Mexicans! Mexicans Everywhere!

CNN has produced its share of bizarre anchor behavior over the immigration issue, but this rant by Jack Cafferty surely takes the flan.

With every concession by the Bush administration, and the ever-growing demands of Mexican president Vicente Fox, America's illegal aliens are becoming ever bolder. March through our streets and demand your rights. Excuse me? You have no rights here, and that includes the right to tie up our towns and cities and block our streets. At some point this could all turn very violent as Americans become fed up with the failure of their government to address the most pressing domestic issue of our time.

Sturdy Wolf Blitzer was taken aback by this—the rest of their exchange is fun to read, too.

BLITZER: A lot of these demonstrators, you know, Jack, are legal. And many of them are citizens of the United States. They're not all illegal immigrants, the people protesting.

CAFFERTY: How do you know?

Comments

[bubba]

What defines probable cause for an INS investigation?

Does protesting for the rights of illegal immigrants, under a Mexican flag, qualify as probable cause?

Would it be legal to investigate participants in a NAMBLA rally for child pornography?

Yes, I understand the practical matter. American Citizens are not required to prove citizenship on demand. In fact, we don’t really have a way to do that. So, it’s not at all practical to pluck the illegal immigrants out of a crowd. I just think Cafferty has a rhetorical point, even if it doesn’t really suggest a practical course of action.

[bubba]

They’re not all illegal immigrants, the people protesting.

This completely ducks the point. Even if only 1/2 (1/4?) of the protesters are illegal, Cafferty has a valid point.

[joe]

When did the time-honored practice of peacefully assembling in a public place to demonstrate go from being hailed as the proper means of free people in a democratic republic to express their opinion about politics, to being a terrifying, threatining, offensive activity that elicits threats of violence against the participants?

Cafferty, you’re a friggin sissy.

[Ed]

Yeah, CNN is becoming the Cranky News Network.

[MP]

At some point this could all turn very violent as Americans become fed up with the failure of their government to address the most pressing domestic issue of our time.

I guess we won the WoT.

[ESB]

Cafferty is dead wrong in saying they have no rights here.

The Bill of Rights refers to *persons*, not *citizens*.

[Jeff P.]

Considering how our government has failed to adequately address the last few items that qualify as “most pressing domestic issue of our time,” why would Cafferty suspect that this one might trigger violence?
Unless he was trying to ignite some…

[pigwiggle]

These demonstrations will certainly backfire on the illegally immigrated Mexican nationals. Take a guy like me; someone who is for extremely liberal immigration policies. I see hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants in the streets. Interview after interview they are asking for one thing; amnesty. Why should Mexicans get to break the law and jump the line simply because there are more of them here? Hardly fair to the Chinese and Indian folks I know who went through the tortuous and Sisyphean immigration process; they are effectively punished for not breaking the law.

I see a huge show of force by one nationality asking for special treatment, and it troubles me. It creeps me out a bit.

[MP]

The Bill of Rights refers to *persons*, not *citizens*.

It depends on what you are referring to. See the 14th amendment for further details.

[Mr Inquisitive]

“…the practical matter. American Citizens are not required to prove citizenship on demand.”

We’re working to fix that particular oversight, even as you speak. And could you speak just a bit more clearly, please?

[Todd Fletcher]

I’ll say it again: these demonstrations should be taking place in Mexico City. Reform your own country before you demand we reform ours.

[Warren]

The Bill of Rights refers to *persons*, not *citizens*.

Damn skippy. Non US citizens are not non-persons. I proclaim all suggesting that there are people in this country without rights, asshats. Then again, it’s not like the Bill of Rights has any legal standing in this country.

[Phil]

I see a huge show of force by one nationality asking for special treatment, and it troubles me.

Which nationality? You are aware all of these people aren’t from Mexico, right? That goes for you too, Fletcher.

[Warren]

The Bill of Rights refers to *persons*, not *citizens*.

Damn skippy. Non US citizens are not non-persons. I proclaim all suggesting that there are people in this country without rights, asshats. Then again, it’s not like the Bill of Rights has any legal standing in this country.

[ESB]

*It depends on what you are referring to. See the 14th amendment for further details.*

However, using this logic it is perfectly Constitutional for the US government to torture a foreign national, if non-citizens have no rights.

