We had a server outage, and we're rebuilding the site. Some of the site features won't work. Thank you for your patience.
imc indymedia

Los Angeles Indymedia : Activist News

white themeblack themered themetheme help
About Us Contact Us Calendar Publish RSS
Features
latest news
best of news
syndication
commentary


KILLRADIO

VozMob

ABCF LA

A-Infos Radio

Indymedia On Air

Dope-X-Resistance-LA List

LAAMN List




IMC Network:

Original Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: ambazonia canarias estrecho / madiaq kenya nigeria south africa canada: hamilton london, ontario maritimes montreal ontario ottawa quebec thunder bay vancouver victoria windsor winnipeg east asia: burma jakarta japan korea manila qc europe: abruzzo alacant andorra antwerpen armenia athens austria barcelona belarus belgium belgrade bristol brussels bulgaria calabria croatia cyprus emilia-romagna estrecho / madiaq euskal herria galiza germany grenoble hungary ireland istanbul italy la plana liege liguria lille linksunten lombardia london madrid malta marseille nantes napoli netherlands nice northern england norway oost-vlaanderen paris/Île-de-france patras piemonte poland portugal roma romania russia saint-petersburg scotland sverige switzerland thessaloniki torun toscana toulouse ukraine united kingdom valencia latin america: argentina bolivia chiapas chile chile sur cmi brasil colombia ecuador mexico peru puerto rico qollasuyu rosario santiago tijuana uruguay valparaiso venezuela venezuela oceania: adelaide aotearoa brisbane burma darwin jakarta manila melbourne perth qc sydney south asia: india mumbai united states: arizona arkansas asheville atlanta austin baltimore big muddy binghamton boston buffalo charlottesville chicago cleveland colorado columbus dc hawaii houston hudson mohawk kansas city la madison maine miami michigan milwaukee minneapolis/st. paul new hampshire new jersey new mexico new orleans north carolina north texas nyc oklahoma philadelphia pittsburgh portland richmond rochester rogue valley saint louis san diego san francisco san francisco bay area santa barbara santa cruz, ca sarasota seattle tampa bay tennessee urbana-champaign vermont western mass worcester west asia: armenia beirut israel palestine process: fbi/legal updates mailing lists process & imc docs tech volunteer projects: print radio satellite tv video regions: oceania united states topics: biotech

Surviving Cities

www.indymedia.org africa: canada: quebec east asia: japan europe: athens barcelona belgium bristol brussels cyprus germany grenoble ireland istanbul lille linksunten nantes netherlands norway portugal united kingdom latin america: argentina cmi brasil rosario oceania: aotearoa united states: austin big muddy binghamton boston chicago columbus la michigan nyc portland rochester saint louis san diego san francisco bay area santa cruz, ca tennessee urbana-champaign worcester west asia: palestine process: fbi/legal updates process & imc docs projects: radio satellite tv
printable version - js reader version - view hidden posts - tags and related articles


View article without comments

Pro-Migrant Activists Turn the Tables

by Leslie Radford Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 1:47 AM
leslie@radiojustice.net

Costa Mesan residents hit their anti-migrant counci member in his pocketbook

Pro-Migrant Activist...
deport_the_irish.jpg, image/jpeg, 655x477

COSTA MESA, February 10, 2006--In a new strategy against the minutemen, thirty members of Colectivo Tonantzin picketed in front of the business of Costa Mesa city councilperson Gary Monahan, who voted with Mayor Allan Mansoor and Eric Bever last December to train local police in immigration law enforcement. Picketers gathered at 5:00 p.m. outside Skosh Monahan's, a restaurant at 2000 Newport Boulevard.

To date, public opposition to the minutemen's meetings and protests on day labor centers and against public art, as well as their vigilante patrols at the border, has been largely reactive, responding to the minutemen's disruption of civic life. This evening Colectivo Tonantzin took the fight to the minutemen.

Restaurant employees reported that the bar, normally a popular Friday-night watering hole, was hard-hit by the protest. The tactic, designed to attack Monahan's income and draw public concern to the onerous policy, resembled the minutemen's year-long assault on the income of day laborers by protesting at laborers' gathering sites.

In addition to the picketers, as many as twenty minutemen turned up to counterprotest. At first they mingled with the picketers, but they soon moved off to the side, effectively aiding the picketers by blocking the entrance to the restaurant's parking lot. By 8:10 p.m. the minutemen had left the site, many escaping into the side door of the bar, presumably for refreshment.

The smiling and sometimes jocular picketers, with large signs easily visible from the street, circled the sidewalk in front of the club and lined the curb, chanting and singing to guitars. One veteran protestor, a 10-month-old nina, was wrapped in her mother's rebozo. Her mother smiled proudly when she asked it this was her daughter's first protest. "No," she said, "it's her third. She's been to two city council meetings."

The aggressive approach of the Colectivo heralds a wave of area Chicano, Indigenous, and Mexican initiatives in battling anti-migrant sentiment, including tomorrow's Mexicano/Latino Leadership Summit to oppose the Sensenbrenner anti-migrant bill and to support legalization of undocumented residents in the United States. The picketers were a vanguard to a planned April boycott of Costa Mesa businesses that refuse to display signs opposing the city council's policy. The boycott is being coordinated by Citizens for Constitutional Rights, a coalition of six community organizations and two union locals. Coyotl Tezcalipoca of Colectivo Tonantzin explained, "Many groups across the area are coming together around this issue."

The new police policy, passed in December, has raised objections throughout the city, in which nearly one-third of the residents are of Mesoamerican descent. Fearing that police will target people based on ethnicity, residents have marched on police headquarters and continued to protest at city council meetings. At a January council meeting, Tezcalipoca was ruled out of order and dragged from council chambers by the police at the order of the mayor. He was briefly hospitalized after the encounter, and the district attorney dropped charges after it was determined that the mayor had improperly shortened Tezcalipoca's allotted speaking time. A complaint against the mayor for disrupting the meeting is pending. Since that meeing, Mayor Mansoor has joined the Minutemen Project and was feted by the Proposition 187 group California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

As the Colectivo was debriefing on a sidestreet next to Monahan's, two well-dressed, apparently white young women walked through the crowd. A picketer ran up to them and explained what had happened. The women decided to find another restaurant.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


@

by @ Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 11:16 AM

first the wasps(white anglo saxon protestants) wanted the irish and italians out. now mexicans. how ironic these same people who come out and protest against immigration are those who beniftited from it. as an italian mexican whos parents were not born in the states, my memory isnt as short as these people who have betrayed their heritage. napoli d' italia ecco!
arriba EZLN!
up the RA!
Ultras sempre!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


OC

by OC Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 12:18 PM

Are you sure you were actually there?
We did not leave, we went inside to eat and show support for Gary and the Mayor.
We feasted on wonderful food, filet mingon, Fish and Chips, wonderful beer and wine.
I can not believe how much you LIE!!! oh, yes I can you are John Earl the" Pearl" and Duane..MY MY such pathetic losers.
Do not be fooled people, after we, the Minutmen and several local Costa Mesa residents who came out to support the Mayor, went inside, you , the goons, left.
We had a wonderful time inside, spent alot of money, and got overwhelming support from the restaraunt staff and customers. People did leave because the place was packed.
I would say WE The Minutemen won this round!!!

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Let's examine this

by Roger Young Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 3:50 PM

A brief recap of the sitution may be in order.

There is a guy who happens to be a part time city councilman and a full time restraunteur. As a councilman he casts a vote that the protestors disagree with. They then picket his business with the stated hope that they can hurt his income.

The obvious hope is that he gives in and changes his vote at some future time. You believe that you have lowered his income and that he will change his vote to bring his income back to pre-controversy levels. You are hoping that he will in effect change his vote for personal gain.

It's a simple bribe. "Change your vote to favor us and your income will go up to where it was before we picketed you. " And if he did change his vote, he would of course be guilty of taking a bribe, since the basis of his vote would be for personal gain.

I get the feeling you did not think this out as well as you could of if you had really tried.

Most people resent extortionists And I'm going to guess an Irish Pub is not a common hangout for a bunch of reconquistas. Time will tell if this works. For me I'm off to dinner.

Roger Young








Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Friday Night in Costa Mesa

by spanish Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 5:50 PM

The owner of Skosh Monahan's, who was recently interviewed on KFI by John and Ken; says this has been the best thing he has ever done, business wise. He has received overwhelmingly support for the community and business is booming.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


$40

by Border Raven Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 6:26 PM

Last night during the rally held by Colective Tonatzin, I decided to have a beer and a meal, before going out to the rally, as it was late in the day, and I was hungry.

