REPORT: Conservative media consistently scapegoat undocumented immigrants, ACORN
SUMMARY: In discussions of major news stories, conservatives in the media have repeatedly turned to two favorite bogeymen -- undocumented immigrants and ACORN -- in place of substantive analysis, even when those groups have little or nothing to do with the issue.
In coverage of major news stories, conservative media figures have repeatedly fallen back on two of their favorite bogeymen -- the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and undocumented immigrants -- frequently blaming national crises on one or both groups or accusing them of receiving undeserved benefits from the government. At best, these scapegoats are tenuously connected to the issues those figures are discussing; at worst, they are entirely unrelated. In some instances, the media linked their scapegoats to major news stories using misleading claims, and in others, they advanced outright falsehoods. Whatever the case may be, conservatives in the media consistently weave ACORN and undocumented immigrants into their coverage or commentary, instead of addressing the substantive policy issues or developing a cogent critique. Other media outlets follow the conservatives' lead, uncritically reporting their smears of ACORN and undocumented immigrants or reporting those smears as fact.
Media Matters for America has documented numerous instances in which conservative media outlets and figures have used ACORN and undocumented immigrants as scapegoats in reporting on major news stories recently, as well as other media outlets echoing their claims.
Conservative media figures repeatedly invoked the specter of ACORN when discussing the causes of the financial crisis. For example, several in the media have claimed, suggested, or uncritically reported that ACORN contributed to the housing crisis by "bullying" banks into irresponsible lending to minorities. In many instances, media figures asserted that the group used the threat of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to intimidate banks into making risky loans. But as Media Matters documented, the media-promoted myth that the financial crisis was caused by banks lending irresponsibly to comply with the CRA has been widely discredited. According to housing experts, a large number of subprime loans were not made under the CRA, which applies only to depository institutions.
Media outlets and figures promoting the idea that ACORN contributed to the housing crisis include:
- Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh, during the April 3 edition of his nationally syndicated show
- The Wall Street Journal, in a September 27, 2008, editorial
- Conservative journalist Stanley Kurtz, in a September 29, 2008, New York Post op-ed and an October 7, 2008, National Review Online article
- Then-chief White House correspondent Bret Baier, during an October 5, 2008, Fox News special, Saving Our Economy
- The Washington Times' John McCaslin, in his October 14, 2008, "Inside the Beltway" column
- Investor's Business Daily, in a January 27 editorial
In discussing the debate over the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (which created the Troubled Asset Relief Program), numerous media figures falsely claimed, suggested, or uncritically repeated Republicans' claims that Democrats were trying to steer money to ACORN through that legislation. In fact, neither the draft proposal nor the final version of the bill contained any language mentioning ACORN. Those making the false claim were misrepresenting a provision -- later removed -- that would have directed 20 percent of any profits realized on troubled assets purchased under the plan into two previously established funds: the Housing Trust Fund and the Capital Magnet Fund, which, under the law authorizing them, distribute funds through state block grants and through competitive application processes, respectively.
Examples of media figures falsely claiming or suggesting that Democrats sought to divert funding in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act to ACORN -- or of media uncritically repeating such claims -- include:
- Host Lou Dobbs on the September 29, 2008, edition of CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight
- Politico's Daniel Libit, in a September 30, 2008, post to The Crypt
- Host Steve Doocy during the October 1, 2008, edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends
- Syndicated columnist Mona Charen, in an October 1, 2008, column
- Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund, during the October 9, 2008, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes
- Baier, during the October 5, 2008, Fox News special Saving Our Economy
- The Wall Street Journal, in an October 14, 2008, editorial
Conservative media figures have also claimed or suggested that excessive lending to undocumented immigrants is responsible for the financial crisis, citing no credible evidence to support that claim. In several instances, media figures have baselessly claimed that according to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), 5 million mortgages taken out by undocumented immigrants are in default, or close to it. In fact, according to an October 9, 2008, Phoenix Business Journal article, HUD "says there is no basis to news reports that more than 5 million bad mortgages are held by illegal immigrants. A HUD spokesman said ... his agency has no data showing the number of illegal immigrants holding foreclosed or bad mortgages."
Nevertheless, conservative media figures continued to baselessly attribute the financial crisis in part to excessive lending to illegal immigrants, including:
- San Diego radio host Roger Hedgcock and radio host Joe Madison, during the October 9, 2008, edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight
- Phoenix radio station KFYI, in an article on its website
- The Drudge Report in an October 9, 2008, link to the KFYI article
- Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin in a September 24, 2008, column
- Limbaugh, during the October 10, 2008, broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show
- Radio host Lee Rodgers, during the October, 10, 2008, broadcast of KSFO's The Lee Rodgers Show
- Radio host Jim Quinn, during the October 10, 2008, broadcast of Clear Channel's The War Room with Quinn & Rose
The media devoted great attention to charges of voter registration fraud throughout the coverage of the 2008 presidential primary and general election campaigns, repeatedly using those opportunities to smear ACORN and undocumented immigrants. Following reports that ACORN had submitted fraudulent voter registrations, some media figures falsely claimed that ACORN was accused of or involved in voter fraud that might alter the outcome of the 2008 election. Others repeatedly ignored relevant information in their coverage of allegations against the group, specifically: 1) that the statutes of most of the states in question require third parties registering prospective voters to submit all registration forms they receive; and 2) that actual instances of illegal votes being cast as a result of registration fraud are extremely rare.
Examples of media outlets falsely claiming that ACORN had been accused of committing voter fraud that would, in the words of a Washington Times editorial, "rig" the election, and examples of media ignoring or downplaying key facts concerning allegations against ACORN of voter registration fraud, include:
- Numerous CNN segments aired from October 6, 2008, through October 15, 2008
- The Wall Street Journal in an October 14, 2008, editorial
- Host Megyn Kelly during the October 14, 2008, edition of Fox News' America's Newsroom
- Syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Dick Morris, during the October 15, 2008, edition of Fox & Friends
- The Washington Times in December 28, 2008, and October 15, 2008, editorials
Additionally, conservative media figures advanced the myth that undocumented immigrants are attempting or are likely to attempt, en masse, to vote illegally. Among them were Fund -- who did so in his November 2, 2007, Wall Street Journal column and during the November 3, 2007, edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report -- and Dobbs -- in numerous 2007 appearances on Lou Dobbs Tonight and CNN's Lou Dobbs This Week, as well as during the November 14, 2007, edition of CNN's The Situation Room. This myth gained traction in reports about former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's (D) plan to allow undocumented immigrants to apply for a driver's license, which many in the media claimed would open the door to voter fraud by, they claimed, helping enable immigrants who are not here legally to register to vote.
