Archive for U.S.-Mexico border

GOP candidate Tim Donnelly: Breitbart CA site A-OK, undocumented immigrants are rapists, child molesters

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
Former Minuteman and Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Hesperia) speaks at a state Capitol rally in support of his legislation, AB-26, on April 4, 2011.

Meet conservative California GOP candidate for governor, Tim Donnelly. Actually, you'd be better off avoiding him. He's hoping to beat Gov. Jerry Brown. Good luck with that, Tim. Why? Well for one thing, per the Los Angeles Times, he's fine with his columns appearing in a new ultra-conservative website, one that features an appallingly controversial image:

Republican candidates for governor are using the website to publicize their platforms.

Assemblyman Tim Donnelly (R-Twin Peaks) wrote a column criticizing Democrats’ education policies, including a recent attempt in the Legislature to restore affirmative action to university admissions in California.

Donnelly said Monday he had not seen the Pelosi image, but he was happy to have his column gain a wide audience.

Here's the ABC headline describing Rep. Nancy Pelosi's reaction to the image: "Nancy Pelosi Says Breitbart-Altered Pic of Her Twerking Is ‘Tasteless.’"

Here's the image:

pelosi breitbart twerking

Gee, that's not at all sexist, completely offensive, and infantile. But the new Breitbart California site defended it, because, you know, Benghazi. Or Obamacare. Or sick and desperate. Or something.

Let's move on to the second L.A. Times article that goes into more detail about the real Tim Donnelly.

For starters, Tim Donnelly was a leader of the Minuteman organization, a group of militia men ("bigots and weekend warriors") that got off on patrolling the US-Mexico border. They "thought it should be legal to kill illegals."

In a speech a few years back, Donnelly described undocumented immigrants as "an insurgency," and compared crossing the border to war.

Note to Donnelly: "Illegal aliens" is a slur. These are people, and people are not illegal. Their acts may or may not be, but they are human beings, not "illegals." Tim Donnelly, in his own words:

"Right now, in the United States of America, there are 850,000 gang members, two-thirds of whom are illegal aliens," he said. [...]

In the 2006 speech, Donnelly painted an alarming picture of illegal immigrants' effect on the United States. They have caused the destruction of schools, the bankruptcy of hospitals forced to provide them free medical care and led the government to abandon its citizens, he said, asserting that the country was on the brink of a battle similar to the Civil War.

The notion that illegal immigrants come to this nation for a better life "is one of the lies," he said. "At least 20% are coming to commit the crimes that American criminals will no longer commit."

He paused as the crowd laughed, then continued: "Of that 20%, how many are rapists? How many are murderers? How many are child molesters? And how many are terrorists? We don't know."

"Crimes that American criminals will no longer commit"? What, American bad guys started boycotting certain crimes? They look down their noses on some criminal acts as beneath them, do they? Certain ones have fallen into disfavor, have they?

Here's the real crime: Everything he said, plus the crowd's disgusting response. I wonder if any of his audience members might have been rapists or child molesters? Oh, sorry, my bad. It was likely a monochromatic group (read: white), and we all know white people don't commit despicable acts like those.

He's all yours, GOP. By the way, how's that outreach thing workin' for ya?

You can read more about him at the link if you can stomach it.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Cover-up: Border agents created pretext to shoot Mexicans

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

cover up 2 cover-up

What's that saying again? Oh yeah: The cover-up is worse than the crime... or as in this case, at least as bad. The Los Angeles Times is reporting on border patrol agents who purposely got in the way of oncoming cars in order to justify using deadly force against Mexican drivers. And then U.S. Customs and Border Protection kept their violent little activities hush-hush... from Congress.

The law enforcement experts who wrote up a review of dozens of cases recommended that agents should be trained "to get out of the way… as opposed to intentionally assuming a position in the path of such vehicles." Ordinarily, law enforcement agencies make use-of-force policies public, but not in this case.

And to make matters worse, per Mexican authorities, U.S. border agents who kill Mexicans "are rarely disciplined and the results of investigations are not made pubic for years." According to the Times, the authors said that border agents would stand right there in the road so they could shoot drivers who were trying to avoid arrest. These drivers "posed no direct lethal threat to them or others." Welcome to the U.S.A.:

Border Patrol agents have deliberately stepped in the path of cars apparently to justify shooting at the drivers and have fired in frustration at people throwing rocks from the Mexican side of the border, according to an independent review of 67 cases that resulted in 19 deaths.

