Beck: "Mexico is run by nothing but criminals and ... I pretty much stand by that"
A day after he stated that Mexico "has been overtaken by lawbreakers from the bottom to the top," Glenn Beck said that even though he "got beat up yesterday" for making that comment, he "pretty much stand[s] by" his claim that "Mexico is run by nothing but criminals."
On the March 28 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Glenn Beck declared that he "pretty much stand[s] by" the claim that "Mexico is run by nothing but criminals," even though he "got beat up yesterday" for making similar comments about Mexico. Media Matters for America noted Beck's March 27 claim that Mexico "has been overtaken by law breakers from top to bottom," and that what immigration advocates are "protesting for is to have lawbreakers come here."
Beck, who was recently hired to host a new program on CNN Headline News, was responding to recent protests against proposed immigration restrictions. During the past week, hundreds of thousands of people in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities have marched in the streets to protest a federal immigration bill that would criminalize the provision of aid to undocumented immigrants and make it a felony to cross the border illegally.
Media Matters has urged its readers to contact CNN and call for the news channel to stop providing a platform for Beck's conservative misinformation and offensive statements.
From the March 28 broadcast of Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: You know, I got beat up yesterday -- people said, "Oh yeah, Glenn Beck was saying on the radio that Mexico is run by nothing but criminals." Uh-huh, yeah, pretty much stand by that. You want dirty politics? Let's go south of the border. Just read a recent survey -- 50 percent of Mexicans say they feel unsafe in their own home.
From the March 27 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: First of all, you are -- you are protesting -- and I appreciate the fact that it was peaceful -- but you are protesting for something that is illegal. You are protesting for others to stay here, who are here illegally. And I don't understand that. I don't understand that for a couple of reasons. You want to leave Mexico for a reason, and that reason is, it is so riddled with corruption that you cannot have a job and make money there. It is so riddled with drugs and corruption and mob that you cannot raise a family. It is a country that has been overtaken by lawbreakers from the bottom to the top. And now, what you're protesting for is to have lawbreakers come here. And you might say: "Well, they're just trying to get here, that's only one law." It's a law.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
suggests that Beck knows everyone in Mexico. Since he doesn't, his use of "nothing" then suggests that Beck lacks a fine mind.
Man, this is hate speech. I grit my teeth when hatemongers ply their trade, but it must be protected.
I think he meant the government. And I can't seriously sit here and believe that someone here thinks the Mexican government is not corrupt. That's not what you think is it?
So he's not saying the individuals, just the government. Then what does this statement imply:
"It is so riddled with drugs and corruption and mob that you cannot raise a family. It is a country that has been overtaken by lawbreakers from the bottom to the top. And now, what you're protesting for is to have lawbreakers come here."
"Lawbreakers come here" means they're lawbreakers before they come, which is referring to the general populace. That's what he's saying, in spite of what the Con-Trolls try to make it out as. It's a broad brush ethnic smear, no matter how you conservatives try to dress it up.
I'm not sure but I think that Glen Beck meant that by coming here illegally they were lawbreakers. I used to listen to Glen Beck when he was on a station out of Atlanta. He does say some outrageous things, a lot of it tongue in cheek. As far as this statement, I don't know why media matters has posted it.
"I'm not sure but I think that Glen Beck meant that by coming here illegally they were lawbreakers."
Wrong. Read it again.
You know the cons have lost when they start their comment with, "What I think he meant is...."
"'...but you are protesting for something that is illegal. You are protesting for others to stay here, who are here illegally"
I read it again as you asked. The statement above is from Beck's statement. Common sense would tell you that this is what he clearly meant. I'm no fan of Beck but I do have a mind and can think for myself thank you.
I don't appreciate being called names. What is a con to you anyway? Is it just anyone who does not agree with you? We can disagree and debate without the nastiness.
Ok this fella Beck (from other threads I've read here) is on the crude side. HOWEVER, love him or hate him what exactly is he saying HERE that is "conservative mis-information" or Mis-Information period? I've never listened to Beck or seen him on TV...and some of what I've read about him HERE has been pretty bad...BUT not this time.