I started with a pint of beer, an ale, Fat Tire, mmmm good!

For appetizer, the Garlic cheese Bread, topped with freshly chopped tomates.

The entre, An Irish Coddle. Sausages, and baby new potatoes, topped wiht sauteed onins, mushrooms and bacon, mmmmmmm delicious!

For dessert, an Apple cobbler with a scoop of vanilla ice cream, mmmmmmmmmmmmm!

the Bill was under $30, but the service was great!

It was just after sunset.

Then I went outside to see what the rally was all about.
I like the music, and aske one of the musicians if they had a CD coming out. She said, yes they are working on it. I will look forward to buying one, as their music is soothing at times and moving at other times. I asked the musician if they could, each play solo during their song, and allow each to stand on their own talent.

Many of the Minutemen ralliers were complaining of the cold, so we decided to go inside and have a beer, and some ate. We ate, drank and chatted, and had a good time. Later as we, left, we noticed the TC rally had ended, and they finally took their children home.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


@

by @ Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 11:34 PM

border raven, were you the embarassing pile of crap drunkard with the lame AYSO soccer hoodie, or was that some other guy who drinks and goes to demonstartions?

"I started with a pint of beer"
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Border Raven...

by Pete Nice Sunday, Feb. 12, 2006 at 11:43 PM

He obviously needs somebody to talk to.

His stream of consciousness ravings are a scary insight into the "dedicated activist" that is "BORDER RAVEN - object of mock"
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


@?

by Border Raven Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 12:32 AM

@, if I amy call you that, we have not met. Please come to Campo in April. I'll be happy to have a beer with you.

A pint of beer, with a meal, won't get me near drunk. maybe after the second pitcher, I'll be feelin' tipsy.

:)

BR


Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Pete Nice?

by Border Raven Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 12:34 AM

Have we met?

BR

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Gerald

by Pete Nice Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 10:19 AM

"come to Campo in April. I'll be happy to have a beer with you."

The MM are pathetic. Drinking and guns.. so sad.

"have we met"

We we haven't been formally introduced by I did get to hear you go on and on about being in the Navy and how you thought both sides should get together and protest Tyson foods or some such chicken plant because they hire "illegals". It was one of your stream of consciousness musings.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Ms. Lily

by Ms. Lily Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 11:16 AM

"Costa Mesan residents hit their anti-migrant council member in his pocketbook"

Oh pulease!!!! The above quote uses the term Anti-immigrant, please let me take this opportunity to educate you of the fact it is not the appropriate term. Anti-Illegal ailien is the correct term. Illegal aliens have no right to butt in line in front of migrants who do it legally. DEAL WITH IT. We are a land of laws that should not be broken.

So next time deal in facts, and not misnomers..

And why do you people always try to make it about race? Probaby because you are all a bunch of brown supremacists. Shame on you.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


As for Costa Mesa's plan

by Border Raven Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 12:14 PM

As for Costa Mesa's plan to cross-train police officers to help process the hard-core criminals, who are discovered to be illegal aliens, and see them deported, after they have served their time, rather than return them to our local streets. I support it 100 percent. This plan, won't target Latinos unfairly, it will target all races proportionally to their rate of crimes against our society, depending on their immigration status. That is nothing to worry about, unless you are an illegal alien who commits crimes.

As for "the rights of immigrants who enter the country illegally". What part of "illegally" don't they understand? I have no problem with people who enter the USA, legally to work, play, do business, or learn, but I have to draw the line on those who flaunt the laws. Now am I a racist, for thinking this way, or a concerned citizen, wanting to protect and preserve the American way of life, for Americans? Remember this, ethnic groups, races, religious groups, etc., will all be prosecuted for crimes, proportional to their contribution to the crime rate, and the severity of the crime.

The city of Costa mesa realizes the illegal immigration situation has become a major problem for our society, and the problem is placing an increasing burden on our taxpayers, and future taxpayers. We face grave problems if the problem is not fixed.

Border Raven
Minuteman
SaveOurState.Org
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Let's get this right

by Leslie Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 2:30 PM

Undocumented people are not, ipso facto, "criminals." They have commited a misdemeanor. That doesn't make them criminals.

And undocumented people have all the rights in the Bill of Rights, except the right to vote. That's been established law for years. For example, it's just as illegal to assault a person without papers as it is to assault a citizen.

Remember that.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yes lets get this right

by OC Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 6:48 PM

They have commited a misdemeanor. That doesn't make them criminals.

Isn't that a crime?
Crime=Criminal!!!

DOH!!! Do the math Leslie!!!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Leslie

by TheWatchdog Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 7:11 PM

Illegal aliens do not have all the rights of citizens. For example, they do not have the right to live or work in the United States.

The illegal alien criminals that will be targeted for deportation after they have done their time behind bars are those who have committed more serious crimes than crossing the border; rape, child molestation, murder, etc. Of course you already know this, don't you?

Leslie, explain to me why we should allow illegal aliens who are violent offenders released back onto our streets when we could deport them?


Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Let's get this right!

by Border Raven Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 9:28 PM

Undocumented people are "criminals."
They have commited a misdemeanor, punishable by deportation. Deportation is serious.

The first offense may not make them criminals, but repeated illegal crossings?

What about follow-on crimes or draining the social systems?

Leslie, I guess all crime is okay with you, so long as they are only misdemeanors. Mutiplied by the numbers of illegals, of all races, in the USA, and I have a major problem, with that.

BR

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Hit a nerve, did I?

by Leslie Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 11:54 PM

Hit a nerve, did I?...
signers-mural-small.gif, image/gif, 350x230

What's the matter, guys? Did I take away one of your favorite taunts? Well, it wasn't me--it was the founding fathers.

Let me remind Border Raven that I said that illegal entry isn't, in itself, a crime: "Undocumented people are not, ipso facto, 'criminals.'" However you want to twist that, the truth of it still stands.

A person is not a criminal for committing a misdemeanor. Typical punishment for a misdemeanor is no jail time (but there might be up to a year), and there is no jury trial. Criminals get jury trials and go to the big house. That's "criminal" as in "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed . . . ."

Actually, non-citizen residents ("legal" or "illegal," the Constitution makes no distinction) can vote under the Constitution if the states allow it. Non-citizen residents can't be President or a U.S. congressperson. The Bill of Rights never mentions citizenship. The other 17 amendments only mention citizenship as to guaranteeing voting rights and access to the judiciary to citizens (but don't limit those rights to citizens only).

The only residents who weren't covered by the Constitution were slaves, because they weren't fully people in Constitutional terms.

So for all you upholders of the Minuteman tradition, all you constitutional fundamentalists, non-citizen residents have virtually all the constitutional rights of citizens. Come to think of it, there's probably a good reason for that--up until 1787, no one was a citizen.

Anyone hear that John Philip Sousa music I'm hearing?

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Not a crime?

by Border Raven Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 2:28 AM


Leslie says' "I said that illegal entry isn't, in itself, a crime: "Undocumented people are not, ipso facto, 'criminals.'" However you want to twist that, the truth of it still stands."

A misdemeanor is a crime, not a felony, but still a crime. A crime is a violation of the law. Illegal Aliens are too criminals.

http://patterico.com/2005/12/15/4049/los-angeles-times-suggests-illegal-immigration-is-not-a-crime/

"Section 1325 of Title 8 of the United States Code, subdivision (a), states as follows:

Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.

A clue for you: imprisonment is not a consequence of a civil offense. Entering the country illegally, even the first time, is a crime. Granted, the first such offense is only a misdemeanor. "

A fine plus a few months in prison, for first offense, seems serious to me. Then you add aiding, abetting, employing, transporting, harboring, encouraging the crimes of illegal immigration, with each charge carrying additional punishment. That don't seem like a worthwhile expenditure of time or money. Repeat offenders, will be charged as felons, any felon who associates with other felons, goes to prison.

http://www.mnforsustain.org/immigration_hiring_law_excerpts_from_us_code.htm



Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


uh Leslie...

by Roger Young Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 8:12 AM

A misdemeanor is not a real crime?

A misdemeanor is a crime punishable by not more than 1 year in the Big House.

Common misdemeanors include spousal and domestic abuse, illegally carrying a concealed firearm, battery, assault.