2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
In their coverage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the conservative media latched on to the false Republican talking point that the bill would provide funding for ACORN. In fact, the act does not mention ACORN or otherwise single it out for funding; ACORN itself has said that it is ineligible for the funds and has no plans to apply for them. The false claim refers to a provision of the House version of the bill under discussion at that time that would have appropriated $4.19 billion "for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008." The provision would have required money to be distributed through competitive processes. It stated that "not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition" to "States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities." It also stated that "up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance." The version of the act as signed by President Obama includes $2 billion "[f]or the provision of emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes, as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008." The provision further states that "funding under this paragraph shall be allocated by competitions for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities, which may submit proposals in partnership with for profit entities."
Examples of media outlets and figures advancing or uncritically repeating the false claim that the economic recovery bill provided funding for ACORN include:
- The Hill, in January 27 and February 21 articles
- The San Francisco Chronicle, in a January 27 article
- Sean Hannity, during the January 27 broadcast of his radio show
- Stocks editor Elizabeth MacDonald, during the January 29 edition of Fox Business Network's Fox Business
- Doocy, during the January 29 edition of Fox & Friends
- The Washington Times, in a February 2 editorial
- Dobbs, during the February 3 and February 4 editions of Lou Dobbs Tonight
- Host Greta Van Susteren during the February 5 edition of Fox News' On the Record
- Fox News contributor Karl Rove, in his February 5 Wall Street Journal column
- Morris, in a February 6 fundraising email
- Radio host Bill Cunningham, during the February 11 edition of The Big Show with Bill Cunningham
- Fox News chief political correspondent Carl Cameron, during the February 12 edition of Special Report
- UPI, in a February 21 article
Similarly, the media falsely asserted or uncritically reported the false Republican claim that the legislation would provide tax credits to undocumented immigrants. The falsehood originated in a January 29 Associated Press article that cited a single anonymous Republican official, subsequently spreading to the Drudge Report and many other conservative media outlets -- despite the fact that a revised version of AP's article made clear that the bill limited eligibility for the Making Work Pay tax credit to individuals with Social Security numbers, thereby excluding undocumented immigrants. Indeed, the House version of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act under discussion at that time specifically precluded from eligibility for the Making Work Pay tax credit "any individual unless the requirements of [the Earned Income Tax Credit] are met." Requirements to qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit include "a social security number issued to an individual by the Social Security Administration." The final version of the act as signed by Obama precluded from eligibility "any individual who does not include on the return of tax for the taxable year ... such individual's social security account number."
Examples of media outlets falsely asserting or uncritically reporting claims that the bill provides tax credits to undocumented immigrants include:
- The AP, in a January 29 article
- The Drudge Report, in a January 29 headline linking to the AP article
- Cameron, during the January 29 edition of Special Report
- Fox News contributor Laura Ingraham, during the January 29 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor
- Dobbs, during the January 29 broadcast of his radio show
- Limbaugh, during the January 29 broadcast of his radio show
- Hannity, during the January 29 broadcast of his radio show
- The Washington Times, in a February 2 editorial
2008-2009 Minnesota Senate recount
In covering the Minnesota Senate recount, many in the media repeated the Republican talking point that Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has "ties" to ACORN, in many instances using it to suggest that he would be biased toward Democratic challenger Al Franken over Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.
Examples of media outlets highlighting Ritchie's relationship with ACORN include:
- The American Spectator, in a November 7, 2008, article
- Politico, in a November 11, 2008, article
- The Wall Street Journal, in a November 12, 2008, editorial
- Hannity, during the November 12, 2008, edition of Hannity & Colmes
- Weekly Standard executive editor Fred Barnes, during the November 12, 2008, edition of Special Report
- Ingraham, during the November 13, 2008, edition of The O'Reilly Factor
- Host Martha McCallum during the November 14, 2008, edition of Fox News' America's News HQ
- Barnes, while co-hosting the November 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys
- Fund, in his November 15, 2008, Wall Street Journal column
- Washington Times editor Peter J. Parisi, in a December 9, 2008, opinion piece
- Newsmax.com's David A. Patten, in a December 22, 2008, article
- Investor's Business Daily, in January 7 and January 27 editorials
- Fund, during the January 10 edition of The Journal Editorial Report
Many in the media have advanced the misleading conservative claim that President Obama's nominee for the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, David Hamilton, has ties to ACORN. However, Hamilton's relationship with the group reportedly consists of "raising contributions door-to-door for the advocacy group ACORN for one month after college" in 1979. In the nomination questionnaire for his 1994 appointment to a judgeship on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, posted by the blog Right Wing Watch, Hamilton was asked to list every organization he has been associated with since graduating from college. Hamilton included "Summer 1979 -- fundraiser for Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania."
Examples of media figures uncritically repeating the misleading conservative claim that Hamilton has ties to ACORN include:
- NBC deputy political director Mark Murray, in a March 17 post to the MSNBC.com blog First Read
- The Chicago Tribune's David G. Savage, in a March 17 post to its blog The Swamp
- USA Today's Mark Memmott, in a March 17 post to its blog The Oval
- The American Spectator's Matthew Vadum, in a March 17 blog post
- Wendy Long, in a March 17 post to the National Review Online blog bench memos
- Fox News Supreme Court reporter Shannon Bream, during the March 18 edition of Special Report
- Co-host Pat Robertson on the March 18 edition of the Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club
Reporting on the 2010 U.S. Census, many in the conservative media have focused on ACORN's reported role as a national partner with the Census Bureau in its effort to recruit more than 1 million temporary workers and baselessly suggested that the group will fraudulently influence the count in favor of Democrats or that the Obama administration is politicizing the process. Media figures have done this despite the fact that ACORN is reportedly only one of "more than 250" groups that are partnering with the Census Bureau to recruit workers.
Examples of media outlets focusing on ACORN's partnership with the Census Bureau include:
- Newsmax.com, in a March 18 article
- FoxNews.com, in a March 18 article
- Kelly, during the March 19 edition of America's Newsroom
- The Washington Times, in a March 20 editorial
- The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in a March 22 editorial
In reporting on or discussing the 2009 expansion of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP), many in the media falsely asserted or uncritically repeated the misleading claim that the bill makes it easier for undocumented immigrants to access health benefits through the program, often by ignoring or misrepresenting the bill's citizenship verification requirements. In fact, the legislation includes a citizenship verification process in which states would use SCHIP applicants' names and Social Security numbers to verify that they are eligible. Additionally, the bill explicitly states in Section 605, "Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not lawfully residing in the United States." The final version of the act as signed by Obama also includes a citizenship verification process by which states would use applicants' Social Security numbers to confirm their eligibility in the program, as well as explicitly states that "[n]othing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents."
