Texas Town Has Spanish Only Law
Pat Zeitoun
in South Texas.
EL CENIZO, Texas, August 10, 1999
"Leaders of this rugged town on the banks of the Rio Grande on Tuesday
defended an ordinance that requires all local government business to be
transacted in Spanish, and another law that calls for firing any municipal
employee who helps the Border Patrol apprehend illegal immigrants."
This came today from Latino Link. If you have not read the article be sure
you go to: http://www.latinolink.com/news/1999/0810texs.htm
It's a great opportunity to root for the underdog. Hell they just might get
away with it!
This issue also has a very interesting article on the political misfortunes
of Henry Cisneros
Cheers,
PatZ
pompon...@my-deja.com
"Pat Zeitoun" <p...@tca.net> wrote:
> You gotta read this! Who says the frontier spirit is dead?
> Certainly not
> in South Texas.
>
Decree
1. The city fathers of El Cenizo, Tejas de Santa Anna, are declared
benemeritos because they have c*j*n*s.
2. The capital of the state of Tejas de Santa Anna is to be relocated
from Falfurrias to El Cenizo.
3. I am buying the rights to the movie, I promised Selma a starring
role already.
Pomponio
Gobernador Constitucional del Estado Libre y Soberano de Tejas de Santa
Anna
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Ruben Dominguez, Jr.
Thanks for pointing out articles about Henry Cisneros. It is a tragedy how
he has fallen upon hard times. On one hand, he brought it upon himself. On the
other, I think he has paid for it too harshly. While others at his level in the
federal government get away with lying like the Clintons (Monica and
Whitewater), Bush (Iran Conta), Reagan (Iran Conta), Ted Kennedy (every stupid
thing he has ever done) and others in high political profiles, Mr. Cisnerso
lied also but the federal government seems bent on prosecuting him to the
limit. He is a saint compared to these people.
I still believe Mr. Cisneros would have made an excellent President of the
United States. That's how high I was counting on him to reach in the political
arena.
Like Selena, whenever a Mexican-American reaches for a high profile status
or position something always happens.
Let's hope for the best for the next Mexican-American in such a position.
Ruben
Pat Zeitoun
Cenizo as 10 miles south of Laredo. I don't have a map handy, but how can
this be? How do you get south of Laredo and remain in the US?
PatZ
<pompon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7pbovu$v8o$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
David Glaser
It is strange how things never seem to change. Back in 1975, Texas Monthly
had an article titled "All Roads Lead To Roma". It talked about the drug
smuggling that was going on back the then.
It seems that just about every family in Starr county had someone who was
involved in smuggling in one way or another over the years. My wife's
grandfather used
to talk about his days as a wiskero during the prohibition days.
Descendents of
his cousins and brothers are still smuggling.
Its a different world.
-David
pompon...@my-deja.com wrote in message <7pcvak$ta8$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <rrj33c...@corp.supernews.com>,
> "Pat Zeitoun" <p...@tca.net> wrote:
>> Pomponio, I knew this was your kind of town! The article describes El
>> Cenizo as 10 miles south of Laredo. I don't have a map handy, but how
>can
>> this be? How do you get south of Laredo and remain in the US?
>>
>> PatZ
>>
>
>The river sort of curves in a southward direction from there, so I think
>cenizo is south and on the river. There is another rather interesting
>town, Fronton, close to Rio Grande City. Basically, the US federales go
>there only on heavily armed convoys. It used to be that there were only
>two deLorean dealerships in Texas, one in Dallas and the other in
>Fronton, though officially unemployment was 30% plus in Fronton. As you
>can imagine, its a cartel town. It ain't my type of town but my
>compadre Juan Garcia Abrego really liked it.
>
>PD: Compadre, ya hable con el guero de arkansas y dice que si te da el
>perdon pero te va a costar una feria...
pompon...@my-deja.com
ClockWFT
>of the Rio Grande on Tuesday defended an
>ordinance that requires all local government
>business to be transacted in Spanish,
Huh? I can't figure out how those who have vociferously attacked the "English
Only" laws as racist have managed to justify in their minds this "Spanish Only"
law.
>and another law that calls for firing any municipal
>employee who helps the Border Patrol apprehend
>illegal immigrants."
>
Oh great. A municipality that is ready to penalize people for upholding the
law.
>It's a great opportunity to root for the underdog.
Yep. Who cares what they do, what laws they encourage to be broken.....
This is exactly the sort of (over-)reaction that tends to prove those worried
about illegal immigration that they are right.
wft
James
certainly be Latino leaders in the future who aren't as immoral and
dishonest as he is. So, let's hope that the best Mexican-American reaches
such a position, and that people like Cisneros continue to be exposed for
their dishonesty. Conspiracy, obstructing justice and making false
statements to the FBI are not qualities that we want in our leaders.
cabezon Reyna
just got caught up in the Starr insanity. Who are you to judge? Wait
till you get out of high school before you offer these awful ideas..
My Name
for us. We have the right to expect that they don't commit conspiracy,
obstruct justice and make false statements to the FBI. I have not done, nor
will I ever do, the immoral things that Cisneros has done. Not all people
are dishonest and immoral like he is. Starr did not force Cisneros to cheat
on his wife. Starr did not force Cisneros to pay hush money to his mistress.
Starr did not force Cisneros to commit conspiracy, obstruction of justice
and make false statements to the FBI.
Good men, MORAL men, don't do what he did. We deserve better leaders.
ClockWFT
>Back off James, Henry is no more immoral
>than you or any politician.
clockwft wrote:
Not everyone has their morals for sale or influence. Henry is not "everyman"
and Clinton is not a role model.
>He just got caught up in the Starr insanity.
The responsibility for his actions is his alone.
>Who are you to judge?
Life is all about making judgements.
DudeCPACFE
>Subject: Re: Texas Town Has Spanish Only Law
>From: cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT)
>Date: Wed, 18 August 1999 11:39 PM EDT
>Message-id: <19990818233917...@ng-da1.aol.com>
You answered mostly all of the statements but, What a bout the following
statement?
ClockWFT
>>>Back off James, Henry is no more immoral
>>>than you or any politician.
>>
>>clockwft wrote:
>>
>>Not everyone has their morals for sale or influence. Henry is not "everyman"
>>and Clinton is not a role model.
>>
>>>He just got caught up in the Starr insanity.
>>
>>The responsibility for his actions is his alone.
>>
>>>Who are you to judge?
>>
>>Life is all about making judgements.
>>
>You answered mostly all of the statements
>but, What a bout the following statement?
>before you offer these awful ideas. [end quote]
>
clockwft wrote:
So? I certainly don't ascribe to the position that people should be "seen but
not heard" just because they are young. IMO one should "keep an open mind" (ie.
be open to new information and prepared to alter our opinions accordingly) no
matter what our age is.
cabezon Reyna
Maybe not everyone has their morals for sale, but nearly everyone who
piled on Henry Cisneros did. Look at those who criticized him. Newt "the
newt" Gingridge did the same thing as Henry. So did the would be speaker
of the house (whose awful name does not occur to me at the moment) , the
Barr embarrassment , and many other Republican dogs. Henry C admitted to
his infidelity, made peace with his wife, and otherwise went about his
business and did some good things before the hypocritical Republicans
dragged him down. His accusers are still swimming in their sins.
cabezon Reyna
Your post is too silly to merit a response. Read it and see if you don't
agree.
James
was far more than just cheat on his wife. I would be just as critical of any
politician who committed conspiracy, obstructing justice and making false
statements to the FBI.
James
Robert Seward
: >"Leaders of this rugged town on the banks
: >ordinance that requires all local government
: >business to be transacted in Spanish,
Which town is this? If the law to fire municpal employees is real, all it
would take is one federal lawsuit and federal criminal prosecution for
interference and that would be the end of that.
cabezon Reyna
Mr Cisneros has not been convicted of any of those crimes you listed.
James
evidence of the other crimes.
cabezon Reyna <cab...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:20324-37...@newsd-122.bryant.webtv.net...
ClockWFT
>Date: Fri, 20 August 1999 07:59 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7pkq4v$etq$2...@newshound.csrv.uidaho.edu>
rights" litigation tossed it). Of course, those who do this would have to
endure zealous cries of "cultural imperialism", "white racist conspiracy" and
several other of the de rigeuer mantras-of-the-oppressed.
David Glaser
In the cities and towns along the border, Mexican-Americans are the majority
of the population.
For example, McAllen Tx is 87% Mexican-American, Rio Grande City and Roma
Tx are 95% Mexican-American. In those towns, you have to know spanish to
get around. Why? Well, its a long story, there is a lot of immigration from
Mexico but there are a lot of people who lived there when the border was
moved.
Up until WWII, there was not a whole lot of interest in integrating the
Mexican-American population with the rest of the US. In fact, there was a
deliberate effort to keep them isolated. My in-laws were taught in spanish
because the school system was segregated. The 5% of the anglos in Starr
County had nice schools with fans and nice books, etc. The 95% of the
Mexican-Americans had to get teachers from Monterrey Mexico because they
could not afford to pay for US educated teachers. There is still a lot
of resentment about that treatment among the older folks and so it does not
surprise me that such a law would be passed by a city council.
Many people on the border view the latest activities by the white majority
as trying to re-impose the segregation that was in existance up until the
middle sixties - yes, a lot of people remember that. I remember that
elementry schools such as the Zavala and Navarro of McAllen were not
airconditioned in the late 1960s while the Ben Milam elementry school had
airconditioning and a nice playground, ... The former schools were in the
Mexican-American neighborhoods while the latter was in the Anglo
neighborhood.
So when you start complaining about the actions of this so-called city and
its inhabitants, stop and think about their life experinces. Everyone has a
story to tell.
-David
==============================
ClockWFT wrote in message <19990821000442...@ng-cc1.aol.com>...
ClockWFT
>Well, here comes another opinion.
>
Yep.
>In the cities and towns along the border, Mexican-
>Americans are the majority of the population.
>
I understand this to be (mostly) the case. But I fail to see how this justifies
legalistic bigotry on their part.
>Up until WWII, there was not a whole lot of
>interest in integrating the Mexican-American
>population with the rest of the US.
Sadly true.
>Many people on the border view the latest activities
>by the white majority as trying to re-impose
>the segregation that was in existance up until
>the middle sixties...
What are thse "latest activities" that are alleged to be trying to "re-impose
the segregation"? I've only heard about the recently enacted Spanish-only law.
>So when you start complaining about the actions
>of this so-called city and its inhabitants, stop
>and think about their life experinces. Every-
>one has a story to tell.
>
From what I know, I agree with all you have said concerning the past. But I
still fail to see how that justifies imposing a new set of bigoted laws.
nb. From what I have read, this situation is nothing more than revenge
carefully wrapped in "they started it first" thinking.
>==============================
>ClockWFT wrote in message
>>>From: robe...@news.uidaho.edu (Robert Seward)
>>>
>>>: >"Leaders of this rugged town on the banks
>>>: >of the Rio Grande on Tuesday defended an
>>>: >ordinance that requires all local government
>>>: >business to be transacted in Spanish,
>>>
>>>Which town is this? If the law to fire municpal employees is real, all it
>>>would take is one federal lawsuit and federal criminal prosecution for
>>>interference and that would be the end of that.
>>>
David Glaser
ClockWFT wrote in message <19990821132858...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
[ .. snip .. ]
>>
>>Many people on the border view the latest activities
>>by the white majority as trying to re-impose
>>the segregation that was in existance up until
>>the middle sixties...
>
>What are thse "latest activities" that are alleged to be trying to
"re-impose
>the segregation"? I've only heard about the recently enacted Spanish-only
law.
>
>>So when you start complaining about the actions
>>of this so-called city and its inhabitants, stop
>>and think about their life experinces. Every-
>>one has a story to tell.
>>
>From what I know, I agree with all you have said concerning the past. But I
>still fail to see how that justifies imposing a new set of bigoted laws.
>
>nb. From what I have read, this situation is nothing more than revenge
>carefully wrapped in "they started it first" thinking.
>
Revenge is practiced by all sorts of races and ethnicities. So, it might be
useful
to rephrase your comment as "this is revenge in response to revenge in
response
to revenge ..."
But in any case, there have been a number of actions by congress and other
government agencies
that are generating a lot of resentment.
1. The welfare limits for immigrants were encacted by congress. There is a
lot of mis-information regarding use and abuse of the system but in any
case, it gave the impression that is was a punitive measure against the
mexican-american immigrants.
2. The Immigration Reform Act also enacted a three strikes law which has
resulted in deportations of old men who had the misfortune of being picked
up for DWI three times. Even if the last one was ten years ago. Breaking
up families in this way is a great way to practice "family values".
3. Discrimination is still rampant and the push to end affimitive action is
viewed as a way to keep that discriminiation in place. Business Week has
some very interesting ariticles in this area. In the April 26th, 1999 issue
on page 6, there is an article aboud a study being conducted by Rutgers
University and the Equal Empolyment Opportunity Commision. "Initial
results show that while discrimination has fallen overall, some regions are
still highly biased. Initial results suggest at in Washing State, for
example, 25% of empoers with more than 50 workers still intentiaionally
discriminate against women. And in Georgia, while 40% of larger employers
recailly disciminate, while 30% display a bias against women."
I wonder what the numbers will look like when they get around to the areas
that have large Mexican-American populations."
4. Finally, there is the issue of education. My generation of the
Mexican-Americans in the LRGV were very lucky because we had access to a low
cost college education. However, this is no longer true. The cost of
education has risen dramatically. The white middle class has been able to
still send their scions to school but the poorer mexican-american population
has found itself shut out of this path to success. Then, on top of that,
the end of affirmative action is further restricting access to better
schools. Why? Well, those kids who are bright but not well prepared cannot
get themselves accepted to schools for a second chance. Business Week again
had a very interesting article in this area. In the May 31, 1999 issue on
page 68, they had a commentary on eliminating inequality via college.
Basically, they figure that rasing the current investment in higher
education from 45 billion a year to 80 billion a year would do wonders for
reducing the wage inequality gap (it is at a 30 year high) between the rich
and poor families. And the investment would also do wonders to generating
more cash for baby boomer retirement. That is, the more money that the
economy makes, the move money available for retirerees that are dirt poor.
As I have said before, everyone has a life story to tell and the above are
life stories that can be told by these people who supposedly are practicing
"revenge".
-David
ClockWFT
>>>Many people on the border view the latest
>>>activities by the white majority as trying
>>>to re-impose the segregation that was in
>>>existance up until the middle sixties...
>>
>>What are thse "latest activities" that are alleged
>>>to be trying to "re-impose the segregation"?
>>>I've only heard about the recently enacted
>>>Spanish-only law.
>>
being used to justify the imposition of this Spanish-only law, I'm still
curious to learn what they are.
>>>So when you start complaining about the
>>>actions of this so-called city and its inhabi-
>>>tants, stop and think about their life exper-
>>>iences. Everyone has a story to tell.
>>>
>>From what I know, I agree with all you have
>>said concerning the past. But I still fail to
>>see how that justifies imposing a new set
>>of bigoted laws.
>>
I still fail to see the justification.
>>nb. From what I have read, this situation is nothing more than revenge
>>carefully wrapped in "they started it first" thinking.
>>
>Revenge is practiced by all sorts of races and ethnicities.
I agree. And such actions should be shown to the Public for what they are, not
prettified by some threadbare moral whitewash.
>So, it might be useful to rephrase your comment
>as "this is revenge in response to revenge in
>response to revenge ..."
>
Ok....But that still doesn't justify this action.
>But in any case, there have been a number
>of actions by congress and other government
>agencies that are generating a lot of resentment.
>[list of those actions snipped...]
Neither does this...
>As I have said before, everyone has a life story
>to tell and the above are life stories that can
>be told by these people who supposedly are
>practicing "revenge".
>
"supposedly"?
Now I see...
Becky Diaz
decided to conduct city business in Spanish. The posts say that 80% of
the population speak Spanish only, 20% are bilingual, and everyone
speaks Spanish. So what's the problem; it makes perfect sense to conduct
business in the language everyone understands. I fail to see any sort of
revenge or "screw you" motive here. Am I missing something? BD
ClockWFT
clockwft wrote:
I believe so.
The issue is not, at least IMO, whether Spanish should be included as an
official language of the town but whether it should be designated as the *only*
official language.
David Glaser
I think that you are changing the subject. In a previous message of this
thread, you said
>Huh? I can't figure out how those who have vociferously attacked the
"English
>Only" laws as racist have managed to justify in their minds this "Spanish
Only"
>law.
So, are you trying to undestand all sides of the story or are you hiding
behind a narrow
determination that "this was done for revenge".
Applying the 80/20 rule. I figure that 80% of the chicanos and 80% of the
anglos want to live their lives in peace and harmony. However, there is
the 20% on each side that seem to engage in racist behavior. I have heard
you criticize the 20% that is brown but I have yet to hear you criticize the
white trouble makers.