[SR]

“Would it be legal to investigate participants in a NAMBLA rally for child pornography?”

If someone’s attending the rally is the sole basis given for probable cause? No; no more than it would be permissible to search the homes of people based solely on their attendance at a marijuana legalization rally.

[pigwiggle]

So, a handful of the illegal immigrants weren?t Mexican. Here in SLC there were a few crackers in the 30K+ crowd of Mexican nationals that engulfed our downtown. And what of it?

[MP]

However, using this logic it is perfectly Constitutional for the US government to torture a foreign national, if non-citizens have no rights.

Yes it is, particularly if the torture does not occur on US soil. Don’t confuse the morality of an issue with the Constitutionality of an issue.

[TLB]

The latest propaganda push from supporters of illegal immigration is to portray these as “immigration marches” instead of “illegal immigration marches”.

The three networks did that, as did the NewsHour. All the Democratic shills are doing it too. It’s pretty shocking how unified this has been.

For those who want the truth, all of these marches support illegal immigration and have nothing to do with legal immigration. All of these marches support legalizing illegal aliens. They are not marching for legislation concerning legal immigrants.

And, the Ge0rgia rally was organized by a former Mexican C0nsul General.

These marches are obviously a show of force and are intended by some of the supporters to intimidate. If they don’t get what they want, what happens?

Isn’t the U.S. forced to capitulate to the demands of these foreign citizens, or face what may be dire consequences?

What word would most Americans use to refer to those who assist what bears many of the hallmarks of an invasion?

[fyodor]

From the 14th Amendment:

“nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

There’s some talk of citizens as well, but it’s clear (from the Dec of Ind as well) that basic human rights derive from personhood, not citizenship. It’s asinine and rather unamerican I should say to claim any group of people in the US “have no rights here”. Hell, even prisoners have rights, if not as many as the rest of us.

[dhex]

depends on the jhpsi ratio (that’s “jazz-hands-per-square-inch”)

cause that’s pretty fucking intimidating.

[spur]

Where are the counter-demo’s? I’ve heard of a couple involving at most a couple hundred people and generally just a couple of wing nuts burning the mexican flag. If Americans were really really concerned about illegal immigration, shouldn’t nativist groups be able to get at least 5-10k people out in the streets in at least a couple of cities?

This whole controversy is made up in an election year by republicans to deflect the growing unpopularity in Iraq. Most Americans don’t give a toss about illegal immigrants.

Oddly there is a story on CNN right now about an organization called:

legalizetheirish.org or .com about illegal irish immigrants in America…

[fyodor]

supporters of illegal immigration

Wackoid,

It makes no sense to call supporters of immigration reform “supporters of illegal immigration” since we want to reduce the illegality of their activities. You’re the supporter of keeping it illegal.

All of these marches support legalizing illegal aliens. They are not marching for legislation concerning legal immigrants.

They are marching to make illegal immigration legal. That’s a real twist of logic to say it has nothing to do with legal immigration. By your logic, marching to legalize pot or interracial lunch counters or anything that is currently illegal is to march to support criminal activity. Very good logic there, Wackhead.

[Native NYer]

Does Cafferty want fights such as that portrayed at the beginning of “Gangs of New York” instead of peaceful marches?

One strange incident on the 2 train last night around 5:30. An older black guy got into an argument with a spanish woman over something that then became an airing of disagreements over culture and politics. The black guy basically said “I’ve been here 64 years, and my people built this country so you spaniards have to wait your turn” and the woman said “You’re lazy, and we don’t have to wait for anything”.

There was actually a lot more to it including veiled references to throat slitting, but that was the jist.

[joe]

“Here in SLC there were a few crackers in the 30K+ crowd of Mexican nationals that engulfed our downtown.” OK, just so it’s not about race or anything…

pigwiggle can tell native-born Hispanics from naturalized immigrants from legal foreign nationals from illegal immigrants just by looking at them.

That’s a neat trick. Can you tell Muslim terrorists from peaceful Muslims the same way? Because I know some people at the airport who would pay big money for that service.

