July 24, 2008

Are There Valid Criticisms To Be Made of Sanctuary and Amnesty Policies?

Carroll Andrew Morse

Over at RI Future yesterday, Matt Jerzyk wrote…

When the immigration debate becomes about “them” and the “them” is largely determined by race and ethnicity, then racism is a clear component of the debate.
But how about the definition of "them" in other areas of public debate? In a post from just two days earlier, Paul Bovenzi is certainly more than comfortable with defining his view of "them" largely in terms of race…
Last I checked, the White, Conservative, Male still had a firm (and disproportionate) grasp on the power and wealth in this country, so why is he so terribly unhappy?

One more thing about the White, Conservative Male - he is also a top notch complainer!

So if you buy into Mr. Jerzyk's premise, unless a highly suspect double standard is to be applied, it seems that racism has to be considered a "clear component" of Mr. Bovenzi's argument too.


Look, what's really happening here is that the special interest groups who favor sanctuary and amnesty with respect to illegal immigration have hit a wall in persuading the general public that ignoring immigration laws is sound public policy. Unable to persuade, they've taken to trying to de-legitimize criticism of their policy positions, in the hopes that those who disagree with them can be bullied into silence.

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.

Well,it's not rocket science.Labelling people who oppose you as extremist,racist,etc makes what they say "invalid".I don't know who Paul Bovenzi is,but I read his blog entry on RIF and it was kind of bizarre.Does this man feel the necessity for a guilt trip?I have certainly done things I regret and most people do.But to have guilty feelings over things which you had no part in creating is either a mental health issue or a phony ploy.
Matt Jerzyk is a challenging guy to debate because he always has an answer ready-it might not be the right one but he doesn't lose his focus.
He asked me in a response below to give a yes or no answer to a complicated question.If the roles were reversed and I were to ask him something similar I would never get a yes or no.He likes to explain his way of getting to a particular point of view as much as I do,or anyone else who writes on blogs for that matter.
Rejecting,denouncing,repudiating,etc,etc ad nauseum are the new buzzwords in debate,replacing observation and careful evaluation.
Lest anyone call me a hypocrite,I have certainly tried to discredit people I disagree with by calling them some dreogatory names.Maybe I should clean up my act a little,but Charley Bakst will always be a Schnorrer.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 24, 2008 9:36 AM

Quite simply, the racist card is failing them too. 75% of the populace in this state is against illegal aliens and they certainly can't ALL be racists but ALL of them are offended at being portrayed as such.

The pro-illegal crowd is a fixed constituency that cannot grow. They've alienated themselves into a corner. They've insulted those that they seek to persuade.

Right now the only saving grace of the amnesty crowd is that BOTH Presidential candidates favor the "Come on in!" policy.

Posted by: Greg at July 24, 2008 9:51 AM

God save we the oppressed white males.
Denied the fruits of affirmative action, we have to beg for the scraps of the old-boy network.
We don't even have the hockey rinks to ourselves anymore.

Posted by: rhody at July 24, 2008 11:29 AM

I'm going to move into Rhody's place against his will for a while.

Posted by: Greg at July 24, 2008 11:43 AM

Andrew - you must not have read my comments in the post below. i said that YES THERE ARE ANTI-IMMIGRATION ACTIVISTS WHO OPPOSE IMMIGRATION ON GROUNDS THAT DO NOT INCLUDE RACISM OR XENOPHOBIA. but my question to you and Joe and others - still gone unanswered - is why you and AR have not to date - criticized those people in your movement (against immigration) who ARE racist and xenophobia and who give all of you a bad name as a result.

Will you PUBLICLY stand up and criticize those who are using race and ethnicity and white supremacy as a reason for opposing immigration??

I hope so.

Posted by: Matt Jerzyk at July 24, 2008 11:45 AM


Who are these people that you speak of? I've never met anybody who said "I hate the damn 'spics." Am I supposed to ask everyone that's opposed to illegal aliens WHY they're opposed? Is there supposed to be a litmus test? A thought police? Who would be in charge of such a process of disqualifying people from the discussion?

And can we get you to publicly distance yourself from anyone on the pro-illegal alien side that belongs, even REMOTELY, to La Raza and other pro-'take back America from the gringos' organizations?

Posted by: Greg at July 24, 2008 11:59 AM

Of course, the biggest racists are those would raise race as a canard when their other real arguments were defeated/ exhausted.

I wonder if Matt Jerzyk would criticize the French as racists if they opposed groups moving into their country and forcing them into bilingualism or raising their taxes?

I wonder if Matt Jerzyk would criticize RI politicians of the Democrat or Progressive flavor if they became crooks? Let's say the RI General Assembly were taken over by crooks, the leaders were crooks, and there was even a federal investigation over it --how many calls for their resignation would you read over at RIF?

How about it, Matt?

Posted by: Citizen Critic at July 24, 2008 12:13 PM

It seems redundant, but it should not escape readers that Jerzyk is conveniently changing the language to "ANTI-IMMIGRATION" and not including "illegal".

To do what he proposes - denounce groups that have a shared view even if for different desired outcomes - would just wreak of "hey, I have black friends".

Posted by: JP at July 24, 2008 12:13 PM

The racists Matt is talking about must be groups such as the KKK. I think most here would agree, without the aforementioned formal criticism, that the KKK has no place in this discussion.

Posted by: Frank at July 24, 2008 12:35 PM

Sure, Frank. But what Matt and his ilk like to do on this issue is say "FAIR is anti-immigration and RIILE is anti-immigration. FAIR is a racist group, ergo RIILE must also be a racist group because both groups are anti-immigration.

It makes as much sense as if you were to say "Environmentalists are against cars and are Democrats. The UAW are also Democrats. Ergo the UAW is against cars."