So, from your actions, How should we understand you?
-David
ClockWFT wrote in message <19990824143440...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
James
| Applying the 80/20 rule. I figure that 80% of the chicanos and 80% of the
| anglos want to live their lives in peace and harmony. However, there is
| the 20% on each side that seem to engage in racist behavior. I have heard
| you criticize the 20% that is brown but I have yet to hear you criticize
the
| white trouble makers.
You can't compare the 20% of chicanos to the 20% of whites. The so-called
racist behavior of the chicanos at lease has some justification; i.e.,
generations of oppression by a society dominate by rich whites. The only
"justification" the whites have for their racism is a selfish desire to
hoard all the wealth and not spread it around to those who really need it.
ClockWFT
>>>I just looked through the posts on the little river town whose leaders
>>>decided to conduct city business in Spanish. The posts say that 80% of
>>>the population speak Spanish only, 20% are bilingual, and everyone
>>>speaks Spanish. So what's the problem; it makes perfect sense to conduct
>>>business in the language everyone understands. I fail to see any sort of
>>>revenge or "screw you" motive here.
>>
>>>Am I missing something? BD
>>>
>>clockwft wrote:
>>
>>I believe so.
>>
>>The issue is not, at least IMO, whether Spanish
>>should be included as an official language
>>of the town but whether it should be designated
>>as the *only* official language.
>>
>I think you are changing the subject.
Not IMO.
>In a previous message of this thread you said...
>"Huh? I can't figure out how those who have
>vociferously attacked the 'English Only' laws
>as racist have managed to justify in their minds
>this 'Spanish Only' law.
>So. are you trying to understand all sides of
>the story or are you hiding behind a narrow
>determination that "this was done for revenge".
Not IMO. I simply wondered why those who are so vociferously opposed to
"English Only" laws (of *any* kind and in *any* circumstance) had not expressed
similar opposition at this "Spanish Only" law.
>Applying the 80/20 rule. I figure that 80% of the
>chicanos and 80% of the anglos want to live
>their lives in peace and harmony. However,
>there is the 20% on each side that seem to en-
>gage in racist behavior.
Huh? Why do you assume that the 20% who are bilingual are engaging in racist
behavior?
>I have heard you criticize the 20% that is brown
>but I have yet to hear you criticize the white
>trouble makers.
I directed a criticism of the town's decision. I in NO way criticize their
decision to allow the conducting of town business in Spanish. What I took/take
issue with is that they are forcing upon everybody, including
tourists/visitors, a "Spanish ONLY" law.
pompon...@my-deja.com
If I could just add a couple of things:
1. As I understand it, very few of the folks in El Cenizo know
English. The city fathers felt that continuing to conduct civic
business in English was foolish and was shutting off the citizenry from
participating in government. I suppose the same happened in the
eastern Roman empire when the language of government transitioned over
to Greek from Latin. And in Charles V's court, he conducted government
business in the following manner: a) all matters dealing with horses
were spoken in German, b) military matters were in French, c) ladies
were always addressed in Italian, and d) all addresses to God (praying)
was in Spanish. Since there is no official language in this country, I
find no big deal in what the el Cenizo folks did. That the transcripts
of all city business are to be printed in English --the lingua franca
of the country as a whole-- is cool.
2. The admonition to fire city employees who help the Geheime Stat
Polizie, excuse me, the INS, sounds extreme. Not that the INS will
find much help anyway; I understand that this measure is just a
manifestation of the resentment the Cenizo folks feel against the INS
for continually harassing them. (I still feel that does not justify
threatening someone's job.) Anyways, its up to the feds to object and
if the US government does complain, who is going to stand against a 500
lb. gorilla?
ClockWFT
>| Applying the 80/20 rule. I figure that 80% of the chicanos and 80% of the
>| anglos want to live their lives in peace and harmony. However, there is
>| you criticize the 20% that is brown but I have yet to hear you criticize
>the
>| white trouble makers.
>
>You can't compare the 20% of chicanos to the 20% of whites.
clockwft wrote:
I agree. From the figures (source unknown, corroboration not available) not
such comparative conclusion is justified.
>The so-called racist behavior of the chicanos
>at least has some justification; i.e., gener-
>ations of oppression by a society dominated
>by rich whites.
I agree with this as a reasonable/understandable "explanation".
There is no "justification" for such an action.
ClockWFT
>
>1. As I understand it, very few of the folks in El
>Cenizo know English. The city fathers felt
>that continuing to conduct civic business in
>English was foolish and was shutting off the
>citizenry from participating in government.
I agree.
>Since there is no official language in this country,
>I find no big deal in what the el Cenizo folks
>did. That the transcripts of all city business
>are to be printed in English --the lingua franca
>of the country as a whole-- is cool.
>
Even though I've asked for clarification as to whether this law was "Spanish
Only", this is the firt time that any sort of explanatory information has
appeared here. If such transcripts are available, I see less reason to object
to that "Spanish Only" law. But I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that
anyone who does not speak or read Spanish fluently (and I'm sure there *are*
individuals in the settlement who are able to function day-to-day in Spanish
but who are not "fluent") is effectively excluded from, say, town hall
meetings, etc.
>2. The admonition to fire city employees who help the Geheime Stat
>Polizie, excuse me, the INS, sounds extreme.
Don't accept this characterization of the INS....especially if referring to
their efforts to uphold US laws.
Not that the INS will
>find much help anyway; I understand that this measure is just a
>manifestation of the resentment the Cenizo folks feel against the INS
>for continually harassing them. (I still feel that does not justify
threatening someone's job)...
This I had not heard about. In what ways has the INS been "harassing"? To what
extent have they exceeded their authority to check that workers are in fact
working in the US legally?
Pat Zeitoun
news:19990825124627...@ng-ff1.aol.com...
Perhaps you did not see my original post. If you read it, I think you can
better understand the position some of us take in cheering for the underdog.
Read the article at http://www.latinolink.com/news/1999/0810texs.htm
Even though I've asked for clarification as to whether this law was "Spanish
> Only", this is the firt time that any sort of explanatory information has
> appeared here. If such transcripts are available, I see less reason to
object
> to that "Spanish Only" law. But I'm still uncomfortable with the fact that
> anyone who does not speak or read Spanish fluently (and I'm sure there
*are*
> individuals in the settlement who are able to function day-to-day in
Spanish
> but who are not "fluent") is effectively excluded from, say, town hall
> meetings, etc.
Excuse me, but you obviously do not know anything about Texas Border towns.
This town does not have tourists or outsiders who do not belong there. You
nor I would be welcome, neither is la migra.
One of the main reasons for Spanish only is because EVERYONE in the town
speaks Spanish. There are only 20% who ALSO speak English.
This I had not heard about. In what ways has the INS been "harassing"? To
what
> extent have they exceeded their authority to check that workers are in
fact
> working in the US legally?
Don't you read the papers? How can you NOT have heard about the constant
harassment and inhumane treatment of legal American citizens as well as
undocumented workers. Where have you been?
Maybe reading some facts will help.
Pat
ClockWFT
>
>Perhaps you did not see my original post. If you read it, I think you can
>better understand the position some of us take in cheering for the underdog.
>Read the article at http://www.latinolink.com/news/1999/0810texs.htm
>
I apparently didn't. Thanks for providing this URL.
ClockWFT
>
>Perhaps you did not see my original post. If you
>read it, I think you can better understand the
>position some of us take in cheering for the
>underdog.
clockwft wrote:
I read the article and totally support the efforts by this municipality to
institute inclusive policies towards its Spanish-speaking population.
I do not, however, support the total exclusion of English from government
functions and meetings (requiring one to wait 48 hours for a Spanish-to-English
translation is hardly "inclusive"). Nor do I support the municipality's attempt
to encourage the breaking of US immigration laws by protecting those who do and
by threatening to fire any municipal worker who attempts to enforce such laws.
I am also much worried by the almost gleeful welcome this action has generated
among some circles, and by the fact that a major force behind this municipal
action has been provided by former illegal immigrants to the US who are now US
citizens.
David Glaser
ClockWFT wrote in message <19990825124627...@ng-ff1.aol.com>...
>
>This I had not heard about. In what ways has the INS been "harassing"? To
what
>extent have they exceeded their authority to check that workers are in fact
>working in the US legally?
>
Well, all you need to do is to go to the McAllen Airport and sit in the
lobby. The INS or Border Patrol will show up before airplane departures and
will ask brown people for their papers. Don't matter if you speak perfect
english, you still get asked. However, they do not ask anglos for their
papers.
Seems to me that out of fairness, they should ask at least one or two
anglos.
It is particularly bad when you have a community that is on the banks of the
river itself. Places like Ysleta (near elpaso), El Cenizo, Roma, etc.
Those are perfect places for an illegal border crosser to mix in with the
population. The INS/Border Patrol go in there assuming that everying is an
illegal alien.
-David
>
David Glaser
ClockWFT wrote in message <19990825191533...@ng-bx1.aol.com>...
Welcom to the pain that the Mexican-American in Texas has endured over the
last 150 years. To get a real feeling for what has transpired, read a book
by Daniel Montejano (I don't remember the title off of the top of my head)
that is used as a textbook at UT Austin. After you read that, you will
wonder why the majority of Mexican Americans have not turned into a
murderous xenophobic types that want to rid the world of anglos. As I said
before, the majority of the Raza want to live in peace and harmony and they
try to bury the past. Unfortunately, the partisan politics of recent years
has served to dig up this past.
-David
Andres R Hernandez
: Well, all you need to do is to go to the McAllen Airport and sit in the
: lobby. The INS or Border Patrol will show up before airplane departures and
: will ask brown people for their papers. Don't matter if you speak perfect
: english, you still get asked. However, they do not ask anglos for their
: papers.
I dont' know about that David. I'm not saying I don't believe you but I've
been to the McAllen airport many times and I've never seen the INS harass
people. Usually they keep a low profile watching passangers as they wait
for there flights. I would assume (and hope) that they look at other
things (nervousness, dress, body language) in determining whether to ask
for papers other than just the color of there skin. And yes I do mean
dress. Mexicans and Mexican-Americans don't dress identically.
-Andy
David Glaser
-David
Andres R Hernandez wrote in message <7q1up8$20a$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>...
Pat Zeitoun
> My wife and I have directly observed this behavior a number of times.
There was a big article in the Houston Chronicle last Sunday about a Mexican
national, an 18 yr. old girl WITH as valid tourist visa being questioned for
hours at the airport, not allowed to call her family in Houston, being put
in the worst possible jail and held overnight, and flown back to Mexico City
the following morning. The girl said she was coming to visit her sister and
help with a new baby niece.
From The Houston Chronicle:
"Officials at the airport said that caring for a baby in the family amounted
to work, something not allowed under the terms of Meza's tourist visa."
All of this is 'legal' because a 1996 law that allows la migra to refuse
entry at any airport to anyone for no reason other than they do not like
their looks, whether they have a valid visa and passport or not. La migra
is quoted as saying their employees develop a "sixth sense about who should,
and should not be allowed to enter."
The article quoted Canadians as complaining about the 'cowboy' tactics of
the airport agents. However, the INS admits that since the law went into
effect in 1997,more than 30,000 foreigners were denied entry and summarily
deported without any kind of hearing. The INS also acknowledges that 80% of
those denied admission and deported were Mexican. Enough said?
PatZ
p...@tca.net
cabezon Reyna
I agree with most of you post, but whats this about tourists and you and
Clockwpt not being welcome in El Cenizo or belonging there? Have you
ever been there? You make it sound like some sort of armed camp, or a
bunch of people living in some dangerous religious sect. Its just a
little settlement on the river where people prefer to communciate in
Spanish. These people don't hate you or any outsiders, and will treat
you very kindly if you drop by. They will even speak Inglese if they are
not sure you Speak Spanish. Just because they elected to do city
business in Spanish does not mean they hate outsiders. Go there and
learn. CR
cabezon Reyna
officers without regard to their qualifications or emotional status.
Lots of these people have no understanding of South Texas culture, and
no interest in learning it. They come from all over the US and many have
a chip on their shoulders. They jump in their Ford Expeditions with
their uniforms and badges and authority and act like Stormtroopers.
Their helicopters seem to be everywhere. They stop anyone they like, and
are full of rude questions. Some feel like we live in an occupied state
in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. I heard that recently they almost
arrested the Cameron County Judge as he boarded an airplane in
Brownsville because he refused to show the agent his "papers". Its very
bad. CR
Tim
translating, but the legal implications. Translations are not always perfect,
and even if they are, someone will claim that the Spanish translation could be
interpreted differently than the English wording. I suppose that would apply
to local laws, official permits, business contracts, etc. Then if they decide
to handle two languages, why not Chinese too? So if the super-majority
absolutely requires Spanish, it is logical to make that the only official
language.
Of course that means that virtually all whites, blacks and Asians will choose
not to participate in their local government and business sector, but it
sounds like there are few if any that live there anyway. For those that do,
when in Rome...or move to El Paso.
ClockWFT <cloc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990825191533...@ng-bx1.aol.com...
pompon...@my-deja.com
cloc...@aol.com (ClockWFT) wrote:
>
> This I had not heard about. In what ways has the INS been "harassing"?
> To what extent have they exceeded their authority to check that
> workers are in fact working in the US legally?
>
that on two occasions I have been stopped at the border when going about
my business. I was toiling in the maquilas at the time and regularly
crossing the border. In the first case, I only, from a van full of
Canadians, a Frenchman, two Colombians, and others was made to go in for
a full interrogation. In both cases, things went along these lines:
Q: "Where are you going?"
A: "To McAllen, I live there."
Q: "Where do you work?"
A: "In Reynosa with Zenith (and I pointed to the company van)."
Q: "Are you a U.S. citizen?"
A: "Yes, naturalized."
Q: "Where were you born?"
A: "Las Choapas, Mexico!" (maybe said with a touch of arrogance, but
heck, that's how we are in Veracruz)
Q: "Do you have your naturalization certificate with you?"
A: "No, but I have my U.S. passport, here."
Q: "This is not good without the naturalization certificate."
(This mystified me, as I could have gotten into the Soviet Union with
it.)
A: "I don't carry my naturalization papers with me. I understand that
this passport is good even in Russia."
Q: "When did you last visit Rooseea?"
A: "I've never been to Russia!"
Q: "How about Cuba? Nicaragua?"
A: "No, never have."
Q: "You are not being cooperative. And this passport is probably a
fake."
A: "I got it at the post office."
Q: "Do you have a receipt?"
A: "No, its been like five years!"
Q: "I don't think you are legit."
A: "Look, you got a PC over there, here's my driver's license. My SSN
is xx. Why don't you just run me through the machine?"
(To which I got a confused response as I don't think this fool could run
a PC even in self-defense. This would go on and on until they
finally let me go. The second time I had to take a cab as the van had
left already.)
You get the idea, its another case of WWB, Working While Brown. I
wonder how many more horror stories there are. If this is the price of
their securing the borders against the evil empire to the south, then it
is too steep.
The saddest thing is that in both cases the retards that dealt with me
in this manner were as mexicano as you can get, even more prieto than
me. One rule of thumb I learned is to look for a guero in the
inspection booth and pick that line as they usually were not as heavy.
Maybe its because they are afraid you will bring in Johnny Cochran if
they mess with you, but that's what I noticed. The chicanada is its own
worst enemy.
Robert Seward
Does the State of Texas have an official language? Many states do.
ClockWFT
>>>
>>>Perhaps you did not see my original post. If you
>>>read it, I think you can better understand the
>>>position some of us take in cheering for the
>>>underdog.
>>
>>clockwft wrote:
>>
>>I read the article and totally support the efforts by this municipality to
>>institute inclusive policies towards its Spanish-speaking population.
>>
>>I do not, however, support the total exclusion of English from government
>>functions and meetings (requiring one to wait 48 hours for a
>Spanish-to-English
>>translation is hardly "inclusive"). Nor do I support the municipality's
>attempt
>>to encourage the breaking of US immigration laws by protecting those who do
>and
>>by threatening to fire any municipal worker who attempts to enforce such
>laws.
>>I am also much worried by the almost gleeful welcome this action has
>generated
>>among some circles, and by the fact that a major force behind this
>municipal
>>action has been provided by former illegal immigrants to the US who are now
>US
>>citizens.
>
>
>last 150 years.
As I said, "revenge"...:o(
ClockWFT
>>
>> This I had not heard about. In what ways has the INS been "harassing"?
>> To what extent have they exceeded their authority to check that
>> workers are in fact working in the US legally?
>>
>I am sure the El Cenizo folks have their grievances.
I'm sure some of them do...
>I can tell you that on two occasions I have
>been stopped at the border when going about
>my business. I was toiling in the maquilas
>at the time and regularly crossing the border.
>In the first case, I only, from a van full of
>Canadians, a Frenchman, two Colom-
>bians, and others was made to go in for a full
>interrogation. In both cases, things went along
>these lines:
>
>Q: "Where are you going?"
