Welcome to Texas justice: You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride.
.jpg)
- Blawg Wisdom
- Evan Smith, Editor-in-chief and publisher, The Texas Tribune
- The Austin Chronicle
- Emily Bazelon, Slate
- San Antonio Current
- Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic
- Erica Grieder, The Economist
- Pamela Colloff, Texas Monthly
- Doug Berman, Sentencing Law & Policy
- Marie Gottschalk, author of 'Caught'
- DallasBlog
- Scott Medlock, Texas Civil Rights Project
- Solomon Moore, NY Times criminal justice correspondent
- Donald Lee, Texas Conference of Urban Counties
-Attorney Bob Mabry, Conroe
- Corey Yung, Sex Crimes Blog
Tommy Adkisson,
Bexar County Commissioner
- Dirty Third Streets
- Texas Public Policy Foundation
David Jennings, aka "Big Jolly"
John Bradley,
Former Williamson County District Attorney, now former Attorney General of Palau
- To the People
Contact: gritsforbreakfast AT gmail.com
31 comments:
This is about national security and foreign policy, not Texas justice.
Frankly Scott, you have always had the decency to acknowledge up front when you stray off the topic. But with this immigration thing you have been a douche, accusing people who simply want the border enforced of being anti-immigration. That is bullsh*t.
I'm sorry you have to stoop to such tactics. Until now I agreed with you on most everything. And I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on anything else.
Equating people who demand border enforcement with racism, as you have done, is just too low.
Good day, Sir.
As usual, the anti-immigration lobby doesn't have the cojones to post under their own names as they criticize and refuse to consider any type of compromise other than attrition and other draconian methods.
It is especially troublesome that most of the most rabid "antis" live nowhere near the border and would not know a legal immigrant from an illegal and quite frankly, doesn't care.
You seem to think there is only one border with the US, to the south. Consider re-educating yourself on your geography.
The border is more secure than it has ever been before in our lifetimes and perhaps as secure as it will ever be. Walls will not stop those determined to enter the US for a better life. Walls won't stop the drugs as long as US consumption makes it so profitable for the cartels, and the violence will not stop in Mexico until something is done about the tens of thousands of weapons and ammunition being bought in the US by greedy American Patriots and others.
The truth hurts if you think Scott equating those who demand border enforcement with racism, but he is correct and you have done it to yourselves.
Because in the immigration debate, the anti-immigration lobby, the eugenists, the followers of hate groups such as FAIR, William Gheen's Geriatric Armchair Warriors (ALIPAC) and other more extremist groups, have made the face of immigration Mexican. You have only yourselves to blame.
Also, might I add, as the original subject of this thread was about the cartel wars..........
The media (print and spoken) is in business to make money. Sell advertising. Make a profit etc.
I live in Mexico. I lived in Nuevo Laredo during the so called cartel wars there a couple of years ago when the media was reporting kidnappings daily of Americans, (false and the ones kidnapped were Mexican American's with ties to the drug trade or family ties).
They painted a horrible picture that would make you think you could not stick your head out the door of your house or if you crossed the border, your chance of survival were nil!
It was nothing at all like that. Life continued as usual. People went about their normal routines, albeit with a little extra caution.
The killings were planned, not random, and executed (no pun intended) flawlessly and professionally. Whoever the wanted dead, was dead, rarely with any collateral damage.
During that period and after, I traveled to Monterrey regularly and have never once felt threatened or intimidated.
A month ago, I flew from Monterrey to Cd. Juarez on some business and spent a couple of days in Juarez, going where I pleased, when I pleased, the same as I did when I lived there in the late 90's.
Sure, there's violence there but it is not a wild west scenario as the media portray it to be.
Lighten up people! Do some research and think for yourself instead of letting the media hacks think for you.
Ooops! I forgot! Silly me! This concerns Mexico, so it all must be the gospel!
7:34, where have I equated people "who demand border enforcement with racism"?
Please be specific and provide a quote or link. I don't believe I've ever said such a thing, and certainly this brief collection of links made no such claim.
Those last two post sure came fast, boom boom, one right on top of the other. Hmmm, curious
Scott,
I was referring to all your immigration posts cumulatively.
You are anti-law enforcement, open border, pro amnesty, give-the criminals-a-break.
I was with you in bashing all the Nifong jerks who find people guilty without due process of law.
