Arizona Republican Mistakes Bus Filled With Kids Headed To Camp For Bus Of Migrant Children

July 16, 2014

Comments

A Republican candidate for Congress who showed up for a protest against a bus shipping migrants from the Texas border to a holding facility in Arizona ended up protesting a bunch of kids on a YMCA outing:

Republican congressional candidate and state legislator Adam Kwasman had just raced up to Phoenix Tuesday morning from the protest in Oracle over the expected arrival of dozens of migrant children at a shelter.

He had tweeted from the scene, “Bus coming in. This is not compassion. This is the abrogation of the rule of law.” He included a photo of the back of a yellow school bus.

Kwasman later told me he saw the migrant children. “I was actually able to see some of the children in the buses. The fear on their faces…. This is not compassion,” he said.

But there was a problem with Kwasman’s story: There was no fear on their faces. Those weren’t the migrant children in the school bus. Those were children from the Marana school district. They were heading to the YMCA’s Triangle Y Camp, not far from the Rite of Passage shelter for the migrants, at the base of Mt. Lemmon.

12 News reporter Will Pitts, who is at the protest scene, says he saw the children laughing and taking pictures of the media.

I had to break it to Kwasman that those weren’t migrant children. Kwasman later deleted the tweet. He did back flips trying to take back the story he told me.

The interview is pretty amusing, especially when Kwasman tries to get out of the hole he dug himself when the reporter tells him the students weren’t migrants at all.

But, hey, I’m sure they all look alike right Mr. Kwansman?

60 responses to “Arizona Republican Mistakes Bus Filled With Kids Headed To Camp For Bus Of Migrant Children”

Mark Ivey

July 16, 2014 at 7:25 am

No mention of this on Fox, so it did not happen.. :))
Jenos Idanian #13

July 16, 2014 at 7:46 am

In slightly less humorous news on this topic, the bodies of dead children are washing up on the shores of the Rio Grande.
beth

July 16, 2014 at 8:15 am

He had tweeted from the scene, “Bus coming in. This is not compassion.

Well at least he had something right.
humanoid.panda

July 16, 2014 at 8:17 am

@Jenos Idanian #13: So, if the possibility of horrible death by dehydration or drowning is not an effective deterrent, what the US government could possibly do to stem the tide, in your opinion?
humanoid.panda

July 16, 2014 at 8:20 am

Kwasman is pretty much the dictionary definition of shanda fur die goyim.
Jenos Idanian #13

July 16, 2014 at 8:39 am

@humanoid.panda: Glad you asked.

What’s drawing these kids is the 2008 law (written and passed by Democrats, who controlled both Houses at that point) and spreading word that the kids will be welcomed here. The Obama administration saw this coming — they put out an RFP to hire “escorts” for up to 65,000 illegal alien children back in January. So they saw this coming, and kept it quiet.

Here’s my suggestion: any unaccompanied minors under, say, the age of 15 that illegally cross the border are granted citizenship and declared to have been abandoned by their parents, who have forfeited their parental rights. That makes them eligible for adoption. If their parents object, then the kids are sent home to families.

15 and up: given the option of being placed in adoption/foster homes or sent back home.

Any kids with indicators that they belong to gangs get sent back. We’ve had plenty of reports of teens with MS13 tattoos coming across the border.

And we send a nasty note to Mexico: stop admitting people without documents who have the express purpose of coming on to the United States. Mexico very strictly controls its southern border, but gives a pass (literally) to those who say they’re just passing through. They need to knock that crap off.

Obama essentially invited all these unaccompanied minors into the US. So he’s responsible for these deaths.
humanoid.panda

July 16, 2014 at 8:52 am

@Jenos Idanian #13: You mean the William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Action Act, that was passed unanimously in both houses of Congress and signed into law by Bush? Sorry, stopped reading after this little nugget of BS.
Hazelrah

July 16, 2014 at 8:56 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

As I read your post I find myself nodding at some of your suggestions. They are cold blooded but I get the point. Then I come to your last sentence and realize I am slightly agreeing with an unhinged, deranged, partisan lunatic.
humanoid.panda

