can not accept all of the worlds poor and uneducated. We have to acept those that will help us be a better nation. Since we have a population now, what is wrong with picking and choosing who can come into our country?
I get the part about legal versus illegal, Medic. I’m all for stopping illegal immigration. Really. I believe that someone arrested should have their immigration status checked and should be deported if they aren’t legal. I also believe we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of opportunity and that our immigration laws (including our immigration quotas) should reflect that.
I think, though, that what you don’t get or don’t want to see is that not all those trying to curtail illegal immigration are doing it based on an ideal of what is right and wrong vis a vis the Law. There are other, more insidious motivations at play (and those come out from time to time in the posts here). Sure, many will pay lip service to the idea that we’re all for legal immigrants. But why, then, is so much of the conversation about things like “culture” and “American values” and “common language.” If these people were all legal, those issues could and would still exist. The existed when the Irish and Germans flocked to America’s shores in the 1850s and they exist with the newest wave of legal immigration (Mexicans make up the largest portion of *legal* immigrants according to the DHS’s Office of Immigration Statistics). Look at the latest issue of the Frontline and the column by HSM’s VP on “Cultural Chaos.” Look at Greg’s “President’s Pen” from the December issue. The questions and issues raised in those columns are not issues of legal versus illegal, right versus wrong. They are issues of native culture versus foreign culture. There is the constant refraining of “America under attack,” “our culture is threatened.” These are the very same nativist issues the Know Nothings of the 1850s were raising about Irish Catholics, Germans, and Chinese. Then, as now, those issues were couched under the blanket of “saving” America.
As for the relationships with FAIR and NumbersUSA, the company you keep says a lot about who you are.
Oh, and your line about not needing to allow LEGAL immigrants into the country who cannot support themselves? The 12th plank of the American Party Platform in 1854 was “The sending back of all Foreign Paupers landed on our shores.” Yup, things certainly have change in the last 154 years.
Turn Blue,
And not everyone who comes here illegally are doing it just to do jobs Americans do not want to do. And, not everyone who support illegals are doing it just to support the illegals, they have other motives besides the support of criminals.
The fact is that on any issues, there are going to be a wide range of opinions from any number of people.
As I see it, the problem stems mainly from the likes of the MJM and the Washington COMPOST. Those two papers absolutely refuse to acknowledge the vast majority of people who oppose illegal immigration oppose it because they oppose the illegal aspect of it. They have openly championed the cause of the illegals, have pleaded with us to change rather then the illegals, and generally have turned a blind eye to the extremists who support illegals.
We can simply say you and others who support illegals or at the very least defend them, hold the same views as Mexicans without borders and tie you into every group they are associated with. Would it be fair to paint you with the same broad brush as you have above?
COM:
When you say “We can simply say you and others who support illegals or at the very least defend them,” you make it clear you haven’t read what I wrote. You won’t see me support illegal immigration or defend them. I am all for proper enforcement of our laws. Period. So, no, it would not be fair to lump me in the MSF and every group they are associated with. Also note, that I do not promote or link to MSF or any such groups within my comments or on my Web page.
But you are correct that the MJM and WashPost should be looking into some of the more spurious connections of groups like Mexicans Without Borders. For what it’s worth, I don’t support them or their tactics either.
Turn PW Blue said on 14 Mar 2008 at 4:52 pm:
So you are lumping me in the same group as the President and other contributors of The Frontline just because I choose to post on this blog? Where does that put you in regards to the company you keep statement?
Have you seen the YouTube videos of the protests the ILLEGAL aliens do in CA? This action is what has me worried about the “American culture”. When people do not wish to try to assimilate and keep PART of their culture then there are problems. Many people see this as an aggressive bunch of lawless people trying to take from them the “American dream”. I have often said that if the ILLEGAL aliens had assimilated and kept amassing in the country and didn’t protest and raise awareness, they would have not woke up the big dog on the porch. Unfortunately, they have kicked the big dog on the porch and he is now ready to bite and will not stop until he is finished.
The sense of entitlement that most ILLEGAL aliens have is another problem I have. They are here ILLEGALLY and they are not entitled to anything. They have certain rights afforded to them under the constitution, but NOTHING more.
Maybe the fact that those who can not support themselves should be sent back is not a bad idea in my mind. We need to boost the tax paying force more instead of add to the public dole. We need more people to get off of their lazy a$$es and get to work.
_______________________________________________
Turn PW Blue said on 14 Mar 2008 at 5:10 pm:
“You won’t see me support illegal immigration or defend them.”
Then why do you bring up the pamphlet from 1854 and agree with the paper when it calls those of us who wish to have the rule of law enforced, nativist?
Turn Blue,
Sorry, I am just using the tactics that are used by those that support illegals. Never mind the facts. How does it feel?
Don’t you find it funny that two of the most outspoken critics of illegal immigrants in this area are, Jeff Frederick, a legal immigrant, and Chairman Stewart, who is married to a legal immigrant. Yet, if we are to believe the MJM and the COMPOST and the SLC, they are just Navitists. Why won’t the COMPOST have a more balanced view on this issue? Has the MJM or the COMPOST carried stores on groups such as You do not speak for me? Why not? Maybe because they want to frame this issue as a racial issue and to show anyone but whites being opposed to illegal immigration would not fit into their agenda.
Another point I wanted to make was to point out how the MJM and the COMPOST only seem to cover illegals that happen to be hispanics. There are clearly other ethnic and racial groups that make up the illegal population of America, yet for some reason these two defenders of illegals can only find the illegals that are hispanics. Hmm, but lets not steretype….