Just curious but I was wondering if you consider domestic abusers criminals? Or is that the same as speeding?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Mr

by Jason Parks Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 8:29 AM

This doesn't "turn the tables." People are against illegal aliens, the Irish didn't come here illegally. This doesn't even make sense.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Answer The Question Leslie

by The Watchdog Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 9:45 AM

Leslie, explain to me why we should allow illegal aliens who are violent offenders released back onto our streets when we could deport them?

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Is deporting the Irish a racist comment?

by Arthur Dent Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 11:07 AM

Interesting sign in the picture "Deport the Irish".

Clearly the author of that sign believes that the unrestricted immigration into the US of those with Meso-American DNA from economically depressed regions of Latin American countries is somehow righteous and justified by a 10,000 year old tie back to the original indigenous North American migrants, but that anyone not from that chain of DNA should be expelled from the North America. Normally, that would be called racial prejudice ... yet Pro-illegal immigration advocates claim that anyone attempting to address, comment, or pass any policy that identifies people committing a criminal act as 'racist'. Beyond the obvious 'ploy' of putting your opponents on the defensive, this is also an obvious double-standard calling everyone against unregulated illegal immigration a racist while openly advocating a racially driven prejudice where unregulated immigration is only promoted for those of Meso-American heritage. This is where I find the attempts at ascribing to a philanthropic spirit in helping the poor and disadvantaged of Latin America coming here "for a better life" while demonizing anyone lacking Meso-American DNA as enormously hypocritical.

If the pro-immigration crowd were truely driven by a spirit of global human rights and service towards ending human suffering, they would look at prior historic episodes of specific ethnic immigration into the US as great examples of the humanitarian compassion offered by our country's history of immigration. Many of these episodes of immigration where not driven solely by the economic factors driving the majority of the current wave of illegal immigration, e.g., earning more money or elevating a standard of living. For many during these episodes, it was a matter of life and death ... with the numbers of deaths occuring in staggering amounts under personal circumstances that very few of the recent Meso-American immigrants have experienced or are capable of comprehending.

The major Irish immigration in the mid-1800s was driven by a famine where more than a million people starved to death and a half-million were expelled from their homes. The Irish were victims of brutal racism and economic/political oppression by the British. The significant European immigration driven by WWI and WWII are examples of people fleeing for their very lives in the face of facism and mass murder in the name of race purification on a scale never seen on this planet. The smaller scale Vietnemese and SE Asia immigration of the early 70s represented people again fleeing for their very lives as communist forces oppressed or killed anyone associated the former regimes. In the past thirty years, thousands of Chinese immigrants have entered the United States to escape either political instability or repression throughout East and Southeast Asia.

So when Leslie and others play the humanitarian card of how the poor Meso-Americans just want a better life ... then turn around and say that other ethic groups of immigrants that do not share Meso-American DNA should be deported or at least barred from the same unrestricted immigration policy that the pro-Meso-American-Immigration lobby for ... excuse me for finding this hypocritical, self serving, and racially prejudicial.

It really comes down to whether you subscribe to the modern concept that the USA is a country where the oppressed of THE WORLD have come to BUILD a better life, adopt the concepts of an open society, and escape very real, large scale human tragedies ... or you subscribe to North America having been invaded by foreigners that are not Meso-American that need to be expelled or at least marginalized into a suppressed racial miniority such that North American is finally 'returned' to those of Meso-American heritage.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Re: Is deporting the Irish a racist comment?

by Duane J. Roberts Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 12:14 PM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Arthur Dent wrote on Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 11:07 AM:

> Interesting sign in the picture "Deport the Irish".
>
> Clearly the author of that sign believes that the
> unrestricted immigration into the US of those
> with Meso-American DNA from economically
> depressed regions of Latin American countries
> is somehow righteous and justified by a 10,000
> year old tie back to the original indigenous North
> American migrants, but that anyone not from
> that chain of DNA should be expelled from the
> North America. Normally, that would be called
> racial prejudice ... yet Pro-illegal immigration
> advocates claim that anyone attempting to address,
> comment, or pass any policy that identifies
> people committing a criminal act as 'racist'.
> Beyond the obvious 'ploy' of putting your
> opponents on the defensive, this is also an
> obvious double-standard calling everyone against
> unregulated illegal immigration a racist while
> openly advocating a racially driven prejudice
> where unregulated immigration is only promoted

[Superfluous text deleted]

Wow. You guys have completely missed the point,
haven't you? The man holding up the "Deport the
Irish" sign in the above photograph not only brought
it to the protest, but is of Irish ancestory himself.
I know this because I know who this fellow is and
saw him come to the demonstration with the sign in
his hand.

In the 19th century, Irish immigrants that settled in
the United States were treated just as badly as
people who now come here from Mexico and Central
America to work. They were called "pigs", "animals",
"savages", and "subhumans" by the Europeans of
the "Anglo-Saxon variety" who were already here
colonizing the "North American" continent.

He brought the sign to point out this irony: Gary
Monahan, who is of Irish ancestory, appears to be
treating Mexicans and Central Americans almost
the same manner his forefathers were treated when
they arrived on this continent more than a century
ago!

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


It's Called "A Joke"

by johnk Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 12:56 PM

The "Deport the Irish" sign is obviously a "joke". It's meant to be humorours. We've had two presidents of Irish descent. There's no effort to deport them, nor should there be.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


To: Jason Parks, Re: Irish

by johnk Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 1:00 PM

There are a lot of undocumented Irish immigrants. It's been estimated that they are the third largest group of undocumented workers in America.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Deporting a select few...

by Border Raven Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 1:06 PM

"savages", and "subhumans" by the city of Costa Mesa of the "Meso-America variety" who have served time for their crimes, and were already here commiting crimes against the population of the "North American" continent, seems like a good idea.

Sincerely,

Border Raven


Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Uh, you Missed my point

by Arthur Dent Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 1:42 PM

Yes, Irish immigrants in the 19th century experienced significant discrimination as the class-based and religion-based racism of Anglo-Protestants continued here as it was rooted in deep cultural and religous issues dating back several hundred years. Even so, 1.5 Million Irish immigrated to the US, LEGALLY, and helped alleviate a huge humanitarian crisis.

All that said, the connection you attempt to draw in your argument between the initial treatment of Irish immigrants and the current treatment of Latino immigrants is specious and self-serving at best ... The Costa Mesa policy doesn't say deport all Latinos, it simply states that the immigration status of FELONY suspects will be investigated. If they are here illegally and there's clear evidence of a felony act, they'll be referred to immigration authorities where they'll face the same judicial review process had they been encountered by the border patrol. This is hardly a racially motivated form of discrimination. It's also no different treatment than any time law enforcement encounters a criminal and determines the individual is an illegal foriegn national, whether that person is Latino or Lithuanian. A FELONY criminal that is in the country illegally should be expelled from the country whether they are black, white, brown, or yellow ... ethnicity isn't the determining factor, their criminal behavior is.

And beyond that, I don't see how you can look around Southern CA and make any credible statement that Latinos are the subject of racial discrimination on the scope and scale that the Irish were in the 19th century, i.e., being treated as 'savages' , 'pigs', and 'subhumans', and being persecuted and killed for their religious beliefs. Latino culture is the predominant culture here and it's heritage is widely embraced. Latinos are well represented in government and are on the cusp of being the ethnic majority in the state. The predominant religion among Latinos, Catholicism, is embraced by millions and one of the cornerstones of the culture of the American Southwest.

So when you say "Gary Monahan, who is of Irish ancestory, appears to be treating Mexicans and Central Americans almost the same manner his forefathers were treated when they arrived on this continent more than a century ago!" ... all I can say is all you're doing is being intentionally melodramatic for political effect because there's absolutely no fact or basis to your depiction.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Re: Uh, you Missed my point

by Duane J. Roberts Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 3:08 PM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Arthur Dent wrote on Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 1:42 PM:

> Yes, Irish immigrants in the 19th
> century experienced significant discrimination
> as the class-based and religion-based racism
> of Anglo-Protestants continued here as it
> was rooted in deep cultural and religous
> issues dating back several hundred years.
> Even so, 1.5 Million Irish immigrated to the
> US, LEGALLY, and helped alleviate a huge
> humanitarian crisis.
>
> All that said, the connection you attempt to draw
> in your argument between the initial treatment
> of Irish immigrants and the current treatment
> of Latino immigrants is specious and
> self-serving at best ... The Costa Mesa policy
> doesn't say deport all Latinos, it simply states
> that the immigration status of FELONY suspects
> will be investigated.

If my memory serves me correctly, Costa Mesa
Mayor Allan Mansoor has made it perfectly clear
in public statements he has made to groups like
the California Coalition for Immigration Reform
(CCIR) that his underlying goal is to give police
officers the power to arrest and deport any
undocumented worker they come into contact with
regardless of whether a crime was committed
or not.

