If you have concerns about immigration ... fine. Many people have valid ones. But don't try to pretty up your nativistic xenophobia by saying that you are only concerned about crime and safety.

If you were really concerned about public safety [and if you employed anything other than the most myopic and flawed causal analysis in your "reasoning"] then you would suggest that we bring in MORE immigrants (legal or not) because data from the census and other sources show that for every ethnic group WITHOUT EXCEPTION, incarceration rates are LOWEST for immigrants (documented or not), even those who are the least educated . . . and ESPECIALLY for the Mexicans, Salvadorans, and Guatemalans who make up the bulk of the undocumented population.

You sound like Bill O'Reilly blaming drunk driving on illegal immigration. This argument is either intellectually dishonest or disintellectually honest (sincerely stupid), but frankly it doesn't matter because it is logically and analytically vapid. And FYI: the source of the immigration & crime talking points can be traced directly to the Birchers for whom those such as yourself (and Lou Dobbs) are proving very effective tools, witting or unwitting.

Though I doubt you will post this, I would challenge you to explicitly defend your "argument" in some post, applying the basic rules of formal logic and rhetorical debate to support the thinly veiled conclusion to which you allude.

If you actually care about "facts" you can start here.

Posted by: John Frum at May 18, 2007 3:09 PM

The fact you can't get around, John, is that if the government had done its job and kept illegals out, Mary Sadler wouldn't have been murdered by an illegal.

I never said illegals cause more crime. I said remember Mary Sadler - because she was killed by an illegal who shouldn't have been here.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 18, 2007 3:19 PM

Frum, how about defending/substantiating your "nativistic xenophobia" charge first? I can call you a fool, an idiot, or a paid flunky. So what?

Posted by: Donna Locke at May 18, 2007 9:27 PM

Indeed. You are correct that this "fact" is indeed true; however, its significance stops right there. If lightening would have struck said perp (fyi: illegal is an adjective NOT a noun), then she would be alive. If a drunk driver would have actually hit the killer first, she would still be alive. These are intentionally specious arguments that carry the same logical weight: NIL.

You are analytically confusing two very different issues: illegal immigration and murder. Direct causation - as employed in "if not for x, there would be no y" - is utterly myopic and so obvious to be of little actual logical impart. There are plenty of people murdered every year by Tennessee-born criminals, so what I ask does that "fact" say to the issue of immigration? As much as your example: NOTHING.

And of course, you did not explicitly say that illegal immigrants cause more crime, and I would gladly acknowledge that (and did not say otheriwse); however, one need not travel far to draw inference. And frankly, you should be quite aware that this type of rhetoric has negative consequences, poisoning our discourse and leading to an increase in hate crimes against people of latino/mexican origin (the majority of which are both legally here and/or citizens). Regardless, immigrants (documented or not) commit fewer felonies than native-born citizens of all ethnicities, and this "fact" should be addressed as well.

To summarize: I made no attempt to get around your assertion of the obvious (if no x, then no y). I did (and do) challenge the relevance to the debate on illegal immigration and stand whole-heartedly by my assertion that this type of intellectual dishonesty is both expressive of and further incites the same nativistic xenophobia exhibited by the likes of the Birchers.

Donna: you can call me whatever you would like. I have heard worse from better. Please read my words if you would actually like an answer to your question.

Bill: I read this blog rather regularly and I expect better. Go back and watch the Bill O'Reilly-Geraldo spat if you are not persuaded by my argument. Basically two teenage girls were killed by an undocumented alien. Billo tried to blame this on illegal immigration (if no x, then no y), while Geraldo AND THE ULTIMATELY THE GIRL'S PARENTS told him to shove it. It was a cheap and dishonest argument and he got called out on it as well he should.

Look at it this way: if your job was to reduce murder and to reduce drunk driving, would your first logical step be to devote all your resources to the issue of immigration. That is just stupid.

Posted by: John Frum at May 21, 2007 10:41 AM

Illegals commit a portion of the crimes that occur in this country every year. If they were not here, those crimes would not occur. That's really pretty simple.

You are comparing crime rates of illegals versus crime rates of citizens. That's the wrong comparison.

Compare crime rates of illegals versus crime rates of legal immigrants. I bet you'll find lower crime rates among legal immigrants - they are people who, unlike the illegals, start from a foundation of abiding by the law. Further, background checks can screen out criminals, while the porous border can not.

Bottom line: if the federal government was sufficiently doing its job to keep out illegals, Mary Sadler would not have been murdered by an illegal and, chances are, she'd be alive today.

