Greetings, all. I am Joeverkill, and this is my right-wing rant.
Here in Los Angeles, we have something called Special Order 40. Special Order 40 is a directive implemented by Los Angeles City Council with the support of Police Chief Daryl Gates and “Mayor” Antonio Villaraigosa which prohibits Los Angeles police officers from inquiring about immigration status from detained subjects or using immigration information databases to make arrests.
In summary, Special Order 40 is a local law that prevents the enforcement of federal law.
How the shit is that legal?
Suppose some random local government – let’s say Mississippi, for example, decided that they wanted to pass a local law that negated federal law. Perhaps it’s a law that deals with… oh, for the heck of it, let’s just say slavery. Mississippi passes a law that prohibits police from arresting slave owners or inquiring about the activities of slave owners or traders. Even worse, local police are not allowed to use available database information about slave owners in order to make arrests for other crimes, including drug dealing, murder, rape, etc. Wouldn’t the rest of the country be pissed about that? Shouldn’t non-slave-owning residents of Mississippi be pretty pissed about that?
Let’s look at another hypothetical example. Let’s say, just for kicks, that the city of Macon, Georgia decides to pass an order that prohibits police from arresting pedophiles. The mayor and the city council think pedophilia’s A-Okay; in fact, they’re pretty sure that the pedophile vote was the main factor in their victorious election campaigns. Pedophiles flock to Macon Georgia. Because police can’t use information of the pedophiles’ previous crimes, the pedophiles soon learn that they are extremely difficult to arrest. They start dealing drugs, refuse to pay state income and sales tax, and disregard all traffic laws. Soon Macon, Georgia is full of tax-dodging, drug-dealing pedophiliacs who drive recklessly and without insurance. Every young boy in town has a weiner up his butt. And the police can’t make arrests because these boylovers are protected by the city from state and federal law.
That’s the situation we have here in
Los Angeles.
Illegals are given special status, protected not only for the crime of being here illegally (and make no mistakes folks, it
is a crime), they’re protected from virtually every other law as well.
America, look to Los Angeles and you will see a slippery, slippery slope – and I’m not just talking about mudslides in Malibu. If we continue to allow liberal local policymakers to defy federal law, we could very well soon see more pockets of lawlessness sprout up around the county.
I’m Joeverkill, and this has been the right-wing rant.
8 responses:
I am (dirty liberal blogger)Rupert Murder, and I approve this Right-Wing Rant.
However, I take issue with calling them "illegals."
It's like labeling a group the "gays" or the "blacks," or - to go even further back - "wops."
This type of labeling has been used before, by the government at war time, to help cast a shadow on the fact that the people we stand against are, at their core, people as well.
see: gooks, insurgents, terrorists et al.
While I agree with your point, that changing local law to circumvent federal law for local electoral gain is a slippery slope, I believe it is important to understand that this is a very charged issue that involves people from America and people from Mexico, not just "citizens" and "illegals."
At the same time, I believe it is the job of local and state governments to create their own laws when they feel federal laws are not working. In this way, the states exert power over the direction of the country as well, rather than awaiting their marching orders from Washington.
However, you still make a good point. I just believe it's important not to label or overgeneralize with such a charged and convoluted issue.
Mr. Murder, your points are fair. However, I specifically use the term "illegal" in order to stress the fact that these people (yes, people) have broken United States law.
I agree that labeling people by their groups can leaded to prejudice. However, illegals joined that particular group by choice -- they weren't born into it. Just as I feel okay labeling people "pedophiles" for touching little kids in a sexual manner, I feel okay about labeling illegal immigrants illegals "illegals" for entering our sovereign nation without permission, in violation of United States law.
Joeoverkill's rant is typical of reactionary right wing paranoia and fear mongering and not of right wing logic and sense (which I do believe exists but functions mostly only in theory). Slyly comparing pedophilia and slave ownership - two of the most heinous crimes in human history to the act of crossing the border to find cheap labor is a crass attempt at igniting unconscious fears, directing them at the rights's favourite whipping boys come election time - 'the aliens'(add ominous minor chord music here for max effect).
