You Know My Name

Back when it still existed, the Immigration and Naturalization Service led newspapers to believe that otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens whose names appeared in the morning paper wouldn't be tracked down, prosecuted and/or deported. This has changed, I learned at a Friday confab between journalists and the immigration wing of the Department of Homeland Security. Asking for guidance on naming policies, in the wake of Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo's much-publicized effort to kick an honors student and his illegal-immigrant family out of the country after reading about them in the Denver Post, one reporter was told the following, by Dennis Murphy, public affairs director for the Border and Transportation Security Directorate:

If somebody robbed a bank, and hadn't been caught yet, and you write a story about the bank robbers, [who say] "hey, I robbed the first Wells Fargo Bank," you know? And he broke the law! You know, just because you reported on it does that mean that, oh, we shouldn't arrest him for robbing a bank? I mean … you're reporting on someone's admitting they've violated the law.

So, by publishing immigrant-sympathetic articles like this one from today, the L.A. Times and other news outlets that use real names will actually be placing their subjects in the very danger they already fear. Murphy, when asked whether the DHS will be tracking down information on immigrants who use public services, declined to comment.

Comments

[The Lonewacko Blog]

This article only contains three instances of "illegal" or "illegally." And, I'm surprised there are even as many as three, considering that they're referred to elsewhere in the article as just plain immigrants or residents. I'm sure the fact that the L.A. Times also owns La Opinion has nothing to do with it. Maybe the LAT shouldn't stop there. Perhaps it should also have articles sympathetic to the plight of jaywalkers, welfare cheats and, for balance, corporate corner-cutters.

If you want more information on the illegal immigration problem, click here.

[joe]

Wow, that is biased! Only three times? Tell me, wacko, what ratio of "illegal" to "undocumented" would get the wacko seal of approval?

Stop trying to knock off adjectives, Big Brother.

[Sven]

Yeah, them damn jaywalkers. They claim they're just trying to make a better life for their families, but we all know they're freeloadin' on the backs of us Godfearin' whitefolk.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Just need to lash out, but don't have any facts to support you? Well, call someone who wants things to be referred to by their real names "Big Brother." The people in the article are illegal aliens. Calling them "undocumented residents who are living north of the border" or other such euphemisms is a tool that the LAT, the AP, and other news sources use because they're pro-illegal-immigration. Once again, use the link in my first post to see several instances of this in other reports.

As for Sven: a) does race-baiting help your argument, and b) am I required by some law to support citizens of another country who have broken the laws of my country?

[Warren]

"someone who wants things to be referred to by their real names" So, your mother named you The Lonewacko? Or did you have it legally changed?

[Larry]

Answer: No, Mr. LoneWacko, you are not required to support these undocumented immigrants. Do you think the people who want to come to this country are coming in order to line up at the welfare office? No, they're coming to work here. That should be obvious. Yes, these immigrants are breaking the laws of this country. However, with all the laws on the books these days virtually everyone is breaking one or another. Who are you to say that someone who merely wants to sell their labor in a free market is more worthy of contempt than someone who travels 18 MPH over the speed limit? I assure you that it's the speeder who is more dangerous to others.

When you say that the LAT/AP/etc are "pro-illegal-immigration" you're wrong. You're the one who is pro-illegal-immigration since you want to keep immigration illegal and then argue that immigrants are breaking the law. Others here are pro-immigration which implies that they want the laws changed to make such immigration legal.

[joe]

The point, Wacko, is that "undocumented" is just as accurate as "illegal." It is Big Brother of you to try to manipulate people's opinions about an issue by eliminating accurate words from the allowable lexicon because they don't carry the proper political implication.

The neighborhoods in my city are full of cheek by jowl storefronts occupied by profitable, tax-paying small businesses owned, operated, staffed, and supported by immigrants. Ten years ago, these stores were boarded up, dilapidated, and nobody was paying the property taxes. Damn straight I'm pro-immigration.

Haven't you learned anything from the drug war?

[Steve in CO]

Here, here Larry!

I am so tired of the thinly-veiled racist stance that is "they're breaking the law, they are!" Well the law is just plain stupid, just like drug laws, and other freedom-robbing measures passed by idiots in suits who are answering to loud-mouthed constituents who's grasp on reality is tinged with fear of the "other."