July 16, 2014 at 9:04 am

You know what, I changed my mind. Your ideas are just hillarious
1. If Obama proposed to just give citizenship to kids under 15, you’d be screaming for his blood (also, where will you find adoptive parents for these kids)?
2. What percentage of 15-18 year olds will prefer to go back over 2-3 years in foster care system? If that number is above 5%, I am willing to sit on a cactus.
3. The gang thing I am pretty sure is a red herring, if only because its doubtful Guatemelan kids are members of Mexican gangs.
4. Your argument that Obama “invited these people over” is especially funny, because
a)we already established the law in question has very little to do with him
and
b) your proposals are far to the left of anything the administration is proposing and will in fact trigger a mass exodus of kids here. If you think that parents in rural Guatemala who are sending their kids alone to trek into the desert hoping that they might not get deported only because they hope one day the kids will bring them North, you moral imagination is really lacking. If these parents are offered a deal in which the kids get adopted by American families, get US citizenship in exchange for loss of parental rights, they will take it in a millisecond. That’s what desperate, poor people do.
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 9:17 am

@humanoid.panda:

So, if the possibility of horrible death by dehydration or drowning is not an effective deterrent, what the US government could possibly do to stem the tide, in your opinion?

This also points out the rediculous concept of that “we must secure the border” before doing anything on immigration reform. There is simply no way to physically secure the border to completely stop illegal crossings.

If large areas of inhospitable desert and dangerous rivers are no enough, what leads one to believe that a fence will work? And whats after that? Minefields?
JoshB

July 16, 2014 at 9:18 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

The bill also passed on a voice vote in the House and with unanimous consent in the Senate. I would say this is a pretty good sign the GOP was on-board with the bill as well.

Bonus quote:

Prior to the signing, White House Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto, said that the bill “has been a priority issue for the administration in preventing the trafficking of persons around the world. So this is a piece of legislation we’re very proud to sign.”

This whole situation is the result of a bipartisan bill.

From your link, it shows the administration was looking to staff contractors to follow the law as it is written. Isn’t this the chief complaint the right has about Obama – that he ignores the law and is an imperial President? The link states this staffing increase is proof Obama planned the whole thing. I think it’s more likely the situation was anticipated due to the increasingly deteriorating situation in Central America.
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 9:21 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

Any kids with indicators that they belong to gangs get sent back. We’ve had plenty of reports of teens with MS13 tattoos coming across the border.

Cripes… seriously? Define “plenty.” Without a doubt there are gang members coming across. And yes, we should do our best to weed them out.

But what are the actual numbers that we are talking about. Here’s one of the few reports that actually put some *hard* numbers to this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2690223/Teen-members-feared-MS-13-gang-admitted-torture-murder-trying-recruit-young-illegal-immigrants-border-center-U-S-powerless-stop-them.html

Total number of gang members found at the Arizona holding facility: 16!

Thats out of the thousands of child immigrants crossing into Arizona alone. Not exactly high percentages so far.

It’s something that needs to be tracked and mitigated — along with the those crossing with health issues and sexual assaults in these centers — but “plenty” is a great way of inflating the numbers in the name of making brown people more scary.
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 9:27 am

@humanoid.panda:

If you think that parents in rural Guatemala who are sending their kids alone to trek into the desert hoping that they might not get deported only because they hope one day the kids will bring them North, you moral imagination is really lacking. If these parents are offered a deal in which the kids get adopted by American families, get US citizenship in exchange for loss of parental rights, they will take it in a millisecond. That’s what desperate, poor people do.

This. This. A Thousand Times This.
OzarkHillbilly

July 16, 2014 at 9:29 am

@Matt Bernius: C’mon Matt, there is nothing scarier than a person with a dark complexion. Everyone knows that.
Jenos Idanian #13

July 16, 2014 at 9:40 am

Now that I’ve got everyone’s attention, maybe we can finally get a few ideas of what constitutes “common sense” immigration reform. For all the blathering about it, all I’ve seen for particulars is 1) don’t bother securing the border, and 2) don’t do anything else that conservatives might like. Actual details and proposals? Sadly lacking.
humanoid.panda

July 16, 2014 at 9:50 am

@Jenos Idanian #13: From the Wikipedia entry of the Senate immigration billed, endorsed by Obama:

Title I – Border Security[edit]
Title I, which begins on page 33, covers changes being made to border security in the United States.[2] Some of the goals mentioned below are also addressed in the preceding sector, Section 1 of S. 744.