Examples of media outlets and figures asserting or uncritically reporting Republican claims that the SCHIP bill could provide health benefits to undocumented immigrants include:
- Correspondent Lisa Sylvester during the January 14 and February 4 editions of Lou Dobbs Tonight
- Investor's Business Daily, in a January 15 editorial
- The Washington Times, in a January 27 article
- Dobbs, during the February 4 edition of Lou Dobbs Tonight
2008 election coverage of Obama
During coverage of the 2008 presidential election, numerous media outlets reported that then-Democratic nominee Barack Obama represented ACORN in a 1995 lawsuit, but did not note that the Justice Department joined with ACORN as a plaintiff in the suit, which sought to force the state of Illinois to implement a federal voter registration law.
Media outlets that did so include:
- The Chicago Tribune, in an October 11, 2008, article
- The Columbia (Missouri) Daily Tribune, in an October 11, 2008, article
- The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, in an October 11, 2008, article
- Politico, in an October 11, 2008, article
- The Wall Street Journal, in an October 14, 2008, editorial
- Investigative correspondent Drew Griffin during the October 14, 2008, edition of The Situation Room
From the November 3, 2007, edition of Fox News' The Journal Editorial Report (all transcripts retrieved from the Nexis database):
PAUL GIGOT (host): The gloves came off at this week's Democratic debate in Philadelphia. Front runner Hillary Clinton bobbed and weaved her way on questions from everything from driver's licenses for immigrants to release of record from her time in the White House.
Let's roll the debate on the illegal immigrant quip and answer.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
TIM RUSSERT, DEBATE MODERATOR: Do you, the New York Senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license? You told the New Hampshire paper it made sense. Do you support his plan?
SEN. HILLARY CLINTON, (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed and George W. Bush has failed. Do you think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who is in New York. We want people out of the shadows. He made an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
GIGOT: John, is she for it or against it? Do you have any idea?
FUND: She is actually for it. She didn't want to say it. She voted in the Senate not to stop illegal immigrants from getting drivers licenses. She issued a statement saying she supported the general concept though not a specific plan.
The real problem is this is deeply unpopular with American people, 72 percent of new Yorkers, a blue state, don't like it. One reason it is unpopular, and it comes from Democratic county clinics and stay legislators, it is encouragement to voter fraud. You get a drivers license you are required to have a voter registration form handed to you at the same time. If you fill it out, you're automatically registered to vote and can vote.
From the November 12, 2008, edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: But we have a problem with the Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, do we not? He's a liberal partisan secretary of state. When you look through his record, he has ties to this controversial group we discussed a lot, ACORN. He attended the 2008 Democratic Convention. How much faith and hope and confidence do you have in Ritchie considering his radical relationships and partisanship, even connected to moveon.org?
From the November 12, 2008, edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
BRIT HUME (host): Who were those 32 Minnesotans? They were those whose ballots were discovered well after the election in the backseat of an election official's car. Oops.
And Norm Coleman, the incumbent senator out there, went to court to try to keep those votes from being counted. He lost because the judge didn't say it was a good thing. She said that she didn't have any jurisdictions to block it.
So in the meantime, the Coleman lead, which was 700 and some votes, has dwindled to just a handful. What is going on, Fred?
BARNES: Look, every Republican I have talked to thinks they're going to steal it in Minnesota. It's the Democrats who are going to be doing this.
The secretary of state is the guy who is in charge who has connections to ACORN. We know all about that.
And, look, that Franken guy, he wouldn't be saying that if those 32 votes, it was plus 11 for Franken. He picked up 11 votes in that. If it had been Coleman who picked them up, he would be, oh, that's terrible. You can't count these votes!
From the November 13, 2008, edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
BILL O'REILLY (host): Joining us now, once again to analyze this, Laura Ingraham.
You know, now we are into the Twilight Zone. Just like Barney Frank you play the clip and then the guy comes on and says, no I didn't say what you just heard. But this guy is the Secretary of State, he's in charge of overseeing this thing and now we've been investigating it. Do you realize that since Election Day, Coleman - they didn't find one vote for Coleman. He lost 47 or 67 votes. The other guy, Franken, they're finding votes all over the place. In the trunks of cars, up in the tree. I mean, everybody's watching this, do you think they can get away with it?
INGRAHAM: This is vote counting by David Copperfield. This is like a David Blaine illusionist finding votes everywhere. Look, this is my rule of thumb, Bill. Any time a republican in a race like this is only winning by, let's say a thousand votes or less, then you can bet that republican is going to end up losing that seat. It just always seems to work out this way that the election officials in the state where there is, you know, some type of dispute always get into this kind of gray area and we find now that these votes, these 504 votes came from three precincts, just three precincts out of the whole state.
That's staggering and as John Lott pointed out, Bill, in a great column he wrote in today's "New York Post" the numbers of votes they found, found for Franken since election day outpace the number they found for Obama by 2.5. Ok? 2.9 times as many votes were found for all democratic officials statewide. Something doesn't add up there. It's very strange.
O'REILLY: Everything doesn't add up. Not something. Everything doesn't add up. You are not finding any votes for the republican guy?
INGRAHAM: No. Of course not.
O'REILLY: You're taking votes away from the guy? Then all of a sudden as you pointed out -- three. And what are there are a thousand precincts? More than a thousand. Three, all right heavily democratic they are kicking votes in like this. But here's the deal. If Franken gets in, that puts the democrats over the 60 magic number. That means it's every American. Because this is a far left loon we're looking at right here. Not Bill Clinton, Al Franken. He is a loon, OK? So if he gets in, every American, every single person in this country is going to be impacted. I don't know what you do here.
If the fix is in. You just heard the secretary of state, the fix is in. What does Coleman do? Does he take it to the federal level? What does he do?
INGRAHAM: I think he has to use every legal means at protesting what's going on right now. I mean, Franken went to court today to try to, quote, get more information from those people whose ballots were rejected. He wants to find out more information about those voters to, perhaps use in the recount. That could completely alter the landscape of the votes that were already counted. So Bill, this whole thing stinks to high heaven. I think Norm Coleman made a mistake in October when he said I'm not going to run any more negative ads. I'm swearing off all negative ads because Franken just kept hammering him and hammering him and hammering him and now we are at this point where, I think, the people of Minnesota they are frustrated because they are thinking how does this look good to the rest of the nation?
O'REILLY: Well, it doesn't- I mean this is another catastrophe in the voting realm. But as I said it has that wide implication for everybody.
INGRAHAM: Sure does.
O'REILLY: Because if he gets in then the democrats can do whatever they want. There is no blocking anything they do. So we're going to follow it. We feel the way you do. That there is something very, very wrong here. Go ahead.
INGRAHAM: Can I say one other thing? There is a connection to the secretary of state with ACORN and with moveon.org. Which it also calls in my mind those two connections call him into question of impartiality.
O'REILLY: Well, we just have to hope that Governor [Tim] Pawlenty [R] who I think is an honest man is going to do something about it and not let this thing get out of control.