Now that your have called people who want the border enforced "anti-immigrant" you have shown your true colors.
It's a chickensh*t thing to obfuscate the two issues, please stop.
Its national security. To hell with those who yell racism. They don't care about America and probably are involved in the drug trade. Use the fence...shoot o kill if they cross it. Why respect those who disrespect us?
Porter M, Corn said...
As usual, the anti-immigration lobby doesn't have the cojones to post under their own names as they criticize and refuse to consider any type of compromise other than attrition and other draconian methods.
This has to be the stupidest drivel I've ever read. Here's some news for you Porter, anyone can invent a name for themselves and write a blog, no big deal. It doesn't make you anymore credible than the anonymous poster...dumbass.
And please stop reminding us that we have a border to the north. If you care so much about that demarcation line then join the Border Patrol and put your money where your mouth is.
Please stop telling everyone how unfair it is that the massive numbers of illegals from the south are targeted because of their brown skin when the whites from the north don't seem to have the same inclination to sneak into our country. I really don't give a f*ck what your skin color is. You are all taking jobs away from us.
Every country in the world has an immigration policy and a border. The US is the only one that gets manipulated with race baiters who want their entire family to come here after one or two sneak in and have a few babies.
The free market has given me enough available people to mow my grass and wash my dirty underwear...enough is enough.
Hey, Anonymous... Porter M. Corn is a real person (and owns a real business that's listed in the Yellow Pages). I'm a real person too... Richard Grabman, formerly of Houston, and of Alpine, Texas, presently of Sinaloa, Mexico.
Yeah, the anti-immigration guys ARE racists, and there is no spin you can use to get around that fact. Until I see groups like ALIPAC or FAIR demanding the higher level of security along the CANADIAN BORDER, from which terrorists entered the United States and attacked the country, or the immediate deportation of IRISH illegals, they can't be taken as anything BUT racists.
And, yes, the "spin" on the U.S. media coverage of the so-called "drug war" IS a Texas problem. The guns that the gangsters are using for blasting each other away, as well as a good part of the financial and logistics resources are Texas based. And, given that Bell Helicopter is one of the prime recipients of YOUR tax money designed to halt YOU from buying the narcotics that pass though my state, yeah, Scott is right to include that coverage here.
I just wish he'd put it in context and realize that -- as with nearly all "mainstream" reportage on Mexico, it's mostly hype.
9:23 - find one quote, one example from my writings, anything I've said that backs up your characterization. I defy you to do so and am confident you cannot since you've entirely misrepresented my views.
Where have I charged "racism," much less in post after post as you allege?
Put up or shut up!
The only "spin" is coming from the Chamber of Commerce and you guys who enjoy the cheap labor. Nothing could be better than an illegal willing to work for 5 tacos a day, right?
Gritsforbreakfast said...
9:23 - find one quote, one example from my writings, anything I've said that backs up your characterization. I defy you to do so and am confident you cannot since you've entirely misrepresented my views.
I accept the challenge.
Where have I charged "racism," much less in post after post as you allege?
Put up or shut up!
Okay. But the way I will do it is post it on another website which you cannot edit. Fair enough?
If it's so easy, why put it off? Why run off at the mouth here all evening without a single specific reference then announce you'll only back up your misrepresentations somewhere else? Quote away, I won't edit you.
Scott when you report on the DPS doing immigration work you call the advocates "nativists" and "anti-immigrants". That's the most racist thing I can think of. Don't pretend like you're not being racist.
I'm anti immigration for several reasons, none of which are racist. I don't buy the national security BS, but I do believe it's in our best interest to restrict immigration. America is the only first world country experiencing third world population growth. It has to stop. I'm willing to pay more for goods and services to employ Americans who keep their money in the US, and don't buy into the BS that Mexicans do jobs white people won't. With our current financial crisis, we need to employ as many people as possible, and in America, that means Americans. Let Central and South America take care of their citizens, let's take care of ours.
Besides, if anything the pro-immigration business owners are the racists that are taking advantage of paying illegal immigrants below-minimum wages with no social security or other withholding for hazardous jobs with few safeguards. And illegal immigration allows them to continue flouting the law by taking advantage of the fears of immigrants who don't want to be deported.
All I want is to pay our own citizens something that allows them to make a living. White Americans, black Americans, Hispanic Americans, Persian Americans, Arab Americans, you name it. Regardless of race, citizens first.
