Friday, March 16, 2007

Day four of the Hazleton trial

Hazleton trial, Thursday, March 15, afternoon

Shortly after court reconvened following lunch, expert witness Marc R. Rosenblum concluded his testimony. Plaintiffs' attorney Vic Walczak of the ACLU was sure to make it a matter of record that the defense failed to provide the statistics from the unreleased, updated Temple - Westat report that were cited by the defense this morning. Mr. Rosenblum said "I spent some of my lunch break looking for them on the web, and couldn't find them."

Mr. Rosenblum was followed by Hazleton Mayor Louis Barletta, who took the stand for the second day. Mr. Barletta said he has, in the past, encouraged new immigrants to "bec[o]me Hazletonians. I was the mayor, I wanted to make sure people would assimilate, it was important for me to reach out and make them feel welcome."

Under direct examination Mayor Barletta reiterated the impossibility of providing numbers or statistics of the burden of city services, health care, and education, by undocumented residents. In explaining his sense of undocumented persons being a serious problem in Hazleton, Mayor Barletta spoke about a bulletin board in city hall, where newspaper clippings are posted with headlines like "Illegal Alien Arrested for Drugs," and "Illegal Alien Arrested for Murder." "Time and time again we wake up and read these things," said Mayor Barletta.

Responding to hate mail (which Mr. Barletta described as "disgusting") that Dr. Agapito Lopez received and read earlier in the trial, Mr. Barletta claims he has received similar intimidation. After Mr. Walczak's hearsay objection, which was initially sustained, and then overruled, Mr. Barletta recounted a call he claims he received in his home: "How will you feel when you die and burn in hell with Lucifer and Lou Dobbs?"

Mayor Barletta's direct examination was filled with quotes of sound bite caliber. Here is just a small sampling:

"My people in my city did not need any numbers."

"Every hour that I spend on an illegal alien, should be spent on a taxpayer."

"It is widely known that most illegal aliens do not speak English."

Mr. Walczak had about an hour in the late afternoon to cross examine Mr. Barletta.

When asked about Hispanics in Hazleton who perceive the ordinance as having a discriminatory effect, Mayor Barletta said, "Some of that perception was borne by some of the Latino leaders who were not communicating what this ordinance was about."

Mr. Walczak pressed Mr. Barletta numerous times to confirm or deny the attorney's interpretation of the violent crime statistics, which attributes two or three of Hazleton's 428 violent crimes over the past five years to illegal aliens. Mr. Barletta repeatedly sidestepped the question.

Mr. Barletta mentioned a few times today a shooting on a playground perpetrated by a 14-year old illegal immigrant. When Mr. Walczak asked him if he knew the weapon in this shooting was a B.B. gun, Mr. Barletta responded "No."

Abe in Scranton

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not up to Hazleton to provide any statistics for the court in justifying its actions. Court intervention in this is tantamount to micromanagement by the federal government and usurpation of states rights. The mayor and his council took action based upon their best judgment of what was best for his community.

The issue is whether that city is Consititutionally entitled to take the action that it did. It is not up to the federal courts to second guess Hazleton in what it should have done. If what they have done is legal, but objectionable to the citizens, then it is up to the citizens of the community to throw their Mayor and council out of office, just as done in Herndon, Virginia, when its mayor and town council tried to estabish a meeting place for illegal alien workers in that town. There are no offended citizens complaining about descrimination in this case. The plaintiffs are making all kinds of unsubstantiated complaints based on inferences that could have meanings far different from what they assert. Everything the ACLU has said is speculative and not based upon any actual descrimination of Hazleton citizenry. Even the argument that Hispanics were receiving threats is presumtive, in that it asserts that they were due to the enactment of the law, when it could very well mean that the Hazleton's citizens had been harboring resentment over the presence of illegal aliens for some time now. Enactment of the law may have only enboldened the more radically opinionated to act out their feelings.

If the ACLU thinks that the climate in Hazleton will change because of their efforts, they are just plain wrong. An ACLU success will only deepen resentment in Hazleton because it will be seen as frustrating their will. Any return of a large number of illegal aliens will only result in Hazleton residents taking action to contact federal authorities about illicit employment and more activism in putting pressure on their politicians.

12:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know, anonymous, your postings here only confirm the need for overturning the Hazelton law. Your comments are consistently ill-informed, bigoted and xenophobic, strongly underscoring the need for the very policies you revile. Behavior like yours is most certainly what Mark Twain had in mind when he opined "It is better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt." And unlike you I'm happy to post under my real name. Are you afraid of something?

4:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: Enactment of the law may have only enboldened the more radically opinionated to act out their feelings.


5:47 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

RE: micromanagement by the federal government

I think this guy got it backwards; Hazleton's law is an attempt by a hick town to miromanage the federal government! Not that mean-spirited harasement should be called "management".

6:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Your appear to be ignorant of the Constitution. It took all the convincing that the Jay, Madison and Hamiltion could muster in the Federalist Papers to convince the States that they weren't surrendering their entire sovereign rights to the federal government. Madison said in Federalist No. 45 that "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain with the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace negotiation and foreign commerce;...The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects, which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and property of the state." It is evident that the Framers intended that States would have control over local affairs, without interference by the federal government.

As to the Constitutionality of Hazleton's involvement in immigration, Hazleton is unquestionably correct. The federal goverment does not have plenary power over immigration. Constitution says this:

"The Congress shall have Power to.... establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization." The Consititution says nothing about immigration, and that's because the power to govern immigration was to remain in the hands of the States.

P.A. Madison says it best:

The US Constitution Only Delegates the Power Over Immigration or Asylum to the States

Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall on behalf of herself and several other county attorneys and sheriffs, recently said a Arizona proposed immigration provision is an unconstitutional intrusion by the state into immigration policies, which are solely the purview of the federal government. This struck me kind of odd because in order to come under the purview of the federal government the authority must be found delegated or, incidental to a delegated power granted to Congress under the US Constitution. There is a significant reason why Congress has no delegated power leading to jurisdiction under the US Constitution in matters of immigration or Asylum.

To better understand why this is so we need to go back to the founding of the United States of America and consider Article II of the Articles of Confederation that read:

Each state retains its sovereignty; freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.

Prior to the adoption of the current Constitution, which was intended to correct for deficiencies found in the Confederation (hint: "to form a more perfect union"), States decided for themselves who could reside and later become citizens within their limits. This was simply a function of sovereignty each State enjoyed and had no intention of surrendering to the national government.

During the Constitutional Convention of June 16, 1788, George Mason asked if the new Constitution would secure and guarantee the rights the States then currently enjoyed. Said Mason:

But I wish a clause in the Constitution, with respect to all powers which are not granted, that they are retained by the states. Otherwise, the power of providing for the general welfare may be perverted to its destruction.

Many gentlemen, whom I respect, take different sides of this question. We wish this Amendment to be introduced, to remove our apprehensions. There was a clause in the Confederation reserving to the states respectively every power, jurisdiction, and right, not expressly delegated to the United States. This clause has never been complained of, but approved by all. Why not, then, have a similar clause in this Constitution, in which it is the more indispensably necessary than in the Confederation, because of the great augmentation of power vested in the former? In my humble apprehension, unless there be some such clear and finite expression, this clause now under consideration will go to any thing our rulers may think proper. Unless there be some express declaration that every thing not given is retained, it will be carried to any power Congress may please.

It was this very apprehension that we find the Ninth and Tenth Amendment under the US Constitution today. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments taken together provide for interpreting the Constitution while also defining the sovereignty of the republic.

The Ninth was intended to preserve all rights under existing state laws as of 1791, and those rights, which States would later enact. The Tenth guaranteed to the States their ability to exercise their powers based on the sovereignty of the people to self-government. The Ninth Amendment looks to the past, the rights retained, or that will be retained by the states. The Tenth Amendment acts to prevent encroachment by the national government upon the States via the exercise of a non-delegated power.

Thomas Jefferson forcibly tells us what the States retained under the US Constitution in regards to immigration:

Resolved, That alien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people," the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled "An Act concerning Aliens," which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force.