Posted by: Greg at July 24, 2008 12:43 PM

"Will you PUBLICLY stand up and criticize those who are using race and ethnicity and white supremacy as a reason for opposing immigration??"

I haven't run into any. But I am glad to publicly condemn racism and anyone who believes in the supremacy of any race, whether in the context of illegal immigration or of any matter.

My turn now. I challenge you, Matt J. Of the people who has been publicly speaking about this issue - on the radio, in newspapers, on blogs, commenting anonymously on blogs - please provide the list of people who have stated that they are opposed to immigration.

Posted by: Monique at July 24, 2008 12:57 PM

Matt-I answered your question.i know you're about to embark on a law practice,and knowing your public persona,I would guess you'd really like taking depositions and cross-examining witnesses-I was getting cross-examined by good attorneys before you were born and you cannot always get the answer you want.As a matter of fact,most attorneys won't ask a question they don't already know the answer to.
a young attorney did that to me once in US District Court here and it cost her client an additional 5 years in prison.
you can't define who or what you think is racist and then demand that someone agree with you.
Racist groups are easily identified in most cases by their encouragement of vigilante actions.Picketing is not a right reserved to the left.(hmmm?).
If you think I would spend 2 minutes in an environment where anti-Hispanic or anti-Black rhetoric was acceptable,you really don't know anything about me.When individuals do something extremely offensive on their own volition,they are responsible,period.You're a Democrat,so is your friend Dave Segal-are you guys responsible for the behavior of people like John Celona or Billy Irons?i doubt it very much."YES or NO!" works well on Law & Order,but not so much in real life.(Exception:when you are questioning your kids about "how did this get broken?")

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 24, 2008 1:18 PM

Sound familiar?


Posted by: Greg at July 24, 2008 1:23 PM

I have checked the FAIR website for the first time.I went to the links section and I didn't notice any for American Patrol,a frankly vigilante minded confrontational group-I didn't even see a link to the Minutemen,which is a pretty edgy outfit,but hard to define as white supremacist since the honcho is an Afro-American.No links to a scumbag site like Stormfront either.There were a few links to groups which might merit further examination as to their motives,but nothing jumped right out.
How about La Raza?The Race?Nice handle for a group.There isn't a Hispanic race to begin with-David Ortiz,Alberto Fujimori,Erik Estrada,and Gloria Estefan are all Hispanic and represent four different racial backgrounds.Hispanic is a language linked group of cultural entities related to one another in some degree.
La Raza is a cultural or ethnic supremacist/separatist organization,isn't it Matt?Yet Presidential candidates go before it just like they do AIPAC or the NAACP.I am sick of pandering to groups defining themselves by race,ethnicity,religion,etc.unless the appearance by a candidate is in connection with a specific non-political cultural or historical event.
I would hate to see this country become a patchwork of mutually suspicious groups like such garden spots as Belgium,Northern Ireland,or the former Yugoslavia.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 24, 2008 1:37 PM

Isn't Matt Jerzyk's attempt to taint all opponents of ILLEGAL immigration with the racist label --a form of racism itself?

Racism is about actions and policy that discriminate on the arbitrary criteria of race, skin color, ethnicity, etc.. If largely white opponents criticize ILLEGAL immigration on proper grounds, but, are wrongly accused of being racists, isn't that a form of racism?

Aren't Jerzyk's attempts to improperly focus on a few bad apples a smear against the overwhelming tide of fair and decent minded people who oppose ILLEGAL immigration for the right reasons?

Jerzyk seems to have learned the leftist playbook well.

Posted by: Citizen Critic at July 24, 2008 3:26 PM

I'm still waiting...

But since "all anti-immigration activists could NEVER be racists" according to the commentary above...


...let me provide some SPECIFIC examples that you can either ACCEPT as part of your movement or REJECT due to racism and xenophobia.

Example #1:

That line frequently blurs, however, when Gorman and fellow RIILE members predict that a current influx of “Spanish-speaking people” will lead to a Hispanic majority that will turn the United States into “a Spanish-speaking country,” if nothing is done to curb illegal immigration.

Gorman and other RIILE members said that most of the illegal — and legal — immigrants coming from South America and Central America, are “largely uneducated” and “refuse to assimilate.”

“They want to maintain their own language, maintain their own culture, and put their South American flags above the American flag. That’s what people are so upset about,” said Gorman.

“I think our culture is going to go away … The Irish didn’t force meat and potatoes on you. The Italians didn’t force spaghetti and meatballs on you. But that’s what’s happening. They want us to take on their culture.”

And Example #2:

The group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR):

* is the creation of a man who operates a racist publishing company and has compared immigrants to "bacteria;"
* has employed members of white supremacist groups in key positions;
* has promoted racist conspiracy theories; and
* has accepted more than $1 million from the Pioneer Fund, a racist foundation devoted to eugenics and to proving a connection between race and IQ.




Posted by: Matt Jerzyk at July 24, 2008 3:49 PM


Example #1 --accept. Bilingualism hasn't helped unify Quebec and hasn't worked in many other countries. Assimilation is what built our country and mad eit great. Have you ever heard of the "Melting Pot" in American culture? Socialism/ communism hasn't worked in any country in history, so uneducated and poor people just need to work their way up just like everyone else. And stop taxing the middle class to death, which is killing the American Dream. That's what freedom is all about, it is the "pursuit" of happiness, it is not the guaranteed cradle-to-grave/ welfare/ nanny state handouts that have turned RI into a hell hole from which many people, including myself, have fled.

Example #2 --reject.

You can find undesireables on both side of this issue, and on most issues.

One question is: why are you focusing on this small fringe group on one side, and not on the lunatics on the other side as well?

Most important: why sidetrack, distract, and taint the matter? Why focus on such a small part of a large issue? Why not focus on the 75% of the population which justifiably wants an end to illegal immigration?