>A: "To McAllen, I live there."
>Q: "Where do you work?"
>A: "In Reynosa with Zenith (and I pointed to the company van)."
>Q: "Are you a U.S. citizen?"
>A: "Yes, naturalized."
>Q: "Where were you born?"
>A: "Las Choapas, Mexico!"
>(maybe said with a touch of arrogance, but
>heck, that's how we are in Veracruz)
Hmm. How to win friends...:o(
>Q: "Do you have your naturalization certificate with you?"
>A: "No, but I have my U.S. passport, here."
>Q: "This is not good without the naturalization certificate."
>(This mystified me, as I could have gotten into the Soviet Union with
>it.)
>A: "I don't carry my naturalization papers with me. I understand that
>this passport is good even in Russia."
>Q: "When did you last visit Rooseea?"
Interesting innuendo...
>A: "I've never been to Russia!"
>Q: "How about Cuba? Nicaragua?"
>A: "No, never have."
>Q: "You are not being cooperative. And this passport is probably a
>fake."
I can understand how this situation drove you up the wall.
>You get the idea, its another case of WWB, Working While Brown.
So you say.
>I wonder how many more horror stories there are.
As do I.
>If this is the price
What is "this"? The fact that this sort of exprerience does happen? Or that it
happens x-amount of times?
>of their securing the borders against the evil
>empire to the south, then it is too steep.
>
Not to me.
>The saddest thing is that in both cases the retards that dealt with me
Ah yes...the "Rooseea" editorializing.
>in this manner were as mexicano as you can get, even more prieto than
>me. One rule of thumb I learned is to look for a guero in the
>inspection booth and pick that line as they usually were not as heavy.
"Guero" is an offensive term to some.
>Maybe its because they are afraid you will bring in Johnny Cochran
The "when in doubt, play the Race-Card" circus? Please wait 'till i leave...
David Gleason
<pompon...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7q2687$q9k$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
> You get the idea, its another case of WWB, Working While Brown. I
> wonder how many more horror stories there are. If this is the price of
> their securing the borders against the evil empire to the south, then it
> is too steep.
I was with a co-worker who took her daughter with her on a visit to Tijuana
that was a mix of civic contacts for a radio station in LA and a chance to
buy Jugos del Valle, cajeta, and other stuff that the gueritos don't put in
the supermarkets.
The daughter, born in the US, is legally deaf. That means in this case that,
with a hearing device, she can, with lip reading and parital hearing,
understand if the mbiant noise is low, the person speaks slowly and uses
standard language and accent. Since the girl was born in the US and had this
problem, her mom (born in Jalisco) decided to educate her only in English as
the challange of bilingualism was too great. In other words, the daughter
knows only a bit of kitchen Spanish. Oh, did I mention that she is of a
beautiful, copper complexion?
On ther return, at the Tijuana checkpoint, she showed both a california
Driver LIcence and an expired passport that mentioned place of birth as LA.
THis was inexcess of the legal requirement. (I'm somewhere between white and
transparent, and they did not even ask me anything.) The "officer" said that
the passport was expired. She ded not understand the officer, who had a
regional accent and the room was very noisy. She pointed at her hearing aid.
The officer started talking in bad Spanish, which the girl did not
understand. Her mom tried to explain, and the officer was, to say it kindly,
rude. I tried to speak, and was threatened with arrest for butting in.
Finally, a supervisor, sensing something strange, came over and looked at
the ID and passport and waved us all out.
This is a case of BWB, Breathing While Brown.
Of course, the checkpoint folks had no way of knowing the mother is a highly
rated talk show host in LA. They had, inadvertently, given her several day's
worth of talk subjects. And the listenrs called in quantity to tell other
similar tales of horror. This is the price of freedom?
>
> The saddest thing is that in both cases the retards that dealt with me
> in this manner were as mexicano as you can get, even more prieto than
> me. One rule of thumb I learned is to look for a guero in the
> inspection booth and pick that line as they usually were not as heavy.
> Maybe its because they are afraid you will bring in Johnny Cochran if
> they mess with you, but that's what I noticed. The chicanada is its own
> worst enemy.
This is an interesting sidebar. I'll have to suggest that as an on-air
subject. I may even call Hugo de la Cruz and suggest he talk about it on "Y
Ahora Ud. Opina" on KGBT, too!
cabezon Reyna
The people in your example were unique but the treatment by the US
authorities was typical. These people are civil servants; who told them
being an asshole was on the job description?
pompon...@my-deja.com
Alas, I found out the hard way that if you show Mexico-style manners in
this country, they interpret it is as servility but if you stand up for
your rights, then you are an uppity greaser. The latter option seems
the least detrimental to me and my conclusion is that the only way one
can get any respect in the US is to be an asshole.
> >Q: "When did you last visit Rooseea?"
>
> Interesting innuendo...
>
See senor, the mon was makeeng fon of my accent.
>
> >of their securing the borders against the evil
> >empire to the south, then it is too steep.
> >
> Not to me.
>
Certainly not! You won't ever have to endure it, I can understand that.
> >The saddest thing is that in both cases the retards that dealt with
> >me
>
> Ah yes...the "Rooseea" editorializing.
>
See my clarification above. There is something pig-headed in not being
willing to admit that a current US passport is good enough to enter the
USA.
> >in this manner were as mexicano as you can get, even more prieto than
> >me. One rule of thumb I learned is to look for a guero in the
> >inspection booth and pick that line as they usually were not as
heavy.
>
> "Guero" is an offensive term to some.
>
Oops, my apologies to whoever I offended.
d...@cheetah.net
>
>
>Alas, I found out the hard way that if you show Mexico-style manners in
>this country, they interpret it is as servility but if you stand up for
>your rights, then you are an uppity greaser. The latter option seems
>the least detrimental to me and my conclusion is that the only way one
>can get any respect in the US is to be an asshole.
>
CLIPPED
I would hope that your experiences and
observations are not meant to be a
generalization, that all Norteamericanos
respond to Mexican-style manners in the
way that you describe.
Some years back, a city manager of a small
community responded to the Mexican immigrants,
now citizens, with the attitude you described.
The manager, a bottom-liner - results were
the only things of interest, conducted a
neighborhood meeting seeking ways to address
some problems. One problem was communications.
The manners of genteelness and patience during
the meeting was obvious. The city manager,
damned near popping and snapping fingers, was
trying to move the meeting along at a pace far
faster than the community wanted to go. It
was so obvious to the members that the manager
was becoming impatient and rude . . .
The next election resulted in three city council
members being voted out of office, and the city
manager was "replaced."
The city manager found a job in another city and
learned little from the experience. What was the
city manager's ethnic and cultural background?
Have you ever heard of chilangos?
Civility won on this one.
DCI
J. Manuel Urrutia
>
SNIP...
> Of course, the checkpoint folks had no way of knowing the mother is a highly
> rated talk show host in LA. They had, inadvertently, given her several day's
> worth of talk subjects. And the listenrs called in quantity to tell other
> similar tales of horror. This is the price of freedom?
Hey, David, como se llama la se~nora y cuando es su programa (hora y
sintoni'a, por favor)?
SNIP...
> This is an interesting sidebar. I'll have to suggest that as an on-air
> subject. I may even call Hugo de la Cruz and suggest he talk about it on "Y
> Ahora Ud. Opina" on KGBT, too!
Ditto. Ahora ya tengo AM en el radio de mi carro ;-)
BTW, is there a transcript offered in the Web? If not, have you thought
about it?
--
* J. Manuel Urrutia | En tierra de ciegos, *
* urrutia...@ucla.edu (remove TAKEOUT!) | el tuerto es rey *
ClockWFT
>>Hmmm. How to win friends...:o(
>>
>pomponio wrote:
>Alas, I found out the hard way that if you show Mexico-style manners in
>this country, they interpret it is as servility but if you stand up for
>your rights, then you are an uppity greaser.
Another entirely baseless stereotype of Americans...ie ."they're all like
that"...:o(
>The latter option seems the least detri-
>mental to me and my conclusion is that the
>only way one can get any respect in the US is
>to be an asshole.
>
Sad to say, living in the US today is dominated by "whiners"....by individuals
and, most prominently, groups.
>> >Q: "When did you last visit Rooseea?"
>>
>> Interesting innuendo...
>>
>See senor, the mon was makeeng fon of my accent.
>
Interesting assumption...
>>
>> >of their securing the borders against the evil
>> >empire to the south, then it is too steep.
>> >
>> Not to me.
>>
>Certainly not! You won't ever have to endure it, I can understand that.
>
1. Because you no nothing about me, you have no idea whether I have, have not,
might or "won't ever have to" endure this sort of treatment.
2. Whether or not someone has or has not experienced this sort of treat neither
delegitimizes their opinions on this issue nor justifies your doing so.
cabezon Reyna
expect them to.
Douglas Long
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>Of course, the checkpoint folks had no way of knowing the mother is a highly
>rated talk show host in LA. They had, inadvertently, given her several day's
>worth of talk subjects. And the listenrs called in quantity to tell other
>similar tales of horror. This is the price of freedom?
No, freedom is much more costly. Generations of Americans
could affirm that. The trifling incident you describe is entirely
understandable given the numbers of Mexicans stumbling over themselves
to get into this country and to the high quality of their forged
documents. But the price of freedom must seem high to the mother and
other Mexicans who aren't willing to remain in their own country and
pay the price to change its system. How precious that a brief
exchange at the border is such a high price to *pay*.
pompon...@my-deja.com
DKL...@mindspring.com (Douglas Long) wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:13:32 -0700, "David Gleason"
> <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>
> >Of course, the checkpoint folks had no way of knowing the mother is
> >a highly rated talk show host in LA. They had, inadvertently, given
> >her several day's worth of talk subjects. And the listenrs called in
> >quantity to tell other similar tales of horror. This is the price of
> >freedom?
>
> No, freedom is much more costly. Generations of Americans
> could affirm that.
Yes, including some purple heart recipients.
> The trifling incident you describe is entirely
> understandable given the numbers of Mexicans stumbling over themselves
> to get into this country
I can understand the motivations of a mugger: he wants my money. Does
this justify it?
> and to the high quality of their forged
> documents.
Only Mexicans have high quality forged documents. There must be an ISO
9000 forging house out there. Maybe other aliens should start buying
from it. Do you have its URL?
> But the price of freedom must seem high to the mother and
> other Mexicans who aren't willing to remain in their own country and
> pay the price to change its system. How precious that a brief
> exchange at the border is such a high price to *pay*.
>
By "those who are not willing to remain in their own country" you must
mean all those Europeans that left because the law was after them or
were suffering the tyranny of a king. They should have paid "the price
to change the system" of their mother country, right? And what you
dismissively called a brief exchange at the border was the harassing of
a handicapped child!!!! How callous and imbecile can you be!!!????
pompon...@my-deja.com
cab...@webtv.net (cabezon Reyna) wrote:
> Are you an asshole or a servant? Maybe people treat you the way you
> expect them to.
>
seem to go by the Napoleonic code of "guilty until proven innocent".
Douglas Long
<urrutia...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>Ey, Pomponio, que no sabes que esta's comentando acerca del coeficiente
>de la imbecilidad de Douglas K. Long, muy conocido en estas parte como
>el pendejo de Arlington que se cree la Gran Cagada y no llega ni a
>cerote? Ya hasta le pusieron el "village idiot."
>
>Pa' que pierdes el tiempo contesta'ndole?
Poor Manny. Ad homs, censorship ... anything but be defeated
again in an argument. How's that Affirmative Action job working out
at UCLA?
Douglas Long
>> No, freedom is much more costly. Generations of Americans
>> could affirm that.
>Yes, including some purple heart recipients.
>> The trifling incident you describe is entirely
>> understandable given the numbers of Mexicans stumbling over themselves
>> to get into this country
>I can understand the motivations of a mugger: he wants my money. Does
>this justify it?
Customs and border patrol aren't muggers. In fact, they're
instruments of the law. Try again.
>> and to the high quality of their forged
>> documents.
>Only Mexicans have high quality forged documents. There must be an ISO
>9000 forging house out there. Maybe other aliens should start buying
>from it. Do you have its URL?
Why bother with the URL. If you live in LA, all you need to
do is step out in public, toss a brick in any direction, and it's
likely to hit someone selling forged documents.
>> But the price of freedom must seem high to the mother and
>> other Mexicans who aren't willing to remain in their own country and
>> pay the price to change its system. How precious that a brief
>> exchange at the border is such a high price to *pay*.
>By "those who are not willing to remain in their own country" you must
>mean all those Europeans that left because the law was after them or
>were suffering the tyranny of a king.
Actually, no. The Europeans arrived here as colonists and
founded this country. Their descendants sacrificed and endured
hardship to settle and civilize this country. The illegals arrive
here to get in the chow line.
>They should have paid "the price
>to change the system" of their mother country, right? And what you
>dismissively called a brief exchange at the border was the harassing of
>a handicapped child!!!! How callous and imbecile can you be!!!????
Asking questions at the border is harassing? You *are*
sensitive.
David Gleason
Douglas Long <DKL...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:36b22ec3...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Sat, 28 Aug 1999 15:13:32 -0700, "David Gleason"
> <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Of course, the checkpoint folks had no way of knowing the mother is a
highly
> >rated talk show host in LA. They had, inadvertently, given her several
day's
> >worth of talk subjects. And the listenrs called in quantity to tell other
> >similar tales of horror. This is the price of freedom?
>
> understandable given the numbers of Mexicans stumbling over themselves
> documents. But the price of freedom must seem high to the mother and
> other Mexicans who aren't willing to remain in their own country and
> pay the price to change its system. How precious that a brief
> exchange at the border is such a high price to *pay*.
Clarification for university graduates who can't read: The girl is a second
generation, and speaks no Spanish. Her English, as mentioned, is typical of
the legally deaf who have minimal hearing: vocal sounds of high and low
pitch are altered due to the speaker's inability to hear these tones.
Being a border whatcahmacallit is no excuse to be rude to a handicapped
person and 1) not listen to a proficient English speaker, her mother, who
wanted to explain "she is deaf," b) starting to take her to an interrogation
room and speaking only in Spanish, which she did not understand, 3) failure
to get a person who signed, and 4) refusing to look at the documentation in
her possession. All due to being something other than ghost-white. The
mother, by the way, is not Mexican. She is of Mexican heritage. Just like
I'm not Irish.
Now I understand why your history studies don't seem to have benefited you:
you are so blinded by bile and hatred that you modify everything you read to
fit you agenda, throwing away the chaff of truth and swallowing only the
innuendo and exaggeration.
David Gleason
> >Read the description of what happened again, imbecile. An asshole was
> >badgering a deaf child who had more than adequate documentation.
>
> They asked questions....IMO, they sure didn't "harass". [By the way, if
you're
> going to refer back to past portions of this thread, it would help if you
> re-quoted them again...]
If only they had asked questions politely and slowly so the girl (age 19)
could read lips and respond. No, they immediately started saying that she
was an alien and illegal because she could not understand a person who was
yelling and not looking directly at the deaf person who lip reads. We spend
billions on the handicapped programs, and then go and have the government
itself engage in egregious discrimination and crass rudeness.
Refusing to let the deaf girl's mother speak and explain that the girl was
legally deaf is not harassment or at least discriminatory and cruel
treatment? Taking her towards an interrogation room and speaking in Spanish
which she could not lip read is not harassment? Refusing to look at the
passport which was, although expired, legal proof of citizenship by the law
to reenter the US is not harassment? This only happened because the girl was
not pure white. I was next to her, and was just waved by and had to show
nothing. Yet the same agent immediately began yelling at the girl and
refusing to let her speak in the slower manner of the deaf and explain
herself in English.
Nice try, but that is not fair, right or proper.
David Gleason
J. Manuel Urrutia <urrutia...@ucla.edu> wrote in message
news:37CACDD8...@ucla.edu...
> David Gleason wrote:
> >
> SNIP...
> > Of course, the checkpoint folks had no way of knowing the mother is a
highly
> > rated talk show host in LA. They had, inadvertently, given her several
day's
> > worth of talk subjects. And the listenrs called in quantity to tell
other
> > similar tales of horror. This is the price of freedom?
>
> sintoni'a, por favor)?
Amalia González. KTNQ, LA 1020 AM, 11 AM to 1 PM. She is also the program
director and head of a womens charity foundation. Been on LA radio and TV
(Univision) for about 20 years.
>
> SNIP...
> > This is an interesting sidebar. I'll have to suggest that as an on-air
> > subject. I may even call Hugo de la Cruz and suggest he talk about it on
"Y
> > Ahora Ud. Opina" on KGBT, too!
>
> Ditto. Ahora ya tengo AM en el radio de mi carro ;-)
>
>
> BTW, is there a transcript offered in the Web? If not, have you thought
> about it?