Because the States decided they would retain their own laws, customs, independence and sovereignty, the federal government was left with no powers to meddle within the States. James Madison explained the entire compact this way:

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
Madison in the Virginia Resolutions further reminds us of the limitations imposed upon the Federal government:

The committee satisfy themselves here with briefly remarking that, in all the contemporary discussions and comments which the Constitution underwent, it was constantly justified and recommended on the ground that the powers not given to the government were withheld from it; and that, if any doubt could have existed on this subject, under the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as far as words could remove it, by the 10th amendment, now a part of the Constitution, which expressly declares, "that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
The federal government was given popular national sovereignty over all external objects outside of the States, such as being able to speak in one voice on behalf of all the States in foreign matters, power to make treaties on behalf of the States, print money, etc. Because the States retained just about everything they had before joining the union, and the fact this is clearly enumerated in the Constitution, gives Congress no more authority to authorize entry of immigrants or asylum seekers within the individual States any more than it has the authority to direct another country to accept them.

After the current Constitution was adopted, it was the State governors or other local authorities who issued passports for foreign travel abroad and not the federal government because no such power was delegated to the national government. In 1856 changes were made for the issuance of passports by Congress not on Constitutional jurisdictional grounds, but because diplomatic agents of foreign governments in the United States required passports granted by the States to be authenticated by the ministers or consuls of the United States.

The above simply illustrates that no one was under any illusion that the US Constitution somehow magically made the issuance of passports for foreign travel of US citizens solely the purview of the federal government. Certainly then, if the power was retained with the States to issue passports for foreign travel they also retained complete control over foreign entry within their jurisdiction.

The same Congress that had passed reconstruction acts after the civil war, including the 14th amendment, required rebel State Constitutions to conform with the US Constitution before being re-admitted into the Union. Texas, like other States, had elected to form its own immigration bureau for managing immigration within State limits. Article XI of the pre-approved Texas Constitution of 1869 read:

SECTION I. There shall be a Bureau, known as the "Bureau of Immigration," which shall have supervision and control of all matters connected with immigration. The head of this Bureau shall be styled the "Superintendent of Immigration." He shall be appointed by the Governor, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. He shall hold his office for four years, and until otherwise fixed by law, shall receive an annual compensation of two thousand dollars. He shall have such further powers and duties, connected with immigration, as may be given by law.
Congress could attempt to pull some implied authority over the migration of people within the jurisdiction of a State through the Necessary and Proper Clause, but this would require finding a delegated power that can breach the sovereignty of the State to do so. The power to make uniform rules of Naturalization will be of little use for a number of reasons. The principle reason is because it is simply a power to make rules for giving or withholding citizenship to an alien already residing within a State.

Liberal construction of the Naturalization Clause is made difficult because it was introduced to the constitutional convention to specifically give the Federal govt. "the exclusive right of declaring on what terms the privileges of citizenship & naturalization should be extended to foreigners." Clearly then, it was never a power given over anything remotely dealing with the physical presence of aliens within a State, only deals with the citizenship aspect once they decide to seek citizenship after the migration to a State.

The ability to make uniform rules of Naturalization does give Congress the power to control how many immigrants can be naturalized in a given year and under what conditions. Naturalization used to be solely carried out by the States themselves but Congress had to pretty much federalize the Naturalization process because of massive fraud and bought State judges as a result of the Irish waves. The Irish decided if they wanted to continue flooding New York unmolested by State laws they needed instant political power -- and to get political power they needed to come up with lots of citizen voters very quickly!

Congress would be on firmer ground in guarding against unauthorized entry of aliens then they are in authorizing their entry.

Congress has no option of resorting to the already comically abused commerce clause in exercising any authority over aliens within the States. This is mainly true because the power to regulate commerce with foreign countries, between the States and Indian tribes is identical. This essentially means then, if Congress wants to find immigration a thing of trade in commerce (slavery anyone?) between the States, they then could also conceivably find they have the power to flood any country on the planet with immigrants under the commerce clause.

As one might suspect, Congress has no constitutional authority to issue green cards to immigrants either. The States are the only authoritative entities that can issue green cards and offer residency within their limits. In a sense, there really is no such thing as a "legal immigrant" as a result of acts of Congress because Congress has no legal basis to make anyone a legal resident within the States -- only the States do.