One of the major provisions of S. 744 is a focus on increased border security, primarily dealt with in Title I. The bill establishes a goal of achieving a 90% success rate (Section 3(a)(3)) of intercepting and deporting undocumented immigrants who attempt to cross the border in one of the “High Risk Border Sectors” – places where more than 30,000 people cross per year (Section 3(a)(5)). In order to accomplish this, the bill would increase the number of CBP officers by 3,500 people by 2017, authorize the National Guard to participate in missions related to border security, fund additional surveillance and surveillance technology, and provide funding to build a border fence.

After the enactment of the bill (should it be enacted), the United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has 180 days to write and submit two reports. First, the “Comprehensive Southern Border Security Strategy”, which is a strategy meant to explain their plans for achieving and maintaining effective control in all high risk border sectors along the Southern border (established in Section 5(a)). The “Southern Border” refers to the international border between the United States and Mexico. The report will be submitted to several committees in Congress for review. Section 5(a)(2) explains the elements that should be included in the report, namely criteria for measuring success, capabilities that need to be obtained for the success of the strategy (equipment, personnel, etc.), and the infrastructure and technology required.pg 19-20 Congress grants the Department of Homeland Security $3,000,000,000 in order to pursue this strategy (Section 6(a)(3)(A)(i)).

The second report that the DHS is required to write and submit in 180 days is the “Southern Border Fencing Strategy” to identify where fencing, including double-layer fencing, infrastructure, and technology should be deployed along the Southern border (Section 5(b)). Congress grants the Department of Homeland Security $1,500,000,000 in order to pursue this strategy (Section 6(a)(3)(A)(iii)).

The bill would focus on three particular high risk sectors – the Tucson sector in Arizona and the Rio Grande and Laredo sectors in Texas.[8] Title I focuses on preventing additional illegal immigration into the United States.
Title I includes a number of provisions which are explained more explicitly in the bill’s text. This is a short list of some of them:

Definitions: “Rural, high-trafficked areas” are rural areas through which drugs and undocumented aliens are routinely smuggled, as designated by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The “Southwest border region” is the area in the United States that is within 100 miles of the Southern border.

Additional U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers are added – 3,500 additional federal law enforcement officers to be trained by 2017

Authorization for the National Guard to be deployed to the Southwest border for the following purposes:
(1) to construct fencing, including double-layer and triple-layer fencing;
(2) to increase ground-based mobile surveillance systems;
(3) to deploy additional unarmed, unmanned aerial systems and manned aircraft sufficient to maintain continuous surveillance of the Southern Border;
(4) to deploy and provide capability for radio communications interoperability between U.S. Customs and Border Protection and State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies;
(5) to construct checkpoints along the Southern border to bridge the gap to long-term permanent checkpoints; and
(6) to provide assistance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, particularly in rural,high-trafficked areas, as designated by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Authorizes and funds border crossing prosecutions and related court costs in the Tucson Sector at a level sufficient to increase the average number of prosecutions from 70 a day to 210 a day ($50 million from the $3 billion Border Security Fund). It also provides increased funding for Operation Stonegarden to assist state and local law enforcement to help prevent illegal activity along the border.

Provides additional funding for additional border patrol stations and forward operating bases to interdict individuals entering the United States unlawfully immediately after such individuals cross the Southern border and to provide full operational support in rural, high-trafficked areas.

Provides funding for vital radio communications and interoperability between CBP -Office of Border Patrol and state, local, and tribal law enforcement to assist in apprehension efforts along the border.

Now, most liberals think that all this border security will not do much to stop illegal immigration for good, for the simple reason that a rich country bordering very poor ones will always draw migration, unless it decides to totally sever all economic links with its neighbors. Nevertheless, they agreed to include of all of the above in the bill, explicitly to make conservatives happy. Of course, conservatives won’t be happy until we dig a moat patrolled with sharks with laser beams on their heads, but that’s a totally different topic.
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 9:50 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

For all the blathering about it, all I’ve seen for particulars is 1) don’t bother securing the border, and 2) don’t do anything else that conservatives might like.

Flipping it around, it’s the Republican/Conservative position that nothing should be done until the border is “secure.” And yet, there is very little explanation of what a measurably secure border is.

Perhaps you’d like to take a pass at defining that first. Then that provides something we could respond to.

