Just more proof that the vast majority of the immigration “issue” is old-fashioned racism, directed at hispanics. The Republicans are going to have a major choice in picking their candidate in 2008 – do they pick someone in the mainstream, or do they stoke the racist fires at the heart of the GOP represented by the Tom Tancredo wing?
Your logic escapes me on this one Oliver.
Just think, Democrats too “are going to have a major choice in picking their candidate in 2008″- duh! Or is it Hillary by acclamation?
But why the Tancredo strawman when Bush himself has been in the forefront of proposing sensible immigration reform (work permits)? How do the Democrats plan to deal with this problem that Party leaders like Gov Richardson of New Mexico acknowledge is out of control?
The Manassas City Council decided last night to repeal a controversial ordinance [emphasis added - fd] that made it illegal for extended relatives such as aunts, uncles and cousins to live together as a family and that targeted the city’s growing Latino population.The Manassas City Council decided last night to repeal a controversial ordinance that made it illegal for extended relatives such as aunts, uncles and cousins to live together as a family and that targeted the city’s growing Latino population.
They repealed the ordinance, and this is proof of racism?
Huh?
Yes, most anti-immigration sentiment is driven by hatred of Hispanics. You write that as if it were a given. But you have zero evidence of such a thing. I live in a city of about 65,000, where in the last 20 years, several thousand Hispanics have moved into a neighborhood literally yards away from me.
Is there fear? Yes. Suspicion? Yes. Lack of understanding? Yes. Hatred? None, that I can detect.
Perhaps you should consider investigating that proposition one more time, looking for examples of, at the very least, non – Hispanic unpleasantness towards Hispanics.
You obviously know nothing about the real issues.
For example, do you know that “illegals almost always pay FICA taxes”?
How do you know that?
I think you’ve simply been reading FAIR’s material
I think I see where Oliver is going here, but the issue is very complex. Yes, most anti-immigration sentiment is driven by hatred of Hispanics. But there are real economic costs to illegal immigration as well, such as depressed wages and drains on social services (though I think the latter is overstate; illegals almost always pay FICA taxes, for example, even though they will never reap the benefits of it). And the Republican Party is clearly split on the issue, with Bush in the right corner.
Another yellow journalism post courtesy of Media Matters and OW….
The Manassas CITY COUNCIL repeals and ordinance regarding the number of people living in a house and you call this an “immigration issue”? This somehow proves racism?
Do you ever feel there should be some sort of a logical connection between your “evidence” and your “thesis”?
It isn’t really clear to me what part of “illegal immigrant” people don’t understand. It is no more racist to want to stop it than it is to want to stop bank robbers, car thiefs etc. I would wager most are hard-working and honest, but they are still here illegally. They strain our health care system to the limit, they cost us millions in educational costs. Almost everyone in america is an immigrant. And like my family, showed up legally and then worked hard to become an “american”.
Why should it be any different today?
The Republican push for “immigration law” is driven strongly by dislike of hispanics. A big reason this law got pushed back is Virginia’s increasingly politically strong hispanic voting bloc (they helped win the governorship for Democrat Tim Kaine). I’m not talking about the Dem’s pick in 08 because we don’t have a strong anti-hispanic streak running through our party, whereas the GOP does and Tom Tancredo is running for president as part of that wing.
Why was the ordinance in place to begin with? The only reason it was repealed is because of pressure from liberals, as well as the ACLU. Once again, liberals have to run to the rescue when racist Republicans try to restrict civil liberties (like who can live in YOUR OWN HOUSE).
“A city inspector who has been enforcing the program said the image of dozens of people living in squalor did not fit what his inspections turned up in Manassas. Although complaints occasionally led him to houses crammed with too many people, most of the time inspections turned up neat and orderly homes of perhaps eight extended relatives living together to help with the high cost of housing.”
Put it another way: Why in the world would Republicans dislike Hispanics?
Or do you just assume it’s true, based on how Democrats abuse blacks?
It is not “racist” to say the laws should be enforced.
Is our current immigration law racist? Maybe.
Does it need to be changed? Maybe.
But — just like I say about FISA — you abide by the laws you have, not the laws you wish you had. People who enter this country without going through the proper channels are breaking the law, and we have to deal with them on that basis.
The Republican push for immigration law is driven strongly by dislike of hispanics
And the proof of this is?
“The ordinance in Manassas was written in a way that targeted Hispanic families.”