Most of the 'unholy brown invaders from down south' don't come here looking for underage ass either. A sort of John Wayne racial invasion paranoia runs rampant in the logic of your undercooked rhetoric. If anyone lives the life of a slave in modern America it's the illegal farm hands, nannies, landscapers and dishwashers from Mexico and other countries. How dare you compare them, even if only in your slovenly, lawyer fashion, through a misleading comparison, to the scum of society. In your insidious way, you label them as scum too, don't you?
You call their act of seeking a better livelihood crime; this is true from a strictly legal standpoint. They need to be regulated for that crime, not for the imagined crimes you ascribe to them. They don't use databases to catch everyday "legal" criminals do they? When a pedophile rapes a child and is found out, he gets punished and then goes on a database. Why do you need a database to catch an illegal for any crime he commits after the fact of his first crime of being in America illegally? The crime of illegally entering another country is not a moral one but a civil and perhaps economic one. For you an illegal criminal is lower than a legal one. Why is that? Where is there any evidence that a higher percentage of illegals commit crimes than citizens? Can you prove that a majority of them come to America to commit crimes? You seem to imply this with your single minded focus on 'illegal criminals'.
An illegal immigrant is only seeking to better himself. You legally go to college and work a high paying job because of the rights your country has secured for you through years of bloodshed and state level arm twisting. What alternatives does he have? Continuing a life of abject poverty without the means to support his loved ones is a fate akin to death. How palpably has your standard of living or sense of safety gone down because of this supposed, deranged influx from the South? Compared to what an illegal has to go through at work in an inner city sweat shop and living in cramped conditions in an unsafe ghetto you have it made. You benefit from their toil too. It is almost certain that you eaten cheap food or bought clothes that were made from their sacrifice.
The truth of the matter is that Special Order 40 will help improve policing and protect the lives of both legals and illegals. When a crime takes place and an illegal is a witness or victim (which is more likely than an illegal perp) he or she will no longer be scared to come forward and report it. A similar measure was implemented by Mayor Rudy Guiliani in New York - an example of the aforementioned Right Wing sense. It worked just fine and did not come in the way of aggressive policing, crime fighting or even the police's fundamental right to abuse authority. As everyone knows crime reduced drastically during his term in office while allegations of abuse rose. This arrangement should suit the knucklehead radical in you Joe.
All your alternative will do is push the illegals further into the fringe of society and completely alienate them. It is from this crouched animal position of fear that one reaches for crime and fears authority and mainstream society. By driving them further underground you will make it impossible to regulate their actions through the law. Why don't you just go all out and call for checkpoints on every street demanding id papers so that you can organise a mass deportation? Lets throw all civil liberties out of the window and create a truly pure American state with only American criminals to poison the well. That seems to be the logical end, the shit pit at the bottom of your slippery slope to Fascism.
minotauro,
Your personal attacks disappoint me. You're calling me a racist because I'm criticizing a policy that was passed in order to negate federal law. You can argue against the regulation of immigration all you want, but in my opinion, it is necessary. Therefore, enforcement of these laws is necessary.
You claim that Special order 40 helps law enforcement. And yet the article I cited has specific accounts by police officers who claim that it is hindering their law enforcement efforts. I understand the logic behind Special Order 40, but you cannot argue that it flouts federal law. Would you also deny that Special Order 40 was also motivated by a desire to appease constituents? The voters who put Villaraigosa and the City Council in office are overwhelmingly pro-illegal immigrant. I think it's naive to claim that Special Order 40 was not an attempt to appease these voters, at least in part.
You claim that illegal immigrants are only guilty of the crime of attempting to better themselves. Is not the thief attempting to better his situation when he takes possession of another's property?
I thought it was fairly obvious that my comparisons of illegal immigrants to slave owners and pedophiles were done for effect. I wanted to emphasize my point with a bit of humor, and I'm disappointed that you couldn't appreciate that. Accusing me of hyperbole is rather hypocritical, though, is it not? When you are calling me a fascist and a racist?
Your dismissal of the value of state and federal crime databases is illogical. No one is claiming that crimes committed by illegals are somehow worse than crimes committed by U.S. citizens. I am simply claiming that if information exists about a suspect, law enforcement should have access to it.
In the future, minotauro, I will not respond to irrational, personal attacks. I appreciate your reading my post, and I'm glad that it sparked some debate.