Why not focus on the real issues instead?

Is your position really *that* weak?

Posted by: Citizen Critic at July 24, 2008 4:19 PM

Citizen Critic-excellent point about the French(in France)-European countries like to lecture the US about racism,but just check out the following observation: the Uk has a lrge non white population,and not just Muslims by any means-there are Black people from Africa and the West Indies and their descendants,who of course are UK citizens;France has a large number of Black citizens due to migration from their former African and Caribbean colonies and current "overseas departments";belgium has a lsrge contingent of citizens from Congolese,Rwandan,and Burundian origins.
Let's not forget the liberal Netherlands with many citizens of Indonesian,Curacaoan,and Surinamese background.have any of these countries had a Black man or woman as the leading candidate for national office?Hell,no.Or even as Forign Minister(equal to Secretary of State)-again,no.Maybe a deputy in parliament here and there but that's about it.
I think our nation is moving beyone racism faster than amost others in spite of ongoing problems that we still wrestle with.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 24, 2008 4:48 PM

Citizen Critic-excellent point about the French(in France)-European countries like to lecture the US about racism,but just check out the following observation: the Uk has a lrge non white population,and not just Muslims by any means-there are Black people from Africa and the West Indies and their descendants,who of course are UK citizens;France has a large number of Black citizens due to migration from their former African and Caribbean colonies and current "overseas departments";belgium has a lsrge contingent of citizens from Congolese,Rwandan,and Burundian origins.
Let's not forget the liberal Netherlands with many citizens of Indonesian,Curacaoan,and Surinamese background.have any of these countries had a Black man or woman as the leading candidate for national office?Hell,no.Or even as Forign Minister(equal to Secretary of State)-again,no.Maybe a deputy in parliament here and there but that's about it.
I think our nation is moving beyone racism faster than amost others in spite of ongoing problems that we still wrestle with.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 24, 2008 4:48 PM

What Terry Gorman is saying,Matt,is that he doesn't want people from Latin America becoming a separate enclave here,cut off from normal relatuionships with the larger population-knowing Terry as I do,I think it is fair to call him a proponent of the melting pot approach,hardly a racist sentiment.He puts it in forceful terms,but you're no shrinking violet either.And you know what?Assimilation happens with virtually every immigrant group.Maybe that's why we don't have a pervasive homegrown Muslim terrorist movement here like they do in the UK and Spain.
As far as the Pioneer Fund,you may be right on that,but do they currently influence thinking in FAIR?

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 24, 2008 4:59 PM


I'm still waiting for a straight answer from you on the subject of immigration. That you've taken the time to try to obfuscate the issue by focusing on a minority opinion intimating that it is a majority one is what I continually see from you everywhere on this issue. And not once have I seen where you address the real issues that rational citizens have with 'amnesty' programs.

It's actually comical in a way. By trying to stereotype people who favor legal immigration as racists you only further marginalize your own position and lose ground. Why? Because common sense americans favor immigration. Most are descended from 2nd, 3rd, or 4th generation immigrants themselves. So to here you call them 'racist' when many came here 'legally' is almost spitting in their face.

I hope that you and others debating like you will not so easily dismiss the opinions of rational everyday Americans who believe in the rule of law.

Posted by: donroach at July 24, 2008 9:26 PM


By the man who created FAIR, I presume you mean John Tanton, but you left a few details off of his resume. Tanton was also the organizer of the Northern Michigan chapter of Planned Parenthood, and was very active in the Sierra Club in the 1970s, when he tried to get the organization behind radical population control. I find nothing to agree with in Tanton's radical population control beliefs.

I think that RIILE has as much to do with Tanton's wingnuttery as the Northern Michigan chapter of Planned Parenthood does. But if you are assuming a valid connection between Tanton's out-there immigration beliefs and RIILE, shouldn't we assume an equally strong connection between abortion for population control -- another Tanton belief -- and the members of Planned Parenthood?

To more directly answer your original question, though I am not a member of any "anti-immigration movement", I have no problem denouncing anyone who brings racist, white-supremacist, or ethnocentrist attitudes into areas of immigration, education, zoning and housing, or anywhere else.

Now, one for you: What's your take on someone who takes a statement by one individual and cites it as evidence that the male members of that individual's race are suffering from paranoia? Is that kind of inference from one individual to an entire race within the bounds of reasonable discussion, or something that should be denounced?

Posted by: Andrew at July 24, 2008 10:05 PM

I think we are getting people to "denounce" or "repudiate" persons or ideas to maintain their credibility.
I recall Mel Gibson,after his anti-Jewish tirade was being pressured to denounce his father(who is a real Jew-hating wingnut)in public.No one should be asked to publicly repudiate(I HATE that word)their parent(s).This was part of the price of his getting back to being tolerated in Hollywood.
Obama was pressured on Rev.Wright and Bill Ayers.Well,I think he shouldn't do it out of pressure,only if it suits him.
If Obama likes to associate with Bill Ayers he shouldn't back down and accept the consequences of his choice.Throwing someone under the bus just to gain "acceptability"is the kind of crap that goes on in middle school.
Does this mean I like Mel Gibson-no,it means that we should maintain our true opinions openly.Even if we are running for office.
The communists used to employ "confess and denounce" tactics-so did the House UnAmerican Activities Committee.Ironic,no?
I guess my point is that no one should have to conform to a template to have their their point of view receive an evenhanded evaluation.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 24, 2008 11:58 PM

This is perhaps the most racists thread I have ever seen on this blog. Of course this is about racism. Undocumented workers are only doing what every red-blooded white male would do. When faced with the economic reality of starvation, these proud undocumented folks left familiar surroundings to travel to a hostile and foreign land and do the jobs the sedentary population refused to do. Why? not because they are criminals, but because they heroically want to provide for their families. In the face of in humane attacks by the white male right wing - again, why? Because they look different than you do Justin, and Carroll, and Monique, they have different names, such as Juan and Jose and yes Grace.
This is about your unbridled hate and racism, why else would you deny the gift of the American dream?