Ditto, by the way, the Mount Juliet couple killed by that drunk illegal immigrant last year. Two more casualties of the fed's failure to protect America against invasion.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 21, 2007 11:44 AM

Bill:

As I said before, what you are saying is so comically obvious and simplistic as to be worthless. Redheads commit a portion of crimes each year. If they were not here, those crimes would not occur.

As for crime and documented v. undocumented immigrants (illegal is an adjective NOT a noun . . . who is it again that needs to learn the English language?), there is little hard data to look at on the matter; however, this much is certain: people not born in this country commit FAR LESS crime than those who were born here regardless of how they arrived. The stats are clear. Look at where prisoners are born. You can not avoid this fact.

And please, Bill, you do know where this "invasion" rhetoric comes from don't you? (as well as the "not here" eliminationist rhetoric). Besides its similarity to the Black Rape and Yellow Peril (a conspiracy theory which held that the Japanese emperor intended to invade the Pacific Coast), the origins of this specific example are pretty clear-cut.

Dave Neiwert does great research on the matter.

http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/04/reconquista.html

"In case anyone's wondering, this latest conspiracy theory in fact originated on the far right -- specifically, with Glenn Spencer, leader of American Patrol:

The so-called reconquista, an alleged plot to turn several American states into a Mexican state or some kind of puppet government controlled by Mexico, has been a top concern for Spencer for years. Back in 1999, he put it like this: 'The consul general says Mexico is reconquering California. A Mexican intellectual suggests that anyone who doesn't like Mexicans should leave California. What else do you need to hear? RECONQUISTA IS REAL... . EVERY ILLEGAL ALIEN IN OUR NATION MUST BE DEPORTED IMMEDIATELY. ... IF WE CAN BOMB THE TV STATION IN BELGRADE [in the former Yugoslavia] WE CAN SHUT DOWN [U.S. Spanish-language stations] TELEMUNDO AND UNIVISION.'

Spencer got involved in the anti-immigration movement in 1992, when he formed Voice of Citizens Together, also known as American Patrol, in California. In 2002, saying the battle was lost in that state, he moved to the 'front lines' of the Arizona border, where he formed American Border Patrol. He was one of the first to call for border citizens' patrols and pioneered the use of surveillance technology.

He also was one of the first well-known anti-immigration activists to more or less openly court white supremacists and anti-Semites. He has attended conferences of American Renaissance magazine, which specializes in racist theories about blacks and others. He interviewed the magazine's editor, Jared Taylor, on his syndicated radio show. Another guest was California State Professor Kevin MacDonald, who is the architect of an elaborate anti-Semitic theory dressed up as evolutionary biology."

Aztlan/reconquista/invasion aren't really ideas held by Mexicans: they're ideas held by white supremacists and neo-Nazis. The myth of reconquista stems from a misreading of one of the founding documents of the Chicano movement, "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan."

And where else have I heard this nonsense before? Oh that's right . . .

Here's David Duke in 1982, explaining the Klan's anti-immigrant advocacy: "Every new immigrant adds to our crime problems, our welfare rolls and unemployment of American citizens. We are being invaded in the southwest as if a foreign army were coming over the border. They're going to take more and more hard-earned money from the productive middle class in the form of taxes and social programs." And Duke called for the deportation of all undocumented immigrants and harsh penalties for businesses that employ them. "I'd make the Mexican-American border almost like a Maginot line."

Please note: I am not accusing you of being a racist or a Klansman. I am merely showing you where your rhetoric arose. It has been sanitized and re-packaged, but it is still the exact same argument, playing to the same race-based fear-mongering and paranoia that have plagued this great country (and man-kind in general) for ages.

This is the intellectual company you keep when you talk of "invasion" and "illegals."

My concerns about illegal immigration revolve mostly around the artifical suppression of wages and other such policy matters not this paranoid and distasteful race-bating. Good luck fighting your "invasion."

There is a "militia" in Alabama that seems intent on fighting the same invasion it seems: "[A]t a bail hearing Tuesday, ATF agent Adam Nesmith introduced the idea that the Free Militia was planning to gun down Mexicans in the small town of Remlap northeast of Birmingham."

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/117844294465520.xml&coll=1

In all fairness, I will note that the evidence seems rather thin, but this does seem just like the response you would get to an invasion, heh?

Posted by: John Frum at May 21, 2007 3:00 PM

Well, John, being redheaded isn't illegal, being here illegally ... is.

Surely you can see the difference.

As for your theorizing that I got my rhetoric from white supremacists, get real. I used the word invasion because when 12 million people from another country illegally enter your country that is what it is.