It's true that the current proposal doesn't say that.
But Mayor Mansoor wants all undocumented
workers deported regardless of whether they are
law abiding or not. That's what this program is all
about.

> If they are here illegally and there's clear evidence
> of a felony act, they'll be referred to immigration
> authorities where they'll face the same
> judicial review process had they been
> encountered by the border patrol. This is hardly a
> racially motivated form of discrimination. It's also
> no different treatment than any time law
> enforcement encounters a criminal and
> determines the individual is an illegal foriegn
> national, whether that person is Latino or
> Lithuanian. A FELONY criminal that is in the
> country illegally should be expelled from the
> country whether they are black, white, brown, or
> yellow ... ethnicity isn't the determining factor, their
> criminal behavior is.

You don't seem to understand that this
already being done elsewhere in the criminal
justice system. Undocumented workers who have
been convicted of a crime (especially a felony)
are immediately deported after they've
served their time in prison. This is something
that has gone on in this country for many, many
years.

I don't know if you are aware of this, but there
isn't a single Police Chief here in Orange County
supportive of what the City of Costa Mesa is
doing. Why? They know it won't help them fight
crime. They consider this program to be a complete
waste of money and resources.

The Costa Mesa Police Chief has told people
off the record he doesn't support the program
the City Council is pushing as well, but he's doing it
because he's "following orders".

> And beyond that, I don't see how you
> can look around Southern CA and make
> any credible statement that Latinos are the
> subject of racial discrimination on the
> scope and scale that the Irish were in the
> 19th century, i.e., being treated as
> 'savages' , 'pigs', and 'subhumans', and
> being persecuted and killed for their
> religious beliefs. Latino culture is the
> predominant culture here and it's heritage
> is widely embraced. Latinos are well
> represented in government and are
> on the cusp of being the ethnic majority
> in the state. The predominant religion
> among Latinos, Catholicism, is
> embraced by millions and one of the
> cornerstones of the culture of the
> American Southwest.

We really don't have to go that far back in time
to discover that persons of Mexican and
Central American ancestory were still being
treated like "savages", "pigs," and "subhumans."

In the late 1960s, here in Anaheim, persons of
Mexican and Central American ancestory were
forbidden to swim in the public pool when
white kids were using it.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com


> So when you say "Gary Monahan, who
> is of Irish ancestory, appears to be
> treating Mexicans and Central Americans
> almost the same manner his forefathers
> were treated when they arrived on this
> continent more than a century ago!" ... all
> I can say is all you're doing is being
> intentionally melodramatic for political
> effect because there's absolutely no
> fact or basis to your depiction.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Re: Deporting a select few...

by Duane J. Roberts Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 3:34 PM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Border Raven wrote on Monday, Feb. 13, 2006 at 1:06 PM:

> "savages", and "subhumans" by the city
> of Costa Mesa of the "Meso-America variety"
> who have served time for their crimes,
> and were already here commiting crimes
> against the population of the "North
> American" continent, seems like a good
> idea.

Regardless of what you or I think about the
idea, it's been done in the United States for many,
many years. When an undocumented worker is convicted
of committing a serious crime, they are
sent to prison. After they serve their time,
they are released to the custody of the Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and
returned to their "country of origin."

Every Police Chief here in Orange County is
opposed to the Costa Mesa proposal because they
know it's a complete waste of money. Not only are
you duplicating what is already being done
elsewhere in the criminal justice system, but
their cops will end up spending more time
filling out paperwork for ICE than patrolling
the streets and protecting the community from crime.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


irish illegal aliens

by Lance Sjogren Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 6:38 PM


There are tens of thousands of Irish illegal aliens in the U.S.

There's a guy named I believe Ray O'Hanlon who writes for Irish Echo that is always carrying on about the need for amnesty for Irish illegal aliens.

In fact, he just wrote a new article about the demonstrations that Irish illegal aliens are holding around the country in support of amnesty.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Deport the Irish

by TheWatchdog Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 9:15 PM

If they're illegal, deport them. I don't care where they're from.

BTW, my Grandparents were LEGAL Irish immigrants.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


A Loud Echo

by johnk Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 3:47 AM

Lance is not kidding about the Echo. They have more stories about immigration than this site does. Five of eight stories on their home page were about immigration.

Unlike the undocumented Mesoamericans here, the Irish undocumented are vocal about demanding legalization. Likewise, the paper is pro-immigration (and no comments to the contrary).

The contrast is striking, because, if the Echo were talking about Mexicans, they'd sound like they were the Mexica-Movement or MAPA. They'd be branded as "racist" by the SOSers, and cut no slack. They'd come off like Malcolm X. The Echo seems to be a general interest paper, not a radical paper.

Isn't this racism, when some ethnic groups get to loudly advocate for their own justice, while other ethnic groups are supposed to remain quiet, or quieter?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Illegal Alien Amnesty, Guest Workers

by Couter Punch Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 6:23 AM

Illegal Alien Amnesty, Guest Workers, International Law and Politics

By John W. Slagle
January 28, 2006
I love this nation. I believe the United States was once a sovereign republic with policies that were not directed by Mexico or any foreign nation.

For over three decades, political apathy regarding Immigration and Naturalization Laws has resulted in a very serious problem within this country.

In a quest for " cheap labor " and illicit votes, both political parties have condoned the violation of laws established by Congress, 8 USC 1324,1325, and 1326 INA.

The issue of illegal immigration is not a matter of race, creed or color. Laws which govern the orderly flow of legal immigrants and non-immigrants is very similar worldwide. In most nations, national security, public safety, and economics are all linked to Immigration standards of admission.

Stateside, non enforcement of Immigration statutes have resulted in an enept, now defunct govenment agency, INS. The President of the United States is very proud that any foreign national who can walk across the Rio Grande is welcome, dispite violation of law, 8 USC 1325. Catering to Mexico's policies, demands also seem to be a priority in Washington with most elected officials.

Special Interest Groups consider U.S. Immigration laws racist,inhumane and unjust. A possible answer to the problem would be abolishing all U.S. Statutes and adopting "word for word " Mexico's standards and law per their govenment constitution. How could any group in the United States including LULAC or ACLU be offended?

Contrary to popular belief, Mexico has very strict immigration laws which are enforced by every police agency in the country. The Bureau of Immigration can call upon any law enforcement officer to assist in their mission. Citizens from the United States traveling in Mexico without proper documents are subject to arrest as illegal aliens.

Mexican law requires proof of citizenship, passport, photo I.D. destination and purpose of travel for any foreign national entering the Country. The foreign national cannot work and must have monetary funds to support their stay in Mexico.

Non-Immigrants, FM-3s must provide proof of identity as well as a financial statement, proof of income. This income must be 250 times the minimum wages paid in Mexico City.

To fully immigrate as an FM-2, proof of income required is 400 times the minimum wages paid in Mexico City.For some reason, the elite ruling class of Mexico does not appreciate immigrants that are not self-supporting or illegal aliens competing for jobs. Amnesty for law breakers is not an option.

Voting regulations in Mexico are very strict to prevent voter fraud in elections. What an amazing concept.Proof of identity with a government issued photo voter ID is required to vote within a polling district. A fingerprint is also taken. Elections are serious business in Mexico compared to the United States of America.

Mexico controls their Borders with military troops. The fact that many military or police units are corrupt and 65 percent of cocaine and marijuana seized in the U.S. comes from Mexico is not on the political "radar" in Washington D.C.

In 1989, the U.S. Government had armed squads of U.S. Marines as well as Army National Guard air support wings assisting in narcotics interdictions along the Arizona Border. It was a very effective operation, perhaps too effective. Politicians in Mexico were "outraged" that U.S. Marines were deployed along high intensity smuggling areas.

Very specific rules of engagement were in place for our Marines. If fired upon by armed smugglers, they returned fire ending the situation. Mexican military incursions on U.S. soil was not a factor and for a brief period of time, the U.S. Border Patrol regained control along the Line.

John W. Slagle

Tucson, Arizona

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Irish Echo and racism

by Arthur Dent Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 10:09 AM

John, I'm don't understand how the example you use is related to racism.