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 9:01 AM

these proud undocumented folks left familiar surroundings to travel to a hostile and foreign land and do the jobs the sedentary population refused to do

Mr Tetrault, while I struggle to type with my fists - which have clenched after reading your ignorant post - I have to ask when we can put to rest this idea of Americans refusing to do these jobs? Jobs like the Bianco factory in NB where the next day legal citizens had lined up to fill the positions? Or maybe janitorial services at the Garahee Judicial Complex??

Also, I noticed you used Latino names to characterize illegal immigrants. Interesting.

Posted by: JP at July 25, 2008 9:36 AM

Bill-It's nice to see what true open borders believers are really thinking.
Why don't we just authorize illegal aliens to vote also?I am sure you'd be down with that.It's obvious that you lack the common sense to understand that along with the individually harmless jobseekers come a lot of others who we shouldn't want here,but I guess it's a wasted effort to tell you that.
The public is waking up to the attitude you express and you are in a thankfully small minority.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 9:36 AM


So I take it that your answer to the initial question of "are there valid criticisms to be made of sanctuary and amnesty policies" is no. Got it. There is to be no debate of and no dissent from the policies favored by open borders advocates.

You're awfully comfortable making generalizations about people you've never met and know nothing about based on their race. Do you have enough introspective ability to see that blatant hypocrisy you're espousing? I think what's blinding you to your own hypocrisy is that you can't stand the thought that anyone thinks differently than you do, and that you want to do everything you can to force them into silence. But that's a problem you have as an individual, not something that can be attributed to you being a member of any particular race, ethnicity, religion, or gender.

(And to JP's point, "jobs the sedentary population refused to do"? What, has Frank Williams been running slave-labor camps inside of Rhode Island's courthouses? Maybe we need an investigation here.)


I agree with your comment on the slippery-slope that denounciations can lead us down. As such, I withdraw the final part of the question from my previous post regarding denounciation.

Thanx for being around to pull us into line.

Posted by: Andrew at July 25, 2008 10:09 AM


Mi Amigos, I have news for you. Undocumented American workers already vote. We have them vote in Providence, Pawtucket, Central Falls, East Providence (big time) and Woonsocket. We almost got Charlie elected, clearly it was our organizing of undocumented Americans that got Ralph in. We will get Grace in too. As a reward, you will never see id cards being required to vote, unless of course Sen Levesque's bill to give undocumented Americans drivers licenses becomes law.
And while it may be technically against some arcane election law, it is right the undocumented Americans should vote. They work hard, they obey the laws and they pay taxes - they have a RIGHT to vote. Sure, white folks like you don't like it, but get used to it. We are here and we will not be denied.

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 10:16 AM

Hey Bill - I really hope you get an opportunity to accidentally cut off an "heroic" member of MS-13 in traffic some day - like that poor fellow and his two sons in San Francisco.
Bill, it's been demonstrated that "heroic" "undocumented" immigrants are performing a form of racist ethnic cleansing on African-Americans in Los Angeles, outraged?
Bill - why are Mexicans forced to forgo the legal immigration process due to starvation? They have an abundance of natural resources down there.
Bill - why do Mexicans treat their own illegal immigrants - Central & South Americans coming northward - so harshly?
Bill - why don't you think having porous borders and "sanctuary cities" is a legitimate security issue?
Bill, I grew up, went to school and served a couple Navy tours in So Cal - I know what I am talking about - do you? I also guarandamntee that I have had more Mexican-American friends in my life than you have, so stuff it.

Posted by: rhodeymark at July 25, 2008 10:41 AM


First of all great to hear there are no white gangs - opps forgot about those illegal immigrants in white supremacist gangs like the skin heads, and the illegal immigrant Sean McVey.

Second, also great to hear there are no crimes committed by African Americans against Koreans.

Third, great to hear conditions are so wonderful in Mexico that everyone is at full employment and there is plenty to eat for all - oops, not true, thats why Mexicans are forced here to feed their families, something you wouldn't understand Gordo.

Fourth, great to hear Americans treat undocumented Americans so fairly - oops, you have Nazi programs like e-verify, and racists always looking to blame the undocumented for everything.

Fifth, great to hear we are doing such a good job protecting America from Mexican and Guatemalan terrorists - oop, last time I check it was the Saudi's who attacked us on 911 - so much for your security argument.

Sixth, great to hear you grew up in California and served in the Navy making you an expert on all things about undocumented. Opps, you never had to face the choice of courageously striking out for a new life in a foreign land or face starvation in your fascist Navy!

You are clearly without any grasp on anything but your own racism.

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 11:04 AM

Mr Tetrault,

This thread delivers! It is one of the best ever on Anchor Rising!!

You are the racist. We need to make no apology for opposing illegal immigration which is destroying our country.

You say illegals are fine upstanding citizens? Here are some facts for you:

*Illegals make up a big percentage of the prison population, especially in border states such as California and Arizona

*Illegals are much more likely to be on welfare than citizens

*Illegals drive up our health care costs and our taxes


Posted by: Citizen Critic at July 25, 2008 11:48 AM

Wow are you a lost angry white man or what!???

You say illegals are fine upstanding citizens? Here are some facts for you:

*Illegals make up a big percentage of the prison population, especially in border states such as California and Arizona

Yes, largely because of discrimination and because of racist attitudes of people like you. Look at how many undocument Americans are in prison in Northern border states - almost none!