"You want dirty politics? Let's go south of the border."...by Glen Beck
=====
Anybody dispute that? Yeah I know it's pretty "corrupt" these days NORTH of the border too. But be that as it may, it doesn't NEGATE Beck's point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"First of all, you are -- you are protesting -- and I appreciate the fact that it was peaceful -- but you are protesting for something that is illegal. You are protesting for others to stay here, who are here illegally."...by Glen Beck
=====
Bingo! Beck is ABSOLUTELY correct--so what mis-information is being spewed here? Where is Beck wrong??
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"You want to leave Mexico for a reason, and that reason is, it is so riddled with corruption that you cannot have a job and make money there. It is so riddled with drugs and corruption and mob that you cannot raise a family. It is a country that has been overtaken by lawbreakers from the bottom to the top. And now, what you're protesting for is to have lawbreakers come here. And you might say: "Well, they're just trying to get here, that's only one law." It's a law."...by Glen Beck
=====
Let's begin with his statement: "IT'S A LAW"....anybody here dispute THAT??
No one [that I know of] is saying that Mexicans can NOT come to this country...we only ask that they take the SAME route EVERYONE else has taken before them--APPLY for citizenship LEGALLY.
What the hell is so damn hard about that?
And IF you sneak in, PREPARE to be deported. As Beck said--"IT'S A LAW". [one I wish they had enforced better in the past--maybe IF they had, there wouldn't be 11 million plus ILLEGALS in this country today!]
"Lawbreakers" as used here by Beck seems to cover TWO areas. One: The Criminal Element in Mexico trying to get into the US, and TWO: Those that break US law by sneaking over the border. BOTH are applicable, IMO.
I was called a neocon troll many times yesterday. It didn't matter that I'm left of liberal. It didn't matter that I've articulated many liberal positions on MM. It didn't matter that I've lived a radical life. All that mattered is that I didn't go with yesterday's BOR/Thomas ideological flow.
I detest the polarizing. With some posters, you're either lib or con, but being lib in some of these threads seems to mean pro-flow, rather than having a liberal enough mind to consider alternatives, however problematic.
So, I'm sorry someone slung a label at you that doesn't best represent you. And your point about illegality is germane, regardless of where one perches on the political spectrum.
It's funny, I am usually called a left winger in a derogatory way when I post on my hometown blog. I thought that this site was different as far as debating instead of just dismissing differing opinions.
My readers attach contrary labels to me. I've been called a Conservative with all sorts of nasty adjectives preceding this descriptor. And I've been called a Liberal with the same attached adjectives. I prefer Liberal because I like to think I harbor cognitive wiggle room. The root of Conservative is conserve, which means to protect the status quo. I don't serve history. I try to serve the present and the future, which should be the intent of a liberal mind.
I think you'll find that most posters here are very reasonable. I am as liberal as they come but I find that a FEW of the Liberal posters here are too quick to fling the troll accusation. Most of the ones I see doing this are relatively new posters here. So for all the newbies, dissent isn't trolling. So Bell I say speak your mind freely and ignore those tossing out the troll title too liberally. In actuality if you're bullying and deliberately trying to suppress dissent you’re a troll as well just look to those that do that ( Sean Hannity and Bill O’rielly) and ask yourself if you want to be the Liberal version of that? I personally don’t want to be.
When this kind of thing starts it becomes personal and the issue is not debated. I guess I am guilty of letting it get to me and debating the person and not the issue. Maybe that is what they want.
Con is an affectionate shortening of "conservative". If you consider being labelled a conservative as a nasty slur, then that's your choice. For the record, I didn't call you a "con". My comment was a general one regarding the tone of defenders of outrageous conservative statements, such as this.
"Con" encapsulates a political position. Isn't it FailedBelle's right to articulate that position and doesn't good form demand that you don't extrapolate and summarize her political position from a single post?
To say that "con" is an affectionate abbreviation seems disingenuous. It seems more of a hasty assumption to me.
I'm not suggesting that I'm never hasty, Scott. I am. Often.
It was a separate paragraph. Did I assume he/she/it was a con? Sure. Defending Beck and trying to find absolutely most flattering interpretation of his words smells of conservative. However, where have we gone when calling someone a conservative is akin to a slur? I don't mind if someone calls me a liberal. However, the variants with heavy connotations such as "far-left", "moonbat", "nutcase" etc. are a different story. If I really wanted to insult he/she/it, I'd have used "fascist", a very particularly vile form of conservative.
