The two "reporters" from The Oregonian went and talked to every person on the side of the illegal alien day laborers who could speak English. Those of us from our side (again, that's the side of following the law) who wanted to say something to the media had to approach them.
This guy says that "our work counts"... yes, it counts as another crime you've committed.
And when I did I was met with almost complete silence other than to be questioned about "is this as many protestors as you are going to have?"
It didn't matter that I explained that all it takes is one person with a camera and one person with a sign to stop this nonsense, it didn't matter that I pointed out that these workers had no drugscreen, no liability insurance, would pay no taxes, would send money out of the country, that statistically a majority of them are illegal aliens and there is a Labor Ready just down the street where workers actually have filled out paperwork and are waiting for a job.
The woman in the purple jacket and the man with the cameras are from The Oregonian.
These crack reporters watched as the illegal alien day laborers cursed at us, flipped us off, grabbed their crotches, made signs calling the USA "fascist", hid their faces from cameras and covered license plates up.
We were polite, respectful and effectively accomplished what we set out to do: keep illegal alien day laborers from getting work and bringing this issue to the public's attention.
I guess that isn't a story good enough for The Oregonian.
24 comments:
Gee I'm so surprised that the Oregonian wouldn't cover the "Who, What, When, Where, Why of a story which one would think cover everything. But alas, the Oregonian is taking sides and that side is the side of criminals. The Oregonian is a VERY Liberal paper, and far enough left to say hello to Marx and Lenin. So is it any wonder they would come down on the side of anything that harms America?
keep up the great publicity on this problem.Generally I dont see any local news coverage on this topic? The national media speaks of this in a very general way and drops it like a hot potatoe ha ha.
Find the employer who hires these people and expose them. to catch a preditor hot stuff. to catch an employer dull a dud, no coverage.
Trust me, the Oregonian is crafting a story as you read this comment.
But Feature Story Crafting takes time so as culture the most in Liberal Tears and to conceal their socialist message.
Then NYC must approve their spin.
We ain't gonna like it, for sure!
That's right, keep fighting the symptom while the disease keeps going along.
Illegal immigration has accelerated since the passage of NAFTA. Instead of attacking people who are just trying to better themselves, why don't you attack the trade policies that lead to poor conditions in Mexico.
Isn't it much more Christ-like to try to help the lot of poor people, rather than attcking them?
Where's the Mexican government helping out the Mexican people. The United States cannot help everyone with a problem across the globe.
Where's the Mexican government helping out the Mexican people. The United States cannot help everyone with a problem across the globe.
While this is true, the United States can do a lot of good for under-developed countries. I would think it would be in our best interests to focus more of our aid efforts to develop Mexico in order to help curb illegal immigration. This would make much more sense than merely ostracizing illegal aliens.
Anon 11:22
I think that is a great idea. You tell all the ILLEGAL aliens to go back where they came from and I will vote to send aid to their countries.
Let me know how that works out, k?
I think that is a great idea. You tell all the ILLEGAL aliens to go back where they came from and I will vote to send aid to their countries.
Let me know how that works out, k?
And thus, rooster, you demonstrate your limited grasp on the subject at hand, and subsequently the inherent problem with the immigration debate. Let me explain.
When viewed through the perspective of an illegal immigrant, it is easier to see why merely removing them from the country is generally ineffective. Those removed from the country are almost 100% likely (I forget what the exact statistic is, but it was close to 20/21) to recross the border. There is no incentive for the illegal immigrant to return to his own country. So far, every single deterrent proposed is insufficient to permanently deter an illegal immigrant from crossing the border. However, a further developed "home state," even though viewed as an incentive, is actually one of the strongest deterrents to illegal immigration. This point has already been thrown around on this forum enough, but the area of the argument that is underdeveloped is that of "they need to go back and fix their own problems."