Some might be alarmed to think the Federal government could have no control over who enters or resides within a State, but really if our Constitution upheld and the principles of our republican form of government is followed, current problems associated with absorbing millions of immigrants would be limited.

Consider for a moment if California decided she wanted to have an open border policy and encouraged and welcomed millions of immigrants from Latin America to immigrate. California could then issue resident cards, make rules and regulations governing its foreign population, and most importantly, be stuck with all the costs because the Federal government really would have no authority to raise and spend tax dollars to support California's foreign population (another non-delegated power). Wouldn't take long for Californians to begin questioning whether an open border is a good thing.

Consider also California would have no way of relieving itself of its own internal generated burden because other States could constitutionally refuse non-citizens from residing within their limits, making it harder for California's self-inflicted woes to migrate to other States. California would then be forced to withdraw the privilege of residency to foreign immigrants within the State -- forcing the State to enact responsible laws governing foreign residency.

Congress then could apply checks upon California through naturalization rules, such as limiting the number of citizens to be naturalized and other conditions. Our form of government really would work well for us if Congress and the courts would let it work as intended under the great social compact in which established our republican form of government.

What is really lacking for Congress is an exclusive authority to "exercise exclusive legislation" within the States that could open an avenue in exercising powers over the migration of people and residency within the States. Unfortunately for the Federal government, our Constitution only provided this authority over the District of Columbia, federally owned land and no where else.

Many confuse early American immigration legislation as a sign Congress had always exercised absolute jurisdiction over the subject. This is plainly false because early legislation dealt with encouragement of immigration into the large territories that were not yet formed into statehoods with their own laws, courts and constitutions. In other words, Congress had complete monopoly over the territories under its jurisdiction.

During the nineteenth century Congress never attempted to legislate over immigration matters within the States because they recognized the Constitution gave them no power over forcing foreign migration into each of the State jurisdictions. Once the territories were carved up into States the federal governments control over immigration into the country decreased proportionately.

President Grant was sympathetic to the treatment of immigrants once they reached the shores of this country, but told the House in a memo that national legislation over the subject would be unwise because the federal government was prohibited from interfering with immigration matters within the limits of the States. Said Grant, "responsibility over immigration can only belong with the States since this is where the Constitution kept the power."

President Andrew Jackson said the "Constitution, which was established for the benefit of our own, not of a foreign people: if in the latter, then, like other citizens or people resident within the limits of the States, they are subject to their jurisdiction and control."

Because much of immigration into the United States had become an commercial enterprise exploited by smugglers and commercial shipping companies, Congress later had some grounds under the commerce clause to clamp down on the passenger ship industry that was actively creating an industry for exploitation and transport of human cargo for profit into this country.

This all leads to several big questions for the U.S. Supreme Court: When did the States surrender their power over immigration to the Federal Government? Where can this surrender be found documented in the US Constitution? The judiciary is neither a legislative body nor does it have the authority to transfer sovereignty from one political body to another without either’s consent.

The great Chief Justice John Marshall reminds us that the "Constitution of the United States is one of limited and expressly delegated powers which can only be exercised as granted, or in cases enumerated." For Congress, there is no expressed or implied grant of power over the approval of foreign asylum seekers or immigrants to enter State limits -- no more then is there the power for them to insist upon Tokyo to accept one million refugees. As Jefferson would say of today's laws over immigration, "is not law, but is altogether void and of no force."

6:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kelvin, so what? Funny name by the way. I've never heard of you. You're just a nobody like the rest of the people who respond to this blog. I go by the name Horace, but so what? Of what importance is a name? If I said my real name was Joe Smith, and it was true, how would it add to the arguments in this blog?

I have a right to be xenophobic, but I'm not. I have the law on my side with respect to illegal immigration. Is that a reason to call all who support that claim, the majority of the voting public, xenophobic? You support our being overrun by Hispanics, so from my perspective that qualifies you as a racist, as you are supporting the current rebellion against our immigration laws on behalf of a people who claim special privilege over all candidate immigrants who obey our laws. Isn't special privilege what the KKK advocated? How is your support for special privilege any different. Both eschew the right of the American people to enforce Constitutionally enacted laws, one the Civil Rights laws and the other our immigration laws.