Fine Scott I'll accept that if you called me a con, which you say you did not, but if you did you meant it in the nicest way.
Oh, and you can also stop reffering to me as he/she/it. You really are a bitter person aren't you dear.
No....just one who knows not to offend someone by calling them the wrong gender.
Is "it" a gender? I would have to say that that is a bit of an insult, male of female.
I said that it wasn't apt.
However, "it" is a slur.
I assume that failedbelle is a woman. If she ain't, she's a man. Either way, "it" doesn't work.
"You said it was a slur."
Nope. She's (I think it's she) is the one that took offense:
"I don't appreciate being called names. "
If conservative is a name, then where are we in this world?
Scott, when someone tries to defend the nastiest of the MSM and then takes umbrage over being called a conservative... you have to assume they're trollin'. It's a variant on an old trick by conservatives time and time again... "I'm not a Bush supporter but..." "I voted for Kerry but..." and so on.
Look, for all you fake indignation posters who defend the right wing BUT want to pretend that you're not right wing yourself... you can't have it both ways. If you sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas.
Don't get insulted, but is your only purpose here @MMfA devoted to spreading ignorance?
Scott Johnson, if Guy is on your side, I'd strongly consider changing sides.
Hahaha
Twisting what someone says no matter what you think about them is wrong. It's what the right does, REMEMBER. Use you mind. That's why god gave it to you.
As a matter of fact though, I did vot for Kerry. I actually still have my Kerry sticker in the back window of my car and I live in a Red state.
Oh, and don't even try to define my beliefs. I don't know how old you are but I would be willing to bet that I was a liberal before you even knew what the word meant.
Even if Failed Bell or Holly were conservatives you say that as though it's akin to being evil or something. Come on we libs are supposed to be the tolerant ones. Just because someone disagrees with you don't have to pull out the Uzi.
You're the best. And liberals should make space for ideological diversity. That's the crux of liberalism.
I doubt she's a troll. You are going around calling everyone that and it's silly. A troll posts inflammatory rhetoric, often off-topic and/or involving the name Clinton, to encite people or steer the discussion off-topic. It's a specific type of bevhavior that you should learn to accurately spot.
I think it's silly to consider "conservative" a name. If someone called me a con, something that strangely has never happened, I wouldn't consider it a name but would simply try to clarify my position.
I don' t know if you were writing to me, but I carried a little frustration from yesterday, from when Con called me a troll many times, and no matter how many times I articulated my position and revealed my liberal ideology, he persisted. Ironically, the only one that defended me was Con Man, the kind con.
You must mean "Guy" not Con. Trolling is like pornography: hard to define but I know it when I see it. You can tell very rapidly what the intent of a poster is on here. The truth is, there are very few trolls these days. I'm not sure why. I'd like to think it's because they know they can't get away with it anymore.
Yes. Con man is reasonable. He's laid off the straw man a bit. That's a sign of intelligence. Most conservatives on here don't change tactics even when their former one is revealed to be filled with fallacies.
;-)
Sorry, you guys. Yeah, Con Man was my good guy. That Guy guy was the one that mislabeled me: again and again and again.
you wake up with fleas. There's always a shot at redemption.
Gonna call Holly a neocon troll again? I think you might just get your jollies off going around screaming "Look everybody, this guy's a troll", even when we haven't said anything remotely close to trolling. It's kinda cute.
And calling me illiterate was very classy as well.
He said, "You want to leave Mexico for a reason, and that reason is, it is so riddled with corruption that you cannot have a job and make money there. It is so riddled with drugs and corruption and mob that you cannot raise a family. It is a country that has been overtaken by lawbreakers from the bottom to the top. And now, what you're protesting for is to have lawbreakers come here." So you don't think Mexico is riddled with drugs? You don't think it's riddled with corruption? You don't think it's hard to get a good-paying job and get a good education? You don't think crossing the border illegally is illegal? You think people feel safe in Mexico? Or do you just see my name and have to post that I'm some kind of troll.
If having a different opinion from the almighty Guy is being a troll, maybe I am a troll.
You know that whole "broad strokes" thing? Try not to paint them yourself.
Yes, there's a saying in law school:
If they got you on the facts, pound the law. If they got you on the law, pound the facts. If they got you on both, pound the table.