What we need to understand is that without intervention from the United States government, state development for Mexico is going to be near impossible. Because of trade agreements such as NAFTA along with business practices in Mexico by US companies that can be viewed as unethical, Mexico would have to overcome massive economic barriers imposed inderectly by the United States in order to do so. However, if it was in the interest of the United States to develop Mexico, as I beleive it should be, these barriers can be overcome via lobbying of officials such as senators and house members on top of advocation of this position by officials. If congress decides to pass legislation that restricts certain areas of NAFTA and amends behavior in foreign countries by United States businesses, we will likely see stronger economic development in Mexico, and I strongly beleive, given the example History provides us with, we will see a sharp drop in the number of illegal aliens immigrating to the United States.
Of course, this means some of you will no longer be able to vent your racist feelings anymore so I'll understand if you disagree :).
In my life, I've had close contact with two people who were working illegally in the U.S.
One was from France, the other from Germany.
But you never hear complaints about illegal workers from Europe or Canada.
If your concern about illegal immigration was truly about protecting American jobs, than you would put way more energy into fighting harmful trade agreements, rather than attacking people who are just trying to make a better life for themselves.
Also, the anti-immigrant crowd never criticizes the Cuban refugees, many of whom are "illegal emigrants". Why do you have no problem with their lawlessness?
anon 12:29 and 01:05- In your attempt to brand everyone that is for sovereignty and enforcing our laws as racist you conveniently overlook the fact that we are against illegal aliens from any country or race. Perhaps you missed Tom Tancredo's comment about Miami becoming a third world country. I don't think he was referring to Mexicans. We believe in offering opportunity to any immigrant that follows the rules and in numbers that we can absorb without destroying the culture that attracts them in the first place.
It's like we are a life raft in the ocean of despair. We know we would like to save everyone but realize that if we don't control how many board we will all capsize and drown.
Nafta and Cafta were not proposals of the American people but the work of globalists like Clinton and Bush at the urging of multinational corporations that are working behind the scenes to take advantage of not only the poorer countries but this country too. My ire is directed at anyone that doesn't appreciate what we have and doesn't respect the sacrifices others before us have made to give us this gift. Since the government seems to be almost entirely disconnected with the will of the people and willing to sell out our heritage, it seems that action at the local level is the only alternative left. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Bobkatt-
Forgive me for limiting the scope of my argument to Mexico. I was responding mainly to the immigration protest that took place and also responding to the country of origin for most Illegal aliens in Oregon. Other countries, such as Cuba, have problems of their own, but those problems are also a product of our stubborness. That specific issue, however, is issue for a different debate. Also, I didn't make any attempt at branding everyone on this blog racist; I was merely commenting on the general racist overtone of some members of this blog. I, too, am for immigration reform, but I am a strong beleiver in permanent fixes that are beneficial to both sides instead of temporary "feel good" fixes that are a result of reactionary radicals.
The proposition of NAFTA and CAFTA were most certainly in response to the trend of globalization. Globalization in iteslf is merely a global progression that should not be feared. What we need to do, however, is learn how to best deal with the process of globalization, and the current set of rules that define NAFTA and CAFTA are most certainly detremental instead of helpful to the process of global transition. In short, global economic development is actually in the best interests to nations wishing to retain their sovereignty and seperation of cultures (even though I am not on board the whole "seperation of cultures" argument) in that it encourages the majority of nationals to stay at home to work due to the influence of social and cultural ties, all assuming that economic pressures don't compell them to leave.
Also, I understand the source of your ire, but in this case resentment can only be a detriment to the problem. The only thing that can help in this situation is a desire for a pragmatic and mutually beneficial change. I beleive the reformation of multinational business practices coupled with the development of countries who have citizens illegally immigrating to our country is such a change.
I am also a firm beleiver that a heritage endorsed by the state, also known as a privileged heritige, is actually a restraint on the liberalization of citizens, and therefore advocate the state secularization of heritage. I beleive this because I beleive that heritage's only value is sentimental, and therefore is kept best privately by individuals.
Would you explain what you mean by "secularization" of heritage? I think I know what you mean, but that particular word often raises red flags around here, and I'd rather that this discussion not be distracted from your argument.