From the November 14, 2008, edition of Fox News' America's News HQ:
MacCALLUM: OK, so now to another Senate rate that did not end on Election Day. There are three of them out there. The one in Minnesota between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. Minnesota's Secretary of State Mark Ritchie has pledged to officiate in the recount in a manner that is, quote, "accurate and transparent." But his partisan past and ties to ACORN and a group linked to voter fraud are raising some big concerns about some of his critics. Secretary Ritchie joins us now by phone. Secretary Ritchie, good to have you with us tonight.
From the November 15, 2008, edition of Fox News' The Beltway Boys:
JEFF BIRNBAUM (guest co-host): Down, Minnesota. The Senate race between incumbent Norm Coleman and funnyman Al Franken couldn't be closer enough to trigger an automatic recount. But that hasn't kept either side from questioning the legitimacy of the outcome. This is really no good for anybody, basically, this extended problem.
There are already new accusations or renewed accusations about Norm Coleman perhaps getting too close to a former fund-raiser of his. Calls for investigations into whether money was channeled from the fund-raiser's company to Norm Coleman and his wife, charges that are denied by the Colemans. But nonetheless this is getting very nasty and a lot is at stake in the outcome. If Coleman wins, it could really be a problem for him even if he does win.
BARNES: I'm not worried. I don't think those lawsuits are going to amount to much. But it's clear now which of the parties, whether the Coleman campaign or the Franken campaign, thinks the process is working on their side. We've seen, under some questionable circumstances, Franken gaining. 32 ballots from the trunk of somebody's car that had been sitting there for a few days. I find that a bit suspicious. And some other things too where he gains. There's all these more Franken votes in certain districts but no votes for other offices that weren't affected.
But what drives the party crazy is the guy in charge of the recount. That's Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, who's an ally of ACORN. I don't need to describe them. Republicans just regard it as someone who wouldn't do anything to get a Democrat elected, and that's Franken. Every Republican I know thinks they're going to discover more ballots. And they'll favor Franken.
From the January 10 edition of The Journal Editorial Report:
GIGOT: Well, Mark Ritchie is a partisan figure, John. Kim says there wasn't a partisan motive. On the canvassing board, some of the people, no question, were partisan, but what about Ritchie?
FUND: Well, Ritchie was supported by ACORN, which is the infamous voter registration group that got into all kinds of legal trouble in the last election. He's part of something call the Secretary of State's Project, which is a George Soros-funded effort to elect liberal Democrats to be secretary of state, to try to have somebody there who will help out in these kind of close elections. I don't think there's clear evidence of Ritchie bias here, but there's clear evidence that Ritchie intended and wanted Franken to win.
GIGOT: Yes, but I have never seen a recount, John, where all of the decisions turned out to help a single candidate, Al Franken. I mean, all of them. And that is passing strange.








But, isn't it true that ACORN is forming a militia comprised of illegal Mexican immigrants...and which will be armed with the guns that Barack Obama takes away from God-fearing, freedom-loving, Americans in violation of their Second Amendment right to own assault weapons and grenade launchers? ;>)
Precisely, Irony. They can't be scapegoats if it's actually their fault, right?
Hannity will often simply blurt out "ACORN" and "Socialist Agenda" and "Illegals" and "Unrepentant Terrorist Bill Ayers" and "Rezko" without any kind of follow-up or context- he uses the words like most people use "hello" and "Umm." He just has to remind his audience of the buzzwords every once in a while, never mind what the actual topic is. And his guests and callers never seem to care one bit.
I LOVE to watch the neocons on Fox and the hangers-on of Rush Limbaugh squirming as the United States moves swiftly to the left. Get used to it, We have the whole ball of wax for the next 8 years and probably for one more term after that to install so many impediments to the conservative's war on the American citizen that republicans won't be able to see straight. The Bush assault on civilians is over, We FINALLY have an intelligent president. I LOVE IT!!!!
Mark Montgomery boboberg@nyc.rr.com
I expect to see another murder of some immigrants (illegal or not, heck, perhaps even born and raised here, just a different skin color to their name) any time now...
Snoopy, your saying this why? What about another illgal immigrat killing yet another police officer? or killing a American Citizen, or stealling yet another person Idenity, or filling up our E.R. rooms and making a American citizen wait to be treated. This is not happening because of color of skin, this is happening casue they are here illegally breaking U.S. Law.
illegally breaking U.S. Law.
And for this they deserve to be gunned down?
Really, they are being gunned down? People are just shooting Illegal Immigrants in the streets? Wow, must have missed that in the news. Can you give me an example were a Illegal Immigrant was just gunned down for being illegal, not for breaking other U.S. laws.
Read more slowly. Snoopy said he "expects" it to happen. With what's been happening lately, I find it plausible as well.
Fog, (fog your are zero for two today) he said the following "I expect to see another murder of some immigrants” if you use the work “another” this means it has happen in the past. Not once did Snoopy use the word "expects" so maybe you need to read more slowly. You and now Snoopy are assuming that this will happen with out proof of this happening in the past. So your assumptions are baseless.
Webster – being one more in addition to one or more of the same kind
OK, you asked for it little fella, you got it.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=4421921&page=1
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=845
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25739051/
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2007/12/political-focus-immigration-raising-hate-crimes-discrimination-against-hispanics
"Little Fella” you just had to call me a name, just could not stand it any longer. I hope you feel better, sure you do. So what do you have to say to all of these families that lost loved ones to illegal immigrants? I do not approve of anyone breaking the law, in links you provide I agree those individuals should be prosecuted and hope they rot in jail. I do not agree with Hate crimes, but the American public is getting tired of individuals being here Illegally in this country, and is the fault of both sides of the isle.
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_seriouscrime
So what do you have to say to all of these families that lost loved ones to illegal immigrants?
To me, a crime is a crime, bub. A murderer is a murderer. You're the one amping up the hatred against illegals, resulting in my links above.
Not once did I talk about hatred for Illegal Immigrants. Once again if you disagree with Liberals you are either a racist or invoking hate. This all started with MM talking right wing talkers using Illegal Immigrants as Scapegoats, they are not scapegoats the are individuals that have broken the law, they are individuals that are not citizens of this country and do not get the same benefits as citizens of this country, they do not get to vote, they do not get tax refunds, they should not received government benefits, they should not get non emergency medical treatment.
So, great Swami, what's the solution?
(psst..here's a hint - employee verification)
Mark: Not once did Snoopy use the word "expects"
Snoopy: "I expect to see another murder of some immigrants”
And yes, it has happened before. The most recent comes to mind where a nutjob walked across the street and killed two bolivian college students.
And that has to do with my concern of another american nut targeting them for murder for no other reason than he thinks they are immigrants how?
What about the nut job illegals, your ok with them killing Americans, just as long as nut job Americans do not kill them? Just think, neither would happen if the illegals were not here. Problem Solved, lets all go home.
Hey, if the sun wasn't here we'd all freeze to death as well.