*Illegals are much more likely to be on welfare than citizens

Because they are exploited by rich white business owners - we need a national living wage law, forget about minimum wage

*Illegals drive up our health care costs and our taxes

Simply not true! Undocumented Americans pay taxes and often the taxes they pay are pocked by rich white business owners.


Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 12:14 PM

re: Bill Tetrault

Gentlemen, I think you are feeding the troll!

Posted by: observer at July 25, 2008 12:18 PM

It's fun to watch him jump and dance for our amusement.

Posted by: Greg at July 25, 2008 12:42 PM

Laugh all you want ladies and gentlemen in your white sheets and hoods. We are clearly winning. Want some empirical evidence? Just look at all the gains the white supremist republican party makes on election day. I would be surprised if they return even 10 to the RI house or 4 for the RI senate. These are the same idiots that read your stupid blog - couch bound morons. In the words of the Democratic leadership, bend over we'll drive!

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 12:47 PM

The Tetrault incursion here is proof that Anchor Rising is an OPEN forum.No one is censoring him because he hasn't made threats or other stuff that gets thrown off most blogs.I don't think most of us would get a word in on any blog he ran.
I think the IWW meeting is starting any minute,so he might have to hurry over there.
This guy makes Matt Jerzyk look positively moderate.Matt is also a lot smarter-this fellow is so far over the edge that it's hard to take him seriously.
Bill-one hint-assisting someone to make a false claim to US citizenship in order to vote is a felony(18USC2;18USC911)-I wouldn't brag about it if I were actually engaged in it.Hardly an arcane law.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 12:56 PM

Bill-it's "mis amigos"-can you even speak Spanish?

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 12:58 PM

Incursion? Thats what you call free speech? Wow, and you call me the racist.
Here is the reality of the world - a reality you are either unwilling or unable to accept. We will provide sanctuary to all who seek a better life. That, ladies and gentlemen is what America is all about - like it or not. You and the talk radio crazies are only a small pathetic and irrelevant factor. Your only hope is an even smaller and more pathetic RI GOP lead by a moron de tuti morons, Giovanni Ciccione and Dan York. We will come back in November with:
A Democratic President
A Democratic US House (with bigger majorities)
A Democratic US Senate (with bigger majorities)
A Democratic RI House (with bigger majorities)
A Democratic RI Senate (with bigger majorities)

In two years we will add a Democratic Rhode Island Governor such as Liz Roberts.

You will be even more irrelevant and pathetic than you are now, that ladies and gentlemen is the harsh reality, not some left wing ramble.

Lastly, Mis Amigos is plural. I a was speaking to one individual.

Who's the moron now!

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 1:50 PM

OK, I thought it was just a crackpot until he said that Liz Roberts would be the next governor. Now I realize that he's a drugged-up idiot with a keyboard.

Posted by: Greg at July 25, 2008 1:57 PM

Read what you actually wrote before calling me a moron.
Your posts are an incursion-they are here as attacks undisguised as dialogue,but no one cares because you sound a little like the monster shouters who haunt Kennedy Plaza.
I retract my cautionary note about admitting to committing felonies on a blog:you have an obvious insanity defense.
We may get democrats in power,but if 75% of the people in a blue state like RI support the Governor's Executive Order,you and your open borders friends are sucking tailpipes.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 2:02 PM

That poll is absolutely a joke. If you could actually read you would see that so-called illegal immigration is way down on the list of what really matter to Rhode Islanders.
Unlike you Dan York and Matt Allen, Rhode Islanders are a caring and compassionate people, who understand the need for all people to be cared for.
When will you concede that you are just wrong? when?

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 2:07 PM

Bill Tetrault is just a conservative Tyler Durden, trying to depict himself as a liberal in order to illicit outrage and motivation in other conservatives.

Frankly, I wish I thought of it. I smashed my monitor before I realized.

Posted by: JP at July 25, 2008 2:15 PM

Illicit, incite - whatever.

Posted by: JP at July 25, 2008 2:19 PM

Bill-I did study the poll results-and yes,only 4% of RI residents polled considered immigration the leading issue.I am not in that 4%.
The question of support for the Governor's Executive Order is totally separate and 75% supported him.It's like comparing your gas bill with your water bill.Two different issues.Just because an issue is not the leading one,doesn't mean it is not thought about.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 2:33 PM

This reminds me of the old Soviet Union. If you don't agree with us comrade, you must be insane (or a conservative - same thing).
Wow, I have been called a lot of disparaging things but this is truly the first time I have been called a conservative!

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 2:35 PM

I love how many of you 'learned' idiots have never learned how to deal with internet trolls.

HEY OLD DUDES! Just ignore him.


Posted by: Greg at July 25, 2008 3:24 PM

"Bill Tetrault" is right about one thing: the Progressives are winning the battle to control RI --but, at what cost?

In aggregate, RI is a financial disaster. By virtually all economic indicators, RI ranks close to 50th out of 50 states. Foreclosures are rampant, there are no jobs, and taxes are up, up, up. The economy is dead, businesses left long ago, and now people are following.

After the illegal aliens, welfare mothers, welfare cheats, unions, and political insiders got their share --all that's left for the people is a corpse. It's exactly as would be predicted from a corrupt/ socialist business model. Is that a big victory to stuff your pockets while killing the golden goose? Hardly. It proves 'progressivism' AKA socialism is a failure.

But, as long as the RI locals approve of it and fund it, have at it! Knock yourselves out!! Give away the state treasury every day of the week, it is OK with me.

I am just so glad for my decision to move out last year.

Anyone with half a brain will move out ASAP. After you move, you will enjoy far less stress in your life and more of the fruits of your own labor.