Rage Judicata,
Amen. Sneaking into the country by the millions and then trying to subvert the political system like WalMart and because you have a cheap product is BULLSH*T. That's not free market capitalism. It's some funky-ass thieving crap.
Oh wait, but can't we run our economy by letting the educated push worthless paper around ad infinitum while the poor folk take out the garbage?
Won't China keep financing our culture of consumerism? You mean it has to end?
Hahahahaa
Oh wait, but can't we run our economy by letting the educated push worthless paper around ad infinitum while the poor folk take out the garbage?
Whoa there fella, let's not get carried away. The lawyers among us might get nervous.
So, 10:52, now you backtrack. Finding no examples where I accused anyone of "racism," you say it's the same to say someone is "anti-immigrant." Yet there are anti-immigration advocates who want to deny healthcare and education to kids, for example, which I'm sure the immigrant parents consider "anti-immigrant."
And before you say 'but I'm for LEGAL immigration,' most anti-immigration activists are NOT for expanding quotas and advocate against increased legal immigration from Latin America. Hell, if any expanded immigration passes it will only be some BS "guest worker" program precisely because a nativist faction of the GOP opposes ALL immigration, legal and illegal. To me, those who reject expanded legal immigration and also want to punish illegal immigrants by denying basic services have adopted an "anti-immigrant" stance.
As for "nativism," I have indeed sometimes used that term to denote an ideology of cultural and economic nationalism that animates much anti- rhetoric. I think it's more accurate than the term "racist," though perhaps I'm describing some of the same phenomena as Richard Grabman when he uses that word. Bottom line: Anti-free market economic protectionism and cultural nationalism are the two factors that make immigration a hot button issue, call it what you will. Not everyone who opposes expanded legal immigration shares that view, but for many it's an accurate depiction. If the shoe fits ...
That said, I can understand why you're defensive because many people do think anti-immigration activists have exhibited "racism." Check out p. 18 of the pdf to this recent poll, which I think reflects in part people's reaction to vitriolic anti-immigrant rhetoric.
Finally, as for whether this topic has to do with Texas justice, if you think not you're a fool. Middle East politics didn't have anything to do with the Twin Towers in NYC, either. Until the day it did.
To Porter and Richard - hundreds of thousands marched in the streets of the D.F. this summer over crime and kidnappings, and Juarez is in full-blown meltdown, with police having entirely lost control of the city. It's not the Wild West, but even in the Wild West most of those killed were players, not bystanders. So what? Juarez saw more than 1,500 murders this year compared to about 1/100 that amount in El Paso. Cops and journalists are routinely assassinated. Should we downplay it just to prop up Mexico's tourism numbers? (And btw, I'll hopefully be spending my own tourism dollars there this summer.)
I don't think the media are overhyping the cartel wars. If anything, they've ignored the problem for too long and are playing catch up.
I'm for controlled immigration, not zero immigration or unfettered immigration. There is a difference you know.
I do construction work to feed my family When I see those illegals on a job site doing what I do for half my wages it pisses me off. I can't compete with someone who is willing to live in an efficiency apartment with 20 other people while sending a good part of their earnings out of the country. And why should I?
Your desire for cheap labor is colliding with my need to feed my kids. I simply can't accept the idea that legal citizens should have to lower their standard of living or change their life style to appease a few people who want WalMart to run our economy.
Anyway, the point is getting somewhat irrelvant now that the Bushies have completely trashed the country. The would-be immigrants are staying home because there are no jobs to take. And Obama isn't likely to let up on immigration and border enforcement when a lot of blacks are bitching about illegals taking thier jobs.
I do construction work to feed my family When I see those illegals on a job site doing what I do for half my wages it pisses me off.
At the illegals, or the employer? Because if it's the former, your anger is misplaced.
And Obama isn't likely to let up on immigration and border enforcement when a lot of blacks are bitching about illegals taking thier jobs.
Yeah, even if Grits won't say it I will--you sound like a racist.
8:52 wrote: "the point is getting somewhat irrelvant now that the Bushies have completely trashed the country"
Please! Your point was irrelevant and misguided long before that!
Expanding legal immigration to meet the needs of the labor market would actually prevent underpaying immigrant labor such as you complain about, but as Rage points out, your beef doesn't seem to be with the public policy so much as the people.