Project much? But as for your second statement, racists will just switch to legal immigrants. And when they are all gone, they'll move on to minorities. And once they are all gone, they'll move on to liberals. Finally, all that will be left is you, republicans and a bunch of heavily armed reichies. And nobody will be there to stop them coming for you...
Just google "murder illegal immigrant" and see if you get more stories of Americans murdering illegals or the reverse, illegals murdering Americans.
I would challenge one person to come up with anything that ACORN has done that was illegal. Mind you, not the people who worked for them trying to scam ACORN out of a salary that they didn't earn, but ACORN itself. You. Can't. Do. It.
Magnolia, what about Acorn standing on someone’s lawn, preventing the police from evicting an individuals that has broken their contract with a bank by not paying their mortgage. They are preventing police from during their job. That is illegal; tell me I am not right, DO IT! (a person is guilty of interfering with an officer when such person obstructs, resists, hinders or endangers any (peace officer / special policeman / Department of Motor Vehicles inspector / firefighter) in the performance of such (peace officer's / special policeman’s / inspector’s / firefighter's) duties.)
the example of how in Oakland, California earlier this month several dozen people gathered to help the Daniels family stay in the home they are renting. (Despite the inability to pay the mortgage, the landlord continued to take the family's rent check).
Lock 'em up and throw away the key!!
No, Fog, they should look for a new place to rent, then use the court system to get their money back.
I thought we were discussing the "crimes" people blocking the authorities were committing, not the people being thrown out of their rental.
Please try to keep up.
You are wrong. They are protecting people who because of no fault of their own were swindled out of their homes. In this case ACORN are patriots and I'am signing up to do the same.
ACRON is breaking the law. If you do not pay your mortgage, how is the being swindled out of their homes? They signed a contract to pay the mortgage, if it was a bad mortgage they should not signed the contract.
Again, it's the landlord who collected the rent payments but didn't pay the mortggage. The only contract the renters signed was their lease.
That is really stupid logic, by your logic we should not hold any of the Wall ST firms responsible for the actions of their emploees, or the banks either. After all it was just the people they employed that did the wrongdoing, not the firms themselves. And how about Bush, if he did not directly do the things the left accuses him of, he cannot be held responsible either. Acorn workers have repeatedly pled guilty to registration fraud and now even John Conyers is calling for an investigation into the group.
And I asked for examples. Show me some examples. With actual links. Show me where ACORN has been prosecuted for anything illegal and convicted of anything illegal. Go ahead. Show me. You can't do it.
No. By my logic, ACORN told these people what to do, and then they did something else. They were found OUT by ACORN, fired by ACORN, and then turned in by ACORN. It's a lot different than what Wall Street firms did, or did not do. Thing is, most of the financial ruin that was brought our way by Wall Street was from doing legal things.
Bush, when he was the President, the buck allegedly stopped there. He was the decider remember? He was the one saying he should take the hit. Although, he never did, and tried to blame everything on everyone else.
In the case of the registration frauds, ACORN again, turned those employees in, terminated their jobs, and did everything that they were supposed to do. I'm not surprised that you don't see the nuanced difference.
Again, give me examples of where ACORN did illegal things, were prosecuted for them, and were convicted. Can't do it.
Magnolia you are changing your question, you first asked the followoing "I would challenge one person to come up with anything that ACORN has done that was illegal." I proved to you of an example where ACRON was holding up a police officer doing their job. That expample I gave you gives you an example where ACORN has done somethign illegal. Now you are asking a new question. "ACORN has been prosecuted for anything illegal and convicted of anything illegal." Link below shows where ACRON was in volation of the law http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003806904_webvotefraud26m.html
Were they prosecuted? Were they convicted? If you get accused of doing something illegal, aren't you innocent until proven guilty?
The link you provided again showed that people working for ACORN (who were turned in by the organization itself) were prosecuted for voter registration fraud, and not ACORN itself, although they "could" be charged if this happens in the future. According to the article.
Again, ACORN was not in violation of the law, but the people working for them were. And, the prosecutor also said that they didn't do this with the intent to perpetrate voter fraud, they did it to get paid more.
In your arugment, If a person hired by a company, the company is not responsible for the actions of those employees? Sorry, it is not that simple, ACRON hired them and ACORN is responsible for their employees.
Here's a little anecdote for ya that might clear the haze...
When someone embezzles money from a company, is the company responsible?
I. Don't. Think. So. Wrong. Again. As. Usual.
Fog, Good try, I appreciate you playing along, I really do and do not worry you will still get your trophy for participation.
There's this little thing called rational thought.. You really should look it up.
Magnolia, with your argument, The banks should not be responsible for any of the bad mortgages, it was the employees fault? AIG should not be at fault it is the employee’s fault that put the bad insurance contracts out to companies? So the Banks and AIG should not be prosecuted, but the employees?
Since when was writing bad mortgages a crime? You're quite the pretzel on this on marky mark.
You're confusing "fraud" with "policy".
You are correct and when they get caught they fire them and then hire new employees to go out and do it all over again. The fact is that this has been going on for years , electiion after election. Acorn has paid money for investigative costs and aknowledged that they may have submitted as many as 400,000 "questionable votes", numerous acorn employees have pled guilty to fraud. And next election, it will happen again, unless John Conyers follows thru and stops them.
You're only innocent until proven guilty of you're a Republican or a right-leaning organization. Come on Mags, you should know that...
;)
of=if
It's your logic that's lacking. Is the problem with banks or wall street firms rogue agents acting against the larger entity, or is the problem policy which is determined at the top? And how on earth do you think you can compare individuals defrauding ACORN to the person in charge of the government telling people what to do?
If you're so concerned about voter fraud how about you start with Ann Coulter? There's a solid case that y'all seem to sweep under the rug when discussing claims of voter fraud.
It is the liberals that consistently use the words "undocumented immigrants", what they really are is Illegal Immigrants. These are individuals that have broken the law and have come into this country illegally. They are taking jobs that unemployed American Citizens could have now, which in return would help with the unemployment benefit money being drained our of the city, state and federals coffers. Here in Texas these illegal immigrants are taking jobs that pay $10 per hour and more. These illegal immigrants are also draining our tax dollars by using our schools for a free education, using our emergency rooms as their socialized medicine clinics; they are calling 911 and having ambulances bring them to local hospitals, they are using fake S.S. numbers, which in return is I.D. theft, they are filling up our jails which cost us tax dollars as well. So, really they are not scapegoats they are individuals breaking the law and should be arrested and sent back to Mexico or which other country they are from.
Guess what, Mark? You have 6 years of complete Repug control of all branches of government. And what happened with immigration? NOTHING!
So take your whining somewhere else. There will always be illegal immigrants. And if you want to foot the bill to arrest them and send them back home (and no doubt they'll return in a few months), then start writing checks.