Most talk stations don't even record the shows, let alone produce
transcripts.
pompon...@my-deja.com
DKL...@mindspring.com (Douglas Long) wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 13:29:51 GMT, pompon...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> Customs and border patrol aren't muggers. In fact, they're
> instruments of the law. Try again.
>
So were the einzatskommandos, instruments of the Nuremberg Laws. The
INS and Border Patrols are behaving like cowardly assholes when they
harrass law abiding citizens.
> >> and to the high quality of their forged
> >> documents.
>
> >Only Mexicans have high quality forged documents. There must be an
ISO
> >9000 forging house out there. Maybe other aliens should start buying
> >from it. Do you have its URL?
>
> Why bother with the URL. If you live in LA, all you need to
> do is step out in public, toss a brick in any direction, and it's
> likely to hit someone selling forged documents.
Seems like the INS would do better to clean that up instead of messing
with taxpayers on the border.
> Actually, no. The Europeans arrived here as colonists
Ohmigod, are you really Mamaleuna? I cannot imagine there would be two
of you! There were hundreds of thousands of indentured servants,
debtors, highwaymen/thieves who were offered banishment or the rope,
etc., etc. That was just under the brit rule. Then came the Germans,
coming in as King George's mercenaries, etc. A hard profession, but if
you took the king's pence you had to march off to some god-forsaken
place! Then the Irish arrive half-starved. Next come the Jews fleeing
the pogroms, Russians fleeing the revolution...etc..etc... Hardly the
picture you propose of the dainty gentlemen sailing into
Manhattan drinking tea with their pinky in the air...more like "kill me
another bilge rat, Joe/Sean/Schlomo/Jose, so we can eat tonight"...
> and
> founded this country. Their descendants sacrificed and endured
> hardship
Consider the Pilgrims. They get over here, without papers, pretty wet
after the Mayflower trip. No useful skills. Half of them starve before
the local socialist government (an Indian tribe) extends the safety net
and gives them some vocational education plus the 17th century
equivalent of food stamps. Sure they are thankful, that first winter,
and to prove it they proceed to kill off all the Indians that helped
them survive. So, you have a country whose founding fathers were
illegal alien, ingrate, welfare mothers.
> to settle and civilize this country. The illegals arrive
> here to get in the chow line.
>
You mean, like the Plymouth Rock crowd? Anyway, how many illegal aliens
receive food stamps? How much do they produce in aggregate value and
taxes? How does that compare to the corporate welfare system?
> >a handicapped child!!!! How callous and imbecile can you be!!!????
>
> Asking questions at the border is harassing? You *are*
> sensitive.
Read the description of what happened again, imbecile. An asshole was
badgering a deaf child who had more than adequate documentation. If
they do that to an adult man, well, that's the breaks. I will get
pissed, but so what? But to a handicapped child? It was bullshit and
if you had the least thread of decency you would recognize it to be so.
pompon...@my-deja.com
una guerca chenchita. Ya mejor ni le sigo a este cabron. Bueno, la
ultima:
Ah, the wonders of affirmative action...it is evident that UT-Arlington
needed to fill its quota of imbeciles and recruited DK Long.
ClockWFT
>expect them to.
Civility is a learned habit...:o(
ClockWFT
>>This I had not heard about. In what ways has
>>the INS been "harassing"? To what extent
>>that workers are in fact working in the US legally?
>>
>David Glaser wrote:
>Well, all you need to do is to go to the McAllen
>Airport and sit in the lobby. The INS or Border
>Patrol will show up before airplane departures
>and will ask brown people for their papers.
>Don't matter if you speak perfect english, you still get asked.
clockwft wrote:
I still fail to see how "asking" equates to "harassment".
>However, they do not ask anglos for their
>papers.
>
Just as, if there were an illegal immigrant problem to the north, I would
expect to see such questions almost exclusively directed at "anglo"-types..
>Seems to me that out of fairness, they should
>ask at least one or two anglos.
>
Which they probably do....
>It is particularly bad when you have a community that is on the banks of the
>river itself. Places like Ysleta (near elpaso), El Cenizo, Roma, etc.
>Those are perfect places for an illegal border crosser to mix in with the
>population. The INS/Border Patrol go in there assuming that everying is an
>illegal alien.
>
Probably. So? All that is required is for the legal residents to have
citizen-proving paperwork on them.
ClockWFT
>>Customs and border patrol aren't muggers.
>>In fact, they're instruments of the law. Try again.
>>
>
>pomponio wrote:
>So were the einzatskommandos, instruments
>of the Nuremberg Laws.
clockwft wrote:
Sorry....no buyers for this absurd comparison.
>The INS and Border Patrols are behaving like
>cowardly assholes when they harrass law abiding
>citizens.
>
No wonder words like "harassment", "genocide", "holocaust" and "ethnic
cleansing" have lost so much of their meaning....
>>Actually, no. The Europeans arrived here
>>as colonists
>
>Ohmigod, are you really Mamaleuna? I cannot imagine there would be two
>of you! There were hundreds of thousands of indentured servants,
>debtors, highwaymen/thieves who were offered banishment or the rope,
>etc., etc.
With updated terminology and circumstances, aren't these same types among the
illegals today?
>>
>>Their descendants sacrificed and endured
>> hardship
>
>Consider the Pilgrims. They get over here, without papers,
True. Nobody had "papers" then, including those even earlier illegal
immigrants...:o(
>No useful skills.
Bull Durham...
>Half of them starve before the local socialist government (an Indian tribe)
extends the safety net
>and gives them some vocational education plus the 17th century
>equivalent of food stamps. Sure they are thankful, that first winter,
>and to prove it
>they proceed to kill off all the Indians that helped
>them survive.
They did no such thing.
>> >a handicapped child!!!! How callous and imbecile can you be!!!????
>>
>> Asking questions at the border is harassing? You *are*
>> sensitive.
>
>Read the description of what happened again, imbecile. An asshole was
>badgering a deaf child who had more than adequate documentation.
They asked questions....IMO, they sure didn't "harass". [By the way, if you're
Douglas Long
>> >Ey, Pomponio, que no sabes que esta's comentando acerca del
>> >coeficiente de la imbecilidad de Douglas K. Long, muy conocido en
>> >estas parte como el pendejo de Arlington que se cree la Gran Cagada y
>> >no llega ni a cerote? Ya hasta le pusieron el "village idiot."
>> >
>> >Pa' que pierdes el tiempo contesta'ndole?
>>
>> Poor Manny. Ad homs, censorship ... anything but be defeated
>> again in an argument. How's that Affirmative Action job working out
>> at UCLA?
>>
>Tienes razon Urrutia. Es que me encabrono lo de la chavita porque tengo
>una guerca chenchita. Ya mejor ni le sigo a este cabron. Bueno, la
>ultima:
Sure. Urrutia has about as much "razon" as he needs, which,
given his Affirmative Action employment, isn't much.
>Ah, the wonders of affirmative action...it is evident that UT-Arlington
>needed to fill its quota of imbeciles and recruited DK Long.
For someone with no arguments, you ought to be careful calling
anyone else an imbecile.
Douglas Long
>> Customs and border patrol aren't muggers. In fact, they're
>> instruments of the law. Try again.
>So were the einzatskommandos, instruments of the Nuremberg Laws. The
>INS and Border Patrols are behaving like cowardly assholes when they
>harrass law abiding citizens.
So American immigration law is comparable to the Nuremberg
Laws? I see.
>> >> and to the high quality of their forged
>> >> documents.
>> >Only Mexicans have high quality forged documents. There must be an
>ISO
>> >9000 forging house out there. Maybe other aliens should start buying
>> >from it. Do you have its URL?
>> Why bother with the URL. If you live in LA, all you need to
>> do is step out in public, toss a brick in any direction, and it's
>> likely to hit someone selling forged documents.
>Seems like the INS would do better to clean that up instead of messing
>with taxpayers on the border.
Actually the problem of illegal immigration should be a target
of aggressive action on all fronts.
>> Actually, no. The Europeans arrived here as colonists
>Ohmigod, are you really Mamaleuna? I cannot imagine there would be two
>of you! There were hundreds of thousands of indentured servants,
>debtors, highwaymen/thieves who were offered banishment or the rope,
>etc., etc. That was just under the brit rule. Then came the Germans,
>coming in as King George's mercenaries, etc. A hard profession, but if
>you took the king's pence you had to march off to some god-forsaken
>place! Then the Irish arrive half-starved. Next come the Jews fleeing
>the pogroms, Russians fleeing the revolution...etc..etc... Hardly the
>picture you propose of the dainty gentlemen sailing into
>Manhattan drinking tea with their pinky in the air...more like "kill me
>another bilge rat, Joe/Sean/Schlomo/Jose, so we can eat tonight"...
Your mix of half-truth and myth is entertaining, but not much
else. Read some history.
>> and
>> founded this country. Their descendants sacrificed and endured
>> hardship
>Consider the Pilgrims. They get over here, without papers, pretty wet
>after the Mayflower trip. No useful skills. Half of them starve before
>the local socialist government (an Indian tribe) extends the safety net
>and gives them some vocational education plus the 17th century
>equivalent of food stamps. Sure they are thankful, that first winter,
>and to prove it they proceed to kill off all the Indians that helped
>them survive. So, you have a country whose founding fathers were
>illegal alien, ingrate, welfare mothers.
Again, half-truth and myth. By the way, are you claiming that
the Pilgrims weren't colonists and didn't endure hardship?
>> to settle and civilize this country. The illegals arrive
>> here to get in the chow line.
>You mean, like the Plymouth Rock crowd? Anyway, how many illegal aliens
>receive food stamps? How much do they produce in aggregate value and
>taxes? How does that compare to the corporate welfare system?
You do cover the map; unfortunately, you go nowhere. What
does any of it have to do with the fact that hundreds of thousands of
illegal aliens from Mexico arrive here every year to join the millions
already occupying sections of this country? By the way, you might
read some GAO reports and other studies that establish that illegals
cost this country tnes of billions per year beyond whatever they might
pay in taxes.
>> >a handicapped child!!!! How callous and imbecile can you be!!!????
>> Asking questions at the border is harassing? You *are*
>> sensitive.
>Read the description of what happened again, imbecile. An asshole was
>badgering a deaf child who had more than adequate documentation. If
>they do that to an adult man, well, that's the breaks. I will get
>pissed, but so what? But to a handicapped child? It was bullshit and
>if you had the least thread of decency you would recognize it to be so.
What I recognize is that someone didn't realize he was dealing
with a deaf person or suspected the deaf person might not have been
deaf. I applaude the man's initiative. I also recognize that those
without arguments these days tend to wave babies, and all the better
if the babies are handicapped. Get an argument.
Douglas Long
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>> No, freedom is much more costly. Generations of Americans
>> could affirm that. The trifling incident you describe is entirely
>> understandable given the numbers of Mexicans stumbling over themselves
>> to get into this country and to the high quality of their forged
>> documents. But the price of freedom must seem high to the mother and
>> other Mexicans who aren't willing to remain in their own country and
>> pay the price to change its system. How precious that a brief
>> exchange at the border is such a high price to *pay*.
>Clarification for university graduates who can't read: The girl is a second
>generation, and speaks no Spanish. Her English, as mentioned, is typical of
>the legally deaf who have minimal hearing: vocal sounds of high and low
>pitch are altered due to the speaker's inability to hear these tones.
And the border patrolman was briefed on all this, or was he
clairvoyant?
>Being a border whatcahmacallit is no excuse to be rude to a handicapped
>person and 1) not listen to a proficient English speaker, her mother, who
>wanted to explain "she is deaf," b) starting to take her to an interrogation
>room and speaking only in Spanish, which she did not understand, 3) failure
>to get a person who signed, and 4) refusing to look at the documentation in
>her possession. All due to being something other than ghost-white. The
>mother, by the way, is not Mexican. She is of Mexican heritage. Just like
>I'm not Irish.
So evidently you've been briefed by the border patrol about
the motives of the inspector. I see.
>Now I understand why your history studies don't seem to have benefited you:
>you are so blinded by bile and hatred that you modify everything you read to
>fit you agenda, throwing away the chaff of truth and swallowing only the
>innuendo and exaggeration.
How gratuitous. Is that a little show for the homeboys, or
what? By the way, if you want innuendo and exaggeration, continue to
read this news group.
Douglas Long
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>Nice try, but that is not fair, right or proper.
Sure. Maybe you ought to try dealing with thousands of
shiester border crossers every day and then you might know what's
right and proper.
J. Manuel Urrutia
>
SNIP...
> How gratuitous. Is that a little show for the homeboys, or
> what? By the way, if you want innuendo and exaggeration, continue to
> read this news group.
As usual, Douggie had to come back and inflame the outrage of the
"homeboys" (his word). Don't you guys know any better? Have you
forgotten that our very own village idiot got booted off the
UT-Arlington system because of his usual behavior? Haven't you noticed
that he had to get a private IP?
Why assume that reasoning with Douggie is going to change his mind?
After all, he has called for pill-boxes on the border as well as "shoot
on sight" orders in the past. Why are you surprised that he would see
nothing wrong with that INS drone being an asshole?
I mean, if you are going to flame or bait the idiot to see how far out
on a limb he is going to go, go right ahead. But if you intend to sway
him by reason, you are wasting your time and bandwidth. (BTW, did you
catch his use of the word "shiester" to describe border crossers? Was he
referring to lawyers or "tourists" from Europe? Methinks that he hates
lawyers as well ;-)
ClockWFT
>>>badgering a deaf child who had more than
>>>adequate documentation.
>>
>> They asked questions....IMO, they sure didn't
>>"harass". [By the way, if you're going to refer
>>back to past portions of this thread, it would
>>help if you re-quoted them again...]
>
>If only they had asked questions politely and
>slowly so the girl (age 19) could read lips and
>respond.
clockwft wrote:
This presumes that they were aware of her condition. Without a full account of
the event's circumstances and the words spoken, I for one do not feel justified
in tossing out accusations and/or allegations in *any* direction.
>No, they immediately started saying that she
>was an alien and illegal because she could
>not understand a person who was yelling and
>not looking directly at the deaf person who
>lip reads.
Even with this incomplete and "one side's perspective" account of what
transpired, this is IMO something in the neighborhood of misunderstanding or
miscommunication, *not* "harassment" and/or "badgering".
>We spend billions on the handicapped programs,
>and then go and have the government itself
>engage in egregious discrimination and crass
>rudeness.
>
I've seen nothing that indicates "discrimination". And the allegation of
rudeness is built on the assumption that one only consider one side's
perspective.
>Refusing to let the deaf girl's mother speak and explain that the girl was
>legally deaf is not harassment or at least discriminatory and cruel
>treatment?
Even based on the one-sided perspective presented here, no.
And until I am able to read through the words & circumstances of this event, no
amount of "one side only" information is going to convince me to "rush to
judgment".
>Taking her towards an interrogation room and
>speaking in Spanish which she could not lip
>read is not harassment?
Nope.
>Refusing to look at the passport which was,
>although expired, legal proof of citizenship
>by the law to reenter the US is not harassment?
An expired passport is neither "proof" of citizenship nor adaquate to allow
reentry into the US.
>This only happened because the girl was not pure white.
Since this accusation of yours presupposes a knowledge of the agents'
motivation in the area of "race", please the basis of your "knowledge".
d...@cheetah.net
<urrutia...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>As usual, Douggie had to come back and inflame the outrage of the
>"homeboys" (his word). Don't you guys know any better? Have you
>forgotten that our very own village idiot got booted off the
>UT-Arlington system because of his usual behavior? Haven't you noticed
>that he had to get a private IP?
>
>Why assume that reasoning with Douggie is going to change his mind?
>After all, he has called for pill-boxes on the border as well as "shoot
>on sight" orders in the past. Why are you surprised that he would see
>nothing wrong with that INS drone being an asshole?
>
>I mean, if you are going to flame or bait the idiot to see how far out
>on a limb he is going to go, go right ahead. But if you intend to sway
>him by reason, you are wasting your time and bandwidth. (BTW, did you
>catch his use of the word "shiester" to describe border crossers? Was he
>referring to lawyers or "tourists" from Europe? Methinks that he hates
>lawyers as well ;-)
Dr. J. Manuel Urrutia,
The sloth, two toed or three toed,
can move slowly through the trees,
always just a reach and grab away
from danger. This animal has amazing
physiological characteristics, a very
slow pulse rate, an almost spasticity
in movement, an extreme passivity in
the most hostile environment. And a
sure passivity to a friendly one.
Animals of prey, such as the big cats,
get so frustrated trying to catch the
sloth. Just about the time a leopard,
for instance, reaches the limb where
the sloth hangs, when the cat reaches
out for a sure dinner, the sloth just
swings out, drops down or grabs a higher
branch and move to another safe distance.
In some cases, this pursuit can go on
until the leopard simply gives up and
moves on to something seemingly more
easy to catch.
So as we encounter the sloths of any
newsgroup, just remember, it's their tree.
By leaving them there, we can more easily
observe them . . . and seek more interesting
things to whet our intellectual appetites.