Forgive me. I probibly should not have mentioned it as it is likely to cause a giant digression and it is only loosely tied to my argument. It is the same concept as state secularization of religion. It would take me a while to explain, but (warning: "Commie" reference ahead") Marx's "The Jewish Problem" best explains the reasons behind secularization.
Anon 1:05, you might want to refer to this posting on Daniel's Blog " If by 'objectively false' you mean 'literally true.'"
Why do we rarely hear complaints about illegals from Canada, Cuba, Germany or France? Given that Mexican citizens make up 79.76 percent of the Oregon Department of Correction's ICE detain (May, 2006). The second highest percentage is Vietnam at 2.21%.
Canada ICE hold in Oregon DOC is 1.10% Cuba is 1.21%. Germany is 0.11%. There are nobody on ICE detain for France.
If these numbers don't mean anything to you, then go back to May 1, 2006 at the nationwide illegal alien rallies and tell me what country's flag dominated the rally scene. A hint: it's red, white, green, and has a black eagle in the white field.
I'm sorry, maybe you mistook this argument for something about poverty or life in another country, I just want people to follow the law.
If, as a country, we decide to pick and choose what laws you actually have to follow because
a)you're "impoverished"
b)NAFTA
c)no one will "help" you
d)your toe hurts
e)you got spanked as a child
f)etc
then we are in big trouble.
The only thing we should be concerned about are eliminating the problems associated with illegal immigration. We should also be concerned as a country of creating a set of laws that are morally just instead of just omnipotent. This notion of "fairness" is not only impossible to achieve (class disenfranchisement would take up a book in itself let alone who gets to follow certain laws and who doesn't) but irrelevant in all practical senses. Success in solving illegal immigration problems should be our only concern.
You say you just want people to follow the law.
Fine.
I'm sure you'll be the first to advocate that all automobiles have devices that track the speed and speed speedlimit (using GPS), and sending people tickets for each occurance of going over the limit. After all, you just want people to follow the law.
I'm sure you'll also be the first to advocate increasing the number of IRS auditors tenfold, to cut down on cheating on taxes. After all, you just want people to follow the law.
One of the problems with this debate is that Americans don't realize that in many other countries, immigrants working illegally is not seen as a big deal--it's seen as a minor nuisance, and when people are caught they just leave the country and come back.
"Give us your tired of hanging out at the country clug, your people who are used to having things poured for them, your closest they'll ever get to the huddled masses is a football game, yearning to breathe free, even though they can well afford to pay whatever it costs."
It's also clear that the immigration issue is a diversion.
Things have been going very badly for conservatives the last couple of years--the war in Iraq is not going well, the economic chickens have come home to roost, there are scandals galore in this administration and among Republican members of Congress.
The old trick of demonizing gay people has been losing its effectiveness, so it became important to find a new group to demonize. Voila!
Immigrants have little power and are often poor--it's always good to choose groups that have a hard time fighting back.
One of the problems with this debate is that Americans don't realize that in many other countries, immigrants working illegally is not seen as a big deal--it's seen as a minor nuisance, and when people are caught they just leave the country and come back.
Really? Ever taken a look at how Mexico enforces its southern border?
I just want people to follow the law.
No, Daniel, that's inaccurate. You want some people to follow the law. Republican "born-again" Christians in the White House may break whatever laws they want, throw them out, insist that they're not bound by them, kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and send thousands of Americans to a pointless death and face not a peep of criticism out of you.
But if you are Latino, poor, need work, and must stand on a street corner in the United States hoping someone will hire you, then watch out! You have to face the wrath and indignation of the bald twerp from Sherwood who "just wants people to follow the law."
I'd really like to attend the next day labor site protest. I'm assuming that you'll post the time, date and location here?
www.HoldTheirFeetToTheFire.org
Here is a way to go and make those politicians squirm on this issue. Anyone, and everyone who CAN go to DC to be a part of this, do so. Illegal immigration needs to be brought to the forefront of this government. This group will descend on DC April 22-26,2007 to stop amnesty. Be a part!
http://www.alipac.us
Post a Comment