Again FOG, you are wrong as always. This problems is not a Democrat or a Republican issue, it is an America Issue. I would rather see American obey our law of the land, and yes arrest them and send them back. Then American Citizens can have more jobs and in return we keep the money in American helping Americans. Having illegal immigrants breaking the law and sending money back to Mexico or were ever they live is not good for America. Fog, do you not want American Citizens to have jobs? Americans citizens make and spend money in America? To have American Citizens be able to use the services we pay for? I will right a check tomorrow for our Troops to be on the boarder now, to stop not only Illegal Immigrants but also the flow of drugs.
You do realize that the vast majority of illegal immigrants pay INTO the tax system, and never get a tax refund that they would be due, because they are using fake SS numbers. Money goes in, and their money stays there. This is just BS when you guys always cry about illegal immigrants not paying taxes. It's just false. And where do you think they live? Do they live for free? Chances are good, they're living in an apartment, or maybe a home owned by someone else, who guess what? Pays taxes on that property. I'm sure that they buy gas and food, and guess what? Pay tax on that stuff as well.
These illegals might send some money back to their home countries, but they're spending far more of it in this country to live. Do you actually think they send ALL of their money back to their families? Chances are not good that this happens.
We'll never stop the flow of drugs into this country. Won't happen. We could probably slow down the flow of illegal entries, but it's not going to stop. It's a long a porous border.
actually, what frequently happens is that you don't get one or two living in an apartment or home. you get 7,8 or frequently more. and that also affects the lower income american with a family of four because they can't compete with that. so yes a lot of that money is simply going back to another country because they're sleeping a dozen to a house to save money. see link.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigrants.economy/index.html
Magnolia, The breaking of the first law does not entitle them to anything else going forward, that is like me robbing a bank and getting to keep them money. I broke the law by robbing the bank, so I should only be prosecuted for robbing the bank not stealing the money? So your OK with Illegal Immigrants stealing U.S. Citizens SS numbers and using them to get jobs Americans should have? In your example they should be paid back taxes for stealing and using a person S.S. Number. Your entire argument is that it is O.K. for them to be here. When I visit Mexico I pay gas tax, room tax, food tax, so with your argument Mexico should send me money back? I would put the U.S. military on the boarder, trust me many illegal items and people would stop coming across.
I never said I approve of them breaking the law in the first place.
They do pay into the tax system of this country. That's a fact. Am I ok with them getting jobs Americans should have? No, I'm not OK with this. I don't think that they should be here if they are here illegally, but what I am saying is that you all think they get a "free ride", they don't. They pay taxes just like we do, and for the most part, the vast majority of them are here to make better lives for themselves, and slice off a little piece of the American dream hopefully.
My argument is not that they should get their tax monies back, but that they are paying them into our system, when you guys keep insisting that they're not. They are.
You can't put the military on the border without first revoking posse comitatus. The military cannot act as a police force on American soil without first revoking that act. National Guard is a different story, since they report to the governors of their home states.
Fog, do you not want American Citizens to have jobs?
Do you not understand that illegal immigrants have been here for hundreds of years and it will never stop? You're living in a fantasy world, my friend, insulated in the flag that you've wrapped around yourself.
Hey Fog, Really, you’re going to use that argument? Just shows how ignorant you really are about the history of this country. Ellis Island, ever heard of it?
You don't think that there were illegal immigrants here during the times of Ellis Island? Who is ignorant now?
I was just going to respond to that, glad I refreshed. That was a total logical disconnect on Mark's part.
Yes and they took the time to register, they took the legal route and became citizens, they learned the language, they became about apart of the great melting pot of America as they entered into the U.S.
You really need to bone up on your history. The only people who weren't allowed into the country immediately were the ones that had diseases. You really think everyone learned English on the boat over from Europe?
Well, then lets just have an Ellis Island Redux and grant citizenship to anyone who can make it across the Rio Grande. Is that what you're saying?
The real problem is right wing republicans want a quota system on what nationalities they want to allow to become americans. They really appear to care less if the person applying had a spotless record.
What crime or crimes are those folks comitting. List them, define them, where do they exist in the spectrum of criminal activity?
FBI stats show an increase in hate crimes against latino's of 40% since 03. Is this type of criminal activity worthy of similar efforts?
Today, criminal aliens account for over 29 percent of prisoners in Federal Bureau of Prisons facilities and a higher share of all federal prison inmates.2 These prisoners represent the fastest growing segment of the federal prison population. Over the past five years, an average of more than 72,000 aliens have been arrested annually on drug charges alone.
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_seriouscrime
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters0b9c
No answers to my questions then. I'm not greatly surprised.
Yes, now that you have capitalized and bolded the phrase "Illegal Immigrants," I see your point of view completely. Particularly when you contrast them with American Citizens.
so mark are you doing anything to try and get illegal immigrants sent back? are yolu one of those guys who patrols the border? are you calling the police to tell them where these people are? are you doing anything about it?
Bomb, I pay taxes.
So do the illegal immigrants you seem to dislike so much.
So it is ok that they broke the law, as long as they pay some taxes?
No. The point I'm trying to make, and that you keep seeming to ignore, is that they pay taxes as well, with no anticipation of ever seeing an income tax refund.
Magnolia, and they should not get a refund EVER, They are working illegally. PERIOD end of POINT.
given what you have said about the issue i would have thought you would be taking a more active personal role. like doing any of those things i have mentioned above.
Bomb, I am active in my community, I do participate in legal activates to help with curbing illegal aliens. What are you doing? You may find this hard to believe but there are other things besides demonstrating and standing guard on a boarder.
does calling the cops about a neighbors of mine being illegal immigrants who were running drugs out of their home, which lead to their deportation because they were wanted in mexico for murder.....that count at all?
ive never demonstrated for anything because i don't have the time to do so. i can't stand guard on a border fence because i live in PA.
aside from calling the cops on another instance of illegal immigrants that lived down the street from me that i heard later again led to their deportation.......ive written my congressman Paul Kanjorski, and both Senators Specter and Casey trying see what they are doing.
So all this means that they can be brought up in unrelated stories, or what? I'm not sure anyone is denying that illegal immigration creates some problems.
what a shocker neo cons needing some sort of scapegoat to divert attention from the fact that they governed poorly for years
Bomb, again these are not scapegoats, but individuals breaking the law. I guess no illegals came over the borders when the Dems were in charge. This is a America Issue, but you only see Democrat of Repbulican. I see people breaking the law taking local jobs, and using and spending local tax dollars.
so why wasn't there any kind of attempt by the government from 2001-2006 to correct this problem.
There was. But Bush was rebuked by his own party for his efforts (which I agreed with), and more so, the shortsighted American populace I think.