[Update] Or if its easier, perhaps you could respond to the definition of “secure” in the draft legislation that @humanoid.panda posted.
Stormy Dragon

July 16, 2014 at 9:55 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

don’t do anything else that conservatives might like

I dispute the actual existence of “anything else that conservatives might like”.
Stormy Dragon

July 16, 2014 at 9:59 am

@humanoid.panda:

Authorization for the National Guard to be deployed to the Southwest border for the following purposes:

…

(6) to provide assistance to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, particularly in rural,high-trafficked areas, as designated by the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

So the proposed solution to immigration is to place the southwest portion of the country under martial law?
OzarkHillbilly

July 16, 2014 at 10:13 am

@Jenos Idanian #13: The idea that we can “secure” the border is about as common sensical as faster than light travel. Even if it were possible (it isn’t) Republicans would never approve the cost or the tax increases, or the expansion of government power that would be required to even attempt such an endeavor.
wr

July 16, 2014 at 10:15 am

@Stormy Dragon: “I dispute the actual existence of “anything else that conservatives might like”.”

Don’t be silly. Conservatives like lots of things.

Until they’re adopted by Democrats. Then they hate them.
humanoid.panda

July 16, 2014 at 10:29 am

@Stormy Dragon: I didn’t say I approve of this, I was just responding to Jenos’ argument that nothing was done to make conservatives happy about the immigration package.
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 10:35 am

@Stormy Dragon:

So the proposed solution to immigration is to place the southwest portion of the country under martial law?

Care to unpack this?

I’m having a hard time seeing how selective deployment of the National Guard to assist border patrols = martial law. In fact, it seems like a necessary step as immigration law is a Federal Issue, and therefore National Guard involvement needs to be approved in keeping with Posse Comitatus.
Vast Variety

July 16, 2014 at 10:45 am

We should reopen Elise Island and return to being the melting pot that we are supposed to be. All it should take to become a US citizen is an in depth background check.
EddieInCA

July 16, 2014 at 11:12 am

The GOP outreach continues.
Stormy Dragon

July 16, 2014 at 11:37 am

@Matt Bernius:

“rural,high-trafficked areas” doesn’t mean just patrolling the border, especially given the SCOTUS precedent that customs powers extend 100 miles inland from any border or coast. I don’t like the idea of the National Guard patroling a significant part of the US conducting suspicionless searches.
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 11:53 am

@Stormy Dragon:

I don’t like the idea of the National Guard patroling a significant part of the US conducting suspicionless searches.

From my reading of the draft, the section that the National Guard could be involved with patrolling are the sections of land that fit under the following description:

“High Risk Border Sectors” – places where more than 30,000 people cross per year (Section 3(a)(5)).

[…]

The bill would focus on three particular high risk sectors – the Tucson sector in Arizona and the Rio Grande and Laredo sectors in Texas.

If that’s the case, before we start worrying about the extend of martial law, I think it’s worth establishing how many miles of border fall into the “high risk” sectors.
Jenos Idanian #13

July 16, 2014 at 11:58 am

I’d like to apologize for my earlier ignorance. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), the border is already secure.

So now that that is done, let’s talk about just what “comprehensive immigration reform” means.
anjin-san

July 16, 2014 at 12:18 pm

@ Stormy Dragon

anything else that conservatives might like

Can’t remember if it was Jenos or Florack, but one of them was waxing poetic a while back about building a wall on our southern border topped with machine guns a firing at anyone who approached.

T
Jenos Idanian #13

July 16, 2014 at 12:36 pm

@anjin-san: Can’t remember if it was Jenos or Florack, but one of them was waxing poetic a while back about building a wall on our southern border topped with machine guns a firing at anyone who approached.

Feel free to back this up with an actual link, or I’ll just write this off to more of your confusing your fantasies with reality.
Tyrell

July 16, 2014 at 12:50 pm

@Matt Bernius: Some of these people are spending thousands of dollars and putting their childrens’ lives at risk to get them into this country. Since there is a huge profit to be made, it is going to be hard to put these transporters out of business. I don’t know if Mexico is doing a lot about it. One idea would be for the US to set up refugee camps in the countries that they are coming from. There they would be safe and could wait until they have permission to come in. This sets up a process that has been used in other countries. The President also needs to have a word of prayer with some of the leaders down there: they straighten it out or we can straighten it out.
Stormy Dragon

July 16, 2014 at 1:25 pm

@Matt Bernius:

The bill would focus on three particular high risk sectors – the Tucson sector in Arizona and the Rio Grande and Laredo sectors in Texas.