I haven't seen any government or private 'organization' that has actively tried to prevent any Latino pro-immigration group from exercising their right to free speech and being vocal advocates for their policy positions. There are several very public groups advocating more generous immigration policies for Latin American immigrants ... Mecha, Aztlan, National Council of La Raza, ACLU, MalDEF. Disagreeing with the policy positions advocated by these groups and organizing opposition to their positions does not itself represent an act of racism. No one has proposed that the government try to shut down these advocacy groups. No one has proposed that ONLY Latinos be prevented from entering the US illegally ... they just get the most attention because numerically Latino illegal immigrants outnumber any other group by several orders of magnitude. It is these very pro-Latino immigration groups that consciously organize their positions around the concept of a racially-based privilege to permit unrestricted immigration of a select ethnic group ... then cry 'racists' when anyone voices opposition to their policy and political positions.

Any policy affecting illegal immigration needs to be 100% color blind and applied uniformly regardless of the nationality of the immigrant. Irish illegal immigrants should be deported the same as anyone else who broke the law to enter the US. Likewise, any change in immigration policy that allows an expanded and legal guest worker program should also be 100% color blind and allow foriegn nationals from around the globe the opportunity to participate.

You might argue that our government allows Irish illegal aliens to continue to reside in the US largely unchallenged and allows the IrishEcho to be a sounding board for their cause ... but the same is demonstrably true of our government's effective treatment of Latino illegal aliens and their advocacy groups, yet even on a much grander scale numerically, so I don't see the connection to racism. If anything, our government treats the Irish illegal immigrants much like they treat the majority of illegal immigrants ... which is to pretty much ignore their illegal immigration status, so where's the discrimination?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Compare

by johnk Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 12:25 PM

Perhaps I didn't explain my point clearly.

The rhetoric of the paper, which appears to be a mainstream paper, is relatively ardent, compared to a paper like La Opinion. What I'm identifying is the racial disparity in how some people may perceive what's "acceptable" political speech for each group.

What's "acceptable" for arguing for legalization of undocumented Mexicans is to say something like, "they've worked hard for a long time, and have contributed to the economy, and generally give more than they take." The people being affected don't really speak out much.

The Irish are a lot bolder. I suspect it's due to two things: Irish American political power, and a sense of white privilege.


Here's a big excerpt from one of their articles. I've replaced occurrences of the word "Irish" with the word "Mexican". The effect is interesting:


He called on the Mexican community to deluge the offices of Congressman Rick Santorum and Senator Arlen Specter with emails, voice mails and phone calls. "Senator Specter is waiting for your call, he just doesn't know it yet," he said, drawing a big laugh from the crowd.

"Now is the time to strike. We need to send a strong message on St. Patrick's Day."

Joe Hackett, first secretary at the Mexican embassy in Washington said that immigration reform was a top priority with the Mexican government.

He talked about the contributions of the Mexican to the economic and social fabric of the United States, adding that despite this, "no community is as marginalized as much as the undocumented Mexican in the United States. This is why everyone should be behind this bill."

"The Mexican voice needs to be heard. The Mexican government needs all of you so that we can get this done together," he said.

Kelly Fincham, executive director of ILIR, made the point that what the undocumented Mexican in America want was not amnesty but earned legalization.

Tom Conaghan, president of the Federation of Mexican American Societies and director of Philadelphia's Mexican Immigration and Pastoral Center, who hosted the event, said: "If we add our voices to the bigger voice, we'll all get there together."
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


to clarify

by the guy w/the sign Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 12:42 PM
clforbin@hotmail.com

i thought, it being outside an irish bar the point would have been obvious, but, just to clarify any questions as to my racism let me state that if i offended anyone i'm sorry and if i coud go back and change my sign, i would. it would read:

DEPORT THOSE WHOLLY DEVOID OF IRONY COMPREHENSION

hey, maybe next time out, i will bring that.

i'd also like to state that a hundred, hell, even 50 years ago we didnt have the same records or ins we do today and there were PLENTY of people of european ancestry that came over here and overstayed thier visas and, for all i know, i may have some in my lineage. you claim the "guy with the sign" supports these workers because of some claim to the land from thousands of years ago when my grandfather has been on this earth over half of the time period that we took this land from mexico. i'm not advocating that they take it back the same way we took it. i'm just saying that your thousands of years estimate seems a little off. in that same 150 years i'll bet plenty of minute men ancestors came here or ended up staying here illegally.

anyway, here's my challenge to the minutemen. show me your lineage has no one here who was ever here illegally. that means no one here that applied for citizenship and was then convicted of a crime but got their citizenship anyway, or someone who came over and had a child but never bothered getting around to becoming a citizen... show me a lineage devoid of any of that. i'm sure some of you can. i'm sure ALL of you cannot. turn in your minuteman memebership card and fun club kit and return to whatever country SHOULDVE taken back your bootlegging grandfather, or your undocumented great-grand mother. if you're pure "leagal" then, hey, i'll see you at the next rally.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


oh, and one more thing

by guy with the sign Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 12:46 PM

i gotta rport a quick back and forth. i walked up to a protester/minuteman dialogue cuz it looked like it was gonna get ugly and i wanted to help diffuse if needed. i came in at this point:

protestor: i can't even understand you, you sound drunk...

minuteman: i am but that's okay cuz ive got a designated driver but you wouldnt know what that is because YOU DONT SPEAK ENGLISH!

and i thought you guys didn't have a sense of humor...
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


To clarify a little more

by Arthur Dent Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 1:35 PM

To the guy with the sign,

The reason I referred to the Meso-American immigrant ties to indigenous 'migrant' indians as the major tie to the American Southwest dating back several thousand years ago was because the group most displaced by the 'colonization' of the American Southwest by westward expansion and it's ultimate inclusion in the USA were Spanish colonists ... other Europeans ... not indigenous peoples. The predominant landowners in California prior to Spanish/American war were Spanish colonists. If you trace the 'heritage' of Azteca Mestizos back to the point of having some physical tie to the American Southwest, it isn't with the Spanish Conquistedors or the subsequent Spanish land barons of 150 years ago ... it's to the southward migration of indigenous peoples from the American Southwest into central Mexico, that occurred many thousand of years ago. After the Aztec/Toltec indian cultures established themselves and thrived in central Mexico and Central America a few thousand years ago, those native cultures generally didn't migrate back northward to re-inhabit the American Southwest ... the already long established Native American tribes kept them out.

So if your stand is that the result of the Spanish/American war was unjust and that the land needs to be returned to those displaced by that war ... I guess we should give California back to Spain.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


One correction

by Arthur Dent Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 1:49 PM

Didn't mean to say that 'only' the Spanish colonists were displaced by westward expansion and the subsequent Spanish/American war, etc. Obviously indigenous native populations across North America were displaced and severely impacted by colonization over several hundred years ... I just meant to say that by the time of the Spanish/American war, that those indigenous populations had already been largely subjigated and marginalized by the Spanish and that the major stake holders that got run off are the Spanish land barons ... not Mestizos from Central America.

I just don't think that the established Native Americans of the American Southwest ... Hopi, Navajo, Paiute, Chumash, etc., look at the incoming illegal aliens as returning brothers/sisters in exile ... and they won't be looking to share their casino profits with them anytime soon. They view them as just another wave of unwelcome colonists.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Bold Irish

by Arthur Dent Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 3:10 PM

John, I understand the point you are attempting to make. I guess the first thing that comes to my mind isn't some form of racially driven 'tolerance' of bold political statements by the Irish. The first thing that comes to mind is that Irish tend to be, well ... bold ... culturally. I mean, the IRA did break new ground in political counter protests through a very 'extreme' form of boldness that many would call criminal. I don't think the political positioning you refer to has anything to do with racially driven tolerance here in the US but more to do with an Irish flare for directness and aggressive assertiveness. Frankly, I'm a bit offended by it ... and my wife is 2nd generation of Irish immigrants (via Ellis Island).

Actually, when you did your admittedly fun thought experiment of switching 'Mexican' for 'Irish' (though you missed changing St. Patricks to Cinco de Mayo) ... it read to me precisely like much of the pro-Latino immigration propaganda I've seen, both from the Latino activists and the Mexican government. It was a little spooky it seemed so familiar.

Rather than racially driven tolerance, I think there's simply not much awareness that there's any sizable population of Irish illegal immigrants ... it's simply not something that comes up in the mainstream media and it's not intuitive that there's any form of similar economics and geographical factors driving them into the country like immigration from Latin American states. Of course numerically, it's similar to a grain of sand amongst a beach to compare the scope of Irish illegal aliens, or any other ethnic group, to the scope of illegal immigration originating from Latin American states. 10-20 thousand versus 10-20 Million. Very different math.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Yeah

by johnk Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 5:00 PM

>Actually, when you did your admittedly fun thought experiment of switching 'Mexican' for 'Irish' (though you missed changing St. Patricks to Cinco de Mayo) ... it read to me precisely like much of the pro-Latino immigration propaganda I've seen, both from the Latino activists and the Mexican government. It was a little spooky it seemed so familiar.