And for morons like Pedro and Frank it seems necessary to point out that someone did indeed write the oridinance in the first place. It didn’t just magically appear on the books for the City Council to repeal under pressure.
Great example of the problem, Thlayli.
The ordinance in Manassas was written in a way that targeted Hispanic families. It seems like any conversation about Hispanics quickly devolves into a discussion of “illegals.”
Those aren’t even close to the same thing.
(Not picking on you, Thlayli. I realize the direction of the discussion turned way back upthread.)
This ordinance restricted the number of “unrelated” people who could live in a single-family dwelling–no mention of immigration status. These limitations had a disproportionate effect on Hispanic families because Hispanic households are more likely than Anglo households to include “extended” family. The law excluded extended family from the definiton of “related.”
The Manassas city council originally wrote the ordinance because of the number of Hispanic families moving into certain neighborhoods.
That’s racist.
“Is there fear? Yes. Suspicion? Yes. Lack of understanding? Yes. Hatred? None, that I can detect.”
In other words Frank, you don’t hate Hispanics, you just fear and suspect them out of ignorance. Nope you aren’t a racist. Not at all.
From the article:
“The ordinance, which was adopted Dec. 5, changed a definition of family in the city’s zoning code, so that with a few exceptions, households were restricted to immediate relatives, even if the total number was below the legal occupancy limit.”
The law makes no distinction between legal and illegal, it targets family structure specifically. You right wingers would be absolutely up-in-arms, frothin-at-the-mouth if an oridnance like this was directed at say a white community in Utah. “By god,” you’d cry, “the government can’t change the definition of family to suit its interests! This is UnAmerican!”
But of course this law was targeted at Hispanics and Hispanic neighborshoods so you say, “Hey, there’s nothing worng with this. Hey, look over there, illegals.” Hypocrites.
Randy –
The ordinance had nothing to do with the legal status or lackthereof of the people in the houses. It actually redefined what the meaning of a family was for zoning purposes regardless of citizenship. The ordinance was targeted at Hisapnic dominated neighborhoods. Only a hypocritical right winger would argue that the government has the right to determine what a family is as long as the family is a family of color.
Now it’s racist to insist that our borders mean something and that those who break our laws and invade our country are somehow victims. Orwell would be proud.
Why in the world would Republicans dislike Hispanics?
Because they’re not white men. It’s not Democrats supporting a pro-racist organization like the minutemen, who traffic in anti-hispanic stereotypes, and it isn’t Democrats who have demonized hispanics as lazy, criminal, etc. Just go to Michelle Malkin’s site some time.
Democrats have “abused” black Americans by actually adressing and fighting for their concerns. Considering the Republican stance is “let ‘em drown” like they did in Katrina, I think my fellow black Americans will take the Democratic “abuse”.
Plus, Frank, racism isn’t merely a matter of “dislike.” You don’t have to hate someone to discriminate against them. Fearing and suspecting someone of another race is enough for most racists to rationalize their discrimination. Fear is also more than enough for racist demogogues to exploit people for their own ends. Since you fear and suspect your Hispanic neigbors without any understanding as to why you are ripe for the demogogic picking. Although it seems that you are more than willing to jump in the basket yourself.
“So in December, the city narrowed its definition of family in order to break up more households by forcing out extended relatives such as nephews and cousins — whom one city official described as “peripheral.”
I’m sure that every conservative here would allow their own city government to come into their homes and tell them who could or who could not live there.
Your Uncle Sam who’s staying with you while he gets treatment at the local hospital? Gone. Peripheral.
You’re cousin Becky living with you while she attends college? Gone. Peripheral.
Gramdma Mary, who moved in after her husband died? Gone. Peripheral.
Ya, I’m sure all you guys would welcome this kind of government intrusion into your homes.
Do you deny that illegal immigrants are engaged in a criminal activity?
Do you have any evidence of republicans “demonizing” hispanics in general rather than illegal immigrants in particular as “criminal”?
Do you have a quote from someone referring to hispanics as “lazy”?
Oliver once again in the Bizzaro world…”Considering the Republican stance is let em drown like they did in Katrina,”
LOL…Democrats have run Louisiana for decades, with Dem senators, a Dem Gov and a Dem as NO mayor. But when disaster strikes it was…yeah…the Republicans who “let em drown”!
If you weren’t so funny I’d almost feel sorry for you…
Frame EVERYONE here lets city government tell them that. That is why there is a zoning law.