Oh get off your high horse and say what you really mean. Who are these appeased constituents who support illegal immigrants - say it, call them hispanics. It won't make you racist, it will just make your point clear.
Why do you couch your language and talking points in such a disingenuous manner. Of course you compared illegals to pedophiles for 'effect' and what an effect it has - that of embedding in the mind of the reader, rampaging maniacs and associating them with illegals. Classic bait and switch.
A thief takes what he pleases, an illegal works to take home a bare minimum salary. How is that the same as thievery?
You proudly called your post a right wing rant, the exact same thing that a fascist spouts. You called yourself one sir, I just pointed out the fact that it is nothing to be proud of. Of course my attack was personal, I was personally offended by the manner in which you chose to pursue your arguement. You appeal to the sentiment of fear and I to that of compassion and moderation, that is the only difference in our personal methods. I never said that I disagreed with regulating illegal immigration, on the contrary. I just don't believe in villifying them for their minor crime.
You speak as if my retort contained no facts in it while the fact is you chose to ignore the ones I provided. Reread the last two passages. Then go to wiki on Rudy Guiliani and read about his choices regarding law enforcement and immigration enforcement. Fact enough?
On the other hand the specific police officer cited in your article does not even dare to say his name. He claims to speak for a coterie of his fellow officers who remain unnamed. They insinuate that the mayor is a supporter of illegal immigration with no proof being proffered. Why can we not believe that he supported the bill because of the reasons that i detailed? Is it not racist to insinuate that a Hispanic Police chief looks out for illegals just because they both are of the same race?
We are provided with two cases that are supposed to sway our judgement of an entire community of people. And all these 'facts' were published in the infamous La times which as recently as two months ago was forced to retract a web special on the Tupac murder because of falsified evidence provided by a common chiseler.
You may choose not to respond to my post but I hope you do. Just like you I am all for debate and exchange. However if in the course of such a debate you are confronted with uncomfortable aspects of your point of view do not blame me for pointing them out to you. I don't believe you are a racist but that the method you use to present your point of view is inflammatory and could be construed as being racist. I do just think that you are misguided in your present opinion.
I appreciate your candor and respect your opinion. However, allow me to address a few things.
First of all, as far as I know, Police Chief Daryl Gates is not Hispanic. I did not insinuate that he, the City Council, and Villaraigosa support illegal immigrants for racial reasons -- I implied that tey support them for political reasons. Antonio Villaraigosa has stated in the past that he is an ardent supporter of immigrants, both illegal and otherwise. He has moved multiple times for ordinances that protect both individuals and business from ICE.
I did not villify anyone for minor crime. My point was that this particular law, in its efforts to protect illigals from prosecution over minor crime, has protected a small percentage of them from prosecution for major crimes.
You pointed out that the intention of Special Order 40 was to eliminate witnesses' fear of reporting crimes. How about a "special order" that protects only witnesses, rather than those under suspicion for crimes? That would still be illegal, but it makes more sense than Special Order 40.
Your point about the credibility of the L.A. Time story is valid. However, you cannot dismiss a policeman's testimony just because he does not want to give his name. There are obvious reasons for his not wanting to.
I don't quite follow your logic that because illegal immigration is a "minor crime" we should look the other way.
And finally, if you think my arguments are racist, that's your opinion. I can only say that they were made with the assumption that no one smart enough to read would equate pedophile and slavery with illegal immigration in terms of moral reprehensibility.
As an immigrant who came here legally, I just wanted to say that despite what joeverkill feels about immigration in general, his main thesis regards the fact that no matter how you slice it, the federal government has specifically ruled that such acts are illegal, and Los Angeles is passing something that goes against federal law.
I strongly believe in immigration reform, and I believe what Los Angeles is doing is with good intention, if there's something that's wrong and should be changed, it's the federal law, but strictly speaking Los Angeles is doing something that obstructs current federal law.
Many of us have complained if/when states have passed laws restricting abortions, that those jurisdictions were doing something illegal (per roe v. wade), and formal arguments against them have stemmed from their flaunting federal decisions, so isn't it unfair to not grant that of an issue just because you don't explicitly agree with it?
Let's go march in Washington and get the immigration law fixed. Let's do it the legal way.
Post a Comment