Okay, that was a bit of a rant, and anti-immigration folk have the right to fear the "teaming hoards," as I have the right to fear black helicopters and aliens with anal probes. Doesn't mean these fears are legit.

Borders are artificial barriers that are very expensive to maintain, and afford neither security or economic well-being. The failed drug war is the only reason we have such intense border control with Mexico anyway.

If the demand for labor is there for the immigrants, why on earth are we opposed to the work being done by our neighbors to the south? Are there millions of out of work Americans who would otherwise clamour for jobs bussing tables and cleaning hotel rooms?

[Jough]

Lonewacko, can't seem to visit your site with Netscape 6 (IE works)- or maybe its been overrun by illegal immig...

[joe]

And another thing...

I don't want to pay $3.50 for a head of lettuce.

[fyodor]

I'm no journalism expert, but I would think that the use of "undocumented" in this context is analogous to using the qualifier "alleged" for people charged with crimes whose trials have not come to completion. I.e., innocent until proven guilty? Or is that too PC for the Wacko?

That said, I think it's gratuitous to claim anti-immigrationists are motivated by racism. There's plenty of other inferior arguments and fears they could be motivated by. 1/2 🙂

[Lefty]

The illegals, usually under assumed SSN's, incur payroll, sales and property (if they're lucky) taxes. Their kids may get schooled, grudgingly, but that's about the extent of the return on the vigorish they pay for picking oranges and mowing the grass.

[thoreau]

Those illegal immigrants need to learn to respect the rule of law. Just as freedom isn't free, the right to participate in a free-market economy is contingent on permission from the government.

Enjoying the bounty of the free market should be contingent on standing in line, giving personal info to a gov't employee, waiting for their application to be approved, and using a gov't-issued ID number in their economic transactions!

Next thing you know, they'll get to thinking they have the right to save the money they earned without gov't approval, spend it to buy property that _could_ have been owned by a real American, and use that property to open a business. They might even try to earn a profit that could have been earned by their decent American competitors.

Damm Canadians! 😉

NOTE: The above was sarcasm. Please don't flame me, unless of course you hate the free market 😉

[The Lonewacko Blog]

"Do you think the people who want to come to this country are coming in order to line up at the welfare office? No, they're coming to work here."

They're also coming to stay here and in effect pushing the borders of MX north and east.

"It is Big Brother of you to try to manipulate people's opinions about an issue by eliminating accurate words from the allowable lexicon because they don't carry the proper political implication."

Which accurately describes what the LAT, AP, etc. are doing. Thanks.

"Well the law is just plain stupid, just like drug laws, and other freedom-robbing measures passed by idiots in suits who are answering to loud-mouthed constituents who's grasp on reality is tinged with fear of the "other."

So, ten million Americans can move to MX, buy property, start English-language radio and TV stations, lobby for law changes and the like, right? As for fear of the "other," is it OK to fear the actions of the MX government? Such as consuls lobbying local and state governments for law changes, pimping the U.S. to other "immigrant-supplying" countries, "propagating militant activities" in the U.S., trying to take a survey of Mexican-Americans in the U.S. military, etc. etc? Is it fear of the "other" who, when told that they're here illegally respond with such phrases as "we didn't cross the border, the border crossed us" as well as the whole Aztlan issue? You are familiar with Aztlan, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, etc., right?

"I don't want to pay $3.50 for a head of lettuce"

Well, what would happen if MX were suddenly able to keep its citizens home? Perhaps the price of lettuce might go up temporarily, but then the market would take over, no? Perhaps agribusiness would actually modernize instead of throwing near-slave labor at the problem. Or, perhaps lettuce production might move off-shore. Or, perhaps there might be a new Braceros program. Given the facts stated above, what's the true price of your "cheap" lettuce?

"I'm no journalism expert, but I would think that the use of "undocumented" in this context is analogous to using the qualifier "alleged" for people charged with crimes whose trials have not come to completion. I.e., innocent until proven guilty?"

Er, no. See above comments.

Say, how many of you are individuals, and how many are the same guy using different names?

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Also, from "Mexican pols press for immigration, neglect home front, critics say":

"Mexico has been totally incapable of resolving its own problems and is finding a convenient scapegoat in the United States," said Luis Rubio, president of the Center of Research for Development, a Mexico City public-policy think tank..."