Yeah, that's what I said. There is a similariy in rhetoric, but, consider the sources. The Echo seems to be a mainstream ethnic paper.

The mainstream ethnic papers for Spanish reading people don't take a similar stand. They are pro-immigrant, but don't defend the undocumented so boldly.

Also, there aren't "10-20 million" undocumented people from Mexico. Not by a long shot.

The estimated total of "Hispanic" people is 40 million (US Census, 2004), most of whom were born here, According to http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0201398.html, the total immigration from Mexico up to 1996 (documented) was around 5 million people. If every single person who ever immigrated from Mexico was accompanied by someone who did so illegally, and every immigrant from 1849 onward were still alive, you would then attain your lower bound of 10 million.

In short, your numbers are fake.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Misunderstood numbers

by Arthur Dent Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 5:30 PM

John, I should have been more explicit ... estimates from a variety of sources for the TOTAL number of Latino illegal immigrants from ALL Latin American nations have ranged from 10M to 20M. That's a big range and which end you subscribe to depends on who you believe. But the point still stands that there's a big difference between 10-20 thousand and 10M.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


No Offense Leslie But All of Your Headlines Are the Same and

by Curious George the Monkey Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 8:03 PM

No Offense Leslie But All of Your Headlines Are the Same and you come off like that guy in Iraq who kept declaring victory. Can we at least have a littl emore variety. Instead of "Migrant Victory Today" and "SOS Routed" and "Mexican Flag Planted in Schwarzenegger's Front Yard as Republic of Aztlan Declared" etcetera maybe on occasion try slightly more realistic assessments.

Is all of this Cassandraism because you didn't make the cheerleader team in high school or what?

"Only my opinion and just my opinion" {suppressing tendency for beer to pour out my nose from suppressed laugh)

[burp]
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Duane's Dysinformation

by Truthout Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 8:09 PM

Duane said: Every Police Chief here in Orange County is
opposed to the Costa Mesa proposal because they
know it's a complete waste of money.

Truthout: Oh get off it. It simply is not true. Let's see exact quotes. When did you survey them all and when did you see them dictating Costa Mesa what to do. It is a Fed training program and it is FREE OF COST TO THE COUNTY. Furthermore, it is NOT directed to sweeps of indoc's ok, it is only the ones who rape and beat women and shoot working people such as 7-11 clerks. Why do you inist on being a tool of criminals and the cartels when you could do something constructive?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


una + una = cero?

by Drugotraficante Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 8:12 PM

Leslie: A person is not a criminal for committing a misdemeanor. Typical punishment for a misdemeanor is ... up to a year)"

Asi yo tengo once menses en "The Klink", yo no criminale? Gracias. Ahora, entiendo, tienes mota buena. Pero, yo creo tu es poco loca.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


You can't define "criminal"

by Leslie Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 11:08 PM

The U.S. Constitution already has. Try reading Article VI. Illegal entry doesn't qualify.

Amendment VI:

"In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

The correct word is "misdemenant." Try putting that on a sign at a demo--you'll get lots of support.

I realize this goes against a year's worth of brainwashing, maybe more, but break free. You can do it.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Is Costa Mesa Police Chief John Hensley a good source?

by Duane J. Roberts Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 11:45 PM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Truthout wrote on Tuesday, Feb. 14, 2006 at 8:09 PM:

> Duane said: Every Police Chief here in
> Orange County is opposed to the Costa
> Mesa proposal because they know it's a
> complete waste of money.
>
> Truthout: Oh get off it. It simply is not true. Let's
> see exact quotes. When did you survey them
> all and when did you see them dictating
> Costa Mesa what to do.

Last month, I was invited to sit in on a meeting
that members of the Tonantzin Collective
had with Costa Mesa Police Chief John
Hensley.

Although Hensley wouldn't go on record as to
what his personal views were, he told us that no
Police Chief in Orange County supported the
Costa Mesa proposal.

Since Hensley recently elected President of
the Orange County Police Chief's association
I would presume he's a reliable source on
these matters, wouldn't you?

By the way, I took extensive notes of everything
that Hensley said in that meeting, and they do reflect
him making that comment.

Now if you doubt that such a meeting took
place, I suggest that you contact the Costa Mesa
Police Department.

This meeting is a matter of public record and it is
no secret that I was there.

> It is a Fed training
> program and it is FREE OF COST TO THE
> COUNTY.

That's true. But you neglect to mention the fact
that the cost of implementing this program will
be born by the taxpayers of Costa Mesa. The feds
are not paying for that.

In the meeting, Hensley said he didn't know
where he was going to get the funds to pay
for this program. He said he'll probably have
to take money out of somebody's elses budget.

Hensley also said they really don't know how
much this program is going to cost Costa Mesa since
they have to open up contract negotiations with the
police officer's association.

I asked Hensley if he felt this program was "redundant". He said it was.. He said that
undocumented workers who commit felonies are already screened for deportation elsewhere in the criminal justice system.

> Furthermore, it is NOT directed to
> sweeps of indoc's ok, it is only the ones

Costa Mesa Mayor Allan Mansoor has made it
perfectly clear that he wants to give police officers
the power to arrest and deport undocumented
workers for any reason whatsover.

In fact, Mansoor has been recorded as saying
that that the current, watered down proposal
passed by the City Council is the first step toward accomplishing that goal.

> who rape and beat women and shoot working
> people such as 7-11 clerks. Why do you inist on
> being a tool of criminals and the cartels when
> you could do something constructive?

I suggest that you do your homework first before
sticking your foot into your mouth and making yourself
look like an idiot.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


cost

by guy with the sign Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 8:37 AM

truthout? great name. as duane says, cmpd chief said publicly at a forum in cm last wednesday that the training alone will be over $28k per officer and that ALL of that would be absorbed by cm. you couldnt be more wrong.

now, let's compare that to the $40k per year that the city just could no longer afford to keep the job center open...
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Re: cost

by Duane J. Roberts Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 10:38 AM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Guy with the sign wrote on Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 8:37 AM:

> truthout? great name. as duane says, cmpd
> chief said publicly at a forum in cm last
> wednesday that the training alone will be
> over $28k per officer and that ALL of that
> would be absorbed by cm. you couldnt be
> more wrong.

In the meeting that members of the Tonantzin
Collective had with Costa Mesa Police Chief John
Hensley last month, I recall him saying that the
federal government would not pay for the cost
of training civilian personnel in the jail. That
means taxpayers in that city will be picking up
the tab for that expense.

And I believe the $28,000 you cite in the
above comment reflects the estimated yearly
overtime cost of this program per officer.
Every policemen that is a part of this thing
now will have to spend hours of their time
interviewing every felony suspect they apprehend
about their "immigration status".

If addition to this, the Costa Mesa Police
Department probably will be forced to hire
additional officers to compensate for the
reduction in time that will be spent investigating
crime. After all, officers involved in this program
will be spending a lot of time trying to determine
if a felony suspect came from Tecate, Mexico
or Kansas City, Missouri.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com


> now, let's compare that to the $40k per
> year that the city just could no longer afford
> to keep the job center open...
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Re: costs of law enforcement

by Arthur Dent Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 2:11 PM

Yup, I guess when you can't accept legitimate reasons for why a felony criminal in our country illegally should be processed for deportation, i.e., removed from our society as an undesirable element ... you just fall back on saying that it simply costs too much to enforce our laws, so we just need to choose not to enforce them. You got any more laws that it's just too expensive to enforce?

Sometimes I get so tired of the circular logic and double-speak used to rationalize and justify illegal immigration:

- illegal immigration costs the US taxpayer multiple tens of Billion$$/year in social and health services, but pro-immigration advocates argue that's OK since they generate so much economic benefit ... that no one has successfully measured. The thing that's covered over is who benefits and who pays the costs.

- employing illegal aliens is against the law ... but pro-immigration advocates want more state-funded (by taxpayers) job centers to help them find employment.

- pro-immigration advocates say that checking the immigration status of felony suspects 1) infringes on their rights; 2) is not the responsibility of local authorities (even though the Feds won't do their job either); 3) and costs too much money to enforce the law ... all of which is just so much smoke screen to hide that they just don't want any government authority checking anyone's immigration status so as to maintain the "status quo" of effectively minimal enforcement of our immigration laws.