[dhex]

the subway is great for “masterpiece race theatre”

[joe]

Lone Wacko,

Since you are so strongly pro-legal immigrant (as you keep telling us), and since there is so obviously a demand for immigration documents that far exceeds the numbers the government can give out under current law, I’m curious…

Just how far would you, the benefactor of legal immigration, like to see the quotas increased?

[Todd Fletcher]

Phil, are you suggesting that the Mexican government is not in need of reform, far more than our own? Are you suggesting that it wouldn’t be in the interest of the many Mexicans who are driven by desperation to come to the US to have their own country in order?

As for your nationality comment, puh-leeze! Really, Mexicans have NOTHING to do with this?!?

[joe]

“These marches are obviously a show of force and are intended by some of the supporters to intimidate. If they don’t get what they want, what happens?”

Funny, I never see this question asked when the people taking part in the gigantic march are pro-lifers, anti-war demonstrators, potheads, or abortion rights proponents.

What is it about these current protests that makes them so much more threatening to certain people? The previous answer was “the Mexican flags,” but now we’re hearing exactly the same cowardly whines.

[Jersey McJones]

Maybe Cafferty has a little Mexican maid named Lupe who he wants to extort sex from?

Nah, couldn’t be that…

The sleazy anti-immigrant bunch want a slave labor force that they can abuse without recompense.

JMJ

[Mark]

Can you tell Muslim terrorists from peaceful Muslims the same way? Because I know some people at the airport who would pay big money for that service

I can actually do that! It’s sweet. I wear this blue costume with red y-fronts on the outside and I hang out at JFK pointing at people.

TOTAL job satisfaction dude….

[John]

Someone made a really good point the other day. The Democrats topedoed CAFTA on the basis that allowing free trade with Latin America will undercut U.S. workers and wages. Yet, these same Democrats are all for illegals coming to the United States and doing the same thing and by the way crowding the country and straining infrastructure and social services. Now, you can certainly argue for free trade and free borders, but to argue for opens borders and protectionism borders on the insane.

As far as the marches go, fuck all marches supporting any cause. What about my right to get to work without about bunch assholes standing in the street? I have had it with demonstration politics. I don’t care what they are supporting, get your dead asses off the street and out of the way so the rest of us can work for a living.

[Phil]

Phil, are you suggesting that the Mexican government is not in need of reform, far more than our own? Are you suggesting that it wouldn’t be in the interest of the many Mexicans who are driven by desperation to come to the US to have their own country in order?

I didn’t say any of those things, but feel free to save them in a .txt file so you can copy and paste them to whoever did!

As for your nationality comment, puh-leeze! Really, Mexicans have NOTHING to do with this?!?

I know it sounds like TOTALLY WACKY and MADE-UP and stuff, but places like “Nicaragua,” “El Salvador,” “Guatemala,” “Venezuela” and “Honduras” are all, like, ACTUAL REAL COUNTRIES! And none of them are in Mexico! I know, right?

Nice to see how much John values the First Amendment. Worst. Lawyer. EVER.

[Mark]

As far as the marches go, fuck all marches supporting any cause. What about my right to get to work without about bunch assholes standing in the street? I have had it with demonstration politics. I don’t care what they are supporting, get your dead asses off the street and out of the way so the rest of us can work for a living.

Hear fucking hear!

If I see one more march with dreadlocked teenagers telling me to consider someone else’s feelings whilst I’m just trying to make it through a working day without being so depressed that I feel the need to swallow a frisbee then I’m going to have to buy a firearm and start spraying.

[P Brooks]

On the fifth of next month I urge you to get out and show your true Americanism.

Ice down some PBR, go to the flag store and get the biggest Stars and Bars you can wave, and ask the Chinese laundry to put extra starch in that “God, Guns, and Guts” t-shirt, because we are having a counter-demonstration. Take it to the streets, America!

Sponsored by:

Dobbs/ Buchanan ’08

and

Pabst Blue Ribbon Beer- the unofficial Official Beer of Anti-Globalism

[Mustafa Bin Blumpkin]

Why do mexican cars all have such small steering wheels?

[MikeP]

Now, you can certainly argue for free trade and free borders, but to argue for opens borders and protectionism borders on the insane.