[The Lonewacko Blog]

From a Mexican newspaper, here's one of the costs of that "cheap" lettuce:

The territory lost in the 19th century by...Mexico...seems to be restoring itself through a humble people who go on settling various zones that once were ours on the old maps. Land, under any concept of possession, ends up in the hands of those who deserve it.... [The result of this migration is to return the land] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot.

[fyodor]

So simply by Mexicans moving to the U.S., U.S. territory will come under the jurisdiction of the nation of Mexico?

See fellas, this Wacko guy ain't racist--he's fricken PARANOID!

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Kak dela, fyodor?

Anyway, from this:

"Amselle was referring to the official Mexican government policy of acercamiento ("getting closer" or "establishing a bond") to "Mexican communities abroad," meaning both Mexican citizens living in the United States and Mexican Americans who are U.S. citizens... Hernandez told Nightline that "we are betting" that Mexican-Americans who are American citizens (even after several generations) will "think Mexico First." Hernandez and other Mexican officials continually repeat the refrain that Fox is the leader of 120 million Mexicans, 100 million in Mexico and 20 million in the United States. Since this concept would, by definition, include not only Mexican migrants who sometimes work north of the Rio Grande, but also millions of American citizens of Mexican descent, many of whom were born in the United States - it is clearly in contradiction to traditional American principles of civic assimilation and immigrant loyalty."

The full quote is here:

"I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first'."

Bear in mind, that's coming from a Mexican government official. I mean, it's not just me saying it, it's a Mexican government official saying it. One would tend to think that given the great amount of evidence of there being a general reconquista movement or sentiment, no one would seek to deny it. Perhaps you're counting on people being unable to follow links?

And, why is the Mexican government terrified of Tom Tancredo?

[incorporated by reference "How to Argue Like A Lefty in a Weblog Comments Board".]

[thoreau]

Lonewacko-

From what I understand, Mexican immigrants (like every other immigrant group to ever venture to the US) often send part of their paycheck to relatives still living in Mexico. A dollar will get more food and clothing in Mexico than it will get in the US. The Mexican gov't wants to maintain close ties with its expatriates so that they'll continue to voluntarily send money back to Mexico.

This isn't a case where Mexican immigrants are pawns of the Mexican gov't. The immigrants are the ones who have the upper hand here. If they decide to stop sending money to Mexico, well, the Mexican economy will be in for tougher times.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with immigrants deciding to give their relatives some of their own money that they earned. The Mexican politicians may flatter themselves into thinking that gov't policies are motivating this, just as American politicians routinely flatter themselves into thinking that gov't policies determine the health of the American economy. But I somehow doubt that immigrants would stop sending cash to their parents in Mexico if Vicente Fox stopped his public relations campaign.

So Fox's talk is just so much hot air...

[fyodor]

thoreau,

Thanks for explaining a few things to Wacko. All I was gonna say is, "Well, y'know Wacko you're right, if a Mexican official says it, that makes it fact. More so than if God Himself uttered it!"

[thoreau]

Fyodor-

Lest you think I always take the rational approach with wackos, here's where I really have some fun:

After every election, anybody who googles a little bit can inevitably find accusations that illegal immigrants are voting in massive numbers, at the behest of Democratic Party operatives. However, there are 100 million eligible citizens who choose not to vote. It would be a lot easier for the Dems to try and coax the 100 million eligibile citizens into voting. Getting illegals to vote involves forging documents, hiring bilingual organizers, seeking out people who are trying very hard to avoid the authorities, and risking imprisonment if caught committing fraud. Getting citizens to vote would entail less risk, just knocking on some doors and adding a few more entitlement programs to the platform (and the Dems have the last part down cold).

What are your thoughts on this, wacko? Are the aliens from X-Files in any way part of this?

[Lefty]

Every Democratic vote is welcome. Vote often. Vote well.

Did you see the Open this weekend in Chicago? There was an arial shot of a bunch of agronomy implments all lined up in a field spelling out "Hola, Dad".

[Rough Rider]

Lonewacko, I read your blog: "Here's one small step: contact the Mayors and City Councilmembers of Petaluma and Sonoma as suggested at the end of this post and suggest they read this article."

Ain't gonna happen.

The politicians are in on this. They simply LOVE all those votes coming across the river.

They retain their power. You get to pay.

[a father]

Illegals breaking US laws is OK. Kidnapping and raping a 9-year-old girl? So what! There are "too many laws on the books" as it is.

Right, Larry?

[T.Jefferson, Jr.]