Lawlessness is lawlessness. As someone I can't recall recently said, our Code of Federal Regulations isn't a buffet of laws where we can pick and choose which ones we enforce.


7:07 PM  
Blogger ACLU of Pennsylvania said...

re: the politics of immigration

Anyone who thinks a candidate can ride an anti-immigrant platform to electoral victory must have slept through 2006. The Rs tried the xenophobic platform, and after some high-profile losses by candidates who were riding the anti-immigrant wave (J.D. Hayworth, Rick Santorum), they got PO'ed at Sensenbrenner, the architect of the xenophobia platform, and kicked him to the back row of the chamber.

The whispers are that the reason why Barletta brought forth the ordinance was to help Santorum's campaign by providing an issue that would appeal to the lowest common denominator. We saw how well that worked for the now-former senator.

Karl Rove is a lot of things, and one thing that he is is smart. Do you think George W. Bush supports comprehensive reform out of the goodness of his heart? Maybe he does out of some sense of "compassionate conservatism," but Rove knows that Latinos are a growing voting bloc. The last thing they need to do is alienate them.

And if you need further evidence, see Pete Wilson and Prop 187. The Rs have been getting their behinds whipped in Cali ever since. They managed to get a governor by running a RINO in a race with- what?- eight candidates, including a porn star.

Bill Kristol, who usually drives me nuts, wrote a great column in April called "Y is for Yahoo":

"Most Republican officeholders know that the political--and moral--cost of turning the GOP into an anti-immigration, Know Nothing party would be very great. It could easily dash Republican hopes of becoming a long-term governing party. How many Republicans will have the courage to stand up and prevent the yahoos from driving the party off a cliff?"

I have yet to figure out how to hyperlink in the comments section (not that I've given it much effort), but you can easily find the column by Googling "Kristol Y is for Yahoo."

Being a xenophobe might work in some city council and mayoral races and certain Congressional districts, but if you think that candidates are going to ride anti-immigrant rhetoric to some kind of election sweep, you are living in Electoral Fantasyland.


7:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I love this case. The ACLU has all the subtlety of a polar bear mauling a baby squirrel. Their problem lies with the fact that the public likes squirrels. Celebrate sycophants, but real citizens with real concerns hate bullies. Lou Dobbs and Glen Beck are having a field day.

Publius Cincinatus

8:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Being a xenophobe might work in some city council and mayoral races and certain Congressional districts, but if you think that candidates are going to ride anti-immigrant rhetoric to some kind of election sweep, you are living in Electoral Fantasyland."

There you go again, Andy, name calling. It's typical of those who do not respect community right to safeguard themselves from those who would break our immigration laws. The minute a community shows concern that it is subject to overcrowding of its schools system with the children of illegal immigrants and sees that its hospitals are being destroyed by people who stick their hospitals with their expenses, it becomes xenopobic. This is typical ACLU demonization of the citizen who have the right to see their immigration laws enforced. It's sad that you have to resort to such rhetoric.


2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And Andy, CFR Title 8 calls those here illicitly, illegal immigrants, not immigrants. Only those who choose to go through due process as defined by the Consitutionally enacted laws are entitled to the name. Any reference to illegal border crossers as immigrants is ceding U.S. sovereignty to Mexico.

Your definition is so broad as to have included jackbooted Nazis invading France during WWII. Maybe you would have called the French xenophobic as they objected to the German army crossing their frontier. Also, were those Arabs who crashed planes into the World Trade Center, immigrants. After all, your definition includes everyone who crosses our borders, without qualification.


2:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No organization such as the ACLU or the federal court should have the right to force a city to allow people who have broken the law by entering the USA illegally to remain free, using any of the city's resources without even paying city taxes.
The ACLU isn't supporting the Americans' interests in this case. It would be interesting to know who is paying for these attorneys. You need to change your name to the AACLU.

3:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...."hick town to miromanage the federal government!"