I’m guess that “single family homes” may get loud and unkempt if you have a dozen people living in them, regardless of the race of that group. Perhaps THAT was the impetus for the order? Since no one has pointed out any racist language in the law, I am at a loss as to why I am to take OW words regarding the intent of the writers….
And as far as OW’s ”
“Democrats have abused black Americans by actually adressing and fighting for their concerns”, ……all I can do is raise the BS flag.
The democrats have fought to maintain black america as second-class citizens. Fighting for job set asides, preferential admissions etc, they essentially say, day after day, “you aren’t able to compete on an even field, we have to help…” That has GOT to be unbelievably hard to deal with. Can you imagine having to second guess every step of your life, and wonder if you achieved your goals on your merits, or because you had a certain skin color? How could anyone maintain their self-esteem in those conditions.
Of course the culture of vicitmization works well for the democrats, gives them some talking points when out drumming up the vote….
You know who’s engaged in criminal activity too? American citizens. The country’s full of ‘em.
Considering the Republican stance is let em drown like they did in Katrina,
Guess you haven’t seen this report:
“But the state’s demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city’s population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm’s fatalities in the city.
African-Americans make up 67.25 percent of the population and 59.1 percent of the deceased. Other minorities constitute approximately 5 percent of the population and represented 4.3 percent of the storm’s fatalities.”
frameone: Once again, you are arguing against a point I did not make.
Now, before you go off (as if I could stop you, but it’s worth a try):
I said :
Is there fear? Yes. Suspicion? Yes. Lack of understanding? Yes. Hatred? None, that I can detect.
I said, “Is there fear, suspicion, or lack of understanding?” “Is there hatred? None, that I can detect.”
Did I, or did I not, say that I felt any of those things? NO, I did not!
Salivating yet?
There’s more:
Fearing and suspecting someone of another race is enough for most racists to rationalize their discrimination.
First of all, while fear and suspicion may justify discrimination, discrimination doesn’t necessarily follow fear and suspicion.
And, you have yet to explain how it is that I am guilty of fear, suspicion, lack of understanding, or discrimination
Why don’t you check your online Federalist Papers? Surely there’s something that will support your latest mindless, insubstantial outburst.
Oh, and I want to thank you for waiting one whole comment before you called to me a name. And three comments without calling me an idiot.
What an improvement.
I’m sure this will set you off:
Here, where I live, there was a case last year, where I live, where 12 or 13 Mexican guys were found to be sleeping on mats on a basement floor, only feet away from the boiler, with no shield of any kind.
This is a really dangerous situation. The Fire Department Inspectors forced them to move. Of course, if they weren’t racist, by your dimwitted definition, they would have let them stay there, so that, at some later date, they might be blown out of the basement in a ball of fire, or perhaps, never wake up because of Carbon Monoxide.
Those stinkin’ racist firemen!
OK, frameone: 5… 4… 3… 2… 1… LAUNCH!
Oliver: I think my fellow black Americans will take the Democratic abuse.
Amen.
P.S. O, frameone, the psychopathic one: My wife doesn’t think I’m prejudiced against Hispanics. Maybe it’s because I’m married to a Puerto Rican — her, sissy boy!
The ordinance made no changes to the maximum occupancy of single-family houses. It only re-defined what counted as “family.”
Pedro, under the ordinance, you could have two houses, side-by-side, each with six people living in them. One would be legal, the other not, owing to the relationships in one household not being “close” enough.
That’s racist because it was written to target a growing Hispanic population. Hispanic households are more likely than Anglo households to include extended family. The ordinance was carefully crafted to prohibit extended family living under one roof.
JWG, answers to your questions, and more can be found in the archives at Orcinus. David Neiwert has been following the Minuteman and the immigration debate for months. It is racism in its purest form. Nothing more.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/
“Illegal immigration” is the 2006 wedge issue to replace 2004’s “gay marriage”. The Republicans are once again creating a crisis out of thin air to hold onto power by playing the margins off against the middle. We’re wise to you this time. It isn’t going to work.
Just a suggestion: Don’t take his word for it. Click the link and read the story:
Not relevant.
The Manassas ordinance didn’t change occupancy limits. It changed the definition of “family.”
The reason I mention it, Frank, is because I started following this story a few weeks ago at a different site.
Inevitably, the comments turn from a discussion of what the Manassas ordinance prohibited to something completely different: either illegal immigration or overcrowding. Neither is an issue with this story.