Bomb, I guess you forgot about the boarder fence that was approved during that time, the fence that all Democrates voted against? There has been ID laws that have been brought up for legislation that require a citizen to show ID to vote, but once again Dems voted and fought all the way.
i asked up until 2006. what was done prior to the changes in congress? i remember the border fence debate and i believe that took place after the new congress was sworn in
The Senate approved The Border Fence Act of 2006 (HR 6061) by a vote of 80-19! The bill will now head to President Bush to sign which he already stated he will. This bill authorizes the construction of 700 miles of border fence along our southern border. Which means it was discussed prior to the Vote. (www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001872.html )
In 2005, US Congress has approved the construction of the US-Mexico border Fence. The Border fence is a 2 billion dollar project meant to reduce illegal immigration, drug and army trafficking, and terrorist threats. (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11470086/US-Mexico-Border-Fence-Research)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/22/AR2005052200613.html
ok all well and good, does it seem to have had any effect? from what ive seen on news and read in newspapers drugs are still pouring in, as are illegal immigrants. so it doesn't seem to me that the fence was at all effective
The fence is not effective. It's a waste of money. I'd think marky would be all for saving a few $$$.
the border patrol says the fences work. they say it lets them maximize their manpower because it slows people down and they can spot them and get to that area. as opposed to people just dashing across the border.
It works in making their jobs easier. It hasn't stemmed the tide of illegals crossing the border.
that is specifically untrue. one of the biggest fences was approved during the clinton administration and built along the tijauna san diego border. that's why so many have chosen to take the much more difficult journey through arizona. and as this link shows the price smugglers charge has gone from 1500 dollars to 6000 now because of tougher border enforcement.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/10/immigrants.economy/index.html
No, it's specifically true. Ok, the price for mules went up and they're going through Arizona now and the border patrol guys can roll down the fence road in their air conditioned SUV's. But the number of illegals crossing has NOT DECREASED.
you're saying that based on what? you said it's made the agents job "easier". meaning they can catch them quicker? and the fact that the price has increased for the smugglers proves it is more difficult now and therefore more costly. it's common sense that if you make it more difficult to cross, and more time consuming than simply running across the border, people are going to get caught and are less likely to try. you're going to have to provide more than just saying no, because the evidence does not support you.
Here is one story about the attempted reform http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107707,00.html
What about the people hiring the illegal aliens? They wouldn't be coming here if they couldn't get jobs, and the DOJ has not been prosecuting the companies hiring them. Republicans talk out of both sides of their mouths on this issue--they decry the horror of illegal aliens, but they don't want to anger their large corporate donors, many of whom hire illegal aliens for cheap labor, so they prosecute the aliens and not those who hire them. Where is your outrage at those HIRING them? Those who hire are equally guilty.
it's not likely that illegal immigrants had much to do with the mortgage crisis. but this is all a diversion from the discussion we should be having. which is, immigration, not just illegal, but legal, is the main factor behind the fact that our population will grow to an estimated 420 million or more by 2050. we are far behind on our infrastructure spending now to support the population we have. it's going to take trillions more to build the infrastructure required for that bigger population. not to mention the spending on schools. immigrants have more children per capita, and schooling is a huge expense. nor do we have the water to provide for those extra people without going to the far more expensive solutions like desalinization. there is no country in the world that accepts anywhere near the number of immigrants we do, and it's because they know it's not the free lunch some want to portray it as.
Mefirst, several answers to your questions. Illegal Immigrants also defaulted on loans, so yes they were apart of the crisis. The U.S. can control this influx of poplulation, we can say No to Visas. Once we have resloved infrastructure problem and built the needs of a larger population, so No to new immigrants. We have the largest number immigrants now becasue they do receive a large amount of benefits in the U.S. then any other country, we are free country. We can not provide for all, it is O.K. to say no. No, we can not afford as a country to continue to bring in legal or illegally immigrants into the U.S. until we can afford to do so.
i didn't really have any questions. i'm sure there were some illegals who did get loans and did default on them, i just don't think it was some outstanding number. and i made it quite clear about visas because i said legal immigration is also part of the problem. and i'm not sure what you're saying. are you saying build for that "larger population" of 420 million and then say no? because that is not the point of what i said. i said it's going to cost trillions to pay for that increase, so why do it when there is no reason for it.
I think we should deport all the people who don't act and look "American."
Congero, no we deport all those that have come into this country illegally, and have had their Visa either expired or do not have a legal right to be here. Do you have a problem with that?
As long as you don't mind paying higher taxes to pay for that, then have fun with that.
Depends on the circumstances. But in general yes I do have a problem with it.
You say they "receive a large amount of benefits in the U.S. then(sic) any other country, we are (a) free country." This is false. Most other industrialized nations in the world have government provided healthcare and this applies to ANYONE, whether you are "legal" or "illegal" they don't care. This alone makes all of these countries more attractive than the U.S.
Also, completely absenct from this discussion is the fact that it is the AMERICAN CITIZEN business owners that illegally employ these people that are the main cause of the problem. If there was no way for them to get a job here, they would not come. Business is the BIGGEST impediment to any border enforcement or immigration problem because they want their cheap labor. PERIOD.
absent, not "absenct"
ACORN receives federal funds for its operation. It is supposed to be a non-profit, bi-partisan organization in order to receive these funds. If anyone with half a brain went on their web site before the election and saw the ACORN get out to vote campaign. it was without doubt ,without dispute advertising for OBAMA. Wether you voted for him or not rules need to be followd. Why should my tax dollars go to an Organization that I don't support? They are constantly rewarded with Stimulus funds and now are involved in the census. This is just another abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Registering people to vote is wrong how?
it was without doubt ,without dispute advertising for OBAMA
Liar.
FOg, here are some headlines on ACRON websites now, do these sound bi-partisan, seems that have attacked only Republicans, not Democrats. I so calling Kazport a liar would be wrong of you.
Take Action: Tell Your Senator to Support President Obama's 2010 Budget!
ACORN Leaders Call Arpaio the Bull Connor of the Century
ACORN Responds to Cornyn Accusations
Statement from ACORN Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis in Response to Statement from U.S. Rep. John Boehner
ACORN and John McCain: The Real Story of the Financial Crisis 1999-2008
ACORN to McCain: Have You Lost That Loving Feeling?
Be a Home DefenderHome Defender Program, is to stop local police from doing there job.
When ACORN registers people to vote, they do not promote either political party. Everything else you posted is wasted cyberspace.
Thanks for the post. I'am joining ACORN's home defender program in my city.
I don't believe ACORN has ever received federal funds. Please show where you got that information; I'd like to check it out.
the Acorn thing is a joke by the media
It seem me it is easy to blame Acorn not the bankers
There is no such thing as "undocumented immigrants". They are illegal immigrants. Calling them by their right name will clear up much of the confusion.
No I don't think everyone who is against "illegal" immigration is racist. But I do think that many clearly are and these folks are on the same bandwagon you're riding on. Like it or not, you non-racists are guilty by association. How can we tell you apart? You all look the same to me and your rhetoric and proposed "solutions" - enforcement only, no chance ever of reform, mass detention and deportation of 12M people, sealing shut only the border we share with the brown people while leaving the one we share with the white people wide open - are nearly exactly the same as the white supremacist racists!