The sloth has had little or any impact on
public policy save for placing them on an
endangered species list.
DCI
David Gleason
> >>> David Gleason(?) wrote:
> >>>badgering a deaf child who had more than
> >>>adequate documentation.
> >>
> >>clockwft wrote:
> >> They asked questions....IMO, they sure didn't
> >>"harass". [By the way, if you're going to refer
> >>back to past portions of this thread, it would
> >>help if you re-quoted them again...]
> >
> >David Gleason wrote:
> >If only they had asked questions politely and
> >slowly so the girl (age 19) could read lips and
> >respond.
>
> clockwft wrote:
> This presumes that they were aware of her condition. Without a full
account of
> the event's circumstances and the words spoken, I for one do not feel
justified
> in tossing out accusations and/or allegations in *any* direction.
When she tried to explain, when her mother tried, when I tried, the agent
would not listen. The point being that the ID was valid for reentry and no
questions should have been asked at all.
>
> >No, they immediately started saying that she
> >was an alien and illegal because she could
> >not understand a person who was yelling and
> >not looking directly at the deaf person who
> >lip reads.
>
> Even with this incomplete and "one side's perspective" account of what
> transpired, this is IMO something in the neighborhood of misunderstanding
or
> miscommunication, *not* "harassment" and/or "badgering".
"Incomplete and onsided?" What is incomplete about a person showing two
forms of valid reentry information and having that information ignored
because the person tried to explain that they could not hear? And then the
people with the girl tried to explain and were threatened for intefering?
>
> >We spend billions on the handicapped programs,
> >and then go and have the government itself
> >engage in egregious discrimination and crass
> >rudeness.
> >
> I've seen nothing that indicates "discrimination". And the allegation of
> rudeness is built on the assumption that one only consider one side's
> perspective.
Do you realize how idiotic this statement is? Situation clear: person in
line. Person presents ID and is white. Person passed into US. Next person in
line. Person is brown. ID not looked at. Person spoken to in language they
don't understand. When no answer , told to go to an interrogation room.
People with the person object, say, "She can't her you. She is legally deaf"
Persons told to butt out or they would be detained.
>
> >Refusing to let the deaf girl's mother speak and explain that the girl
was
> >legally deaf is not harassment or at least discriminatory and cruel
> >treatment?
>
> Even based on the one-sided perspective presented here, no.
Then what is the treatment? Remember, there was not need to even talk to the
person... she had two forms of legal picture ID with clear photos and one of
the items, a US passport, said place of birth to be somewhere in CA?
And, when the "whities" were not even spoken to?
>
> And until I am able to read through the words & circumstances of this
event, no
> amount of "one side only" information is going to convince me to "rush to
> judgment".
>
> >Taking her towards an interrogation room and
> >speaking in Spanish which she could not lip
> >read is not harassment?
>
> Nope.
I guess it is not harassment. I think, in retrospect, it is torture. The
girl now despises anything to do with the INS, and is scared to travel.
>
> >Refusing to look at the passport which was,
> >although expired, legal proof of citizenship
> >by the law to reenter the US is not harassment?
>
> An expired passport is neither "proof" of citizenship nor adaquate to
allow
> reentry into the US.
Wrong. It is totally acceptable. It is foreign countries that requre a valid
passport. An expired on in the US is considered adequate proof of
citizenship. I have reentered twice in my life on expired passports after
consulting in the US Consulate where I was as to the situation. A passport
is granted based on citizenship. Proof of citizenship must be given. The
passport thus becomes, dead or alive, a proof.
>
> >This only happened because the girl was not pure white.
>
> Since this accusation of yours presupposes a knowledge of the agents'
> motivation in the area of "race", please the basis of your "knowledge".
When I see a line of maybe 50 people ahead of me where no white "Anglo
looking" person has to present any ID, one after another, and are waved by
with no question, and then a person with ID who looks different is stopped,
treated rudely, without even looking at the extended ID, I'd say that this
is not fair treatment. BTW, a radio show on the subject brought dozens and
dozens of similar and worse experiences.
David Gleason
> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 23:42:24 -0700, "David Gleason"
> <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
> >Clarification for university graduates who can't read: The girl is a
second
> >generation, and speaks no Spanish. Her English, as mentioned, is typical
of
> >the legally deaf who have minimal hearing: vocal sounds of high and low
> >pitch are altered due to the speaker's inability to hear these tones.
>
> And the border patrolman was briefed on all this, or was he
> clairvoyant?
This is not as if she was the only deaf person in the world. I'll bet she
was not the only one who crosses the border, either. When an explaation was
made by the people with her, those persons were threatened with arrest or
detention for interference with her job ("Ill have you detained for
interfering."
>
> >Being a border whatcahmacallit is no excuse to be rude to a handicapped
> >person and 1) not listen to a proficient English speaker, her mother, who
> >wanted to explain "she is deaf," b) starting to take her to an
interrogation
> >room and speaking only in Spanish, which she did not understand, 3)
failure
> >to get a person who signed, and 4) refusing to look at the documentation
in
> >her possession. All due to being something other than ghost-white. The
> >mother, by the way, is not Mexican. She is of Mexican heritage. Just like
> >I'm not Irish.
>
> So evidently you've been briefed by the border patrol about
> the motives of the inspector. I see.
No, you don't. What you would have seen is all the white folks going by with
nary a question and one darker skinned person being rudly treated despite
having better ID (the others, like myself, were using California Driver
Licences, which were not looked at) and having that ID held out precisely
becasue she knew she would not be able to hear any questions in the loud
environment.
>
> >Now I understand why your history studies don't seem to have benefited
you:
> >you are so blinded by bile and hatred that you modify everything you read
to
> >fit you agenda, throwing away the chaff of truth and swallowing only the
> >innuendo and exaggeration.
>
> How gratuitous. Is that a little show for the homeboys, or
> what? By the way, if you want innuendo and exaggeration, continue to
> read this news group.
I stand by this. You use history to prove your prejudices. You have done
this over and over. Anyone who reads this group sees it constantly.
Tim
news:dOfz3.258$526....@typhoon-la.pbi.net...
> When I see a line of maybe 50 people ahead of me where no white "Anglo
> looking" person has to present any ID, one after another, and are waved by
> with no question, and then a person with ID who looks different is
stopped,
> treated rudely, without even looking at the extended ID, I'd say that this
> is not fair treatment. BTW, a radio show on the subject brought dozens and
> dozens of similar and worse experiences.
Yes, this happens. It occurs everywhere, although some people are ruder
about it than others. Americans have a particular reputation, but there's
probably not another country in the world that faces similar challenges,
when it comes to illegal entry. When I was in Europe, they would ask for
passports on the trains and buses. For the most part I could just sit there
and look Swedish, Danish, what not, while the other non-Europeans showed
proof with appropriate documentation. Didn't work for me in Italy tho...
Nopalito
"Tim" <nada> wrote:
> David Gleason <da...@davidgleason.com> wrote in message
> news:dOfz3.258$526....@typhoon-la.pbi.net...
>
> > "Anglo looking" person has to present any ID, one after another, and
> > are waved by with no question, and then a person with ID who looks >
> > different is stopped,
> > treated rudely, without even looking at the extended ID, I'd say
> > that this is not fair treatment.
Indeed, and you're not the first to witness that kind of thing. I find
it odd that you've been challenged on this when you were the one who was
physically there to witness what you've described, which you did in a
way that did not speak of an "agenda," and was not exaggerated or
overly-emotional.
In the past year, I travelled twice between Mexico and the US. In the
first instance, my travelling partner, who is Mexican by birth (now an
American citizen) was asked to show documentation upon re-entering the
USA, whereas I was just waved through (I'm what you might call
"Anglo-appearing," although not "Anglo" literally. My friend is very
brown, but hardly goes around wearing "Mexican-looking" clothing. Hell,
he's ten times more "American-appearing" than me, as I see it.) Oddly
enough, he was also stopped and asked for papers everywhere *within*
Mexico, whereas I was never once questioned, not even by Federales
during their routine highway drug checks...only the "obvious" Mexicans
were suspected. In the second instance, my friend, Nicaraguan by birth
but now a USA citizen, was questioned sternly upon returning at the
TJ/San Ysidro checkpoint, whereas I was not. She speaks fluent English,
but the agent began by asking *me* "Is she an American citizen?" Weird.
She wasn't at all offended, just laughed it off, but I thought that the
presumption that she wouldn't understand questions in English was
ignorant. I know that border agents can't be expected to be happy-face
customer service specialists, nor should they be, but what I've seen
seemed a little less than professional or realistic.
> Yes, this happens. It occurs everywhere, although some people are
> ruder
> about it than others.
The only place I was ever treated rudely was in Germany, in a bizarre
case of detainment. My friend on that trip is a guy who has tattooed
arms. The officers who searched us explained that tatoos are considered
a potential sign of terrorists in Germany, which I found hard to
believe. I think they just wanted to show a little muscle, but they
ended up seeming embarrassed by their own behavior.
Anyway, it sounds to me like the unfortunate deaf girl encountered a
real hothead. I don't know how common such incidents are, but as
described, it was certainly needlessly abusive. Threatening those who
tried to simply explain that she was deaf is pathetic.
- Dean
David Gleason
I'm going to shorten this... under the full recognition that you don't want
to accept that a border official could have erred.
> >When she tried to explain, when her mother
> >tried, when I tried, the agent would not listen.
>
> I do not dispute the information you've supplied so far. I simply prefer
more
> information (ie. an account of what was said, in what order, etc.),
including
> at least *something* giving the agent's perspective, before accepting any
> pronouncement such as yours.
The agent started speaking Spanish to the Girl after looking at her. Bad
Spanish; so bad I could not understand it. So there is nothing to say about
the guard's perspective. I mentined this before. When, in English the mother
and I both tried to explain, "she'ds deaf" we were threatened detention for
interference. End of guard's participation. Nonresident and resident aliens
must show papers.
>
> >The point being that the ID was valid for reentry
> >and no questions should have been asked at all.
>
> I don't believe that an expired passport is considered "adaquate ID" for
entry
> at any time.
Then why does eveyone at Tijuana get back in with a CDL? The passport,
expired or not, is not required for born US citizens. In any case, as I ave
mentioned, I have entered the US several times after my passport expired
using that alone. This is more than valid ID for a born US citizen i the
border zone on a daytrip crossing.
I have been to Tijuana many times on a CDL alone. Never needed any ID to get
into Mexico and usually not even the CDL was asked for on the return.
>
> >"Incomplete and onsided?"
>
> Yep. I have heard or read absolutely nothing even remotely attempting to
> present the agent's perspective.
As stated, the woman started to talked the girl to the rooms market for
detention and interrogation of aliens. She started speaking bad Spanish to
the girl, which none of us understood.
>
> >What is incomplete about a person showing two
> >forms of valid reentry information
>
> I must have missed something. What were those "two forms"? [An expired
passport
> is not considered legal *or* valid proof of this...]
Any passport is proof of birth. I've don that often. second ID was a CDL
(California Driver License if you are nto from here) which is all that is
required if they decide to check ID at all. As said above, Iv've been to
Tijuana and the area countless times on just the CDL.
>
> >> I've seen nothing that indicates "discrimination". And the allegation
of
> >> rudeness is built on the assumption that one only consider one side's
> >> perspective.
Refusing tollok at the ID is not rude? So, you are saying that going on a
sterotype is OK and it is not rude to ignore documentation.
>
> >person in line. Person presents ID and is white.
> >Person passed into US. Next person in line.
> >Person is brown. ID not looked at. Person spoken
> >to in language they don't understand. When
> >no answer , told to go to an interrogation room.
> >People with the person object, say, "She can't her you. She is legally
deaf"
>
> Here's one point. There is a rarther large gap between not being able to
hear
> others (ie. DEAF) and "legally deaf".
A "legally deaf" person hears minimally under optimal conditions. A concrete
walled and roofed room, with maybe 500 yammering and impatient tourists in
it, is impossible to ;understand by a person of that dcondition as hearing
aids pick up and amplify all the midrange sounds making speech hard to
distinguish. Have you ever covered one ear and put on an in-ear device? It
is a totally different world, with sounds being almost impossible to
understand initially... and bacground nois is very much amplified.
The girl in question uderstands good English, spoken directly so that she
can combine lip-reading with the hearing aid. She can not watch TV at all
without captions. She is legally handicapped and on SSI disabilty.
>
> >Persons told to butt out or they would be detained.
>
> I'm sure they said "butt out".
I already said what was said...roughly, "You shut up or I'll have you
detained for interfering with an officer." Or words almost exactly like
those. This was when I made hand gestures to someone who appeared to be a
supervisor (and was).
>
> >> >Refusing to let the deaf girl's mother speak and explain that the girl
> >was
> >> >legally deaf is not harassment or at least discriminatory and cruel
> >> >treatment?
> >>
> >> Even based on the one-sided perspective presented here, no.
> >
> >Then what is the treatment? Remember, there was not need to even talk to
the
> >person... she had two forms of legal picture ID with clear photos and one
of
> >the items, a US passport, said place of birth to be somewhere in CA?
> >
> Any of them current?
CDL current. Passport is valid as ID but not for entry into a foreign
country requiring same, as noted.
The rule at border crosspoints for US citizens returning after day trips is
a driver license with current address, a birth certificate, passport (valid
or not with arecognizable picture), etc.
From the INS website: "A U.S. citizen must present a passport if traveling
from outside of the western hemisphere (The western hemisphere is North,
Central, and South America). If traveling from inside the Western
Hemisphere, any proof of U.S. citizenship that clearly establishes identity
and nationality is permitted such as a birth record or baptismal record. "
At locations such as TIjuana, where thousands of tourists go daily, a
drivers license is accepted... if you don't believ em, ask openly on this ng
as I'm sure many have had the experience of reentry.
> >And, when the "whities" were not even spoken to?
> >
> Here's another reason I am not about to accept your rendition of events
and
> words. I have read NOTHING that even hints that "race" was a factor in
this
> event. The fact that the person just before was "white" is IMO irrelevant.
I
> have SEEN "whites" detained for questioning at various borders, *including
the
> US-Mexico one.
Yes, but at least 50 with no question, no ID... and then to stop the
non-white and ignore the ID. You are trying to save a situation that was
just wrong.
>
> >The girl now despises anything to do with the
> >INS, and is scared to travel.
>
> I see. You lingered long enough after the events to come to this
diagnosis?
The girl was in my group... or the group I was a part of... which included
about a half dozen persons. Two were legal resident aliens, the other 4 were
born US citizens. The girl refuses to go anywhere abroad, and turned down a
free trip to Europe and the Middle east this year because of it.
> >> >Refusing to look at the passport which was,
> >> >although expired, legal proof of citizenship
> >> >by the law to reenter the US is not harassment?
> >>
> >> An expired passport is neither "proof" of citizenship nor adaquate to
allow reentry into the US.
Wrong. It is considered proof of birth, as the passport, whether expired or
not, required a birth certificate for issuance. Thus, it is a surrogate
birth certificate. birth Certificates don't expire until death. Look at the
law on border crossings: proof of citizenship is required in the law, not a
passport. In fact, a CDL is valid proof for most.
>
> >It is foreign countries that requre a valid passport.
>
> So does the US. Only on its borders with Mexico and Canada is a valid
passport
> not required.
Wrong. For treavel in the Western Hemisphere, a passport is not required on
return. Proof of citizenship is... and that proof does include an expired
passport, since that proves birth.
> >When I see a line of maybe 50 people ahead of me where no white "Anglo
> >looking" person has to present any ID, one after another, and are waved
by
> >with no question, and then a person with ID who looks different is
stopped,
> >treated rudely, without even looking at the extended ID, I'd say that
this
> >is not fair treatment.
>
> Why do you assume that the reason the person/s were detained because they
> looked different? There are many other reasons for taking such an action,
and
> since *none* of them have even been discussed here, I see no reason to
accept
> your unsupported allegation of "racism". Moreover, the fact that among
those
> who were "waved by" were some "non-anglo" looking people also makes me
question
> your assumption that the agents' actions were racially motivated.
The people I saw waved by were all very white. The only person I saw stopped
was the darker skinned girl. Later crossings have proven this to be
consistent over time.
>
> BTW, a radio show on the subject brought dozens and
> >dozens of similar and worse experiences.
> >
> So?
So, it shows that US born Hispanics are not afforded equal treatment on the
border by border agents. Including one of a person who was asked, "where are
you from" and they replied "Puerto Rico" and they were put in an examination
room for about 2 hours until the collective staff of idiots realized that
that statement qualified the person to be a born US citizen.
The point of all this, and it's getting lengthy and boring now, is to show
that "crossing while brown" subjects the individual to a higher degree of
scrutiny than whites and that the staff is often surly to Hispanics.
Except for you argument about the validity of the passport, you have
contributed nothing to an understanding of why this happens.
David Glaser
ClockWFT wrote in message <19990901202130...@ng-cb1.aol.com>...