OK, OK. Let's stop all this quibbling. I have a better idea. What say WE go down to Mexico, and invite a small quorum of their thinkers to hold a constitutional convention for Mexico.

We'll then help set them up with a Bill of Rights, based on ours (except that both their new constitution and their Bill of Rights will have been better worded than ours -- penned by members of the Cato Institute.)

Then, as this new legal framework slowly takes hold in Mexico, that country might begin to prosper just like we did, and the Mexicans would want to stay right where they are -- reaping the benefits of the free enterprise system and a rational economic philosophy.

After all, it ain?t rocks & rivers that make a country, is it? It is its philosophy. It isn?t the territory they're after, it's the fruits of the ideas laid down by people like Adam Smith.

So let's get to work.

P.S., If there are any scholarly Mexicans reading this idea -- hey, we could sure use your help.

[Lefty]

Nosotros la gente...

[The Lonewacko Blog]

["joe" is back! Of course, "fyodor," "thoreau," and "Lefty" are here. Maybe he'll bring "Sven" back.]

"Those are pretty Orwellian ways of describing a system of barbed wire"

As you the reader know, the Canadians mostly stay home. Why? Perhaps it's because they've managed to create a functioning economy, and people don't feel the need to leave. Perhaps if MX could do the same, as much barbed wire would be needed on our southern border as we have on the northern border.

Unfortunately, pro-illegal-immigration advocates, instead of trying to long-term help MX in a good way, think it's better to act as a safety valve for MX's bad policies and structures. And, rather than encouraging agribusiness to automate their processes, they'd prefer to import serf labor. Gotta have that "cheap" lettuce.

Mexicans coming to work American farms is, and always has been, a permament part of how our economy and society function, and always will be"

Cesar Chavez sure turned in a lot of those illegal workers to the INS, but let's ignore that. In the past, Mexicans who have come here to work eventually went home. They did not stay and force us to consider "amnesty."

"the stoopid immigration laws"

Damn those stoopid, inconvenient laws! Let's just get rid of all laws, and then everything will be legal, etc. etc. Say, here's a quote from the late Barbara Jordan:

"...[N]othing will take away from the fact that we remain a country of immigration. But at the same time, while we are so hospitable, ...our patience grows a little thin when people...try to manipulate our laws and overwhelm the American people by actions that ignore and circumvent the law. The U.S. can reclaim control of our borders without sacrificing our most cherished principles."

[Efforts to control immigration are not anti-immigrant,] "Rather, it is both a right and a responsibility of a democratic society to manage
immigration so that it serves the national interest."

"Look, the US government obviously tries to exert influence over policy in other nations all the time, but that doesn't mean we've annexed those other nations!"

Well, "fyodor," that's not really analogous, is it? Let's say 20 million Americans moved to France, 10 million of which became French citizens. Let's say we said the U.S. covered not just those within its borders, but those 20 million present and former Americans in France. And, let's say we pushed for French-English education, taught our schoolchildren that part of France rightfully belonged to the U.S., tried to get laws favoring those 10 million illegal U.S. immigrants in France passed, etc. etc. Even France would not allow something like that to happen.

"We can either recognize this fact and let non-violent people come and work for a living with whoever wants to hire them"

That's an extraordinarily simplistic analysis and solution. I'd suggest more research.

"Milwaukee 1910, Houston 2003, there's no difference"

Really?

1. Weren't most German immigrations to M. legal?
2. How many Germans are there in M.? 10 million?
3. Was Germany at any time right next to the U.S.?
4. Did we ever take German land in North America as part of a war? (i.e., the Mexican-American war)
5. Are there people in Germany who think that (non-existant) land in the U.S. which was formerly part of Germany is still the rightful property of Germany?
6. Was there the huge multicultural movement that there is today back in 1913, telling people that assimilation is no longer necessary?

There are very many differences between yesterday's (largely legal) immigration and today's illegal immigration. Try something less simplistic.

[joe]

["joe" is back! Of course, "fyodor," "thoreau," and "Lefty" are here. Maybe he'll bring "Sven" back.]

Most paranoids think that every person that crosses them is part of an elaborate conspiracy involving thousands of people. Wacko, who actually has multiple opponents, lumps them into one individual, so as to maintain the fiction that his ideas are normal.