Utter arrogance and snobbery on your part, alan. When the Founding Fathers enacted the Constitution, the size of but a handful of towns was smaller than Hazleton, and the people were far less educated. You insult the people of thousands of towns in ths country in your abusive comments.

Apparently you feel that the States rights are just something relegated to lip service. The Founding Fathers didn't think so, and if you'd study the history of the Constitution, and read the Federalist Papers, you'd realize that federal powers were intended to be very limited and the powers of the states were to be far more important to the everyday lives of the people. The states were to have the roll of protecting the citizen's rights, not the federal government. Hazleton's right to self-governence and to protect itself from foreign invasion is indeed a valid one, and the right of every "hick" town in America. The politicians in Washington, and the ACLU have no right to judge these people, or interfere in their lawful acts of self-preservation. It is sheer hubris to believe so.

Someone posted P.A. Madison's argument as part of a commentary on this blog. I suggest that you read it, as he has a better understanding of Constitutional law than the ACLU will ever have.

Cincinatus Publius

8:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Digger Says...........
Illegal aliens bring disease:

Illegal Aliens Threatening LA Blood Supply With Chagas Disease

Legal immigrants that come into the United States are medically screened to protect the residents and citizens of the United States from infectious and deadly diseases. Illegal aliens on the other hand obviously are not and that is the heart of the matter when it comes to a blood borne disease called Chagas.
The American Red Cross screens blood donors and has seen a dramatic rise in the detection of the parasite Trypanosoma cruzi over the past 10 years in the Los Angeles area. In 1996, 1 in 9,850 donors were infected. In 1998, 1 in 5,400 donors were infected. In 2006, the infection rate of donors in the Los Angeles area had went to 1 in 3,800 donors.

This disease is dangerous and threatens the health of all residents of this country.

Los Angeles Times

A little-known but potentially deadly parasite from Latin America has become one of the latest threats to the blood and organ supplies in the United States...

Last year, two heart transplant patients at different Los Angeles hospitals contracted the parasitic disease, called Chagas, causing health authorities to issue a national bulletin. Within months, both patients subsequently died, although not directly from Chagas...

The parasite, which is generally passed to humans from a blood-sucking insect that looks like a striped cockroach, can feed over years on tissues of the heart and gastrointestinal tract. After decades, tissues can be eroded so much that the organs fail.


“Curbing illegal entry will diminish the problem of exposure to such diseases because legal immigrants are medically screened to protect the U.S. public,” said Jack Martin, special projects director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, an immigration control group.

It is estimated that as many as 12 million people in Latin America are infected with the Chagas parasite and that 1 million of them may die if there's not a cure found.

As for America... we are infected with at least 12 million parasites known as illegal aliens and they are eating the heart of this country.

9:19 PM  
Blogger ACLU of Pennsylvania said...

Horace, first, I'll admit that I took some shots in that post. If you look at some of the things that have been said here over the last week, you would be impressed that I've kept my dignity, for the most part. Someone said that they hope I'm on the next plane to goes down in a terrorist attack. Another person (or maybe it was the same person, they're all "anonymous") said that I have an IQ of 50 and am controlled by my puppetmasters.

Now, let's explore xenophobia, xenophobes, and the lowest common denominator.

First, look at some of the posts here this week:

"As for America... we are infected with at least 12 million parasites known as illegal aliens and they are eating the heart of this country."

"If these filthy shitskins would act like civilized humans, that would be one thing. But until then, they should stay in their third world toilets with the rest of their untermensch pals.

The mexcrement fouls everything it touches and ruins every place in which it infests and breeds."

"Come to SoCal and you'll see all the good the wetback vermin have done for Cali.

All "cultures" are NOT equal."

Second, when pro-immigrant citizens tried to hold a vigil in Riverside, New Jersey, August 20, they were met by counter demonstrators waving Confederate flags. One woman was quoted in the Phila Inquirer, "You smell. You spread germs."

Third, in a meeting I attended last month with reps from private orgs, state agencies, and federal entities, a federal rep said that membership in hate groups has increased in the last year, and they attribute it to the immigration debate.