[ ... snip ... ]
>>What is incomplete about a person showing two
>>forms of valid reentry information
>
>I must have missed something. What were those "two forms"? [An expired
passport
>is not considered legal *or* valid proof of this...]
Hmm, an expired passport is still a legal form of documentation. While on
vacation
in Mexico City, a number of years ago, all of my identification material -
birth certificate, drivers license, etc - was stolen. The only thing left
was an expired passport. I took that to the embassy and
was issued another one in two hours. That was my sole identification as a
US citizen
from then on.
[ ... snip ... ]
>>person in line. Person presents ID and is white.
>>Person passed into US. Next person in line.
>>Person is brown. ID not looked at. Person spoken
>>to in language they don't understand. When
>>no answer , told to go to an interrogation room.
>>People with the person object, say, "She can't her you. She is legally
deaf"
>
>Here's one point. There is a rarther large gap between not being able to
hear
>others (ie. DEAF) and "legally deaf".
>
WFT, Tell me, what is the large gap between not being able to hear others
and
legally deaf? I have gone from normal hearing (detect sounds at about 20db)
to
having a severe hearing disability (don't detect sounds until about 90 db of
power).
Along the way, even with hearing aids that provide in excess of 90 db of
power, I
have lost the ability to understand words - I'm lucky if I understand 15% of
the words
spoken in a quiet environment. In a noisy environment, 50 db of background
noise,
my word discrimination goes down to zero. This effect is common among the
hearing
disabled.
I can identify the situation that the girl was in. The "hearing world" does
cannot comprehend
that there are people that simply cannot understand them. Just because I
hear a sharp
noise, a coin hitting the floor, a door slamming, ... does not mean that I
can understand the
spoken word.
So, ClockWFT, don't make statements regarding "deafness" because you do not
"understand"
what it is like to be funtionally but not absolutely deaf!
-David
Douglas Long
<urrutia...@ucla.edu> wrote:
>As usual, Douggie had to come back and inflame the outrage of the
>"homeboys" (his word). Don't you guys know any better? Have you
>forgotten that our very own village idiot got booted off the
>UT-Arlington system because of his usual behavior? Haven't you noticed
>that he had to get a private IP?
Actually, despite your efforts, the sour grapes of a bad
loser, nobody booted me off anything.
>Why assume that reasoning with Douggie is going to change his mind?
>After all, he has called for pill-boxes on the border as well as "shoot
>on sight" orders in the past. Why are you surprised that he would see
>nothing wrong with that INS drone being an asshole?
I've never called for "pill-boxes" on the border. But I do
agree that one or two incidents of well-placed fire power would solve
the illegal immigration problem.
>I mean, if you are going to flame or bait the idiot to see how far out
>on a limb he is going to go, go right ahead. But if you intend to sway
>him by reason, you are wasting your time and bandwidth. (BTW, did you
>catch his use of the word "shiester" to describe border crossers? Was he
>referring to lawyers or "tourists" from Europe? Methinks that he hates
>lawyers as well ;-)
"Methinks?" You are so quaint and precious. By the way, as
your performance at argument is so woeful, stick with the ad homs and
the attempts to censor. That's what you're best at.
Douglas Long
<da...@davidgleason.com> wrote:
>No, you don't. What you would have seen is all the white folks going by with
>nary a question and one darker skinned person being rudly treated despite
>having better ID (the others, like myself, were using California Driver
>Licences, which were not looked at) and having that ID held out precisely
>becasue she knew she would not be able to hear any questions in the loud
>environment.
White Americans usually aren't the one attempting to enter the
US illegally. Acting on that obvious fact has now become, thanks to
demogoguery, some kind of sin.
>I stand by this. You use history to prove your prejudices. You have done
>this over and over. Anyone who reads this group sees it constantly.
If history proves what you call my "prejudices," then blame
history, not me.
>
ClockWFT
>> >>>badgering a deaf child who had more than
>> >>>adequate documentation.
>> >>
>> >>clockwft wrote:
>> >> They asked questions....IMO, they sure didn't
>> >>"harass". [By the way, if you're going to refer
>> >>back to past portions of this thread, it would
>> >>help if you re-quoted them again...]
>> >
>> >David Gleason wrote:
>> >If only they had asked questions politely and
>> >slowly so the girl (age 19) could read lips and
>> >respond.
>>
>> clockwft wrote:
>> This presumes that they were aware of her condition. Without a full
>account of
>> the event's circumstances and the words spoken, I for one do not feel
>justified
>> in tossing out accusations and/or allegations in *any* direction.
>
>When she tried to explain, when her mother
>tried, when I tried, the agent would not listen.
I do not dispute the information you've supplied so far. I simply prefer more
information (ie. an account of what was said, in what order, etc.), including
at least *something* giving the agent's perspective, before accepting any
pronouncement such as yours.
>The point being that the ID was valid for reentry
>and no questions should have been asked at all.
I don't believe that an expired passport is considered "adaquate ID" for entry
at any time.
>>
>> >No, they immediately started saying that she
>> >was an alien and illegal because she could
>> >not understand a person who was yelling and
>> >not looking directly at the deaf person who
>> >lip reads.
>> Even with this incomplete and "one side's perspective" account of what
>> transpired, this is IMO something in the neighborhood of misunderstanding
>or
>> miscommunication, *not* "harassment" and/or "badgering".
>
>"Incomplete and onsided?"
Yep. I have heard or read absolutely nothing even remotely attempting to
present the agent's perspective.
>What is incomplete about a person showing two
>forms of valid reentry information
I must have missed something. What were those "two forms"? [An expired passport
is not considered legal *or* valid proof of this...]
>and having that information ignored because
>the person tried to explain that they could not hear?
>And then the people with the girl tried to explain
>and were threatened for intefering?
>>
>> >We spend billions on the handicapped programs,
>> >and then go and have the government itself
>> >engage in egregious discrimination and crass
>> >rudeness.
>> >
>> I've seen nothing that indicates "discrimination". And the allegation of
>> rudeness is built on the assumption that one only consider one side's
>> perspective.
>
>Do you realize how idiotic this statement is?
Absolutely. I am not accepting one person's opinion an a matter.
>Situation clear:
The situation as *you* presented it is clear. I prefer to hear/read other
presentations before forming my opinion on this issue. That opinion may well
support yours. But I am *not* going to accept one person's, IMO, extreme
judgments without having other sources of input.
>person in line. Person presents ID and is white.
>Person passed into US. Next person in line.
>Person is brown. ID not looked at. Person spoken
>to in language they don't understand. When
>no answer , told to go to an interrogation room.
>People with the person object, say, "She can't her you. She is legally deaf"
Here's one point. There is a rarther large gap between not being able to hear
others (ie. DEAF) and "legally deaf".
>Persons told to butt out or they would be detained.
I'm sure they said "butt out".
>> >Refusing to let the deaf girl's mother speak and explain that the girl
>was
>> >legally deaf is not harassment or at least discriminatory and cruel
>> >treatment?
>>
>> Even based on the one-sided perspective presented here, no.
>
>Then what is the treatment? Remember, there was not need to even talk to the
>person... she had two forms of legal picture ID with clear photos and one of
>the items, a US passport, said place of birth to be somewhere in CA?
>
Any of them current?
>And, when the "whities" were not even spoken to?
>
Here's another reason I am not about to accept your rendition of events and
words. I have read NOTHING that even hints that "race" was a factor in this
event. The fact that the person just before was "white" is IMO irrelevant. I
have SEEN "whites" detained for questioning at various borders, *including the
US-Mexico one.
>>
>> And until I am able to read through the words & circumstances of this
>event, no
>> amount of "one side only" information is going to convince me to "rush to
>> judgment".
>>
>> >Taking her towards an interrogation room and
>> >speaking in Spanish which she could not lip
>> >read is not harassment?
>>
>> Nope.
>
>I guess it is not harassment. I think, in retrospect, it is torture.
Yep. Here's a perspective For All Seasons...:o(
>The girl now despises anything to do with the
>INS, and is scared to travel.
I see. You lingered long enough after the events to come to this diagnosis?
>>
>> >Refusing to look at the passport which was,
>> >although expired, legal proof of citizenship
>> >by the law to reenter the US is not harassment?
>>
>> An expired passport is neither "proof" of citizenship nor adaquate to
>allow
>> reentry into the US.
>
>Wrong. It is totally acceptable.
IIt is NOT *legally acceptable* proof of anything.
>It is foreign countries that requre a valid passport.
So does the US. Only on its borders with Mexico and Canada is a valid passport
not required.
>>
>> >This only happened because the girl was not pure white.
>>
>> Since this accusation of yours presupposes a knowledge of the agents'
>> motivation in the area of "race", please the basis of your "knowledge".
>
>When I see a line of maybe 50 people ahead of me where no white "Anglo
>looking" person has to present any ID, one after another, and are waved by
>with no question, and then a person with ID who looks different is stopped,
>treated rudely, without even looking at the extended ID, I'd say that this
>is not fair treatment.
Why do you assume that the reason the person/s were detained because they
looked different? There are many other reasons for taking such an action, and
since *none* of them have even been discussed here, I see no reason to accept
your unsupported allegation of "racism". Moreover, the fact that among those
who were "waved by" were some "non-anglo" looking people also makes me question
your assumption that the agents' actions were racially motivated.
BTW, a radio show on the subject brought dozens and
>dozens of similar and worse experiences.
>
So?
ClockWFT
>it odd that you've been challenged on this when you were the one who was
>physically there to witness what you've described, which you did in a
>way that did not speak of an "agenda," and was not exaggerated or
>overly-emotional.
>
allegations&accusations of racist&discrimination with nothing to support it is
most definitely "overly-emotional".
ClockWFT
>I'm going to shorten this... under the full recognition
>that you don't want to accept that a border
>official could have erred.
>
As I've said before, although the incident may well have occured as you
presented it, I prefer to hear/read more material than just your comments
before accepting your "they're all racists" accusation.
>> >David Gleason wrote:
>> >When she tried to explain, when her mother
>> >tried, when I tried, the agent would not listen.
>>
>>clockwft wrote:
>> I do not dispute the information you've supplied so far. I simply prefer
>more
>> information (ie. an account of what was said, in what order, etc.),
>including
>> at least *something* giving the agent's perspective, before accepting any
>> pronouncement such as yours.
>
>The agent started speaking Spanish to the Girl after looking at her. Bad
>Spanish; so bad I could not understand it. So
>there is nothing to say about the guard's perspective.
Whether or not the guard spoke passable or bad Spanish in no way means he/she
had no perspective of the situation.
>
>Then why does eveyone at Tijuana get back in with a CDL? The passport,
>expired or not, is not required for born US citizens.
"Not being required" is an entirely different matter. I simply said that to my
knowledge an expired US passport is not *legal proof" of citizenship or
anything else.
On the other hand, I'm sure that certain documents *are* accepted as proof of
this. Do you know what they are? Is a CDL one of them? [If it is, that makes me
wonder about the new legislation being proposed that would allow illegals to
legally obtain a CDL.]
>>
>> >>clockwft wrote:
>> >> I've seen nothing that indicates "discrimination". And the allegation
>of
>> >> rudeness is built on the assumption that one only consider one side's
>> >> perspective.
>
>Refusing tollok at the ID is not rude? So, you are saying that going on a
>sterotype is OK and it is not rude to ignore documentation.
>>
You are assuming again...that they were operation solely on some "stereotype".
I have no idea what they were operating on. All I said was that I prefer to
have more information before "accusing".
>>
>> >> >Refusing to let the deaf girl's mother speak and explain that the girl
>> >was
>> >> >legally deaf is not harassment or at least discriminatory and cruel
>> >> >treatment?
>> >>
>> >> Even based on the one-sided perspective presented here, no.
>> >
>> >Then what is the treatment?
My "no" refers specifically to the terms "discriminatory" and "cruel".
>The rule at border crosspoints for US citizens
>returning after day trips is a driver license with
>current address, a birth certificate, passport (valid
>or
From what I understand, it must be valid.
>not with arecognizable picture), etc.
>
Question: Precisely what was the reason offered by the agent/s for detaining
the party/person? What was the final comment by the INS on her "detention"?
>> >And, when the "whities" were not even spoken to?
>> >
>> Here's another reason I am not about to accept your rendition of events
>and
>> words. I have read NOTHING that even hints that "race" was a factor in
>this
>> event. The fact that the person just before was "white" is IMO irrelevant.
>I
>> have SEEN "whites" detained for questioning at various borders, *including
>the
>> US-Mexico one.
>
>Yes, but at least 50 with no question, no ID... and then to stop the
>non-white and ignore the ID.
I still have read nothing about *this* incident to suggest that the actions of
the agents was racially motivated.
>You are trying to save a situation that was
>just wrong.
>
Not at all. I have stated several times that the event very well may have been
"a wrong"....only that for me to accept the kind of characterizations you've
tossed out ("discriminatory", "cruel" and "harassment") I would need more
information than has been provided here.
No. It only shows that those who called the radio show shared negative
experiences. With that kind of biased sample, that is hardly a good indicator
of how "most" or even "many" Hispanics are treated at the border.
>Including one of a person who was asked, "where are
>you from" and they replied "Puerto Rico" and they were put in an examination
>room for about 2 hours until the collective staff of idiots realized that
>that statement qualified the person to be a born US citizen.
>
>The point of all this, and it's getting lengthy and boring now,
Agreed. Let;s call it a day...
>is to show that "crossing while brown"
I totally agree that the sort of experiences you've presented here do happen. I
do not, however, accept such anecdotally-based information as corroboration for
across-the-board accusations that US borders guards treat all, most or many
Hispanics this way.
I have had occasion to look into other "driving while..." labels. While I agree
that in some cases, and areas, this does occur, I disagree totally with those
efforts to convince us that they happen "everywhere"/are endemic. In general, I
have found these McCarthyist "they're everywhere" claims to be based on nothing
more than first hand assumptions and second, third and fourth hand anecdotal
information. Wrap ut all in pre-existing prejudices and bias, and there you
go...
>
>Except for you argument about the validity of the passport, you have
>contributed nothing to an understanding of why this happens.
>
And yours is, IMO, just another example of someone ascribing an incident to
"racism" with nothing close to proof/corroboration.
David Gleason
> >The agent started speaking Spanish to the Girl after looking at her. Bad
> >Spanish; so bad I could not understand it. So
> >there is nothing to say about the guard's perspective.
>
> Whether or not the guard spoke passable or bad Spanish in no way means
he/she
> had no perspective of the situation.
Reread. I said that, since the guard only spoke uninteligable bad Spanish,
there is no way for anyone to have know the guard's perspective unless
someone had interviewed her later. Whatever she was saying made no sense.
> >
> >Then why does eveyone at Tijuana get back in with a CDL? The passport,
> >expired or not, is not required for born US citizens.
>
> "Not being required" is an entirely different matter. I simply said that
to my
> knowledge an expired US passport is not *legal proof" of citizenship or
> anything else.
An expired passporte can be used in palace of a birth or baptismal
certificate to prove nationality. This per the INS website, where the quotes
I posted came from. As such, if an official UDS government bureau accepts
it, it is then "legal" in the context we are discussing. To carry this any
further is to ignore reality for the sake of nitpicking.
>
> On the other hand, I'm sure that certain documents *are* accepted as proof
of
> this. Do you know what they are? Is a CDL one of them? [If it is, that
makes me
> wonder about the new legislation being proposed that would allow illegals
to
> legally obtain a CDL.]
The INS requires certain proofs of citizenship. On their website, it states
that a birth certificate or baptismal certificate will do for travelers
returning from anyplace int he Western Hemisphere, where a passport, the
absolute proof, is not required. The CDL has long been used at Tijuana, and
anyone who travels knows that nothing else is needed.
".
>
> >The rule at border crosspoints for US citizens
> >returning after day trips is a driver license with
> >current address, a birth certificate, passport (valid
> >or
>
> From what I understand, it must be valid.
Wrong agian, and why are you so obsessed with this? I called our INS press
officer here in LA, and they said, basically, "well, a passport must be
valid if the person is returning from other than the Western Hemisphere.
But, an expired one is proof of citizenship for a border cossing at Tijuana
because it, in effect. represents the fact that a birth certificate or
comparable record has been presented to get it.."
Oh, and between 1992 and 1993, when I was not doing any internaitonal
travel, I corossed to buy books at Sanborns and groceries at Comercial
Mexicana at least 10 times a year... on an expired passport. The one or two
times they wanted to see ID, I used it and had no problems. The wanted to
see the "born at" line, mostly.
> Question: Precisely what was the reason offered by the agent/s for
detaining
> the party/person? What was the final comment by the INS on her
"detention"?
The person was not detained, as a supervisor, sensing a problem, came and
glanced at the passport and waved the girl by. No one knew what the INS
officer wanted,as she was speaking bad, unintelligible Spanish until the
morther and then I objected and stated her condition, at which point she
told us to bug off or be detained. She said nothing else in English and
nothing anyone could understand.