Quaker, have you been taking frameone’s vitamins?
I suppose I could explain it to you, but who really cares what I think?
Now that I re – read the article, I see not only that you are right, but that Oliver is wrong. This has nothing whatever to do with Republicans’ relationship — or lack of same — with Hispanics.
Manassas is not America.
Right. Well, strictly speaking, anyway.
I think OW was going for a parallel, not a direct connection.
“I live in a city of about 65,000, where in the last 20 years, several thousand Hispanics have moved into a neighborhood literally yards away from me.
Is there fear? Yes. Suspicion? Yes. Lack of understanding? Yes. Hatred? None, that I can detect.”
I have to ask then Frank, who’s fear, who’s suspicion, who’s lack of understanding are you talking about. Please explain.
If I may pick another nit, Oliver, You make a statment asking if the Republicans will “… stoke the racist fires at the heart of the GOP represented by the Tom Tancredo wing?”
I’m a wee bit confused: Are the racist fires at the heart of the GOP or are they in the Tom Tancredo “wing”?
When will you and your sycophants produce one scintilla of evidence that the Republican Party is basically racist? {By basically racist, I mean that most Republicans are in some way racist, or that a substantial number of Republicans are extremely racist}
And, “everybody knows it” is not what I mean.
“…while fear and suspicion may justify discrimination …”
So you believe that discrimination can be justified? Way to go Frank.
Oh, and Pedro, you’re a total idiot. See Quaker.
“It took you four hours to respond this time, sissy boy. What did you do? Go to see Brokeback Mountain with Corrigan?”
I see, you’re not a racist. You’re a homophobe. Way to be Frank.
Change the subject, lose your mind
No, I’m not afraid of men, frameone.
Frank, you’re too easy.
Um, that’s not what it means, Frank. Although I guess I’m glad to hear that at least you aren’t an androphobe.
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=12281
And, by the way, O persistent, psychopathic one:
I know exactly what you meant.
However, what I was referring to was that, given that Corrigan and you post comments that are almost identical in ideology and tone, you must share other interests.
And, given that Brokeback Mountain is critically acclaimed — Oscar “buzz” and all — and given that you’re a self – proclaimed movie critic, why wouldn’t you go see a “box office blockbuster” (called that despite the fact that it has yet to beat “Hostel”, a teen – oriented gorefest at the B.O.) together?
Were you thinking something else?
Frank, again, you’re too easy (and obvious).
Run out of things to say about what exactly Frank? The city council in this story passed a law that specifically targetted Hispanic families by changing the definition of what a family is. The city council recinded the law under pressure. You and the rest of the right wingers here don’t seem to have a problem with the government targetting laws at people of a particular race because you fear and suspect them anyway. I mean really, that pretty much says it all doesn’t it?
Could it possibly be that you have run out of things to say?
Is it raining frogs?
Geez, framone, they repealed the law. See? The system works!
Haw.
Frank_D Says:
January 13th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Could it possibly be that you have run out of things to say?
Is it raining frogs?
Frank, I don’t even have to read this, you are a loony troll, and you cannot face directly what you are challenged.
I learned that last week, you are tiched.
No reason, just thought I’d say high to you and Drpedro, two of the stupidist trolls , well, that’s not fair, I’d say you are not dumb (not esp bright), but I’d say you are not all there, either. drpedro, he is dumb.
The real reason for my post:
VRWC drone Says:
January 12th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Considering the Republican stance is let em drown like they did in Katrina,
Guess you haven t seen this report:
But the state s demographic information suggests that whites in New Orleans died at a higher rate than minorities. According to the 2000 census, whites make up 28 percent of the city s population, but the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals indicates that whites constitute 36.6 percent of the storm s fatalities in the city
LMAO! CNS… report… LMAO!!!
That is not a news site, that is a far right slander site, and they serve one purpose, to swift boat. Already I heard about them for lying about Murtha and saying they had a ‘report’ that proves it.
It was a fabrication, Murtha even responded, it was destroyed on a few places today, like Huffpo
I learned a term yesterday. ‘Cargo-cultism’. It is when you are doing something that looks right, on the surface, but is really wrong because you don’t understand what is really going on.
Like, for instance, when real people link and quote, they are doing it to provide background, and reference to credible sources, like MSM and references like dictionaries. You know, ‘proof’
But, paleoCons, they think it is having links that is important, so they link and quote each other, and think that is ‘proof’.