You can't dispute my bottom line fact - that if the illegals weren't here, they couldn't commit crime here, and that the fact that they are here is the fault of the governments - so you resort to implying I'm a racist.

Question for you, John: If we could go back in time and effectively bar the entry of all 12 million illegals, would you be for doing so?

I would, though I would let many of them in LEGALLY. But, then, I love America and believe in the rule of law. Those who believe we should not halt the flow of illegals into this country believe, essentially, in mob rule.

Posted by: Bill at May 21, 2007 3:40 PM

The Aztlan/Reconquista mess did not originate with Glenn Spencer or any immigration-control org. It originated with the folks spouting, repeating, and advocating those lies and divisiveness. Many of these subversives held or hold public office in this country. Spencer and others merely recorded them at public or semi-public gatherings and distributed the tapes. Reporters documented Latino leaders making such statements to the reporters. It is no secret. I have an e-mail inbox filled with university professors and others telling me "we" (they) are going to "take over."

Organizations such as MEChA have this subversion written into their constitutions and stated missions. You can find it in school books sent to California and probably other states by the Mexican government. So, Frum, you need to go to the primary sources, the self-indicted in their own words. I have posted those words and sources many times.

Spencer is one of many immigration-control leaders, and I don't agree with everything Spencer has done, but I guarantee you he is not a racist or anti-Semite. His personal history is that of a liberal. His org is very diverse ethnically and racially. His daughters married Jewish men. He works in concert with Jews, Latinos, and others in the immigration-control movement. One of his best friends is Terry Anderson, a black man with a radio show in LA. Terry is nobody's fool.

The race card is as fake as the Social Security and green cards you can buy on the street. But it's all the opposition has, so they keep playing it.

Posted by: Donna Locke at May 21, 2007 10:35 PM

I explicitly said that I was not making any claim about your being a "racist" as such. What I did want to show you was the origin of that rhetoric you wield and who your intellectual bretheren are in this matter.

Regardless of your motives or intent, your logic and rhetoric is (a) not persuasive and (b) poisonous and intellectually dishonest.

Now as to your question re: "starting over," yes I would gladly start over and I would gladly let most - if not all - back in. I am no fan of a speak-easy environment. The analogy is apt. All of those Americans who were violating the actual Constitution during Prohibition were equally guilty as "illegals." Were they morally suspect by virtue of this? Were they inherently "criminal"? Arguably this would be a better indicator given the nature of alcohol. Similarly, speed limits are not mere suggestions; however, most people like myself see no problem in cruising at 5-7 mph over these limits eventhough this again is inherently tied to public safety. Should we extrapolate this to one's propensity to commit violent criminal behavior?

Here is my point: If you look at my posts, you will see that I have taken no pro-illegal entry stand. My argument and criticism rest on the use of irresponsible and illogical rhetoric in a very complex debate. This type of dangerous rhetoric itself can result in increased lawlessness (of actual TN state criminal law) in terms of hate crime behavior. This type of violence occurs against law-abiding state citizens (as bigots don't tend to ask for green cards or birth certificates before attacking). We have seen a 20% increase in crime against latino-Americans since 2003 in no small part to this nativist fear-mongering.

As I actually understand the fact that I am at more risk from native-born brothers and sisters than immigrants of any sort, my concerns about the speak-easy environment of immigration rest on the actual economic problems caused by downward pressure on wages, etc. and a true respect for the rule of law not some sophomoric notions of causation. The insistence of you and others to follow this line of argument only contributes to a general disrespect for both the rule of law and an entire group of human beings who become labeled "illegals" and "invaders" (and fyi: invasion requires a modicum of coordination . . . not an amalgamation of poor and desolate individuals acting in the economic self-interest of themselves and their families).

I doubt I can convince that dem thar illegals iz outz to getcha (boo!); however, I would hope that you would think a bit more carefully before you parrot the talking points of the unabashed intolerant. Eventhough I do not doubt your sincerity when you disclaim any such motive, I do doubt that posterity will be so understanding when these preserved words are read in the future.

Posted by: John Frum at May 22, 2007 8:14 AM

FYI: donna and bill

My goal is not to persuade anyone that illegal imigration should be "tolerated" or that the situation is fine . . . a-ok. It is very specific: to stop people from using paranoid and irresponsible rhetoric in a very complex policy debate. It is unpersuasive, muddies the waters, makes those who use it look like "bigots" (whether or not they are), and creates a climate where violence against "out-groups" becomes acceptable (defending my country from invasion, etc.).