- pro-immigration advocates say that illegal aliens are simply in the US "doing the jobs no one else wants to do" ... yet contractors are hiring illegal aliens by the thousands in areas damaged by hurricane Katrina NOT because the local population doesn't want jobs or won't do the work, but because the employers know they can get away with undercutting labor market wages to maximize their profits, bypass payroll taxes with under the table cash payments, and use a temporary labor force that has very low expectations of living conditions ... all while the regional black community suffers displacement, increased poverty, and under employment in the midst of one of the largest federal funding outlays in history. And our federal government is aiding and abetting it with a temporary suspension of labor and immigration law enforcement in the area. John, you want to take a stab at the racism issues buried in that one? It's a rich target area ...

I just call it more self-serving rationalization to manufacture a justification for why a select ethnic group should be permitted to continue to openly violate our laws with the sole purpose of promoting their own economic and political self-benefit at the cost of others.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


More Numbers

by johnk Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 2:35 PM

>John, I should have been more explicit ... estimates from a variety of sources for the TOTAL number of Latino illegal immigrants from ALL Latin American nations have ranged from 10M to 20M. That's a big range and which end you subscribe to depends on who you believe. But the point still stands that there's a big difference between 10-20 thousand and 10M.

Here's a paragraph from the Center for Immigration Studies, an anti-immigration organization:

>>The foreign-born population of the United States is currently 33.1 million, equal to 11.5 percent of the U.S. population. Of this total, the Census Bureau estimates 8-9 million are illegal immigrants.

That's the total of all people, not just Latin America.

Your numbers are misleading and incorrect.

That upper bound of 20 million undocumented Latin Americans is absurd. You're saying that 2/3 of all immigrants are undocumented Latin Americans. That's not even close to realistic. The lower bound is closer, but not if you're limiting it to Latin America (even including the Caribbean).
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Undocumented workers who commit felonies are already being deported

by Duane J. Roberts Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 3:36 PM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Arthur Dent wrote on Wednesday, Feb. 15, 2006 at 2:11 PM:

> Yup, I guess when you can't accept
> legitimate reason for why a felony
> criminal in our country illegally should
> be processed for deportation, i.e., removed
> from our society as an undesirable element ...
> you just fall back on saying that it simply costs
> too much to enforce our laws, so we just need
> to choose not to enforce them. You got any
> more laws that it's just too expensive to
> enforce?

Regardless of what you or I think about issues
pertaining to "illegal immigration", undocumented
workers arrested and convicted of commiting a
felony within the United States are deported.

After they serve their time in prison, they are released
to the custody of the Bureau of Customs and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to
be returned from the "country of origin."

Costa Mesa Police Chief John Hensley told me
he considers the program the City Council approved
to be "redundant." Why? It's already being done
elsewhere within the criminal justice system.

The County of Orange screens all persons booked
into its jail system to determine if they are an "illegal
alien" or not. Why do you need Costa Mesa Police to
do the same thing?

If somebody is arrested and convicted for
committing a felony, how many times do you need to
check their "immigration status"? One, two, three, four,
five, six, or seven times?

How much taxpayer money do you want to waste
doing he same procedures over and over again? Do you want your cops fighting crime, or bogged down in filling out paperwork for ICE?

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Misrepresentation

by johnk Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 4:07 PM

Dent's strawman arguments are weak.

I'll start with the last first:

Personally, I am pretty sure I wrote a post to the IMC saying that the rebuilding in NOLA should be done by local people, paid a reasonable wage. (I'm not aware of what immigration advocates said about that situation there, if they said anything at all.) Obviously, the contractors and others involved in rebuilding NOLA don't want Black people to do the work, because then, they would have a much harder time gentrifying the city to make it more "tourist friendly." People would feel, rightly, that they rebuilt their city, and it's "theirs" even if they didn't have title to the property they built up. It would potentially upset the politics down there to have poor people suddenly getting work and a decent wage.

Unfortunately, the contracts were given to cronies of Bush and Cheney.

(Also, I've never used the "jobs nobody wants to do" argument.)

Regarding status checking. I'm against checking it, generally. I'm okay with deporting felons convicted of violent crimes in most cases, but not all cases (I'm against deporting felons to countries that would torture or execute the prisoner). In other situations, I'm opposed to checking for status.

I don't personally think DLCs should be funded by the cities. I think they should be organized by workers or NGOs. They get funded by cities because the city and store are worried about negative fallout from day workers loitering in residential areas.

And last, the economic argument.

That labor increases wealth is axiomatic. If you labor to create something, you create new wealth. That thing, when sold, creates economic growth that eventually gets measured, somewhere. The problem is that there's a huge data collection problem with the undocumented, who have fake certificates. You can measure when they consume services, but it's hard to measure when they've paid taxes. The following articles have some numbers.

http://scholar.google.com/url?sa=U&q=http://www.us-sia.org/immigrantarticle.pdf

http://www.ailf.org/ipc/policy_reports_2004_anunlikelyfit.asp
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


THE VIENNA CONVENTION ON CONSULAR RELATIONS

by JOHN Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 4:13 PM

The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations require that any law enforcement officer (local state or federal) ask a person arrested of their immigration status (ie. are they a foreign national). The Vienna Convention, in articles 5 and 36, require the person be asked if they are a foreign national. If they are a foreign national they must be told of their right to contact the consular office from ther contry of origin.

This is not optional. Failure to advise of their right could lead to the dismissal of charges at a later time. It has happened in the past.

While this is not calling ICE, officers must ask for the status of a person arrested and in some cases the officer must notify the consular, even if the arrested person does not want to have them notified. This also is not an option.

So officers must ask status.

I am sorry I do not have the site to cut and paste the sections. Maybe someone better at the computer can find this and paste it if someone would like to see the full text.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Letters to the Daily Pilot

by CMesaResident Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 6:24 PM

With the the article "Store owners wary of boycott" (Feb. 7), the paper asked if people are going to support the boycott.

I am of the exact opposite idea: I am going to boycott people who post the signs. They are encouraging illegal activities by supporting those who flout our laws and come here illegally and commit more crime. In addition, the new rules would not affect most people, unless they have been arrested. The new ordinances are not telling the police to go out and check everyone's immigration status, just those who have been arrested.

Why should we have to pay for the care of a criminal who is in this country illegally? Why not deport those criminals to the countries where they belong?

JOHN WHITEMAN

advertisement

Costa Mesa

As a son of a legal immigrant, I will boycott Costa Mesa businesses that do post signs opposing the city's plan!

XAVIER LIMON

Costa Mesa

My understanding is that Costa Mesa police may begin checking the immigration status of people who are arrested for other crimes. Nativo Lopez is suggesting a possible boycott of my business and others in Costa Mesa if we do not agree to display a window sign disagreeing with this plan.

The Costa Mesa Police Department is certainly within its rights to check the background of that person.

Lopez should know this is not an issue between him and Costa Mesa business owners.

In the story in the Feb. 7 Daily Pilot, a delayed planned protest of South Coast Plaza is mentioned. I do not know the Segerstrom family, but have read about millions of dollars they have donated to various charities. Lopez may want to thank them for their community support instead of threatening them with his "delayed planned event."

If Lopez has anything I need to know, he can contact me and I will be happy to listen. I disagree with him -- I will not post a sign in my window, but I will certainly listen to his point of view.

SCOT CURRY

Newport Beach

The proposed boycott of Costa Mesa businesses is a joke. The immigrant-rights groups that are supporting the boycott do not represent the majority of Costa Mesa residents. Most Costa Mesa residents are fed up with illegal immigration. The fact is that illegal immigration is overburdening emergency rooms and local schools. Something has to be done, and the city's policy is a nice start.

If I were to see a sign on a Costa Mesa business opposing the new immigration proposal, I would simply walk out and myself and my family would take our business elsewhere.

RICK RODGERS

Costa Mesa

I will boycott businesses that do carry signs opposing the city's immigration plan. The immigration laws are designed to protect our country.

Every police force in America should be made to enforce the federal laws on immigration. I applaud the patriotic stand Costa Mesa has taken on this issue. It's too bad we don't have that kind of patriotism on the Newport Beach City Council.

BILL COOL

Corona Del Mar

We will boycott Costa Mesa businesses that oppose the city's immigration plan. Any business that displays or supports a boycott will never ever see any money from this family and contacts we have. Ever!

In other words: Enforce the laws of the land.