Now, Horace, with this information, one comes to one of two conclusions:

A) You are not aware of this info and will reconsider the part xenophobia plays in this debate.

Or b) you are aware of this info but it does not meet your definition of xenophobia. If that is the case, what, exactly, is xenophobia and racism in your eyes?

Now, am I suggesting that 100% of the people who support Hazleton are xenophobes and racists? No, I think there are people who, at least consciously, are very specific about this being about illegal immigration and embrace people from different cultures.

But I do think that xenophobia and racism are the fuel that makes this engine go, and I base that on what I've read and heard, like the examples above. You will have a hard time convincing me otherwise.


1:32 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But I do think that xenophobia and racism are the fuel that makes this engine go, and I base that on what I've read and heard, like the examples above. You will have a hard time convincing me otherwise."

Regardless of what is motivating Hazleton, that town has the right to be free of illegal aliens, a right defined in the Code of Federal Regulations. It doesn't matter what you or the ACLU feel personally about this issue. If a legal way is devised to remove every unauthorized alien from Hazleton, their city officials have the right to employ it.

Tell the truth Andy, the ACLU agenda would never support Hazleton against the federal government in its failure to enforce the law, would it? Your ultimate ulterior agenda is to prevent the removal of unauthorized aliens from the U.S. Be frank for a change.


12:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To those who would label as xenophobic Americans who are opposed to illegal immigration, it may come as a surprise that most Americans do not have an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers as the definition of xenophobia requires. On the contrary, most people who look at the issue carefully and voice legitimate concern about the lack of common sense in the discussion see political pandering by organizations and individuals attempting to justify a wrong, in this case entering the U.S. illegally, with the "rights" of illegal aliens.

The current debate about immigration is unlike any discussion on the topic before. Never have the numbers been so high; never has the reliance on taxpayer-supported social services been so great; and never has pressure from businesses for cheap labor been so blatant. But we all know there is no such thing as cheap labor.

Immigrants who entered this country illegally took a risk -- a risk that their action could have unpalatable consequences some day. That day is coming. Illegal immigration under the guise of "doing work that Americans won't do" is not an acceptable excuse for entering our nation, bringing the entire family along, and relying on Uncle Sam to provide a financial cushion to help make ends meet. There is no such thing as cheap labor.

Here are a few things we must do:
+Secure our borders now. If we're unsure how to do that, we should meet with the Mexican government to gather information about how they do it so successfully on their southern border.

+Change the law that makes U.S. citizens of children of illegal aliens born on U.S. soil. That law was never meant to be applied to children of illegal aliens and is an enticement to break the law.

+Revisit the official language discussion. Don't water down the importance of a national language. Congress bowed to Latino groups with ulterior motives when they changed the original proposal and approved what stands now. Never has this nation institutionalized a foreign language to the point where a Spanish-speaking person can live here for life without ever having to learn English. Language, the great cultural unifier, cannot be ignored as a flashpoint in the dialogue about illegal immigration. The reasons should be obvious.

+Any guest worker program discussed after we have secured our borders must have the following provisions at a minimum: 1.) It must be temporary in nature (one year, max); 2.) It must permit only the worker to enter this country -- a worker's family is not allowed to enter and live here; 3.) It must require the employer to bear costs of health, housing, transporation, insurance, etc. of each temporary worker.

We simply cannot afford our borders to be porous. The American people are right to not tolerate the status quo when it comes to illegal immigration.

4:11 PM  
Blogger Raleighite said...

What is it about the American in CLU that you do want to support. Why do you not listen to the voices of people who do not want mass immigration of any kind? Why do you, George Bush and the so-called liberal press (who dock their yachts on Nantucket Island) bombard us with sympathy arguments that are supposed to persuade us how selfish we are, and then use your ample legal power to tell us to shut up, move over, and share our hard-earned tax dollars from now non-existent jobs? We are not being invited to be Mexican citizens, yet if all succeeds, many from elsewhere will be able to move freely and undetected (as usual) as dual-citizens. How about supporting Americans, ACLU? How about listening to those of us who do not want our country compromised by slave labor to support the fattening of the pocketbooks of billionaire CEOs of world corporations.

1:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home