Posted by: Citizen Critic at July 25, 2008 4:52 PM

Ok, see what your unwillingness to accept undocumented Americans leads to? This from today's AP wire:

PORT CARBON, Pa. (AP) - Three white teens were charged Friday in what officials said was an epithet-filled fatal beating of an illegal Mexican immigrant in a small northeast Pennsylvania coal town.

Please stop hating and start nurturing? You are no better and no worse than those undocumented Americans who only seek to do what's best for their families.

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 4:53 PM

Greg-even if this guy is a troll,it's a good mental exercise
Bill-this isn't about who is better or worse-I am sure there are illegal aliens who are much better people than me in any given respect-I just don't believe in anarchy when it comes to this issue.
If you feel so strongly about the conditions thaht drive people here,why don't you go organize protests in one of these nice home countries of your "undocumented Americans"-wear Kevlar if you do,though,because not everyplace is like the USA where your little street theater will be yawned at.
"Undocumented Americans?Sounds close to "Undocumented Citizens"referred to by BILL Rappleye(hmmm?)

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 5:31 PM


Did you not read my previous post or are you just stupid?

The hate, and killing is being done by you and your kind who are unwilling to welcome those seeking to just better there lives. Is killing someone justified for not having documentation? Come on, its like a traffic ticket. Do you drive the exact speed limit everywhere you go? Then you are as guilty as these poor undocumented Americans. Don't you see that?

Wow, thank God you and your moronic party are out of power and will be for the foreseeable future. Let the grown-ups in the democratic party give all these folks the amnesty they deserve.


Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 5:53 PM

you are the one consumed with hate-go piss up a rope

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 6:31 PM

Now thats intelligent discourse! Gio teach you that one?

Posted by: Bill Tetrault at July 25, 2008 6:43 PM

Calling other people on a blog murderers and racists gets you exactly zero rhythm in the courtesy department
Gio?I'm not even a Republican.I love it-you throw out moron,stupid,etc like verbal diarrhea and you get offended?What a joke you are.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 25, 2008 10:35 PM

He's gone, Joe. Justin turfed him.
At least our battles have a little more wit and pith to them.

Posted by: rhody at July 25, 2008 11:44 PM

Well,it looks like the three teenagers who murdered the Mexican man in Pennsylvania are being charged with murder as adults.Good.It was apparently an unprovoked attack because of his background.I hope they rot in prison.
A sad aspect of this is,that according to the article the deceased had two children with his US citizen fiancee-why didn't they just get married and adjust his status?With two kids together,there would be zero questions about the validity of the marriage.He could've had a green card with no sweat.I actually ran into people like that all through my career-they just never got around to it-I would encourage them to do so since they were qualified already.
I even had a guy who had entered the US the year I was born(1946) and had tried to stay under the radar for 32 years,not knowing that he had been statutorily been made a resident alien retroactively to 1948.This was in 1978.He almost passed out when I informed him of this,so instead of a hearing date witha judge,he got to fill out a citizenship petition since he had way more than the five required years as a resident.I was glad for him because he was a class act as a person with sole custody of his US citizen son.
My job was NEVER boring.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 26, 2008 11:37 AM

"I hope they rot in prison."

These kids should pay for what they did. But its from the adults they got that "illegals" are criminals invading, taking over with criminal-like behaviors like stealing jobs, leeching off the good people. These kids were not outsiders, "alienated" from society; they were not gangsters out to destroy their neighborhoods. They were defending their community. "Rot in prison" is what the adults will say to try to erase any connections with what these kids did.

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 26, 2008 2:46 PM

Arturo-Obviously by quoting what I said you are trying insinuate that I say the kind of things that incite such behavior.I don't and I am really tired of you so go stick it where you take a dump.Clear enough,Arturo?

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 26, 2008 2:54 PM

joe, I don't particularly remember you using the words "illegals" "invasion" "stealing jobs" "leeching". I'm not going to try to prove you wrong because I'm not that interested in what you, one civilian, has said. This is how your side has for the most part conducted itself and has, as you admit, incited what these kids did.

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 26, 2008 4:01 PM

And Carroll, "racism" is how some want to understand why your side dehumanizes illegal immigrants. I don't think it's racism, I think they're wrong. But it doesn't change that "in persuading the general public that ignoring immigration laws is sound public policy" your side had to malign the character of illegal immigrants. And now we have a man who lost his life. That should give you a clue about "sound public policy".

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 26, 2008 5:23 PM


My so-called side doesn't dehumanize illegal immigrants any more than they de-humanize anyone else who breaks the law. Your so-called side seems comfortable with selective enforcement of the laws and with politicians and public officials who aren't honest with the public about whether they are enforcing the laws. That's not a good practice in a democracy.

Given what you believe about the attack in Pennsylvania being the result of incietment, do you also believe that last month's appratenly racially-motivated attack in the city of Providence was also the result of adult incitement? And if you believe that it's fair to attribute an ulterior motive to someone who says he'd like to see the attackers in the Pennsylvania case "rot in prison", do you think it's also fair to assume that someone saying he'd like to see that attackers in the Providence case "rot in prison" is similarly trying to cover some ulterior motive?

Posted by: Andrew at July 26, 2008 5:34 PM

This 'debate' is silly.

First, Andrew is 110% correct in his observation that the pro-ILLEGAL-imigrant crowd tries to change the subject and put the anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant crowd on the defensive by using the race card.

That being said, it is wise to call them on it, but a waste of time to engage in any kind of debate with the morons that use the race card.

When you wrestle with a pig, you gonna get dirty.

Stick to the valid arguments and concerns. Beat them over the head with them, but don't bother trying to defend against nut-bag racism charges.

Our country, like every other country in the world, has every right, in fact an obligation, to protect it's soveriegn borders.

There is nothing wrong with having rational and managed immigration.