>
> >So, it shows that US born Hispanics are not afforded equal treatment on
the
> >border by border agents.
>
> No. It only shows that those who called the radio show shared negative
> experiences. With that kind of biased sample, that is hardly a good
indicator
> of how "most" or even "many" Hispanics are treated at the border.
So, basically, an incorrect act is only incorrect if done incorrectly to
everyone and random acts of incorrecness are irrelevant.
>
> >
> >Except for you argument about the validity of the passport, you have
> >contributed nothing to an understanding of why this happens.
> >
> And yours is, IMO, just another example of someone ascribing an incident
to
> "racism" with nothing close to proof/corroboration.
>
I suppose that you had to be there, be brown and be deaf to appreciate it.
Since you are not qualified on any of the three counts, I'd say your opinion
is now fairly worthless.
ClockWFT
>> >The agent started speaking Spanish to
>> >the Girl after looking at her. Bad Spanish;
>> >so bad I could not understand it. So there
>> >is nothing to say about the guard's perspective.
>>
>> Whether or not the guard spoke passable
>>or bad Spanish in no way means he/she
>>had no perspective of the situation.
>
>Reread. I said that, since the guard only spoke uninteligable bad Spanish,
>there is no way for anyone to have know the guard's perspective unless
>someone had interviewed her later.
I agree...there is no way to speak knowledgibly about the agent's perspective
when she didn't communicate it. On the other hand, neither should one use that
same factor to brush aside her perspective as irrelevant nor accuse her of
discriminatory and/or racist intentions.
>> >So, it shows that US born Hispanics are
>> >not afforded equal treatment on the border
>> >by border agents.
>>
>> No. It only shows that those who called the
>> radio show shared negative experiences.
>> With that kind of biased sample, that is hardly
>>a good indicator of how "most" or even "many"
>>Hispanics are treated at the border.
>
>So, basically, an incorrect act is only incorrect
>if done incorrectly to everyone and random
>acts of incorrecness are irrelevant.
This is a rather curious mangling of my comment above.
You made a comment earlier saying IYO the resulting calls to this radio station
proved that "Hispanics" (ie. all or most) "are not afforded equal treatment"
(ie. such treatment is directed consciously towards Hispanics and not towards
others) "on the [US-Mexico] border". I replied that IMO response to the
station's program only showed that those who called in had negative experiences
(which was probably the only kind the station solicited and talked about
anyway) and that justifying a generalization such as yours based on such
"results" was unjustified.
I agree that such acts are incorrect. But one or even several (especially as
part of a blatantly skewed "study") do not in any way justify forming and
tossing out "they are all like that" allegations.
>> >Except for you argument about the validity of the passport, you have
>> >contributed nothing to an understanding of why this happens.
>> >
>> And yours is, IMO, just another example
>> of someone ascribing an incident to "racism"
>>with nothing close to proof/corroboration.
>>
>I suppose that you had to be there, be brown and be deaf to appreciate it.
The main issue IMO is not whether this one incident was unjustified. It may
well have been...I wasn't there. But, IMO it is certainly NOT proof of some
racist or discriminatory conspiracy against Hispanics all along the border.
>Since you are not qualified on any of the three
>counts, I'd say your opinion is now fairly worthless.
Since you aren't deaf, strike one. Since you have no idea whether I am "brown"
or not, strike two. Because of your penchant for tossing out purely
anecdotally-based "they are all like that" accusations, consider yourself
bowled out....:o(
David Gleason
> The main issue IMO is not whether this one incident was unjustified. It
may
> well have been...I wasn't there. But, IMO it is certainly NOT proof of
some
> racist or discriminatory conspiracy against Hispanics all along the
border.
Judging by general comments from people who cross the border, such incidents
are regular, common and typified by an "attitude." Yes, some people are not
bothered, others not always and some never. Still, the rule should be
equuitative treatment, not random acts of unkindness. ONe thing is to
inspect papers. Another is to be hostile or rude about it.
>
> >Since you are not qualified on any of the three
> >counts, I'd say your opinion is now fairly worthless.
>
> Since you aren't deaf, strike one. Since you have no idea whether I am
"brown"
> or not, strike two. Because of your penchant for tossing out purely
> anecdotally-based "they are all like that" accusations, consider yourself
> bowled out....:o(
Since I am a co-guardian for a deaf person, I'm as qualified as any hearing
person can be.
Since you have no empathy for the problems of folks who are not white and
demonstrate an incredible lack of understanding of and for Hispanics, I'd
assume that you are white.
And I use the anecdotes to show that the treatment, such as that received by
several posters in the Valley, is not applied evenly and pleasantly.
In other words, your points are borderline troll posts, made for the sake of
argument rather than for the sake of commenting and analyzing events, which,
after all, are all a form of an anecdote. History istself is a collectionof
anecdotes, yet we study it for its lessons. You are failing to read the big
picture here and instead worry about the legality of one or another piece of
ID.
>
ClockWFT
>> The main issue IMO is not whether this one
>> incident was unjustified. It may well have
>> been...I wasn't there. But, IMO it is certainly
>> NOT proof of some racist or discriminatory
>> conspiracy against Hispanics all along the
>border.
>
>Judging by general comments from people
>who cross the border,
clockwft wrote:
Rephrased to: "...comments from *some* people..."
nb. From my experience, I beg to differ. From the experiences of Hispanic
co-workers and Hispanics friends, they beg to differ.
>such incidents are regular, common and typified
>by an "attitude." Yes, some people are not
>bothered, others not always and some never.
>Still, the rule should be equuitative treatment,
>not random acts of unkindness.
1. You can hardly establish a "rule" for all based on your experiences and
those you've heard second or third hand.
2. There are ALWAYS random acts of unkindness in the world.
>ONe thing is to inspect papers. Another is
>to be hostile or rude about it.
I do not accept the assumption that this "attitude", which is IMO most likely
another incarnation of the "bureaucratic surliness" endemic worldwide, should
be interpreted as intentional discrimination and racist when experienced by
minorities.
>>
>> >Since you are not qualified on any of the three
>> >counts, I'd say your opinion is now fairly worthless.
>>
>> Since you aren't deaf, strike one. Since you have no idea whether I am
>"brown"
>> or not, strike two. Because of your penchant for tossing out purely
>> anecdotally-based "they are all like that" accusations, consider yourself
>> bowled out....:o(
>
>Since I am a co-guardian for a deaf person,
>I'm as qualified as any hearing person can be.
Unless your aunt, brother and nephew are deaf....
>
>Since you have no empathy
By which you mean that I do not believe the same as you...
>for the problems of folks who are not white
>and demonstrate an incredible lack of under-
>standing of and for Hispanics,
Ah...the old "if you don't believe the same as I do, you must be a racist,
bigot, etc."
>I'd assume that you are white.
>
You assumption here is about as bent as the ones you made earlier about what
those agents thought, intented and believed.
>And I use the anecdotes to show that the treatment,
>such as that received by several posters in the
>Valley, is not applied evenly and pleasantly.
>
>In other words, your points are borderline troll
>posts, made for the sake of argument
By this you are saying that I do not believe in the points I have made, but
have just tossed them out "for the sake of it". You are incorrect.
>rather than for the sake of commenting and
>analyzing events,
I have offered my analysis of both the specific event you presented and of the
unspecified vague "others" you have implied. My analysis happens to differ from
yours. But you seem to prefer are labelling anyone who doesn't buy into your
conclusions a "troll". That in itself is telling.
>You are failing to read the big picture here and
No. I am failing to swallow YOUR big picture. I have my own, thank you.
>instead worry about the legality of one or another
>piece of ID.
Ah yes...as for that other piece of ID, the CDL....
I understand that Hispanic legislators have sponsored a bill to allow CA
non-residents (ie. illegals) to obtain a CDL. Since that piece of ID is
accepted at the US-Mexico border as "proof" of US citizenship or legal US
residency, passage of this would allow legals and illegals alike to saunder
into the US at will.
Then there is the Hispanic-sponsored bill to force CA taxpayers to subsidize a
$400 auto insurance policy for all who "qualify".
David Gleason
>
> nb. From my experience, I beg to differ. From the experiences of Hispanic
> co-workers and Hispanics friends, they beg to differ.
>
> >such incidents are regular, common and typified
> >by an "attitude." Yes, some people are not
> >bothered, others not always and some never.
> >Still, the rule should be equuitative treatment,
> >not random acts of unkindness.
>
> 1. You can hardly establish a "rule" for all based on your experiences and
> those you've heard second or third hand.
How about a poll of 1000 persons? Not perfect statistically, but who had
been across the border in thepast 90 days? that was my basis. It was done by
a radio group with over 2,000,000 listeners in the Socal area by its own
research department.
>
> 2. There are ALWAYS random acts of unkindness in the world.
> >> >Since you are not qualified on any of the three
> >> >counts, I'd say your opinion is now fairly worthless.
> >>
> >> Since you aren't deaf, strike one. Since you have no idea whether I am
> >"brown"
> >> or not, strike two. Because of your penchant for tossing out purely
> >> anecdotally-based "they are all like that" accusations, consider
yourself
> >> bowled out....:o(
> >
> >Since I am a co-guardian for a deaf person,
> >I'm as qualified as any hearing person can be.
>
> Unless your aunt, brother and nephew are deaf....
Does "daughter" count? I'd guess if an aunt does, tht does too. Wanna see my
hearing aid bills?
> >
> >Since you have no empathy
>
> By which you mean that I do not believe the same as you...
No. You insist that unfair treatment is fair and usual, even though the
anecdote and those of others here indicates far to the contrary and a radio
poll indicated the same at the time this occured.
>
> I have offered my analysis of both the specific event you presented and of
the
> unspecified vague "others" you have implied. My analysis happens to differ
from
> yours. But you seem to prefer are labelling anyone who doesn't buy into
your
> conclusions a "troll". That in itself is telling.
The troll conclusion is after seing you constantly finding an "it's fair if
they are brown" attitude. And this is proven by last paragraph. I rest my
case.
>
> >instead worry about the legality of one or another
> >piece of ID.
>
> Ah yes...as for that other piece of ID, the CDL....
>
> I understand that Hispanic legislators have sponsored a bill to allow CA
> non-residents (ie. illegals) to obtain a CDL. Since that piece of ID is
> accepted at the US-Mexico border as "proof" of US citizenship or legal US
> residency, passage of this would allow legals and illegals alike to
saunder
> into the US at will.
No, if there is a form of CDL for non-residents, the intent is to make it
possible for the state to enforce insurance regulations, as immigration is a
federal area and the state can't control it. I'd suspect that the
non-resident CDL iwll be identified as sam, wouldn't your?
>
> Then there is the Hispanic-sponsored bill to force CA taxpayers to
subsidize a
> $400 auto insurance policy for all who "qualify".
There you go again. And you say that I'm gratuitously accusing you of bias?
You are doing that all on l;your own.
>
>
>
ClockWFT
>> >such incidents [ie. harassment of, discri-
>> >mination towards Hispanics by INS agents
>> >at US-Mexican border] are regular, common
>> >people are not bothered, others not always
>> >and some never. Still, the rule should be
>> >equuitative treatment, not random acts
>> >of unkindness.
>>
>> 1. You can hardly establish a "rule" for all
>> based on your experiences and those you've
>> heard second or third hand.
>
>How about a poll of 1000 persons? Not perfect
>statistically, but who had been across the border
>in thepast 90 days? that was my basis. It was done by
>a radio group with over 2,000,000 listeners
>in the Socal area by its own research department.
>>
name of station, name of person in charge of study, wording of the
requests/questions directed towards the listeners, whether respondents were
free to give their accounts or requested to "check" off certain categories of
experience, number of overall replies, categorizies into which each of the
replies was put.
Moreover, I still don't feel that conclusions based on aspects of this study
justify the sort of "they are all like that" accusation you've tossed at INS
agents.
>> 2. There are ALWAYS random acts of unkindness in the world.
>
?
>> >> >Since you are not qualified on any of the three
>> >> >counts, I'd say your opinion is now fairly worthless.
>> >>
>> >> Since you aren't deaf, strike one. Since you have no idea whether I am
>> >"brown"
>> >> or not, strike two. Because of your penchant for tossing out purely
>> >> anecdotally-based "they are all like that" accusations, consider
>yourself
>> >> bowled out....:o(
>> >
>> >Since I am a co-guardian for a deaf person,
>> >I'm as qualified as any hearing person can be.
>>
>> Unless your aunt, brother and nephew are deaf....
>
>Does "daughter" count? I'd guess if an aunt does, tht does too. Wanna see my
>hearing aid bills?
Relax....your obsessing...:o(
>> >
>> >Since you have no empathy
>>
>> By which you mean that I do not believe the same as you...
>
>No. You insist that unfair treatment is fair and usual,
Another distortion. I have nowhere said that I feel such treatment is "fair". I
have simply stated that, since the "other side's" perspective, motivations &
intentions were neither considered or solicited, I do not feel that one can
reasonably conclude they were harassing or being discriminatory or "racist".
>even though the anecdote and those of others
>here indicates far to the contrary and a radio
>poll indicated the same at the time this occured.
>>
>> I have offered my analysis of both the specific event you presented and of
>the
>> unspecified vague "others" you have implied. My analysis happens to differ
>from
>> yours. But you seem to prefer are labelling anyone who doesn't buy into
>your
>> conclusions a "troll". That in itself is telling.
>
>The troll conclusion is after seing you constantly finding an "it's fair if
>they are brown" attitude.
Another distortion of my comments.
>And this is proven by last paragraph. I rest
>my case.
Good move. It doesn't do well in the light of day...:o(
>>
>> I understand that Hispanic legislators have
>> sponsored a bill to allow CA non-resi-
>>dents (ie. illegals) to obtain a CDL. Since
>>that piece of ID is accepted at the US-Mexico
>>border as "proof" of US citizenship or legal
>>US residency, passage of this would allow
>>legals and illegals alike to saunder into the
>>US at will.
>
>No, if there is a form of CDL for non-residents,
From what I understand, this legislation does *not* mandate a "different form"
of CDL for illegals. It seeks to allow them to obtain the *same* as legal
residents and US citizens have. Nor am I aware of any language within this bill
to differentiate between the CDL demanded to be made available to illegals and
that available to legal CA residents.
>I'd suspect that the non-resident CDL iwll be
>identified as sam, wouldn't your?
>>
I am aware of not such intention to insert such a "category" on these CDLs.
>> Then there is the Hispanic-sponsored bill
>> to force CA taxpayers to subsidize a $400
>>auto insurance policy for all who "qualify".
>
>There you go again. And you say that I'm gratuitously accusing you of bias?
>You are doing that all on your own.
>>
Where? How?
David Gleason
> >David Gleason wrote:
> >How about a poll of 1000 persons? Not perfect
> >statistically, but who had been across the border
> >in thepast 90 days? that was my basis. It was done by
> >a radio group with over 2,000,000 listeners
> >in the Socal area by its own research department.
> >>
> I've not heard of this. I'd be interesetd to learn more about this
"study": ie.
> name of station, name of person in charge of study, wording of the
> requests/questions directed towards the listeners, whether respondents
were
> free to give their accounts or requested to "check" off certain categories
of
> experience, number of overall replies, categorizies into which each of the
> replies was put.
You probably don't listen to the leading Spanish News/Talk station in the
US, KTNQ, Los Angeles. We did a random (same methodology and same database
as radio ratings, SSI, Inc) poll to get a predetermined, demographically and
gender based representation of the population 25+ based on Hispanic
population distribution in the discreet age and sex cells used as control,
which wer ethe same as the ones used by the US Census, projected to 1999 by
MSI of Connecticut. We then asked the random probability sample, which
contemplated for unlisted phones, by the way, questions about border
expiences. Of those having been across the border, over a third observed
"irregularities which inconvenineced them or members of thier party or
family group" in the previous year. Persons with actual problems that
deserved special INS treatment were not tabulated here.
This was a propietary study, whe was used for the purpose of determining
radio programming and I am under nondisclosure to release further data, but,
in general terms, it was an adequate sample to prove that there is both
perception and rality of unwarranted difficulties at the border.
>
> Moreover, I still don't feel that conclusions based on aspects of this
study
> justify the sort of "they are all like that" accusation you've tossed at
INS
> agents.
>
Oh, and we should not count the story of a mom who went to the store
downstaris and one building over in an Hispanic neighborhood to get milk for
her baby and was detained because she had no papers on her and put across
the border in Tijuana as an illegal? First, here two young kids were alone
for about 6 hours until the father returned from the night shift, and,
second, she spoke no Spanish (3rd or 4th generation) and was a US citizen by
birth. INS officers would not even accept returning to the apartment to
verify this!
We have hundreds of anecdotes like this. There is a Spanish saying that
goes, "when the river is noisy, it is because it is carrying rocks." Meaning
that where there is smoke there is fire. If you chose to treat these things
as isolated incidents, fine. We don't think they are isolated and believe
that the whole INS and immigration situation needs reform.
ClockWFT
>> >How about a poll of 1000 persons? Not perfect
>> >statistically, but who had been across the border
>> >in thepast 90 days? that was my basis. It was done by
>> >a radio group with over 2,000,000 listeners
>> >in the Socal area by its own research department.
>> >
>>clockwft wrote:
>> I've not heard of this. I'd be interesetd to learn
>> more about this "study": ie. name of station,
>> name of person in charge of study, wording
>> of the requests/questions directed towards
>> the listeners, whether respondents were
>> free to give their accounts or requested to
>> "check" off certain categories of experience,
>>number of overall replies, categorizies into
>> which each of the replies was put.
>
>You probably don't listen to the leading Spanish News/Talk station in the
>US, KTNQ, Los Angeles.
Interresting. Any reason for this assumption?
>We did a random (same methodology and
>same database as radio ratings, SSI, Inc) poll...
That's what I asked. What was this "same methodology"?
>We then asked the random probability sample,
>which contemplated for unlisted phones, by
>the way,
How was this factor "compemplated"??
>questions about border expiences.
As I asked before, I'd be interested to read through those questions as they
were worded.
>Of those having been across the border, over
>a third observed "irregularities which incon-
>venineced them or members of thier party or
>family group" in the previous year.
How does "observing irregularities" translate into "harassment",
"discrimination" and racist intent?
>Persons with actual problems that
>deserved special INS treatment were not tabulated
>here.
>
Why not?
And, who judged whether a particular case had "actual problems" or was just an
"inconvenience"? If it was the radio station or a "consultant", it may well be
that the INS would have a different take on this.
>This was a propietary study, whe was used
>for the purpose of determining radio programming
On what way?
>and I am under nondisclosure to release further data, but,
>in general terms, it was an adequate sample
>to prove that there is both perception and raelity
>of unwarranted difficulties at the border.
>
I certainly see such a study "proving" that among the respondents there was a
significant (1/3) percentage who perceived there were "difficulties" at the
border. But, from what you've described about the study here, I don't see
anything in the phrase "irregularities which inconvenienced them or members of
their party" that justifies it being re-interpreted into "unwarranted
difficulties". Moreover, IMO there is nothing in such a study that allows one
to determine what percentage of those perceived "irregularities" were real and
what percentage were just interpreted so.
>> Moreover, I still don't feel that conclusions based on aspects of this
>study
>> justify the sort of "they are all like that" accusation you've tossed at
>INS
>> agents.
>>
>Oh, and we should not count the story of a mom who went to the store
>downstaris and one building over in an Hispanic neighborhood to get milk for
>her baby and was detained because she had no papers on her and put across
>the border in Tijuana as an illegal?
No. IMO one cannot use single occurances to justify the kind of
across-the-board stereotyping of INS agents you've promoted.
>
>We have hundreds of anecdotes like this.
How does this translate into "they are all like this"? In addition to these
"hundreds", there are undoubtedly many thousands of "positive experience"
anecdotes. How can one form an accurate overall picture without taking those
into account?
>There is a Spanish saying that goes, "when
>the river is noisy, it is because it is carrying
>rocks." Meaning that where there is smoke
>there is fire.
True - there often is. On the other hand, the noise may (and among humans,
often does) come from "within" - "misperception" or "malperception".
>If you chose to treat these things as isolated
>incidents, fine.
Sorry. I don't embrace Conspiracy Theories without a bit more than
"preconceptions" and "assumptions".
>We don't think they are isolated and believe
>that the whole INS and immigration situation
>needs reform.
Uh hu....
David Gleason
> >> >David Gleason wrote:
> >> >How about a poll of 1000 persons? Not perfect
> >> >statistically, but who had been across the border
> >> >in thepast 90 days? that was my basis. It was done by
> >> >a radio group with over 2,000,000 listeners
> >> >in the Socal area by its own research department.
> >> >
> >>clockwft wrote:
> >> I've not heard of this. I'd be interesetd to learn
> >> more about this "study": ie. name of station,
> >> name of person in charge of study, wording
> >> of the requests/questions directed towards
> >> the listeners, whether respondents were
> >> free to give their accounts or requested to
> >> "check" off certain categories of experience,
> >>number of overall replies, categorizies into
> >> which each of the replies was put.
> >
> >David Gleason wrote:
> >You probably don't listen to the leading Spanish News/Talk station in the
> >US, KTNQ, Los Angeles.
>
> Interresting. Any reason for this assumption?
DO you speak Spanish?
There have been references to the station and its personnel in my comments,
and you have not caught them, while several here who are listeners have
E-mailed me. Additionally, the series on the border we did was pretty widely
promoted on the statin and on its sister stations.
>
> >We did a random (same methodology and
> >same database as radio ratings, SSI, Inc) poll...
>
> That's what I asked. What was this "same methodology"?
Random probablilty sample based on SSI databases and MSI population
estimates to 1999. I'm not, however, going to give away trade secrets but if
you want a discussion of a random probablity sample, it is in most basic
research textbooks. The shortcomings all pollsters have are cooperation,
database and population estimates.
>
> >We then asked the random probability sample,
>
> >which contemplated for unlisted phones, by
> >the way,
>
> How was this factor "compemplated"??
Same way all surveys and polls do: random number generation in listed series
contemplating a percentage of out-of-use and business lines will generate a
statistically reliable subset of unlisted numbers to dial.
>
> >questions about border expiences.
>
> As I asked before, I'd be interested to read through those questions as
they
> were worded.
As I said, this is like asking Ford how it does its customer satisfaction
"Job One" polls. I'd get fired if I did that and I believe you can
understand why a comapny is not going to give away its internal research
techniques.
>
> >Of those having been across the border, over
> >a third observed "irregularities which incon-
> >venineced them or members of thier party or
> >family group" in the previous year.
>
> How does "observing irregularities" translate into "harassment",
> "discrimination" and racist intent?
By means of the human being's ability to reason. Which is what you are
forgetting as you excuse every example of less than equitative treatment
that shows up here.
>
> >Persons with actual problems that
> >deserved special INS treatment were not tabulated
> >here.
> >
> Why not?
Read the post again: the purpose was to find unfair or unwarranted
treatment. Proper treatment was excluded. If you are sampling for irregular
menstual cycles, you don't factor in persons who have regular ones only.
>
> And, who judged whether a particular case had "actual problems" or was
just an
> "inconvenience"? If it was the radio station or a "consultant", it may
well be
> that the INS would have a different take on this.
Based on the questions. Participants were anonymous and were asked if they
were legal residents or citizens or else they were excluded. Sample design
criterial. DOn't question those whose answers are irrelevant.
>
> >This was a propietary study, whe was used
> >for the purpose of determining radio programming
>
> On what way?
On whatever way we wanted. It's our poll. As an example, we do this weekly
witha smaller sample to determine the subjects people have interest in and
the attitudes toward them. This helps talk hosts focus on things that are
interesting. Most big talk stations do this, by the way. As do syndicated
issues-oriented talk hosts like Limbaug, G. Gordon, Lykis, etc.
>
> >and I am under nondisclosure to release further data, but,
> >in general terms, it was an adequate sample
> >to prove that there is both perception and raelity
> >of unwarranted difficulties at the border.
> >
> I certainly see such a study "proving" that among the respondents there
was a
> significant (1/3) percentage who perceived there were "difficulties" at
the
> border. But, from what you've described about the study here, I don't see
> anything in the phrase "irregularities which inconvenienced them or
members of
> their party" that justifies it being re-interpreted into "unwarranted
> difficulties". Moreover, IMO there is nothing in such a study that allows
one
> to determine what percentage of those perceived "irregularities" were real
and
> what percentage were just interpreted so.
In any case, the questions were asked in the form that revealed whether the
people, based on a series of y/n questions, appeared to have been singled
out for interrogation, hassled, treated rudly in afashion not similar to
others in the same line as they were. Perception is reality in any case.
Certainly, there are flaws in any poll but the idea was to see how
generalized the perception of mistreatment is and then analyiize it in radio
programming.
>
> >> Moreover, I still don't feel that conclusions based on aspects of this
> >study
> >> justify the sort of "they are all like that" accusation you've tossed
at
> >INS
> >> agents.
> >>
> >Oh, and we should not count the story of a mom who went to the store
> >downstaris and one building over in an Hispanic neighborhood to get milk
for
> >her baby and was detained because she had no papers on her and put across
> >the border in Tijuana as an illegal?
>
> No. IMO one cannot use single occurances to justify the kind of
> across-the-board stereotyping of INS agents you've promoted.
When hundreds of incidents stack up, there seems to be a powerful
conclusion.
> >
> >We have hundreds of anecdotes like this.
>
> How does this translate into "they are all like this"? In addition to
these
> "hundreds", there are undoubtedly many thousands of "positive experience"
> anecdotes. How can one form an accurate overall picture without taking
those
> into account?
There should not be any negative incidents. Give me a reason why a person
should be singled out for any reason for rude or inapropriate attention?
What are YOU trying to prove? The system is not perfect, it tends to give
harsher treatment to non-whites on the Mexican border and does not ober
equal treatment under the law. Why not look for a solution rather than
trying to dismiss every single piece of evidence, despite the some of this
evindence being quite telling.
>
cabezon Reyna
she'll understand what your trying to say, and be grateful when you
surface. Hope this helps, C Reyna
ClockWFT
>> >> >How about a poll of 1000 persons? Not perfect
>> >> >statistically, but who had been across the border
>> >> >in thepast 90 days? that was my basis. It was done by
>> >> >a radio group with over 2,000,000 listeners
>> >> >in the Socal area by its own research department.
>> >> >
>> >>clockwft wrote:
>> >> I've not heard of this. I'd be interesetd to learn
>> >> more about this "study": ie. name of station,
>> >> name of person in charge of study, wording
>> >> of the requests/questions directed towards
>> >> the listeners, whether respondents were
>> >> free to give their accounts or requested to
>> >> "check" off certain categories of experience,
>> >>number of overall replies, categorizies into
>> >> which each of the replies was put.
>> >
>> >David Gleason wrote:
>> >You probably don't listen to the leading Spanish News/Talk station in the
>> >US, KTNQ, Los Angeles.
>>
>> Interresting. Any reason for this assumption?
>
>DO you speak Spanish?
>
clockwft wrote:
Didn't quite catch your answer....
>There have been references to the station and its personnel in my comments,
>and you have not caught them, while several here who are listeners have
>E-mailed me. Additionally, the series on the border we did was pretty widely
>promoted on the statin and on its sister stations.
>>
Another request for information brushed aside. What gives?
>> >questions about border expiences.
>>
>> As I asked before, I'd be interested to read
>> through those questions as they were worded.
>
>As I said, this is like asking Ford how it does
>its customer satisfaction "Job One" polls. I'd
>get fired if I did that and I believe you can
>understand why a comapny is not going to
>give away its internal research techniques.
>
And a third.
>>
>> >Of those having been across the border, over
>> >a third observed "irregularities which incon-
>> >venineced them or members of thier party or
>> >family group" in the previous year.
>>
>> How does "irregularities which inconvenienced"
>>translate into "harassment", "discrimination"
>> and racist intent?
>
>By means of the human being's ability to reason.
I read not one single *reason* in your posts justifying this leap from
"irregularities which inconvenienced" to "harassment", "discrimination" and
racism. Which leads me to believe that this conceptual leap was bridged by a
series of assumptions and preconceptions on the part of the researchers, not
the respondents.
>> >Persons with actual problems that
>> >deserved special INS treatment were not tabulated
>> >here.
>> >
>> Why not?
>
>Read the post again: the purpose was to find unfair or unwarranted
>treatment.
Based on responses focussed on "irregularities which inconvenienced"?
>Proper treatment was excluded. If you are sampling for irregular
>menstual cycles, you don't factor in persons who have regular ones only.
>>
You made a comment condemning *in general* (ie. "they are all like that") the
anti-Hispanic intent, motivations and actions of the INS. To use this study to
justify that sort of statement, as you did, in fact *does require* that the
study made some effort to compare the anti-Hispanic incidents with the "benign"
ones.
>>
>> >and I am under nondisclosure to release further data, but,
>> >in general terms, it was an adequate sample
>> >to prove that there is both perception and raelity
>> >of unwarranted difficulties at the border.
>> >
>> I certainly see such a study "proving" that
>> among the respondents there was a signifi-
>>cant (1/3) percentage who perceived there
>>were "difficulties" at the border. But, from
>> what you've described about the study here,
>> I don't see anything in the phrase "irregularities
>> which inconvenienced them or members
>> of their party" that justifies it being re-inter-
>>preted into "unwarranted difficulties". More-
>>over, IMO there is nothing in such a study
>> that allows one to determine what percent-
>>age of those perceived "irregularities" were
>> real and what percentage were just inter-
>preted so.
>
>In any case, the questions were asked in the
>form that revealed whether the people, based
>on a series of y/n questions, appeared
"Appeared" to whom? The respondents or the researchers? The *only* wording in
the questions you have revealed that in ANY WAY could refer to such experiences
is "irregularities which inconvenience". That phrase, IMO, is nowhere near in
meaning to what you say "appeared".
>to have been singled out for interrogation, hassled,
>treated rudly in afashion not similar to others
>in the same line as they were.
You said earlier that the study's question on this issue only used the phrase
"observed irregularities". Untill I learn that something else from the study
caused the respondents to supply such pointed commentary as you present here, I
can only assume that the above "appeared" interpretation more accurately
reflects the assumptions and predilictions of the researchers.
>Perception is reality in any case.
Only if one accepts that one and only one Reality should be heard, valued and
given credence. That is "institutionalized one-sidedness".
Not for me, thanks.
>>
>> >> Moreover, I still don't feel that conclusions based on aspects of this
>> >study
>> >> justify the sort of "they are all like that" accusation you've tossed
>at
>> >INS
>> >> agents.
>> >>
>> >Oh, and we should not count the story of a mom who went to the store
>> >downstaris and one building over in an Hispanic neighborhood to get milk
>for
>> >her baby and was detained because she had no papers on her and put across
>> >the border in Tijuana as an illegal?
>>
>> No. IMO one cannot use single occurances to justify the kind of
>> across-the-board stereotyping of INS agents you've promoted.
>
>When hundreds of incidents stack up, there seems to be a powerful
>conclusion.
>> >
>> >We have hundreds of anecdotes like this.
>>
>> How does this translate into "they are all
>> like this"? In addition to these "hundreds",
>> there are undoubtedly many thousands of "po-
>>sitive experience" anecdotes. How can one
>> form an accurate overall picture without taking
>>those into account?
>
>There should not be any negative incidents.
True...in a perfect world. But in Reality, tet me know when you locate *any*
bureaucracy that is perfect. Morever, the fact that the inevitable
imperfections and errors of one such organization, the INS, impacts Hispanics
in NO WAY even suggests that these "irregularities" are racially motivated.
>What are YOU trying to prove? The system is not perfect, it tends to give
>harsher treatment to non-whites on the Mexican border and does not ober
>equal treatment under the law. What are YOU trying to prove?
What am I trying to prove? That the across-the-board "they are all like that"
views you are promoting are based on assumptions...
David Gleason
> >
> David Gleason wrote:
> >DO you speak Spanish?
> >
> clockwft wrote:
> Didn't quite catch your answer....
Hmm? I thought I asked the question. I guess this is indicative of your
reading skills and desire to actually dialogue. You asked questions over and
over yourself, and yet will not answer one yourself. Let us try it again...
do you speak nay other language besides English? Do you speak Spanish? See
how easy that is?
ClockWFT
>> >DO you speak Spanish?
>> >
>> clockwft wrote:
>> Didn't quite catch your answer....
>
>Hmm? I thought I asked the question.
clockwft wrote:
I deal with this style of "dialoguing" every day with my kids.
....they're better at it.....
>I guess this is indicative of your reading skills and
>desire to actually dialogue.
Let me refresh the "context" in which you imposed your question...
>You asked questions over and over yourself,
>and yet will not answer one yourself. Let us
>try it again...
okie doke...:o)
>do you speak nay other language besides English?
>Do you speak Spanish? See how easy that is?
>
Now, to provide the portion of our "dialogue" that you chose here to snip out,
the portion that immediately preceded the injection of your question and, in
fact, *caused* you to do so....
David Gleason: "You probably don't listen to the leading Spanish News/Talk
station in the US, KTNQ, Los Angeles..."
clockwft: "Interesting. Any reason for this assumption?"
And, glory be!, your reply completely avoided my question....
and injected another.....
so I asked: "Didn't quite catch your answer"....
and hence your amusing feigned exasperation.
Nonetheless, thanks for the insight into your penchant for
Kindergarten-tactics. When the kids need any practice, I'll send them to you.
David Gleason
Do you speak Spanish?
Care to answer?
ClockWFT <cloc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990906160533...@ng-fm1.aol.com...