The Right has always overestimated its popular support, and the closer to the fringe, the more convinced they are. Neo-nazis actually assume that every white guy in a hardhat is seething with racial resentment. Jonah Goldberg invents elaborate plots to explain Hillary's sales numbers. There couldn't really be broad public support for liberal ideas. In this vein, Wacko needs some kind of defense against the chorus of revulsion for his ideas, so now I'm a left-handed, transcendentalist Russo-Swede. OK, dude.

[The Lonewacko Blog]

Hey, maybe "joe," "fyodor," "thoreau," "Lefty," and "Sven" are all different people. However, it's mighty strange to find so many anonymous "liberals," all of whom use ad hominem attacks to attempt to support their non-existant arguments.

As for "normal," wouldn't you consider Barbara Jordan "normal?" See the quote above.

I don't consider selling out your country to a foreign power "normal," however. Even if it keeps the lettuce "cheap."

[joe]

Food purchases take a bigger bite out of most families' budgets than taxes, Wacko. You'd drive up the price of food so that you don't have to hear people speak Spanish. Yeah, poor people eat too much fresh produce anyway.

Don't dis cheap food.

[Lonewacko = Turdburglar]

Ah let the little boy have his fun. I used to read Lonewacko...I still like some things there, but for the most part, I am deeply disturbed, but he has a right to say it, I have to admit.

[joe]

"...MX were suddenly able to keep its citizens home..."

"...keeping the influx at a reasonable level..."

La di da di da. Those are pretty Orwellian ways of describing a system of barbed wire, armed government agents, prisons, and a quasi-judicial system that does not have to respect the Bill of Rights in its treatment of people. Your paranoia about Mexican agricultural workers ignores one simple fact which is staring you in the face: Mexicans coming to work American farms is, and always has been, a permament part of how our economy and society function, and always will be. All your authoritarian reaction will do is make the process continue in a more dangerous, more profitable (for the criminals) manner.

I could argue about your obsession with cultural purity and your shallow understanding of structural assimilation vs. cultural assimilation, but your solutions are so offensive and outrageous that knocking down their foundations seems unnecessary.

[joe]

Bill,

"If they are coming here to illegally extract money out of the economy by working while dodging taxes,"

Whose fault is it that they aren't paying taxes? Answer: the stoopid immigration laws, that make it impossible for them to register to get on the books. By all means, let's mainstream this huge labor pool, instead of making it a black market.

"...to let their kids take advantage of the educational system and boost their old age pension without having to work for it -- then they shouldn't be here."

To be blunt, those little fajita eating brats are going to be paying your social security. I say we send them to really good schools, so they'll have really high incomes, and keep my (and my kids') taxes down.

[Left nor Right]

The system we've built here in the US, didn't happen by accident. We set up ground rules that allowed it to happen. The key for Mexico's plight is to emulate those ground rules.

That way, Mexicans might begin to prosper, just like we did, and citizens of Mexico would want to stay right where they are -- reaping the benefits of a new, rational economic philosophy.

Look, it isn?t the land or the territory they're after; they, and the Canadians, come here because of what we've created, as a result of philosophies articulated by people like Adam Smith, Paine, Jefferson, Franklin, and the like.

So let's at least help them cultivate their own freedom founders. You'd be surprised what feisty Spanish and French blood can accomplish.

Just ask Simon Bolivar.
Or ask Alex Trebek.

[fyodor]

Wacko,

I don't know Russian; I like Dostoevsky (in English).

Look, the US government obviously tries to exert influence over policy in other nations all the time, but that doesn't mean we've annexed those other nations!

[Anonymous]

I happen to admire people who dodge taxes. Anything that weakens the government is a necessary counter to the power grabbing it normally performs.

Ole!

[thoreau]

As long as there is greater prosperity here, there will be people who want to come and get a job and earn a share of it. And there will be people willing to find ways around the borders to smuggle those aspiring workers in here. And there will be employers who are willing to hire the immigrants off the books (and hence tax-free).

We can either recognize this fact and let non-violent people come and work for a living with whoever wants to hire them, or we can help the smugglers stay in business by making their services necessary.

[Raymund]

You let them in, they crowd our cities, they read non-English newspapers.... Milwaukee 1910, Houston 2003, there's no difference.

As I left the US-Mexico soccer game here in Houston a few weeks ago, I realized that, in 20 years, the children of today's Mexico fans will be chanting "U-S-A!" and waving the Stars and Stripes.