And you sure are doing a lot of table pounding.
So you said he wasn't referring to the Mexican people, and I showed he was. Pound the table again if you want, you've been disproven.
I doubt you'll win many cases by screaming names at the opposing party, but that's just me. And I did notice you didn't seem to answer any of my questions or comments.
There's this old saying around the Internet: If you don't want to have civil debate with someone who disagrees with you call them a troll and don't bother readint what they say. (Okay, so I just made it up, but it holds true.)
You proved nothing other than you will disagree with anything I say, and call me some name or other. Don't worry, I'll give you the last word. See you around, cutie.
You're way beyond and pretense of civil. You're foaming.
I understand -- having been specifically refuted, you got nothin' else. Keep it up -- it just show how little you cons got going for ya.
Actually I am sitting here laughing at you; Not foaming at all. All your talk about table thumping... it's humourous. Especially coming from the Guy who calls anyone who has a different opinion than himself a troll. Just keep towing the line, big boy. Maybe shoot me an email sometime and we can discuss our differences without mucking up a thread. We could go get a coffee or something. ;-)
ConManMMFA (AT) gmail (dot) com
Just out of curiosity, are your parents siblings?
No need to make it personal. Guy and I were doing just fine without your interference.
Guy and I have our own thing going too. He leaves stupid posts, I find them and then call him a jerk in a 1000 different ways. So kindly butt out, if you don't mind. Thanks in advance.
This specific thread was between Guy and myself. It had nothing to do with you, so technically you were the one butting in.
He meant to say that he is a racist Mormon jerk. There is no government on the planet more criminal than the Bush administration.
In a continuing conversation regarding immigration to the US, you think he's talking solely about the Mexican government? Right, becuase they're the ones that want to migrate here. Not the people on the short end of the stick. I'm sure he's trying to focus it to make it seem that's what he meant, but it makes no sense and you're falling for it.
Con man, "nothing but" is an absolute. Is Mexico's gov't populated by nothing but corrupt individuals? Is every prefect in every village and every bureaucrat in every agency corrupt? His language suggests such absolutism. And criminal is a legal designation. You are a criminal when you are deemed so by a court.
His shtick is hyperbole and it makes it very, very hard for me to hear whatever assertion it carries, even if it contains partial validity. We should expect more of pundits. He should expect more of himself.
As far as the percentage of corruption in Mexico, I don't have a clue. Do you? Does anyone?
...that as children, we employed such absolute positions as:
"You hate me!"
"You never give me what you want!"
"You always do that!"
Then most of us grow up. We can to school. We learn nuance. We acquire discipline. But this boy hasn't. And he panders to the child in his listeners through his absolute assertions. I don't care if this boy shaves and drives and has a radio show. He has a child's mind that can't sift and sort reality, that can't demarcate degrees. Therefore, he's a boy.
Yes, he does use this absolute, but I think it would be the same way people around here say "everyone in the Bush administration is corrupt and a criminal." There's not one person who isn't?
And if you really want to mince words, he didn't even say it. He was paraphrasing Media Matters in the "nothing but" sentence. Now I understand he said, "I stand by that", but perhaps he was standing by what he actually said, not what he paraphrased Media Matters as saying. Who knows?
......some MM posters use absolutes and I squirm when they do. Of course, not every member of Bush's administration is corrupt. Some are dedicated, decent civil servants. Asserting otherwise is a position as childish and clumsy as Beck's.
As I shared, I'm a journalist. I've profiled many politicians, CEOs, etc. I've learned that there's a lot of decency in corporate America and in our government. I'm grateful for this data, because in this culture of hyperbole and absolutism, distinctions are often trampled.
Of course, although I've witnessed decency and integrity, I also understand that much evil is perpetuated via some institutions.
And con man, when I too fall into the failing of an absolute, call me on it. I'll be grateful, but I'll squirm first, of course.