What is so hard to understand? Laws are applicable for everyone. The fact that someone is here illegally is the first violation.

ANGELINA IBBOTSON

Huntington Beach

The truth is that I will boycott businesses that do post these signs. Businesses are not the forum for political battles and do not need to give in to such tactics.

JEFF WILCOX

Costa Mesa

So Nativo Lopez and the Citizens for Constitutional Rights plan to boycott Costa Mesa businesses that don't display signs expressing their displeasure with the City Council majority's decision to check the immigration status of people arrested for other crimes.

Some Costa Mesa residents are in favor of this plan. Some are vehemently opposed. A fair number in the middle are yet to be convinced one way or the other. It's an issue for us as a community to work through together. And together we will, preferably without the interference of self-appointed, out-of-town activists like Lopez.

I don't know about other folk, but I don't respond well to threats, insults, coercion and outright extortion. That's why I intend to boycott any Costa Mesa business that displays a sign either for or again the council's decision, starting with El Chinaco. I invite my fellow residents to do the same.

CHUCK CASSITY

Costa Mesa

An economic boycott works both ways. I will not patronize a business that displays signs taking a position opposing the city's policy regarding illegal immigrants. The policy has nothing to do with commerce. The demonstrations by meddling agitators to a routine police procedure, as well as divisive tactics, attempt to pit us against one another.

DENNIS BARTON

Costa Mesa

I do not believe in extortion, and I will not go into any business sign that has a sign in its window. up there. That is stupid.

JANICE GAMMILL

Costa Mesa

I have no intention of boycotting any businesses in Costa Mesa.

ANITA TRAVERS

Corona del Mar

I will not boycott businesses that do not post signs opposing the city's immigration plan. In fact, I plan to boycott businesses that do post the sign.

FRED BOCKMILLER

Costa Mesa
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Pro-Illegal CM Residents turn the table

by OC Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 9:29 PM

HA HA HA Nativo!
We support the Mayor and Monahans!!!
Your so-called boycott has backfired.....

WOO HOOO

Viva Mansoor, Viva Monahans...Viva Los Minutemen, Viva ICE and lets not forget, Costa Mesa residents who are against ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION...
Not just Migrants, but ILLEGAL MIGRANTS!!!!
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 834b

by Border Raven Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 12:17 AM

CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 834b

834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of
federal immigration laws.
(b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following:
(1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of
immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding
documentation to indicate his or her legal status.
(2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States.
(3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested
by any other public entity.
(c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly
prohibited.

Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Re: CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 834b

by Duane J. Roberts Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 1:15 AM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Border Raven wrote on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 12:17 AM:

> CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE SECTION 834b
>
> 834b. (a) Every law enforcement agency in
> California shall fully cooperate with the
> United States Immigration and Naturalization
> Service regarding any person who is arrested
> if he or she is suspected of being present in
> the United States in violation of
> federal immigration laws.

[Extra text deleted]

The above provision of the California Penal Code
you cited actually came into existence with the
passage of Proposition 187 in 1994. But it has since
been strucken down in the federal courts.

In 2001, California Attorney General Bill Lockyer
wrote an opinion stating Section 834b has
been "preempted by federal law and their
enforcement has been permanently enjoined by a
federal court."

In other words, Lockyer said the state doesn't
have the authority to require local law enforcement
agencies to abide by this law given that a federal
court ruled it unconstitutional.

See the following link:

http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/published/01-213.pdf

However, in that same opinion, Lockyer said
local law enforcement agencies can work with
federal agencies that deal with immigration matters
on a voluntary basis.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


on a voluntary basis

by Border Raven Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 8:02 AM

"local law enforcement agencies can work with
federal agencies that deal with immigration matters
on a voluntary basis."

Would this justify a city municipal code addressing the matter and setting policy?

I think it makes sense.

BR



Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Labor increases wealth

by Arthur Dent Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 10:00 AM

John ... I actually agree with you that "Labor increases wealth". That is a true statement. My comments did not say that there wasn't any economic benefit to the work being performed by illegal aliens ... the point I am trying to make is with the issue of WHO is benefiting from that wealth and WHO is having to subsidize the costs. Maybe if you add up all the numbers from the perspective of GNP it might come out to a net benefit ... though I haven't seen any reliable and quantifiable proof either way ... but I think it's relatively easy to prove that the current 'broken' system of relatively unenforced immigration and labor laws and the resulting back-door labor market means that the wealth is flowing into some people's pockets that are gaming the system, while others like me (i.e., general public) are indirectly subsidizing the costs of generating that wealth.

I have no problem with foriegn nationals coming to this country to perform work that ultimately benefits our national economy ... as long as it's a level playing field that isn't being 'gamed'. I have a problem with the fact that businesses use the whole illegal immigrant labor market as a means to artificially (and illegally) increase their profits while pushing the cost burden onto the taxpaying public in the form of indirect costs.

There is often an argument that stopping the use of illegal immigrant labor will significantly increase the costs of products and services. But, if businesses are required to carry the true costs of the labor market they create ... then as a consumer I at least HAVE A CHOICE of which products and services I choose to purchase and thus which businesses I choose to 'subsidize' through paying for the direct costs for that business to exist. The free market then can operate to make the most efficient producers successful ... instead of the current system where the businesses are rewarded economically for circumventing labor laws and pushing off the costs of providing healthcare, education, etc., onto the taxpayers. It creates an environment where legitimate buinesses and workers get undercut and almost have no choice but to join in the 'gaming' just to continue to exist.

On the Katrina thing ... you and I are in whole agreement. What the Bush/Cheney crowd is doing is criminal ... you have a bunch of historically poor, underemployed, disposed people who suffer a tragic catastrophy, the Feds then pay Millions to relocate, house, etc., the displaced population, funnel Billions into reconstruction ... money that could also help local displaced people get back onto their feet by giving them jobs ... but instead encourages the businesses involved in the reconstruction to not use the local labor force, but import illegal immigrants to do the work while also increasing their profits. It's criminal.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Re: on a voluntary basis

by Duane J. Roberts Friday, Feb. 17, 2006 at 10:29 AM
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com

Border Raven wrote on Thursday, Feb. 16, 2006 at 8:02:

>> "local law enforcement agencies can work
>> with federal agencies that deal with
>> immigration matters on a voluntary
>> basis."

> Would this justify a city municipal code
> addressing the matter and setting
> policy?

I suppose it depends on the municipality.

But local law enforcement agencies have always
had the ability to check the "immigration status" of
someone they have taken into custody or have under
criminal investigation.

All they do is make a phone call to the Law
Enforcement Support Center, which is run by the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
and have them run a background check.

See the following link:

http://www.ice.gov/graphics/news/factsheets/081204lesc.htm

> I think it makes sense.

For a number of reasons, I'm opposed to the idea
of having police officers act as federal immigration
agents.

Sincerely,

Duane J. Roberts
duaneroberts92804@yahoo.com


> BR


Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


Deporting Criminals

by Watchale Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006 at 1:14 AM

Deporting Criminals...
greater_europe.jpg, image/jpeg, 255x300

How do you deport the criminals when they're in charge?
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


The Net Gain is Axiomatic

by johnk Sunday, Feb. 19, 2006 at 3:54 AM

I think you're saying the issue is the way the wealth is distributed after the work is done. It's true that people lacking status are in a much worse position to negotiate better wages. That's why many people argue for legalizing these workers. Legalized people have more negotiating power.

Blaming the undocumented for all the rights that workers have lost is bogus. They don't make up a large enough fraction of the workforce to cause all those changes. Semiskilled workers from Mexico aren't the reason why Medicare Part D sucks, and why the Estate Tax was cut. Asian waitresses aren't mounting the political assault on overtime pay, or convincing even the "liberals" to undertake welfare cuts.

I don't think that janitors were involved in writing NAFTA, or helping companies to relocate their factories to other countries.

It was the big capitalists who are doing the dirty work of lowering worker's wages. That's what they've done since factories were invented. That's how capitalism works.

It wasn't the Mexican workers who worked out a deal with Halliburton to repair New Orleans. It was the White House. If it wasn't Mexicans and Central Americans doing the work, it would be people from the Carribean, and if it wasn't the islanders, it would be people from South America. The reason why is simple -- American workers lack the power to threaten Haliburton. Some are willing to threaten the impoverished, instead.
Report this post as:
Share on: Twitter, Facebook, Google+

add your comments


© 2000-2018 Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by the Los Angeles Independent Media Center. Running sf-active v0.9.4 Disclaimer | Privacy