To those idiots that cry foul and demand a nanny state for all the world's less fortunate, I say don't bother locking your doors at night, 'cuz we'll be coming over to take what we "need" any time we want, so as to "make a better life for ourselves" and no one has a right to protect their "borders" or personal property.

By the way, when are we going to get a busload of "illegal immigrants" and drop them off at Charlie Bask's house for dinner and a sleep over?

Posted by: George Elbow at July 26, 2008 5:59 PM


When laws don't make sense, laws should change. Maligning those who in breaking those laws show good character doesn't move us forward. It shows good character that illegal immigrants come to improve their lives, and it is good for employers to hire them to give consumers lower prices, and it is good for consumers to want to save money. All that adds up to current bad immigration laws and the need for amnesty.

I'm surprised you don't think there's harm in African-Americans obsessing with being black. Whites for the most part don't care about being white any more, why should blacks? There aren't more incidents like the one you linked to, because mixed-race families aren't derided as much as illegal immigrants.

It's not about having "ulterior motives", it's about not being honest with yourself

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 26, 2008 7:03 PM

"When laws don't make sense, laws should change."

Should Japan change their immigration laws? Ireland? Indonesia? Chile?

Nor is there any need to change the immigration laws of the United States, which are, in fact, quite reasonable, especially compared to those of most countries around the world. The only problem with them was that for about ten years, they were not being sufficiently enforced.

But you are not interested in changing laws, Arturo. You want to eliminate the sovereignty of the United States. That's not a goal that I agree with.

Posted by: Monique at July 26, 2008 9:06 PM

Monique, that's not true. Notice that an essential part of my equation is that American consumers have made what we've got now. I'm interested in immigration laws that reflect Americans' values.

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 26, 2008 9:12 PM

Monique-make that over 30 years-the big sea change occured with Jimmy Carter,and was generally neglected thereafter until 1986 when an amnesty/emplyer sanctions bill passed.It was so badly flawed by added-on amendments and provisions that it was a failure before it even went into effect.I don't feel like writing a novel length entry expalining what went wrong,but Leon Panetta and Ted Kennedy had a lot of responsibility for it.
This issue has gotten so emotional and overheated that the "opposing'positions are hardening as every day goes by.Politicians,particularly the leadership at any level are largely money-grubbing whores,so don't expect much constructive or well thought out solutions from them.I didn't call them prostitutes because prostitutes work hard for a living.And they are generally more honest.
What if this were about driving?There are plenty of dangerous idiots on the road today.Imagine if we had no license requirements,no traffic signals,no safety standards,and no consequences for doing whatever you wanted on the road.I bet Arturo and any other sane person would not be happy.It's no different with immigration.The claim is often made that earlier immigrants showed up at Ellis Island without visas.True enough-my family came in through there between 1900-1908(both sides)-here is the difference:they were detained on the island until they passed inspection requirements.One of my great uncles was retarded and he couldn't be admitted.That's just the way it was and no one in my family whined about it.They accepted the laws of their new country.
Some of today's violators are visa overstays or didn't comply with the terms of their admission.
I do believe they deserve more consideration than border jumpers because they were actually inspected and admitted to the US.No criminal violation resulted,unlike crossing without inspection,or entry by fraud,impersonation,or falsely claiming US citizenship.Those are in fact criminal violations.Some are felonies and some are misdemeanors.The McCain-Kennedy bill was unworkable.I don't think Kennedy will be participating in any new legislation due to the severe nature of his brain cancer.
Arturo-what is a "civilian"in the context of this discussion?Are you a soldier in some movement?I was certainly no "civilian"relative to this issue for the 21 years I served as an INS agent.
The only thing I am sure of is that we won't solve the problem among ourselves.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 26, 2008 11:25 PM


by "one civilian" i meant you're just one person who I think doesn't have much influence right now on immigration policy, kinda like me.

also, I don't know of anyone who's brought their retarded relative from Mexico.

also, your thing about driving doesn't make sense. I'm not saying we should have no immigration laws, as I've already explained to Monique. What you seem to be saying, though, is that we should decide 30 years into the future how many people should be allowed to drive.

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 27, 2008 1:14 AM

Well,Arturo,you are right for a change-neither you nor I have any influence on what politicians do-here is a dilemma-amnesty-we had two since WW2-the first affected people here since prior to 1948-it worked out well because the whole immigration picture was different.
The 1986 amnesty had a lot of problems in the execution of it.
Now if we have a massive amnesty the people who have been "in the shadows",being exploited,working under the table for substandard wages will say to themselves"I don't have to endure this anymore"and will demand competitive wages,benefits,and safety standards.Consumer costs will go up as a result,so-the employers will get rid of the newly legalized and go right back to using people with no legal status-it seems like a self generating problem.That is why border control,employee verification,and no exception deportation of crminal aliens must be accomplished before any "path to citizenship"(I think the term should be "residence")can be considered.
Employers have to understand that they will go to prison and lose their business if they don't comply.
By the way,the statement you made about retarded relatives makes my point-without an inspection procedure at entry,how can you possibly know who is coming in and who or what they are bringing with them?The fact that you,Arturo Fernandez doesn't know anyone who brought in a retarded relative is like saying that since I,Joe Bernstein doesn't know anyone who rides a unicycle,then nobody must ride one.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 27, 2008 9:36 AM

"Some of today's violators are visa overstays or didn't comply with the terms of their admission. I do believe they deserve more consideration than border jumpers because they were actually inspected and admitted to the US. No criminal violation resulted, unlike crossing without inspection,or entry by fraud, impersonation, or falsely claiming US citizenship."

Yes, I would agree. While visa overstays should not be ignored, they should be secondary in enforcement efforts to those who made no effort to comply and especially secondary to enforcement efforts on employers.