It appears that you are not paying attention. The Democrats are not for open borders. The Democrats are for legalizing the immigrants already here (a) to keep them from competing “unfairly” with union labor and (b) to raise the population of manual and service labor jobs to increase union rolls and power.

This position is entirely consistent with protectionism.

[joe]

Dammit, Mustafa, that’s just racist!

You have no way of knowing that that car is’t native born, or naturalized!

Shame, shame!

[dhex]

“What is it about these current protests that makes them so much more threatening to certain people? The previous answer was “the Mexican flags,” but now we’re hearing exactly the same cowardly whines.”

joe: i believe part of the answer is the rhetoric from the “build a fence” crowd and the “reconquista” crowd build off of each other (due to the relative emotional-territorial attachments of each) allowing them to build a world where everyone is either an old white guy who only enjoys pissing on and/or raping brown people or, well, the reverse.

and i would totally like some of what la mecha is smoking! two hundred years from now, when there are germans pining away for the strength and romantic purity of the third reich (also stolen by europeans, oddly enough!) some cultural theorist can have a field day writing a totally awesome dis that will be read by eight very excited people.

[Todd Fletcher]

Phil, thank you for identifying yourself as someone who is total waste of time.

[pigwiggle]

?pigwiggle can tell native-born Hispanics from naturalized immigrants from legal foreign nationals from illegal immigrants just by looking at them.?

I was intentionally ambiguous when I used the term Mexican national; it covers folks with green cards, folks seeking green cards, those with various visas, illegal immigrants, newly minted US citizens born in Mexico, maybe some others too.

I think it is pretty telling that you are only going after the minutia. If you have a substantial point to make about my larger argument, then get on with it. I?m not going to get into a debate of semantics.

[joe]

Uh, no, the term “Mexican national” doesn’t describe naturalized American citizens who were born overseas. Nor does it cover the native-born Americans who attended the rallies. Those groups are American nationals.

My larger point is that, by looking at a group of Hispanics in the United States and confidently deciding that they aren’t Americans, you’ve outed yourself.

[shecky]

Hardly fair to the Chinese and Indian folks I know who went through the tortuous and Sisyphean immigration process; they are effectively punished for not breaking the law.

This should be a wakeup to everyone about the stupidity of the Sisyphean immigration process, and everyone who’s been penalized by it. It needs to be scrapped in favor of a system that doesn’t deny the existence of a market driven labor pool. However, I don’t buy the notion that because current immigrants have been screwed by the process, all should therefore be screwed, too. Unless you want to continue current policy forever, someone is going to get the short end of the stick at some point in time when policy is changed.

I still don’t get what is all that special about citizenship. As if only citizens have free speech or free assembly. My guess is that if a good chunk of today’s natural born citizens were to magically lose their citizenship overnight, they’d never know any different, since so many never exercize the exclusive privileges (such as voting in federal elections), and may regret some of the duties (such as jury duty).

[carrick]

I think the real solution to illegal immigration is an aggressive program of annexation of everything down to the Panama canal. Then they’re not immigrants any more right.

For those who might feel intimidated by all the new dark-skinned Spanish speakers, we can annex everything up to the north pole to balance things out.

[Phil]

Oh, you’re welcome, Todd. And your tacit admission that you are a bumbling fuckstick who doesn’t know one south-of-the-Rio-Grande country from another is noted.

[Perry]

I see this humongeous hypocrasy and god complex in the folks who argue for an ever increasing social safety net to protect the underclasses, and then say that they should also somehow be able to determine who should and shouldn’t qualify for that net. Its kind of like arguing for universal health care and then using that as an excuse to control all manners of behaviour through it.

If you really want to help poor people, why should you care whether they were born in topeka or santiago?

[pigwiggle]

Like I said joe, I?m not going to argue semantics. So, you would rather argue minutia (and engage in ad homonym), fine. Lame, but I guess not unexpected.

[MikeP]

(and engage in ad homonym)

Debaters should avoid arguments that appeal to words sounding the same.

[Todd Fletcher]

Phil,
I think we got off track here.

I know very well that there are illegal immigrants from lots of places, not just latin countries. My point was that the majority are from Mexico, certainly in my city, Phoneix, and that is the main thrust of these demonstrations. They are after all mostly flying Mexican flags, not Honduran or Guatemalan. It is also what most racist opponents of illegal immigration are concerned with – Mexicans.