In other words, they are all show, and no go. Shallow. Stupid. Miss the point, in the dark, insipid and morose.
MikMik, here are two more “far right slander” sites for you to blindly criticize:
LA Times Dec 18, 2005
Philadelphia Inquirer Jan 2, 2006
Nice rant, though. Too bad it wasn’t relevant to the facts.
frameone:
Run out of things to say about what exactly Frank?
My question exactly… You seem never to run out of things to say about anything and everything.
While you didn’t respond to any of my comments, you did say one thing, and one thing only, that was correct: It seems that the Manassas ordinance was aimed at Hispanic extended family relationships, and was repealed… (Even though I know that definitions of family relationships with regard to housing have existed in NYC, for example, since at least 1970, when decontrol was begun).
MikMik: You are right, I am smart, and you are not.
You just discovered the term “cargo – cultism” yesterday?
And you think you have correctly defined it?
Cargo cult: http://anth.ucalgary.ca/DHatt/Anth473/Cargo.htm
I learned about it in the movie Mondo Cane(1962)
The CNS story came from the Louisiana Dep’t of Health and Hospitals.
Would you accept their statistics?
http://www.dhh.state.la.us/offices/publications/pubs-192/Deceased%20Victims_1-4-2006_attachment.pdf {PDF}
There’s your proof. Your insults are a waste of time, foolish, undeserved, and evidence that you have no facts whatever to refute what was presented.
“High” to you MikMik! It really hurts to be called “stupidist”but I can take it.
But I just can’t tolerate being called “morose”! I mean, that is really not fair!
Saturnine occasionally, but never morose…….
Dr Pedro…..the stupidist…..{sniff}
Oliver plays the racism card once again, what a surprise.
LMAO! CNS& report& LMAO!!!
That is not a news site, that is a far right slander site
Regardless of your opinions of CNS, what they did in this case was simply pass on figures reported by government agencies. If you think it’s just a pack of right-wing lies, why don’t you check it out for yourself?
New Orleans City QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau are here.
African-Americans are 67.3% of the city population, while Caucasians are 28.1%. These match the CNS figures.
The latest Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals report on Katrina victims, as of 1-4-2006, is here.
The report indicates that African-Americans constituted 50% of the storm fatalities, while Caucasians were 42%. The group of people listed with “unknown” ethnicity were only 4%. CNS must have been using earlier figures, because based on the latest data (1-4-06), the number of African-American victims went down by 9.1%, while the number of Caucasian victims went up by 5.4%.
So, let’s summarize, shall we:
African-Americans are 67.3% of the city population, while only 50% of the storm fatalities.
Caucasians are only 28.1% of the city population, but are 42% of the storm fatalities.
In other words, Caucasians were over-represented in the number of Katrina victims.
As PrivatePyle noted above, there’s plenty of blame to go around at the city (Paging Mayor Nagel) and state (Calling Governer Blanco) level before you start finger pointing at the evil Bushitler Federal Empire.
I guess that OW’s let em drown statement would more truthfully apply to LA state Democrats against the white population.
But if you can put ethnicity aside for amoment, you’ll see that the true victims here are senior citizens. From the same data sources, you can see that persons 65 and over are only 11.1% of the New Orleans population, but people 61 and above were a whopping 64% of the fatalities.
Somebody call Kanye West and let him know that George Bush hates old people.
I forgot the best part, MikMik: Frank, I don t even have to read this, you are a loony troll.
That says it all, I guess.
This is just a comment. Have you ever noticed that in every tragedy that has occured AROUND THE WORLD in the last FIVE YEARS has been Bush’s fault, somehow? It’s always his fault, and it always nails all republicans everywhere as either racists, homophobes, or elitists. From Katrina, to that mine tragedy, to 9-11 itsself, the President of the United States, who is involved in a war to save your skinny hide, should have done more.
Why can’t we just cry in peace and help our fellow man without someone pointing a finger?
Republicans aren’t racist, as a rule, any more than Democrats are pro-communist, as a rule. Those stereotypes are either going to die, or there’s going to be bloodshed in this country. I fear the day when these political meanderings of the lunatic fringes truly become mainstream.
Yea, K-Man, I mean, it’s not like Republicans blame everything on Clinton, even though he’s been out of office five years, right?
It is funny how cons don’t want to play the “blame game” when the blame is properly on them, isn’t it?