Just saying you're not like them isn't nearly enough. You have to differentiate yourself somehow so we can tell you apart. Here's a radical idea: How about actually proposing a realistic, fair and humane alternative to the ethnic cleansing that the blatant white supremacist racists are proposing?
Yeah, that would be great. I'm all ears....
i think the fact that you have to put "illegal" in quotes means you don't see anything wrong with coming here without permission. there's no country in the world that has such a policy, including mexico. they deport citizens of the countries to their south who enter illegally, and jail those who do it repeatedly. and nothing is being "reformed". it's simply an amnesty.
mefirst (appropo moniker): Your propaganda is dated. Mexico decriminalized "illegal" immigration some time ago and has policies much like ours now. Turn off Dobbs, Inc. and read a book.
I don't use "illegal" for two reasons: First, I prefer accuracy in my use of the language. First offenders are in fact committing a civil code infraction. We don't call any other civil code violators "illegal" and we don't even refer to their employers, who are in fact committing felony criminal offenses, "illegal", so I use what I believe to be more accurate: "unauthorized". Why don't you also advocate for calling their citizen, mostly white, mostly male employers "illegals"? It makes one wonder why you're selective.
Secondly, reducing a human being's identity to his/her national documentation status only serves one purpose. And that is to demonize and dehumanize that human being as a precursor to the nasty things we must do to him/her. I refuse to do this. Think about the innumerable times in history when groups were marginalized rhetorically in this fashion before and during raids, roundups, incarcerations, deportations and yes, even extermination. If calling humans "illegals" helps you feel good or look at yourself in the mirror or sleep at night or it helps you hold onto to those tired national myths of moral supremacy, then it's certainly your prerogative. Knock yourself out, but please stop playing linguistic fascist cop with me and others.
I reject your propaganda and rhetoric out of hand.
maybe you need to update your propaganda. mexico is now returning cubans who arrive on their territory. see link. and however you want to spin it, if you are here without permission, then you are here illegally and subject to deportation.
and you want to talk about linguistic games? you're comparing deporting illegals to what the nazis did? the fact is, as i said, there is no country that just allows people to come into their country at whim. it does not happen. that's more of your propaganda. if you favor open borders, you knock yourself out. but you"re in a small minority. i reject your simplistic nonsense.
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/cuban_colada/2008/12/mexico-returns.html
Are we having memory problems mefirst? I'm not playing linguistic games. I simply answered your question, while you refuse to answer mine:
1. Why don't you call employers of unauthorized immigrants "illegals"?
2. What solution do you propose that differentiates you from the "deport 'em all" blatantly racist anti-immigrant groups?
I didn't mention the Nazis, you did. Now that you mention it though, Hitler's "Big Lie" propaganda sure sounds an awful lot like the "Big Lie" pablum about "illegals" you and your ilk regurgitate ad nauseam.
So your whole defense is an article you googled up on a few Cubans that were recently deported as a part of a special agreement between Mexico and Cuba, solely to keep Cubans from coming to the U.S.? It's not Mexico they want to go to. But then understanding complexities would require going beyond what you get from "the google," AM radio and your favorite cable "journatainers". God forbid you should have to read a book or something. Of course, this would be too much to ask from someone who's taken it upon him/herself to call out people on blogs who prefer a more precise use of the English language.
Knock off the strawmen and red herrings. I answered your question; now it's your turn. I'm all ears...
call the employers anything you like. and you're the one making the assumption, based on nothing, that any policy is based on racism. there are europeans who are here illegally. if i proposed doing anything based on race, then you might have a point. you don't. and if you want to continue the games, go ahead. you mentioned "extermination", so it's not really a stretch to think you were talking about nazis. and the reason the mexicans agreed to start deporting the cubans is because there were several violent incidents in cancun involving the smuggling gangs. and you want to talk about "understanding complexities"? hello, you really have to ask why we put so much into the southern border as opposed to the canadian border? hello? that's where the biggest problem by far is. why don't you ask why we're not preparing for that invasion from mars? it's the same concept. you apparently don't understand you use your resources where the vast majority of the problem is. you're the one with the strawmen. you're not actually arguing with anything i say. including the fact that no country allows non citizens to enter at their whim. spain and italy are deporting africans every day. but spain doesn't have a fortified border with france, because, get ready, that's not where people are entering illegally. or is that too "complex" for you?
Nice dancing mefirst. You managed to avoid all my questions while I answered all yours. One more chance:
1. Why do you call the poor brown immigrants "illegals", who are commiting a civil code infraction, but you don't use this dehumanizing language for the citizen, white, males who commit a felony by hiring them? Where's your outrage over your fellow citizens who look and sound like you, but who are felons? Sounds like misplaced, displaced anger.
2. You obviously don't like being lumped in with all the white supremacist racist groups that are now on the same "anti-illegal" bandwagon you're riding on. So, how can we tell you apart? What solution do you propose that is materially different from their "deport 'em all" solutions? If your solution is exactly the same as the KKK's or the White Knights or the myriad other groups that are enjoying a boom in business with all the anti-illegal fervor, then how can we tell you apart from extremism? If your position is as extreme, why are you so sensitive about my lumping you all together?
Don't complain about people like me who imply that your motives are racist when you look, sound, smell just like the most extreme racist groups, and your solutions are exactly the same. See things from other people's perspectives.
And as for the Canadian border, I'm really confused. One of the main justifications I hear from your side for securing the border is terrorism. Mexico is by far a lower threat according to several non-partisan security experts, than Canada. You speak of priorities. What is more important? Keeping out the unauthorized lettuce pickers (and maids, and landscapers, and fry cooks, etc.), or keeping out the suicide bombers?
All ears...
you're the one dancing. an employer may be commiting an illegal act by knowingly hiring illegals. but they are not here illegally. do you really need the difference explained? i don't call bank robbers illegals either.
and your argument is as cheap as they get. you can't do anything more than word parse and call names and make insults likea ten year old. all i have to do is explain my positions. your argument is totally pathetic. you basically say i'm wrong because i supposedly "sound" like other people. you have to tell me why i'm wrong. which, as i say, you have not.
and canada in general controls who comes into their country far more tightly than mexico. terrorists are more likely to slip into mexico because they are more lax. not that i think the probability is that great from either border. but then you already know what i think, because of what you insist is "my side". again i answer for my positions, mr. red herring. got it? mine. and you keep saying you've answered all my questions, but you haven't. you haven't told me what country just permits people to enter the country at whim and stay. nor did you addresss what i pointed out about spain and italy. it just shows how weak your argument is, that you want to word parse and insist i have to answer for some people whose arguments are not mine. ok, mr strawman? now i'm sure you'll just repeat the same things back to me, because you have nothing else. broken record.