For the record, I am an advocate of open borders and open legal immigration. I live in a neighborhood that is at least 75% latino and I’m glad of it. I think that probably most of these Mexicans would be better off if their own counrty wasn’t a hell hole, and that this is something that is within their ability to achieve, if they commit to it and stop letting their screwed-up government off the hook by coming here. The point is that everybody is better served by focusing on the real problem – the Mexican government – and not on this country. But they also know that it’s a lot easier to get things changed here than there.

[pigwiggle]

?However, I don’t buy the notion that because current immigrants have been screwed by the process, all should therefore be screwed, too. Unless you want to continue current policy forever, someone is going to get the short end of the stick at some point in time when policy is changed.?

The short end of the stick should go to the folks who broke the law. If we are going to ?reward? a group of immigrants it should be the ones who are stuck in INS channels to get here or the ones who took it on the chin to get here legally.

[pigwiggle]

“Debaters should avoid arguments that appeal to words sounding the same.”

Or perhaps not rely blindly on a spell checker ? err ? ad hominem, rather.

[Brian24]

It’s very interesting to have found an issue that can make several theoretically libertarian-leaning commenters suddenly decide that peaceful protest is too much of a pain to be permitted and the police should conduct identity checks of people who gather together in a public place. Wow.

[MikeP]

Brian24,

As I said on an earlier thread…

The immigration thing is one of my favorite topics because it is a perfect combination of nonobvious natural rights with nonobvious economic theory. As such, it separates out the unconservative conservatives, the illiberal liberals, and the libertarians who haven’t yet fully grasped that all people are created equal and that any voluntary association contributes positively to society.

[Taiko]

As an American citizen, I for one, am somewhat envious and ashamed at the sight of these nationwide and large assemblies. The reason is this, what issue would possibly motivate the same number of American citizens to demonstrate on such a large scale in such short notice?? I can’t think of one, and jeebus knows we got alot we could be marching about. Citizen or not, it seems to me that they have exercised their democratic muscle much better than the typical apathetic and lazy legal US citizen. As someone up above mentioned, if this truly outrages most American citizens, then where are the massive counterdemonstrations?

[Kwix]

The sleazy anti-immigrant bunch want a slave labor force that they can abuse without recompense.
Holy shit! I think this may actually be the first time that JMJ has said something remotely worth agreeing with.

[R C Dean]

The sleazy anti-immigrant bunch want a slave labor force that they can abuse without recompense.

If they are against immigration, where are these slave laborers going to come from?

[bubba]

I don’t care if you’re Mexican, Guatemalan, or Canadian. When you were allowed to sneak into the country, it was on the condition that you would mow my yard at low rates, you might pay some income and social security taxes, you would not collect welfare, and you would not vote for Democrats.

Amnesty and fast-track citizenship screws all that up.

Flying the Mexican flag while demanding to be treated like an American just pisses me off.

I will vote against the guys carrying the Che Guevera flags.

Every.

Time.

[mk]

The sleazy anti-immigrant bunch want a slave labor force that they can abuse without recompense.

Yep. that’s the status quo pretty much.

I think what makes them sleazy is that they want the illegals to remain illegal since their illegality is what enables them to be abused. Hence, they are against any kind of “guest-worker” program or other kind of amnesty as they will both legitimize the illegals that are here now and potentially cut off their source of easily exploited labor in the future.

It seems to me that there are far too many people benefitting from the status quo for there to be any real change.

[rhywun]

When did the time-honored practice of peacefully assembling in a public place to demonstrate go from being hailed as the proper means of free people in a democratic republic to express their opinion about politics, to being a terrifying, threatining, offensive activity that elicits threats of violence against the participants?

I’m thinking it was around the time a majority of Americans became car owners – say, 1960?

the most pressing domestic issue of our time

Dang, what is that guy smoking? I agree with someone above, that this has got to be a GOP plot.

[bubba]

You are aware all of these people aren’t from Mexico, right?

In 2004, in summary:

* DHS apprehended an estimated 1,241,089 foreign
nationals. Ninety-two percent were natives of Mexico.