The report by law enforcement experts criticized the Border Patrol for "lack of diligence" in investigating U.S. agents who had fired their weapons. It also said it was unclear whether the agency "consistently and thoroughly reviews" use-of-deadly-force incidents.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, which had commissioned the review, has tried to prevent the scathing 21-page report from coming to light.

House and Senate oversight committees requested copies last fall but received only a summary that omitted the most controversial findings — that some border agents stood in front of moving vehicles as a pretext to open fire and that agents could have moved away from rock throwers instead of shooting at them [...]

The [internal] response rejects the two major recommendations: barring border agents from shooting at vehicles unless its occupants are trying to kill them, and barring agents from shooting people who throw things that can't cause serious physical injury.

Meanwhile, in Arizona:

Border-area residents, upset with what they called an increased militarized presence in their community, began an effort Wednesday to monitor Border Patrol actions at a federal immigration checkpoint about 25 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border in southern Arizona.

Organizers with a humanitarian aid group called People Helping People in the Border Zone have called on the Border Patrol to remove the checkpoint in Amado, a town of about 300 people. Some residents say they have to deal with unnecessary delays, harassment and sometimes abuse at the checkpoint.

welcome

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Report: Tougher border security actually backfires, does not deter deported immigrant re-entry

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

immigration protest l.a.

Say it with me now: More border "security" is not the answer. Think Progress has a fascinating report that tells us why:

Even with border security spending at astronomical highs, deported immigrants are still finding their way back into the U.S., according to a new study from the University of Arizona. According to interviews with 1,000 detainees caught by Border Patrol agents in Tucson, AZ, 43 percent planned to cross the border again.

Detainees were most likely to attempt the grueling and often deadly crossing again if they had friends or relatives in the U.S., had a job, or had more education than other detainees.

Even though we've had way fewer border crossings under President Obama's watch, some of that is due to our weak economy. Jobs aren't easy to find, so why bother to sneak into a country that may not have them? But some still try.

No matter what the reason for coming here, the report states that "the need to come to the United States is greater than any deterrent." And by deterrent, they're referring to abuse, rape, long work hours, no health care, beatings, solitary confinement... you know, welcome matty stuff like that.

Apparently, Romney's brilliant "make them so miserable that they'll self-deport" solution isn't quite taking hold.

But this is the sentence that struck me:

Another study from the University of Arizona found that tougher security has actually backfired and encouraged more permanent migration.

That link leads to this post: Immigrant Women Face More Abuse And Family Separation, Study Finds. Please give it a read:

For the past decade, tougher borders have pushed workers to remain in the U.S. rather than risk another crossing. Meanwhile, women and families are beginning to make up a larger proportion of migrants, leading to more permanent migration.

But the GOP keeps insisting that 90% of the border must be airtight before they'll entertain the notion of a path to citizenship for immigrants already living here. Via the L.A. Times, in an article titled, "Rubio wants stronger border security in immigration reform bill":

As the legislation is now written, the Department of Homeland Security would be required to develop a plan to achieve effective control of 90% of the border with Mexico before immigrants in the U.S. illegally would be allowed to gain permanent legal status. Rubio's emerging alternative would shift the responsibility for creating that plan to Congress.

Typical GOP m.o.: Push a plan that is doomed to fail, and then blame Obama when nothing gets done.

frustrated8

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

AK Rep. Don "Young's Republican Party should not think that Americans like myself will be swayed by outreach."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

outreach my ass reach out inclusive

For the back story, see this previous post: VIDEO: The “stupid party,” er, Republicans blast GOP Rep. Young for his “wetbacks” comment.

don young wetback comments immigration

And with that, here is today's L.A. Times letter to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Republican apologizes for slur against Latinos," March 30

As an American with a Hispanic last name, reading the story of the Alaskan member of Congress using the term "wetback" brought back childhood memories.

I grew up in San Antonio, a predominantly Hispanic city, on the mostly white north side of town. Any time I heard "wetback," it made me uncomfortable because of the view underlying it: I and the people like me were less than everyone else. Passing off using the term as just the common vernacular of a bygone era doesn't fool anyone.

For Don Young (I don't respect him enough to call him a congressman) to speak in those terms so easily betrays an ingrained view of Hispanics. Young's Republican Party should not think that Americans like myself will be swayed by outreach.

Andrew Ximenes

Los Angeles

All our other GOP "outreach" posts can be found here.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO: The "stupid party," er, Republicans blast GOP Rep. Young for his "wetbacks" comment

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

gop stupid party jindal don young wetback comments immigration

Alaska Rep. Don Young:

"My father had a ranch; we used to have 50-60 wetbacks to pick tomatoes."