I hate to say it, but I'd say our government is just as corrupt, just not as overt about it - at least with the exception of the Bush Crime Family. But I would say that the Mexican government is overwhelmingly corrupt to the point it's probably difficult for those who are not to remain that way. If you're the only one in an office who's not on the take it makes everyone else there very nervous, and the pressure is on. In any case, I wouldn't say that Mexico lacks a hard working or intelligent population, but their people are largely uneducated - capable, but uneducated. I would have to say that the big difference between Mexico and the US has more to do with the lack of a decent public education system in Mexico than anything else. There's no opportunity in Mexico to move up in class - the rich kids get private educations, the poor kids go to school until they are old enough to work, which is usually around 5th or 6th grade, tops. In that kind of system, the opportunity to move up is pretty slim. And the Government doesn't have the political will to change it. It's really very sad. But, unfortunately, that doesn't change the fact that Beck has learned just enough to use hate speech to manipulate people. Whether or not he really believes what comes out of his mouth is secondary to the impact it has on the mouth breathing freepers who take his drivel to heart.
Had to scrabble over a heap of "he-troll/she-troll" posts before finding one which equaled my exact thoughts on Beck's dumb-ass statement. Pots and kettles oughtn't to point out the other's complexion. It's so embarrassing.
Still, I must add a penny or two on the following:
Anyone who prefaces a sentence with "I think Beck meant" please zip it. You're not a mind reader. No one is. Evaluating his words at face value is the only honest assessment to be made. If we could read minds we wouldn't be having this discussion. Like this anyway. Also, this tactic reeks of dishonesty. If Al Franken had said, “Those guys running the White House are criminals,” the standard applied by the media at large would be his words, no more, no less, as it should be. Difference is Franken would be right.
Maybe you're right. Perhaps I should have started it with "The way I interpreted what he said is..."
... if Mexico's government is corrupt?
Does that make illegal immigrants even extra-illegal or something? I thought that people were judged on their own actions, not the actions of the people in positions of power above them.
Maybe we should just stop helping refugees from all the trouble points in the world, too. "Sorry, Iraqi Kurd -- your government is corrupt and there is a lot of instability in your country, so bug off."
I understand the idea behind stressing the 'illegal' in illegal immigration. I don't agree with it but at least it's true in the most technical, misleading use of the term. By that I mean, all of us have broken a law at some point in our lives, whether it be speeding, jaywalking, shoplifting, whatever. For some reason illegally entering our country labels one a criminal until the day one dies. Kind of harsh for an offense that isn't even a felony.
So while I begrudgingly can acknowledge the logic of calling an illegal immigrant a criminal, Beck is going a step further. He appears to believe that all Mexicans must be criminals because the government is corrupt.
Or perhaps he believes that illegal immigrants are all former Mexican officials or something? Like Vicente Fox is swimming into Texas right now or something.
Because otherwise all he's done is acknowledge that these people are fleeing an awful situation that is not of their design, and that would suggest that they deserve our sympathy. Somehow I doubt that was his intent.
The water is too polluted from the maquiladoras...actually, just kidding - I live just north of Dallas - I hired a couple of day laborers to help with the construction of a patio at my home - I paid them $150 each for about 9 hours work each, which isn't a whole lot of money, but it's about $16 an hour - and I bought lunch. These guys work their butts off - one of them has been here for 6 years, he's maybe 24 years old, and had to leave school after 5th grade to work to help take care of his parents and work to support the household - there was no opportunity for him in Mexico. He's here illegally, he did tell me, but he's trying to get his paperwork in order and at least get his green card. He sends money to his parents every month, and it goes much farther for them in Mexico than here. These guys are here for survival, plain and simple. And lets not forget, the ones who make the trip here are the brave ones. Even those of us who have pretty comfy lives get nervous about big changes - like moving? much less going to a foreign land where you don't even speak the language. More power to them - our ancestors came here for the same reasons - to seek a better life. Admittedly, they emigrated through Ellis island or wherever, but it wasn't like they had legal citizen status before they landed on our shores, or didn't stay here for some time without citizenship. I feel for these guys, and it's not always that they make less - they really do work incredibly hard.
I recently reviewed a businessman and asked him off the record who he prefers to hire. He stated that he'd like to hire local folks, which in Wisconsin generally means white folks, but that they don't work as hard as many Hispanics. Of course, he generalized and I'm repeating a generalization, but my point is that these folks are hungry for opportunity and are willing to make some sacrifices that many entrenched Americans won't. And you're right about these people that have crossed the border being brave, as were our ancestors. Courage matters.