* There were 202,842 foreign nationals formally
removed from the United States. The leading countries
of origin of formal removals were Mexico (73 percent),
Guatemala (4.1 percent) and Honduras (4.0 percent).

* DHS removed 88,897 criminal aliens from the United
States. The majority of criminal aliens (68,771 or 77
percent) were from Mexico.

[Native NYer]

Taiko, I was wondering the same thing.

For example, the peace marches in ’03 and ’04 were very well publicized, the only way someone in New York didn’t know when and where they were happening was to live under a rock. I doubt they were a third of the size of these marches that sprung up with a week’s notice in cities across this country.

Really amazing!

[SR]

For the idiots who continue to think “person” and “citizen” as used in the US Constitution and its amendments can be treated as synonyms, let me lay it out for you: the US Supreme Court put out a whole series of opinions shortly after the ratification of the Reconstruction amendments (13-15) that found “person” means anyone residing in the US, while “citizen” means just that. An incredible body of constitutional and statutory law (at both state and federal levels) has been developed over the last 130 years that builds on that foundation. To the best of my ability to ascertain, no Supreme Court justice in the past century has ever suggested that any other reading is even credible. To change position on this issue would completely implode the US legal system, i.e., it is not happening without a constitutional amendment or 50+ years of evolutionary SCOTUS decisions. So please, get it through your skulls already, mmm-okay?

[bubba]

SR, did you have a point?

The only thing the Constitution says about citizenship is that if you’re born here, you get to be a citizen.

Illegal Immigrants are in violation of our laws, and can be deported without violating the Constitution. Obviously.

A picture from recent protests:
http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=126025429&size=o

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

I wonder if that includes Mexicans. Maybe they have too much Spanish blood?

[SR]

“SR, did you have a point?”

RTFOP, bubba. Cafferty specifically stated (with regard to the protesters): “You have no rights here, and that includes the right to tie up our towns and cities and block our streets.” (emphasis added)

[Mk4Myday]

hmm..maybe he should have said:

“Yes Wolf, I’m sure most of these people protesting for the adoption of immediate citizenship for illegal aliens are indeed legal citizens”

[StupendousMan!]

“If you really want to help poor people, why should you care whether they were born in topeka or santiago?”

Perry,

Have you ever heard the word finite?

I would love to help everyone in the world. I’m sure most people would. One huge reason we don’t is there is a finite amount of resorces. Of course we could all start eating protein stew and live in 5’x5’x7′ huts. You first.

As for the open border issue. Are there no downsides? Are advocates going to have the courage of their convictions or allow any penalties/problems to dissipate into the our poor communites. I’m guessing they will go for the quick heady fix. Oooh, it feels so good to be at the top of the moral hill who cares about the refuse (shanty towns, over crowded schools, crime increases) that rolls downhill.

[TLB]

Little fyodor writes: It makes no sense to call supporters of immigration reform “supporters of illegal immigration” since we want to reduce the illegality of their activities. You’re the supporter of keeping it illegal.

Indeed I am. The only alternative to having a legal/illegal distinction is literally open borders.

If these marchers supported open borders, I’d call them supporters of that.

However, most don’t support literally open borders. But, since what they do support would lead to massive further illegal immigration, it is correct and defensible to call them “supporters of illegal immigration”.

pigwiggle says: The short end of the stick should go to the folks who broke the law. If we are going to ?reward? a group of immigrants it should be the ones who are stuck in INS channels to get here or the ones who took it on the chin to get here legally.

Indeed. I hate to bring up facts at Reason’s Hit & Run, but the USCIS – which would handle any sort of legalization program – is backlogged for years and can’t deal with massive fraud until 2010 (per the GAO).

No one should trust the Reason writers on any policy matter.

[Isaac Bartram]

…the USCIS – which would handle any sort of legalization program – is backlogged for years and can’t deal with massive fraud until 2010…

Perhaps it might help if we put more resources into processing applications and less into “securing” the border.

As I (and others) have pointed out before, getting involved with INS has always been a voyage into a parallel universe of unbelivable absurdity and complexity.

[Richardfg7]

Was a time in this country we had a safety net system for our citizens if they fell on hard times. Now it’s the come live here for free network. And it’s breaking state budgets nationwide.Build the fence NOW!