Tucson is 70 miles from the US border. The fact that they contemplate military patrols that far in from the border is exactly the sort of thing I’m concerend about.
grumpy realist

July 16, 2014 at 1:36 pm

@Stormy Dragon: Yeah, I can just see the benefits of a bunch of soldiers with machine guns wandering around Tuscon stopping all people who look vaguely Hispanic: “your papers, please!”

…and the outreach continues….

Look, if we don’t want to have people coming across the border, we’re going to have to put something like the Berlin Wall down there, all umpteen hundreds of miles of it. And man it like it’s the Berlin Wall. If we want to do that, fine. But let’s not pretend we’re going to be able to do this on the cheap, or without repercussions.
al-Ameda

July 16, 2014 at 1:39 pm

“Bus coming in. This is not compassion. This is the abrogation of the rule of law.”

This is what it must have seemed like in Rome just before the fall. Barbarians greet the bus with slogans and slurs concerning “the rule of law.”
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 1:39 pm

@Stormy Dragon:
Fair point, though I’m having issues resolving the words *rural* with the idea of military patrols in the *city* of Tucson.

But thats exactly the type of thing that could be dealt with as part of the drafting and compromise process.

BTW @Jenos, someone put some actual hard proposals on what “securing” the border could mean for Democrats. Any chance you’re interested in that “serious” discussion of “Actual details and proposals” you were asking for @here?

Or are your able to define what a measurable “securing” the border means from a “conservative” perspective?
Matt Bernius

July 16, 2014 at 1:42 pm

@grumpy realist:

Look, if we don’t want to have people coming across the border, we’re going to have to put something like the Berlin Wall down there, all umpteen hundreds of miles of it. And man it like it’s the Berlin Wall. If we want to do that, fine. But let’s not pretend we’re going to be able to do this on the cheap, or without repercussions.

Not only that, but lets not forget that the Berlin Wall was porous as well. By that I mean that people still found ways to smuggle themselves across/underneath/around it.

Hence why “secure” needs to be realistically defined.
Neil Hudelson

July 16, 2014 at 3:40 pm

Now that I’ve got everyone’s attention, maybe we can finally get a few ideas of what constitutes “common sense” immigration reform.

Man, that is some fantastic pivoting. You don’t even acknowledge that every person in the thread called you out for being just disgustingly partisan, but rather you make it seem that your buffoon shrillness ( “So [Obama]’s responsible for these deaths.”) was just a ploy to get a “serious” conversation going.

A serious conversation that you then skip out on.

**APPLAUSE**

This is impressive, even by your high (low?) standards.
beth

July 16, 2014 at 3:51 pm

@Matt Bernius: Not to mention that they killed people who wouldn’t turn back. Is that really where we want to go with this?
C. Clavin

July 16, 2014 at 3:55 pm

Is it supposed to be Mr. Klansmen?
Just ‘nutha’ ig’rant cracker

July 17, 2014 at 5:05 am

@Matt Bernius: You’re asking Jenos if he’s interested in a serious discussion of an issue? Really?
Timothy Watson

July 17, 2014 at 7:13 am

@Matt Bernius: The number of agents on the southern patrol has increased by over 400% since 1993.

At what level would the border be “secured” for the RWNJs? 1,000%? 10,000? 1e12%?
Tyrell

July 17, 2014 at 7:38 am

@Matt Bernius: No, this is not a racial issue. Some people want to make it one, but there is no cause or reasonable argument in that. Trying to put race in this confuses the real issues, mainly sovereignty.
humanoid.panda

July 17, 2014 at 9:00 am

@Timothy Watson: What Matt is arguing is not that we need to “secure the border,” but that all this border security stuff, most of which is useless, is the danegeld liberals (or at least, Democrats in the Senate) are willing to pay the republicans to get a reform package passed.
KM

July 17, 2014 at 9:13 am

@Tyrell:

Trying to put race in this confuses the real issues, mainly sovereignty.

I’d buy that if they were giving a #&!% about BOTH borders. We have two, you know. The northern border is just as porous (maybe more so) with illegal immigrants and actual terrorists sneaking across – god only knows how many we didn’t catch when we look at the ones we did! If this is about sovereignty, then we would be concerned about BOTH vulnerable areas. Except when you hear “secure the border” they mean the southern one only. While I can forgive a focus on it due to the sheer optics of it, it’s really blatant that when you point out Mexico isn’t our only major border issue you get blank stares at best and angry partisan diatribes at worst.
Matt Bernius

July 17, 2014 at 9:35 am

@Timothy Watson & @humanoid.panda:
I don’t think there is anything wrong with defining what constitutes a “secure” border in some sort of measurable fashion. We need to be able to quantify the present situation and define what a solution state looks like.