If there are a lot of people that feel this way (And I'm going to assume there are), we should be pressing for higher limits on LEGAL immigration. These people do work hard, but a law is a law. Why not change the law? (Stupid politicans.)
Again. However, racism could preclude this course. After all, these are brown people entering a nation where white people are a shrinking majority.
I think you've touched on a huge albeit undeclared concerned few will say openly. Some will allude to it but oh so subtly. I've heard mostly conservatives say things like America is in danger of becoming Hispanicized , they complain that Hispanics won't learn out language , our culture, etc, etc, etc. Now being a member of a minority group myself I don't fear the growing population of Hispanics, but it seems as though some White Americans are quite fearful of becoming a minority and losing the position of privilege that often comes with being a member of the majority. Now I’m really torn about this immigration issue. I understand completely why poor Mexicans sneak into this country at the same time this activity has to be controlled. I lay the blame at the feet of the Mexican government an oligarchical society that will not develop an economy that will provide jobs for it’s citizens, hell the government encourages these POOR people to cross the border and work in the US and to send money back to stimulate the Mexican economy. Talk about a parasitic policy. And let’s not forget the culpability of greedy corporate America and the greedy private citizens that hire illegals because they can get cheap babysitting, housecleaning, gardening, or roofing services. The bottom line is if there were no jobs awaiting them here they wouldn’t keep coming.
I think a lotta white people are scared. And they're talking in code in public places and bluntly in private places. I'm white, so I'm privy to the overt code and the covert racism. I'm also a white person that likes the coloring of my neighborhood. It's more interesting to have neighbors that talk differently, live differently, etc. I especially like the smells that come from their houses when they cook foods that aren't familiar to me.
I think white people would lose a lotta anxiety if they just lived in more global neighborhoods, neighborhoods that better represent the world and what the United States is becoming, whether they like it or not. Instead, white flight continues: not just into suburbs, but into gated communities.
It's kind of sad, isn't it?
I'm always suprised by the amount of vitriol spewed towards a populace who basically brave death in order to support their families. Wow, a bunch of people want to work, the criminals! You'd think a bunch of hard-working, dedicated family men with strong connections to church and home would be recognized with fanfare, but then that might just humanize them wouldn't it?
The fact is this 'problem' could be solved relatively quickly if we wanted, and it wouldn't take a wall or beefing up the INS. All we have to do is acknowledge that the people who hire these immigrants are criminals as well and aggressively prosecute them.
The fact that there isn't a lot of vitriol spewed by conservative pundits about these American lawbreakers shows that this has a lot more to so with these immigrants' skin color than than whether or not they 'jumped the line.'
Because if there was no work to be had, there'd be no (or at least DRAMATICALLY reduced) illegal immigration.
Beck actually agrees with you. He wants the people that hire illegals punished as well. It's not a matter of too much supply of labor... it's a matter of too much supply of jobs.
By paying illegals you aren't helping them or your own country. Paying people illeagally under the table, whatever your rationalization, adds to the problem and is the main reason we got in this mess in the first place.
I feel like we've entered Bizzarro World where all of a sudden we're supposed to feel bad about wanting to enforce our country's immigration laws, just like every other nation on the planet does!
This was supposed to be a reply to Left of Center's "Fox wouldnt' dare swim" post. Not sure why mine ended up here. Oh well.
There's a lot of quibbling about Beck's intent... what he meant to say... how it is meant to be intended, etc...
Okay. This guy gets paid for saying more and more obscene and hateful things... 'tongue-in-cheek' as they may be... and the public is supposed to sit back and give the guy a 'pass'?
There're conservative posters who repeatedly defend this guy... even when it is plain that he continues to spew hateful and inciting comments. I think the argument of "Come on! You guys are too sensitive!!" doesn't hold water. If it offends, it offends. And, this guy is offensive to me (and many others apparently).
The problem is, maybe 10 years ago we could all laugh this stuff off... Today, however, the over-the-top, bigoted sentiment that Beck fuels just isn't funny or cute anymore (never was). These guys need to play nice or shut up.
Beck: "Just read a recent survey -- 50 percent of Mexicans say they feel unsafe in their own home."
A Google News search for this "recent survey" produces zero results. Has anyone seen it anywhere?