As for the concerns of cultural purity or any other such nonsense (which I consider to be suspect out-of-the-box) and assimilation concerns generally, all I can say is this: like white, black, jewish, muslim, etc. parents throughout this great land, within one generation mexican-american parents will be just as disconcerted as the rest of us when they find their children text-messaging, listening to hip-hop, and surfing on myspace. They will bemoan the loss of whatever heritage they have brought - despite their best efforts - as it all becomes dilluted in this lovely cultural melting pot of "de internets," mtv (ok that reference may already be dated), and American Idol.

And like you and I, there will be nothing they can do about it either.

Posted by: John Frum at May 22, 2007 8:29 AM

What I take offense at John is your assumption that "the origin of the rhetoric I wield" is a bunch of racists. The origin of the rhetoric I use - specifically the word "invasion" - is my own brain. Except for David Duke, I have never even heard of those other people you mentioned. I don't follow the movement, the literature, etc.

When foreigners enter my country illegally en masse I call it an invasion.

When cops use the term "home invasion" are they also using rhetoric that has its roots in those racists you mention?

Of course not. Invasion is a legitimate and non-racist word in the dictionary.

I laugh at you as I laugh at commenters who claim, as if they know, that I wrote something because I get my talking points from the GOP via Rush Limbaugh. I don't listen to Limbaugh. Haven't listened to him for at least 4 years now. Don't have a radio in my home office, where I do most of my work, and in the car most of the time I'm listening to WAY-FM or a country station.

Yet people like you charge that I repeat things I've heard on Rush when I don't listen to him, and that I use "rhetoric" that I got from racists I never listen to or have even heard of until you mentioned them.

I'm just an average American who thinks people who come here should do so legally, and that our laws should not coddle those who don't.

Posted by: Bill Hobbs at May 22, 2007 9:17 AM

Bill:

I do not claim that you have taken it directly from anyone; however, the use of this terminology can be traced to certain people. Regardless, it is the language of the bigot and it undeniably furthers his agenda everytime you use it.

I understand your [again obvious and literal] point, but you once again have backed yourself into a rhetorical corner. Yes, the definition is x, but is this similar at all to a home invasion (violent crime, heh?) or even the Iraq invasion (masses of coordinated military overtaking a sovereign state). That would strike me as a bit paranoid at a minimum.

And please don't talk about ME now as "you people." Now you are just overgeneralizing across the board in a genuinely disrespectful way. I have taken great pains to be very clear in that I consider you separate from "those people" (as is why I expect better) so the least you could do is apply the same intellectual courtesy . . . unless of course that is how YOU PEOPLE view the world: me vs. the various groups that disagree with me (lib'ruls, mexicans, islamofascists, commies, etc.). [note that is intentional . . . not blatant hypocrisy].

And fyi: I am registered republican who voted for Bush in 2000 tho' not since.

Posted by: John Frum at May 22, 2007 10:04 AM

One more thing: "I'm just an average American who thinks people who come here should do so legally, and that our laws should not coddle those who don't." is an intellectually honest argument that is on point, and one that will form, part of the calculus behind whatevr solution is ultimately proposed.

There is no need for irrational hyperbole in that statement, and it is one that neither inflames nor incites violence. It is one I certainly agree with.

This is where the debate needs to be, and I am glad you have come around.

Posted by: John Frum at May 22, 2007 10:38 AM

correction: "people like you" NOT "you people"

sorry.

Posted by: John Frum at May 22, 2007 1:06 PM

Quite often, there is nothing so revolutionary as the truth. Some people don't want to hear the truth or don't want it known and will attack anyone who speaks it or refuses to pretty it up. That is the truth.

Posted by: Donna Locke at May 22, 2007 4:00 PM

Donna:

The truth is that people not born in this country commit less crime than those who are PERIOD. You make very little if no sense, so I cannot really respond otherwise.

Bill: I do hope you realize that to tie immigration to "home invasion" (an explicitly violent use of the term) belies a value-neutral literal use of the term.

I hope the irony is not lost that by asking whether police are racist by using a term that connotes a malevolent intent (invasion) when describing a malevolent act (home invasion) one (a) appears rather confused about what exactly they are trying to say; (b) not only proves my point; but (c) also loses the ability to say - with a strait face - that they disclaim this negative connotation.

You have just clearly expressed what was only hinted at by such rhetoric.

Q.E.D.

Posted by: John Frum at May 22, 2007 9:20 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:

Remember personal info?
YesNo
Comments:

Email this entry to:


Your email address:


Message (optional):