The other piece you're missing is that the economy - even in a recession - is not a zero sum game but instead operates with multiplier effects. Somebody else's gain is not necessarily your loss, even if you can't see the forest for the trees. We need to bolster domestic demand for US goods and services and bring new workers in to help pay for social security and Medicare as the population ages. And remittances have helped spawn a post-NAFTA demand in Mexico for US exports that barely existed before.
Even for workers in the construction trades, where competition arguably is steepest (since there's not too many white folks competing for jobs as vegetable pickers), the benefits of having the workers you compete against be legal, documented, paying taxes, etc., far outweighs the detriments - especially since, when the economy is good, they're coming here anyway whether you like it or not.
Scott, you make good points. I would concede that there are circumstances and forces in play which I may not be aware of and which might actually favor me and others in my situation.
I'm not a racist and I resent this tactic people like Rage take. I just want my security and to protect my way of life. That's nothing more than anyone wants.
If you need to obfuscate the issue on your blog then so be it.
You have lost my respect.
Scott, have you overlooked the extreme expenses this costs many states and the US overall? What about all the crime it brings in? Its getting way out of hand. How can be act as though it all evsn out? Are you so misinformed?
It's you who are misinformed, 1:12 - particularly on crime. Undocumented immigrants commit far fewer crimes than U.S. citizens - it's not even close.
In addition, most studies (like this one estimating costs for Texas) find a net gain economically from immigration or estimate the government essentially breaks even. Add the economic multiplier effect and payments to social security, and immigration is well worth the cost in health and education services.
12:09- why would I care if I lost the respect of someone who won't even put their name on their opinions and has spent this whole string calling me names?
Not only did I not "obfuscate" anything, I detailed my position when you questioned it and explained why I used those terms (explanations you didn't substantively dispute). I never called you a racist. Nativism is a virtual definition of your and Rage's position - and absent any racial element, as it the term was coined by proponents of a doctrine aimed at restricting European immigrants. What term would you use? You're being (excessively) defensive.
When I say immigrants commit fewer crimes, btw, I mean per capita, not just overall. See here.
How can you compare people who shouldn't be here with those of us that are citizens? You are basically saying "oh, people in our country commit crimes, so it's ok to let every criminal from every other country in to commit crimes." How fucking stupid is that reasoning?
Why not just come out and admit you sympathise with the violent extremists who want to overthrow our government? You have done everything but that so far.
To 4:10 who writes: "Why not just come out and admit you sympathise [sic] with the violent extremists who want to overthrow our government?"
Because I'm articulating my own positions, not whatever BS cliche you carry around in your brain about what liberals think.
Your point about people who should not be here, etc., plays back into the nativism issue. If the issue is mere legality, expanding immigration quotas is the best way to solve the problem and the fact that immigrants are less likely to commit crimes is highly relevant. If you're just against immigrants, period, nothing will ever satisfy you, and certainly nothing I can say here.
Sympathize or sympathise, it's good enough for the British. Why not lets just call the whole thing off?
If you're gonna be a pedantic weener and point out every little anomaly in your detractor's grammar you won't get far persuading anyone. You just come off looking like a bombastic jerk.
I was with you in supporting due process of law, but now you're just being an anarchist.
We can't have unfettered immigration, Scott. It just doesn't work. If you have a solution to the problem I'm sure everyone would like to hear it.
"anarchist"? "pedantic weener"?
Gee, if you've got nothing to contribute but anonymous name calling, 7:29, "you won't get far persuading anyone."
I've written a lot on this topic and feel no need to reiterate my views on immigration again for your benefit. Check the archives if you want my detailed opinions on the subject.
In the meantime, if you don't like what you find here at Grits, nobody is twisting your arm to read this blog or comment here. Certainly your contributions on this string have been a complete waste of time.
Grits, when Calif and other states say they are broke from paying through the nose for illegals, how can you defend them and how they undermine our way of life?
States, of course, don't "say" anything. People do. And the people who make the claim you do about bankrupting states, etc., tend not to back up their assertions with facts.
E.g., see the official estimates in Texas for costs and benefits to the state from illegal immigration. The numbers simply do not back up your claim.
Nor do I believe for a moment that immigration, which for all intents and purposes built this country, "undermines our way of life." In fact, IMO our way of life only exists as we know it today because of historic immigration, and I'm thankful for it.
Post a Comment