The claim may come from a survey conducted by Instituto Ciudadano de Estudios sobre la Inseguridad reported in a news article by <a href="http://www.nmsu.edu/~frontera/may02/Tijuananews.html”>Martin Borchardt</a> in 2002. Unfortunately the article is too thin on details to allow one to assess the validity of the claims in it. Although the original survey results are reported on the first site (click surveys) my Spanish is not up to the task of interpreting the results or assessing the methodology.</p>
My Spanish isn't that good either. But a cursory search through the PDF for words such as "home", "unsafe", etc., doesn't produce anything like what Beck sites. And if it's this difficult to locate his so-called "recent survey" results, it raises a question about its very existence.
I think it's on page 25: "El 47% de los mexicanos se sienten inseguros en el lugar donde radican." through Bablefish: "47% of the Mexicans feel uncertain in the place where they are."
I can't be certain, but this is probably it.
I can't be certain, but this is probably it.
So, you feel uncertain then?
This site explains the feeling in Mexico City in 2004:
[link to 72.14.203.104]
Sorry, this is the only on-Internet copy I could find. It's not the exact survey he's referring to, but it leads me to believe that the claim is not too off-based. Hope this helps some.
--"the claim is not too off-based."--
While I don't doubt that there are security issues in Mexico that are worse than in the U.S. (which doesn't have a lot of room to talk), the article doesn't say anything about Mexicans feeling unsafe in their own homes. Where is this "recent survey" Beck cites?
According to Wikipedia.org, Mexico has a population of 106 million people, a population growth rate of 1.2%, and ranks 12th in the world for GDP.
You obviously can't raise children there, and jobs are non-existent.
Maybe the problem is social injustice, not corruption -- a grossly unequal distribution of wealth and political power. Sound familiar?
My husband is Mexican, born and raised. I have heard story after story about the crime and the corruption in government at all levels. When I first went down there to meet his parents I thought that they were all a little paranoid about the women in the family going out in public alone, until I found out that they had hired bodyguards for the youngest daughter in the family when she was in high school. Turns out their family had received some threats from kidnappers. Several years later my father-in-law WAS kidnapped and held for 10 days in exchange for $30,000. They laughed when I asked them why they didn't call the police. He was lucky. Most victims end up dead. A couple of years ago when my in-laws were out shopping, my father-in-law was shot in the leg by a gun going off in my sister-in-law's purse when it was dropped. Her husband feels that it's necessary to carry one whenever they go out. These are just a few examples.
Glenn Beck hit the nail on the head.
Joanna Garcia Cedar Rapids, IA
Joanna, what you just dispensed is anecdotal and you broadly extrapolated from it. It's your mini-proof that Beck is right.
However, I can use anecdotes to depict whatever I wish. For example, my brother was shot in the face in Odessa, Texas (tragic and true). This happened on a busy street, while people watched. Should I therefore infer that Texas is unsafe, that if you visit there, you'll be shot in the face? Or should I generalize to all of the United States and shore up my assertion with the anecdote of when I was robbed?
It seems like your husband's family is rich. It's my understanding that there are huge class issues in Mexico, as huge class issues are rising in the United States. Disparity of class engenders righteous rage. Eventually, poor folks storm the Bastille and roll out the guillotines.
Your husband's family's bodyguard treats the symptom, but poverty is the disease and inequity of wealth feeds that poverty.
Sad, Its SOOOOOO True!!!!
"... so riddled with drugs and corruption and mob that you cannot raise a family."
There is no defense for such a blatantly stupid statement. People like Beck and his supporters are simply rationalizing a profound bigotry based on stereotypes and falsehoods in MSM about immigration.
It's like Tom Delay saying, "I'm shocked that there would be any corruption in the U.S. Congress!"
Is there crime and corruption in Mexico? Of course. Just as there is in America.
Is there more crime and corruption in Mexico than in America? Perhaps. But probably not much more. Who can quote some sources to support accusations of levels of corruption?
Is there poverty in Mexico. Absolutely. More than here? Absolutely. More freedoms? Probably. But these reasons don't play as well on Right Wing Radio.
Who does he think is running the show here in the U.S.? This bunch puts the Mafia, let alone any criminals who might be in high places in Mexico's government, to shame when it comes to criminality.
At least the Mafia has a code of honor. I don't think the Bu$hCo goons bother their beautiful minds with anything so trivial as a code of honor.