Employers of illegal aliens should be our highest eforcement priority because they do three very bad things:

1.) They encourage people to come here illegally by offering jobs, thereby exacerbating the illegal immigration problem.

2.) They encourage people to risk life and limb to come here by offering jobs.

3.) Many of these companies then employ such individuals in exploitive conditions.

"The McCain-Kennedy bill was unworkable."

More than unworkable, it was unnecessary. "Immigration reform" is a big lie. No reform is needed. All we need to do is enforce the perfectly good laws already on the books.

Posted by: Monique at July 27, 2008 10:00 AM

"Many of these companies then employ such individuals in exploitive conditions."

Be careful ...you are dangerously close to spouting the Union talking points.

Last time I checked, it was still a free country and NOBODY was forced to work a job they didn't want to work.

The only people that are Exploited in this world are people that allow Themselves to be exploited.

Lastly, you noted "Employers of illegal aliens should be our highest eforcement priority."

Although your point is valid, I would make one small ammendment. Specifically, we should, with equal priority, cease and desist from providing any illegal-citizen tax-payer funded services / subsidies ...including health-care, welfare, Public Education, interpretors, housing aid, heat aid, etc.

Get rid of the magnet that is taxpayer funded subsidies and you will do as much, if not more, to rid ourselves of the most destructive element of illegal-immigration.

Yes, poverty pimps like Henry "I want everyone else to pay for people's bad choices" Shelton will have to find something else to do with their time, but that's a small price to pay.

Posted by: George Elbow at July 27, 2008 11:43 AM

George-Shelton is the least objectionable of the poverty pimps because I think he lives a pretty minimal lifestyle himself(he sure doesn't overspend on wigs)but he is a bleeding heart and I think he gets played by his "flock".
What really makes me want to puke is people like Charley Bakst who preach at us from Barrington where they have insulated soft lives.Or Patrick Kennedy-the mentally deranged,lazy trust fund piggie who doesn't know what it is to sweat paying a bill.
Shelton at least seems to walk the walk.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 27, 2008 12:16 PM


Over the past 30 days, as we've seen some 12 illegal immigrants come, unemployment has been for the most part low, at times reaching historic lows. That means that our economy is 12 million jobs stronger as a result of illegal immigration. It means that 12 million Americans who are not unemployment don't have to fill less-skilled jobs and so have better-skilled jobs. Illegal immigrants enable Americans to improve their skills and become better educated. 40 years ago half of US natives did not finish high school.

Who says that economic growth and prosperity has to stop now with amnesty? If we give amnesty to today's illegal immigrants they will, as you say "demand competitive wages, benefits, and safety standards". With more coming in to take their place at the bottom, they will get better wages and benefits if their skills and experience merit them, which will be the case. So it's essential that more people will come. We need immigration policy that compliments our free market, not interferes with it.

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 27, 2008 12:25 PM

that should be "over the past 30 years", not days.

Posted by: arturo fernandez at July 27, 2008 12:27 PM

You know,Arturo I have no problem with continued immigration because it is good for the country-our society absorbs new immigrants and their first generation children more effectively than any country on earth.And they bring something to the mix also,which past immigrants did.What I am saying is that the US has to define the rules and decide who comes in and stays,not the people coming here.The rules should be fair,but we should look for immigrants who will enhance our productivity and improve our general standard of living.Which doesn't mean we have to reject poor or illiterate people automatically,but we have to do what is in our best interests.Illiteracy in particular is a bigger problem than economic poverty with immigrants,because a poor immigrant who can read and write can be self-sufficient. I do not think lower consumer prices is a good tradeoff for maintaining a permanent underclass of menial workers.This country used to have slavery,an abomination that lasted centuries and left a trail to the present day.While an underclass of illegals isn't the same,it isn't healthy for the country.I love the US precisely because we are a country where the desire to succeed isn't stifled by nobility or other artificial barriers prevalent in so many other regions of the world.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 27, 2008 1:12 PM


If the pro-amnesty side in the immigration debate is "interested in immigration laws that reflect Americans' values", then they have to be willing to what Americans -- even those who disagree with them on immigration policy – say their values are! It is not reasonable to tell someone that 1) I'm going to create a policy that reflects your values 2) Now, I'm going to tell you what your values are 3) and if you disagree with what I tell you your values are, it's because you are some kind of Neanderthal willing to de-humanize those you believe are different from you.

You've expressed the view, at least in this thread, that the driving American value is a desire for cheap goods. I and many others (I hope) think that that's much too pinched a view; it ignores factors that are an integral part of American success, like the importance of a shared respect for the law in promoting a culture of trust, or the role played by America's civic institutions in encouraging patriotic assimilation -- and whether our institutions are as prepared for this role as they have been in the past.

Isn't this something we need to have a sustained discussion about, without side A being told that they are automatically de-humanizing the other if they disagree with side B?

Posted by: Andrew at July 27, 2008 3:13 PM

I agree with Monique's theory that we need to go after the employers who promote illegal immigration.
However, the Carcieris, Yorkes, etc., of the world don't have the testicular fortitude to do it. If they were really interested in stopping illegal immigration, they'd go after the employers just as savagely as they go after the immigrants.

Posted by: rhody at July 27, 2008 11:45 PM

Thanks to watered down employer sanction laws(credit Ted Kennedy and Leon Panetta here)it is very difficult to charge an employer criminally.In New Bedford,the ICE agents were able to make a case against the employer for conspiring to provide false documents.
In the present RI case,even though anyone with half a brain knows that the contract companies were fully aware that their employees were not authorized to work or even remain in the US,they probably will avoid criminal prosecution unless a direct connection between them and document fraud can be made.
E-verify would close this loophole for employers,but the "advocates"always oppose.You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Posted by: joe bernstein at July 28, 2008 10:09 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

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