House Speaker John Boehner, per CNN:

"Congressman Young's remarks were offensive and beneath the dignity of the office he holds. I don't care why he said it – there's no excuse and it warrants an immediate apology."

Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus:

"Our party represents freedom and opportunity for every American and a beacon of hope to those seeking liberty throughout the world. Offensive language and ethnic slurs have no place in our public discourse."

Is Priebus kidding? Does he have no awareness of what his party has said and done to diminish the dignity and rights of not-white people and how all too many conservatives still refer to them (scroll)?

Rep. Young:

"I used a term that was commonly used during my days growing up on a farm in Central California. I know that this term is not used in the same way nowadays and I meant no disrespect."

Psst! Don! It's 2013.

Psst! Don! Your statement, excuses, and non-apology have now been documented and will be available for review forever.

CNN:

The word is widely considered an ethnic slur and generally refers to those from Mexico who come to the United States illegally by crossing the Rio Grande River. It was used by the government in the 1950s for "Operation Wetback," a massive crackdown on illegal immigration along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Let's take a gander at the ol' GOP playbook, shall we?

1950s mentality:

check mark smaller

 

 

 

Slurs:

check mark smaller

Massive crackdown on immigrants:

check mark smaller

How's that reachy-outy thing workin' for ya?

outreach my ass reach out inclusive

UPDATE via Think Progress:

By Friday afternoon, Young had issued a full apology:

“I apologize for the insensitive term I used during an interview in Ketchikan, Alaska. There was no malice in my heart or intent to offend; it was a poor choice of words. That word, and the negative attitudes that come with it, should be left in the 20th century, and I’m sorry that this has shifted our focus away from comprehensive immigration reform.”

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Is it just Mexicans whom people want to stop?"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

do i look illegal

Today's L.A. Times letter to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re "Is the border secure?," March 10

Supporters of building a nearly impenetrable fence along the U.S.-Mexico border say such a barrier would go a long way toward stopping illegal immigration.

However, an estimated 40% of the illegal immigrants already in the United States (more than 4 million of the total) are visa abusers. These are people who came to the United States with a valid visa (tourist, student or others) and stayed past the expiration. Many of them don't look like Mexicans, and they blend into our society. They work as physical therapists, accountants and other middle-class professionals.

So how will the United States stop the flow of illegal immigrants to this country? Or is it just Mexicans whom people want to stop?

Odille Hansen

Culver City

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

VIDEO- Gingrich: Republicans hate President Obama, so his immigration plan is D.O.A.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

gophate

ABC's Jonathan Karl gets a twofer today. First we saw him call out Paul Ryan’s hypocrisy on the sequester. Now we see him get Newt to say that the GOP will turn down any immigration reform by President Obama simply because they don't like him.

Yes, Newton Leroy Gingrich had no problem describing how Republicans hate Obama, so no way will they pass his immigration plan, despite what's good for the country and the people in it, despite the similarities in Republican ideas and the president's, despite his party's Big Political Reinvention based on a dire need for Latino voters, and despite the economic benefits of passing such a bill.

Marco Rubio poo-pooed it in pretty strong terms by calling the president's ideas “dead on arrival”:

If actually proposed, the President’s bill would be dead on arrival in Congress, leaving us with unsecured borders and a broken legal immigration system for years to come.”

Who won't compromise again, Marco? Who's been obstructing since Inauguration Night 2009? Oh that's right, your party. And under whose watch have illegal border crossings plunged? Oh that's right, our current president's.

Paul Ryan claimed that President Obama “seems to be looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution." (The segment is at the beginning, the first two minutes of the video.) Project much?

 

Here's Newt Ginrich telling Karl that GOP disdain for Obama takes precedence over getting something accomplished for the good of the nation:

Newt:

"I think there's a very important part of this that the Obama administration probably can't bring itself to deal with: an Obama immigration plan is not going to pass the House... Just as a Bush Social Security plan after '04 was dead because it was the Bush Social Security plan. So if you want to actually get legislation…"

Jonathan Karl:

"Can I ask you, will a Rubio immigration plan pass the House?"

Newt:

"No, but I think a Rubio, the House Republicans and House Democrats have been meeting on immigration. I mean, I think there will be a House immigration bill that has a very substantial support that Boehner and Cantor and others will be supporting, and I think that negotiated with a Senate immigration bill that has to have bipartisan support could actually get to the president's desk. But an Obama plan led and driven by Obama in this atmosphere with the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility, I think is very hard to imagine that bill, that his bill is going to pass the House."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare