January 10, 2008

Shamelessness in Immigration

Justin Katz

Dan Yorke's been on this for a couple of days, so most of you have heard the same clips from the ICE as Gestapo "press conference" at St. Theresa's church that I have. Shameless. Despicable.

The gut-punch is the suicide of David De La Roca, but the heart-tug pictures are all of the children of Carmen Marrero, mother of a newborn baby to soon-to-be-deported illegal immigrant Mynor Montufar, who has a criminal record and who had been given a deadline by which to leave the country. (I still haven't read it stated, or even implied, that Marrero's other two children are also Montufar's, so I gather that they are not — since tearing three children from their father would make for better print.)

My fellow Catholics should be ashamed that one of their churches is mixed up in this propaganda. One insult after another, one offensive allegation after another, comes out of this mess. This is the latest that I've spotted:

Told that a witness to the arrest — Lilliam Muniz — alleged yesterday that ICE agents beat Perez as he was face down on the ground, [ICE regional spokesman Mike] Gilhooly said, "There is no indication that any such allegation you brought forward to us is true."

Reporter Arline Fleming doesn't bother to tell us that Ms. Muniz is Marrero's mother. Apparently, the special dispensations that give ACLU leaders church property on which to slander immigration officials extend to journalists to leave out eyebrow-raising details.

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.


Sean Daly of Channel 12 did a story on this press conference and his angle was the poor mommy left behind. Daly never mentioned her age (19) her marital status (not and never was) and her kid count with this illegal (3). Was as pathetic as it was disingenuous. This population is so poorly served by this media on so many levels. The lack of professional ethic with the print and TV is dangerous and embarrassing. We wonder how and why people vote like they do? Look who feeds them 'information' on a daily basis and for decades that 'information' went unchallenged.

Posted by: Tim at January 10, 2008 7:53 AM

not all media are that skewed in favor of the aclu position-Mark Patinkin today does a yeoman job of asking why the ICE agents can never be right-i know the feeling all too well-years ago there was an excellent reporter with the Pawtucket Times named Kevin O'Connor who reported stories involving immigration enforcement fairly and accurately-as a matter of fact 15 or 20 years ago the Journal did a very credible job in this area-things have changed drastically and i am not sure why-perhaps pressure from the advocates and the jerzyk-segal-brown agenda machine-all i know is that people like karen lee ziner should stop impersonating reporters and get a column like merrill c bakst where a rant is the expected product

Posted by: joe at January 10, 2008 9:34 AM

It is difficult but essential that we contunue to expose these stories for what they are; illegal immigrants bent on exploiting the generosity of this country for their own advantage. It is epidemic. The population behind the fraud and deciet now have a powerful voice in local and national politics. Can you imagine twenty, even ten years ago a polititian or Catholic priest supporting these situations?

Posted by: michael at January 10, 2008 9:34 AM

Perhaps if the laws were reformed so that they did not discriminate unduly against the poor as they do now (and even in a lot of cases against the law-abiding immigration applicants) people like myself might find it easier to see illegal immigration as a problem. Then again, if the laws had never been written so discriminatorily, there probably wouldn't be an estimate 12 million plus illegal aliens, and it wouldn't be considered such a significant problem after all.

Posted by: smmtheory at January 10, 2008 10:02 AM

discriminatory?yes,if you understand that mexico and canada each are alloted 40,000 preference visas a year compared to 20,000 per each other country in the world-this doesn't include immediate relative visas (spouse,parent,child)which are not subject to numerical preference limitations-as a note we only take in 1,000 tibetan refugees a year-the whole time i worked for INS i never heard of a tibetan being arrested as a criminal alien-these people will never get their country back-we should up the number for them,but they don't have the backing of political whores who favor mexican immigration even after the president of that country intimates that parts of the US are mexican territory

Posted by: joe at January 10, 2008 9:02 PM

So you would prefer to keep poor people from immigrating? You would prefer to tell the law-abiding applicants they have to wait because there has been too many illegal immigrations for the last 20 years? Or is it just that you would prefer immigrants not be mexican, like the law makers when they codified the quota system back about 50 years ago?

Posted by: smmtheory at January 11, 2008 9:09 AM

to smmtheory-what are you talking about?i certainly never opposed taking in southeast asian refugees,who have largely benefited this country and they were definitely not wealthy-i just don't think mexico and canada should get an unequally large quota-the increased numbers date to 1987 by the way,not 50 years ago-why not give preference to chinese escaping communist oppression?we've done it for cubans and east europeans in the past-the chinese immigrants by and large contribute to this country and almost never become dependent on welfare-and they don't believe parts of this country belong to them-google" voz de aztlan" or "mecha" if you want to hear the exreme voice of mexican irredentism,,then criticize me if you think i'm coming out of left field

Posted by: joe at January 11, 2008 9:55 AM

The quota was increased in 1987. The quota system was codified about 50 years ago. Why? I'll give you a hint. Somebody wanted to keep mexicans out, but to make it look good and hide the bigotry, they assigned a quota to other places too. And you ignore the adjustments to the quotas based on estimations of illegal entrants, iow, those 40,000 that are supposedly allowed to immigrate, well, that number is adjusted by the number of illegals suspected every year. Guess what, they happen to match pretty closely. So effectively, the quota is 0!

Posted by: smmtheory at January 11, 2008 12:21 PM

No, smmtheory, the quota is 40,000 and from what you say, it is being fulfilled and then some.

What's happening is, the US inexplicably refuses to build a wall or do what it takes to secure its border (as every country has the right to do) and 40,000 people are jumping ahead in line by entering illegally. We are not obliged, however, to increase our quotas because of the bad behavior on both sides.

Posted by: Monique at January 11, 2008 5:36 PM

And who qualifies for those 40,000 positions? Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, and other professionals. If you aren't professional, if you don't have a college education? Forget it. If you're from Mexico, forget about a chance at a Diversity Visa. No, you aren't obliged to increase quotas, just like you are not obliged to give the poor a chance either, just like you are not obliged to give the uneducated a chance either. You are free to remain the elitist you choose to be... and the immigration code is quite a prop there ain't it?

Posted by: smmtheory at January 11, 2008 7:12 PM

smmtheory-it's obvious you are pushing an agenda regarding "poor people and mexicans"-why is it obvious?-you avoided any of the points i raised regarding all those filthy rich southeast asians-are you saying we don't issue visas to mexicans-you're wrong-and i think this country has a right to decide what kind of people we want as immigrants-you have a problem with professionals?with educated,productive people?we have no obligation to take in people who will be a drag on our society,regardless of where they come from-did you check out the google citations i mentioned?it sounds like you're carrying water for them-if you really want illiterate people with no desire to assimilate to come here in large numbers-make sure you let them know to move in next door to you-i truly could care less who moves into my neighborhood which is pretty well mixed as long as they are going to be productive taxpayers-you sound a lot like steve brown and charley bakst who live in lily-white barrington-and the quota system was set up to keep out east europeans,not mexicans-prior to 1987 anyone from the western hemisphere could obtain an sa-1 visa-check your facts

Posted by: joe at January 11, 2008 9:33 PM

"And who qualifies for those 40,000 positions? Doctors, Dentists, Lawyers, and other professionals. If you aren't professional, if you don't have a college education? Forget it."

That's wrong, by your own "testimony" and in actuality:

"From the period of 1968 to 1993, it is estimated that 16.7 million immigrants entered the country legally. Of these 16.7 million legal immigrants nearly 85% were from the Third World. This percentage is composed of nearly 50% legal immigrants that came from the Caribbean and Latin America and about a third came from the Asia region."

This also decimates your absurd contention that the US "wanted to keep Mexicans out". A hop-scotch style of debating and baseless, hyperventilating accusations ("elitist", "bigotry") are only credible if they are backed up by facts.

Now it's your turn, smmtheory. Tell us why you are opposed to legal immigration and why you feel that the United States, unlike any other country in the world, is not allowed to possess sovereignty or enforce its borders.


Posted by: Monique at January 11, 2008 11:48 PM

monique-smmtheory sounds a lot like a jerzyk/segal/brown cohort-ever notice the resort to "hater,anti-immigrant,bigot,racist"blather when they have no legitimate and they always avoid answering points they have no prepared mantra for-one their newest favorite words is "decry"and the references to the overthrow of the guatemalan"duly elected"government pegs them as leftists-only places like cuba,venezuela,nicaragua,or north korea should have secure borders

Posted by: joe at January 12, 2008 12:17 AM
we have no obligation to take in people who will be a drag on our society,


if you really want illiterate people with no desire to assimilate to come here in large numbers

That's the good version of profiling? Yeah, I think that is pretty much what was going through those politicians minds when they limited visa availability to professionals and the educated.

By the way, how many generations has your family been around in the U.S.? Did that first generation have college degrees? Or were they possibly uneducated like with my spouse's family? I'll bet somebody thought they were illiterate with no desire to assimilate too.

you avoided any of the points i raised regarding all those filthy rich southeast asians

What points? Political asylum? Oh, okay, so if the mexicans were being politically oppressed by a communist government you would give them consideration? Gee, how generous.

Tell us why you are opposed to legal immigration and why you feel that the United States, unlike any other country in the world, is not allowed to possess sovereignty or enforce its borders.

That would be your assertion. Trying to misrepresent my arguments again, eh? And that quote you took from the Immigration Support web site, I guess you just kind of overlooked the disclaimer at the top of the page that it wasn't a government agency. They are in the business of selling immigration support, so they are going to paint as rosy a picture as possible to sell wannabe immigrants their services. But as long as we are backing up our arguments with facts... if a person cannot get a Diversity Visa, which is impossible for a mexican, that person has to get either a work or student visa. What are the chances of a person who can't afford college back in Mexico being able to afford a college education in the U.S.? I guess that leaves work, eh? So, tell me, which kind of work visa should an unskilled, uneducated, underemployed worker apply for?


Employment First Preference (E1) -Persons of extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics. Applicants in this category must have extensive documentation showing sustained national or international acclaim and recognition in the field of expertise.

Employment Second Preference (E2) - Professionals holding an advanced degree (beyond a baccalaureate degree), or a baccalaureate degree and at least five years progressive experience in the profession; or Persons with exceptional ability in the arts, sciences, or business. Exceptional ability means having a degree of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered within the field.

Employment Third Preference (E3) - Skilled Workers, Professionals Holding Baccalaureate Degrees and Other Workers; All such workers require a labor certification, or Schedule A designation, or evidence that they qualify for one of the shortage occupations in the Labor Market Information Pilot Program.

Employment Fourth Preference (E4) - Different types of special immigrants provided for under immigrant law are listed below:

1) Broadcaster in the U.S. employed by the International Broadcasting Bureau of the Broadcasting Board of Governors or a grantee of such organization;

2) Minister of Religion;

3) Certain Employees or Former Employees of the U.S. Government Abroad;

4) Employee of the Mission in Hong Kong;

5) Certain Former Employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government;

6) Certain Former Employees of the U.S. Government in the Panama Canal Zone;

7) Certain Former Employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government on April 1, 1979;

8) Interpreters and translators of Iraqi or Afghan nationality who have worked directly with the United States armed forces or under Chief of Mission authority as a translator or interpreter for a period of at least 12 months and meet requirements.

9) Certain Foreign Medical Graduates (Adjustments Only);

10) Certain Retired International Organization employees;

11) Certain Spouses of a deceased International Organization Employee;

12) Juvenile Court Dependent (no family member derivatives);

13) Alien Recruited Outside of the United States Who Has Served or is Enlisted to Serve in the U.S. Armed Forces;

14) Certain retired NATO-6 civilians;

15) Certain surviving spouses of deceased NATO-6 civilian employees;

16) Alien beneficiary of a petition or labor certification application filed prior to Sept. 11, 2001, if the petition or application was rendered void due to a terrorist act of Sept. 11, 2001;

17) Certain Religious Workers.


Employment Fifth Preference (E5) - Employment Creation Investors; To qualify, an alien must invest between U.S. $500,000 and $1,000,000, depending on the employment rate in the geographical area, in a commercial enterprise in the United States which creates at least 10 new full-time jobs for U.S. citizens, permanent resident aliens, or other lawful immigrants, not including the investor and his or her family.

Oh, but wait, we already "know" that none of them want to work don't we? If they did, they'd already have jobs back in Mexico, eh?

Posted by: smmtheory at January 12, 2008 1:43 AM

smmtheory-since you asked-my family(both sides)got to the US around 1902,by coincidence ,since they came from different countries-they were poor but not illiterate on one side and not poor,not well to do on the other side-average i would say-no one ever didn't work hard-BUT-they all had to go through Ellis Island-if they had certain problems they couldn't come in-they didn't sneak in here-on my spouse's side her mother was puerto rican-so never had to be an immigrant and her father immigrated from honduras in 1940 with his brother-they both served in ww2,korea,and vietnam-one in the army,the other in the merchant marine-there was no great difficulty immigrating here in the periods i was talking about unless you were chinese,and for a long period couldn't become an immigrant at all-a shameful chapter in our history-THAT is something maybe we should address,not the overthrow of a communist in guatemala in 1953-mexico has and contues to be the main source of immigrants and illegal aliens since ww2-however mexico has become a willing conduit for aliens from everywhere in the world to enter this country surreptiously-and for that we should be thankful?i get the feeling you're an open borders,one world advocate like the jobs with justice group.you said i was profiling-okay,fair enough,but not on a racial basis at all-rather based on who would be an asset to the US-there are thousands upon thousands of people from africa,asia,and latin america would would bring good skills and a desire to become American with them-what i am against is this country developing a quebec syndrome or a version of belgium-perfect examples of mutual isolation and distrust within a single country-or maybe the model of yugoslavia appeals to you-no problems there,right?-we cannot have enclaves of people who don't want to adapt to American society-they should be here to assimilate-maybe even adding something new in the process,but certainly not forming separate national cultures-the melting pot idea,a very good one has been replaced by a "diversity mosaic"-a recipe for disaster

Posted by: joe at January 12, 2008 10:27 AM
i get the feeling you're an open borders,one world advocate like the jobs with justice group.

Why do you assume that? Just because I think poor people should have the same opportunity to immigrate that well off people do? Wow. Should we start revoking the citizenship of people who are habitually unemployed, non-college educated, or non-professional now? Wouldn't that do wonders for your property values then, eh?

Posted by: smmtheory at January 12, 2008 4:31 PM

property values?haha-i have a very modest house ,no fancy cars,it took me 10 years to get a bachelor's degree with interruptions for small things like going to vietnam,working full time while attending school on the gi bill,etc-if you think i'm an elitist,you are insane-i am a regular guy who loves this country and welcomes anyone who comes here the right way and wants to be part of it-money isn't the deciding factor-i don't know where i said no poor people should be immigrants-however i really don't want people coming here who will become parasites-we produce enough of those on our own-and i didn't assume you were a jerzyk/segal clone-it just seemed that you were echoing their point of view-and talk about elitists-they are two prime examples along with steven brown-they are patronizing and condescending ,particularly to "people of color"as they like to put it-my wife is definitely "of color"and thinks they are the worst kind of racists-the ones that "know best"what other people need to get through life-she says the blatant racists are easier to take-they don't pretend to like you-these guys are total phonies who probably never had a hard day in their lives-if you're not with them,good for you-but you shouldn't assume i'm some wealthy person from the east side or barrington-nobody handed me a thing-i grew up in brooklyn in the 40's and 50's in a lousy neighborhood where hot water in the morning was a welcome surprise and my family lived payday to payday-things got better later on through hard work-i only ask two things of prospective immigrants-come here legally and do your best to become part of this nation-is that too much?

Posted by: joe at January 13, 2008 12:08 AM
property values?haha
after you said...
we have no obligation to take in people who will be a drag on our society
if you really want illiterate people with no desire to assimilate to come here in large numbers-make sure you let them know to move in next door to you

like it is an assumption that they will be a drag on society because they are not educated or professionals... like it is an assumption that will have no desire to assimilate if they are illiterate... like it is an assumption that they are definitely not desirable to have in your neighborhood unless they are educated or professionals.

So tell me, if a mexican can't get a student or work visa (because he is too poor to afford a college education) and he can't get a diversity visa simply because he's mexican, how is a person suppose to view the position you hold that the law shouldn't be changed to give him an equal opportunity? It looks like to me that you don't care that all legal ways for that mexican to immigrate are closed off. All you do is complain about how that person might have gone ahead and crossed over anyway. You automatically classify that person as a drag on American society, even if he or she does find and hold down a steady job, even if he or she does pay for all his or her own medical care; illiterate by your standards because that person may not read or write english at the moment, even if they are doing their best to learn it.

All you seem to care about is cracking down on them, not changing the law so that they have the opportunity to do it the legal way. You tell me why that attitude shouldn't be considered elitist.

Posted by: smmtheory at January 13, 2008 9:29 PM

#1-illiterate to me means not able to read or write in any language#2-i actually did the job of border patrolman/ins agent for 21 years so i'm not talking theory here-no controls over who gets in and stays here is idiotic-and would you mind telling me what your fixation is with mexicans?i don't exactly know what a diversity visa is-is it a lottery?i retired over 11 years ago so i don't think they had such things then-and i worked only enforcement,not examinations/inspections so i was never in the loop regarding new types of visas-probably half the people i arrested in rhode island were permanent residents who had committed eportable offenses-in the 12 years i was assigned to rhode island i probably arrested less than 20 mexicans-they were not a large population group here-there seem to be more now-you seem determined to believe that i don't want mexicans-you are really out in left field on this-i don't give a tinker's damn where immigrants come from as long as they can contribute to our society-your whole hangup seems to center around mexicans-it appears your point of view is vary narrow -let's get away from mexicans-we have a large number of african immigrants in my neighborhood-they are hardworking property-owning families-by no means rich,just middle class-their children are well-behaved and all seem to be in school-i wouldn't want a group of somalis who are on the welfare rolls here as neighbors instead-they have a hard time adjusting to the American way of life-they're all africans,so is it a racial issue-no-it's who can adapt here and who can't-we just don't have the extra resources right now to help people who come here and aren't willing or able(i am not sure which is the case)to become self-sufficient-the southeast asians mostly succeeded,but we owed them anyway since the war we fought pretty well screwed things up over there to the point where millions of people were massacred after we pulled out suddenly-the mexican government is incredibly corrupt-why isn't the oil wealth trickling down there?if mexican poverty concerns you ask the oligachy that's been running that country since the 1920's why-don't hold your breath waiting for an answer

Posted by: joe at January 14, 2008 12:05 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.