And once we’ve defined what “secure” is, then we need to apply resources as necessary to maintain security.

What I object to is saying “you need to secure the border” before any other work can be done and then not defining what “secure” is.
Tyrell

July 17, 2014 at 10:46 am

@Matt Bernius: I can tell you what secure is not: it is not busloads rolling in like it is Saturday at a theme park.
humanoid.panda

July 17, 2014 at 11:01 am

@Tyrell: Tell me, does it bother you that you are repeatedly humiliating yourself by saying stupid and inane things on the internet? I mean, this is an anonymous forum and all, but don’t you have any shred of dignity?
anjin-san

July 17, 2014 at 11:39 am

The Pope has weighed in on the current situation:

“Whether they are traveling because of poverty, or violence, or with the hope of reuniting with relatives on the other side of the border, it is urgent to protect them and help them because their vulnerability is greater and they are defenseless against any abuse or misfortune”.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/15/the-pope-just-weighed-in-on-the-undocumented-children-and-conservatives-wont-like-what-he-said/
anjin-san

July 17, 2014 at 11:47 am

Or are your able to define what a measurable “securing” the border means from a “conservative” perspective?

It means “Obama sucks and it is all his fault”
KM

July 17, 2014 at 12:00 pm

@anjin-san:

A wise man.

Leviticus 19:33-34 ESV
“When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

I understand and agree with the need for a non-porous border (“secure” being a loaded word here). There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to protect and guard your homeland to ensure the safety and happiness of all. We have the right and the obligation as Americans to take care of our nation and any issues that might effect it negatively with our own citizens as a priority without shame or castigation. Good fences make good neighbors, after all.

None of that invalidates our obligation as human beings to treat others as humans. None of that removes the simple fact that if things were to go truly wrong here in the States, that could be us fleeing to a better sanctuary. None of that removes the fact that these are people who just want a better life then the one they’ve been dealt. None of that removes the fact that a damn wall won’t stop any of this as long as desperate people see the USA as the solution to whatever problem they have. None of that means we can take such a burden and bear it or that we even should.

Francis has it right. They have broken the law but they are still entitled to the basic protections and kindness due a person. It doesn’t mean be complete idealistic doormats – it means having a real national conversation without the anger, violence and malice that’s tinging it today. It means stop the hate and start the debate. We can be capable of saying “No” without being complete @&#&*#!^#&#* about it.
al-Ameda

July 17, 2014 at 12:15 pm

From the Statue of Liberty:

“Give me your tired, your poor / Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free”

Is this a good time for the Republican House to authorize a new inscription? The following would probably get a voting majority of Republicans:
“Whenever possible Give me your tired, your non-poor/Your Caucasian male huddled masses from Western Europe yearning to breathe free”
anjin-san

July 17, 2014 at 12:32 pm

I’m a fifth generation Californian on one side, third on the other, and one thing I can’t get past when I hear all the vitriol being hurled at immigrants, illegal or otherwise from the south, is that we stole California (and other large chunks of the west) from Mexico in a war of conquest.

Where exactly is our moral high ground?
al-Ameda

July 17, 2014 at 7:03 pm

@anjin-san:

Where exactly is our moral high ground?

Our moral high ground is in the sewer these days.

You make a very good point. I live in a rural suburban area (in Sonoma County,about 60 miles north of San Francisco) that is probably about one-third hispanic/latino, of which a fair number are likely illegal. What I see every day are people who work multiple jobs, or are regularly looking for day labor – hardworking men and women.

One of our good friends is a big family, the mother and father came here from Mexico illegally in the 80s and they became legal during the 1st Republican-sponsored “amnesty.” All of them – mother, father, children – work hard, some have 2 jobs, some of the grown children now have children of their own.

My daughters went to a good local elementary school where, in the early grades (K-4), about a 1/3rd of the kids needed to be transitioned with bilingual education. Virtually all of them did so successfully, and overall education at the school was not the least bit compromised by inclusion of bilingual education into the curriculum. The school performs well all measurements, and this is a non-affluent largely working middle class area.
anjin-san

July 18, 2014 at 3:28 am

None of that invalidates our obligation as human beings to treat others as humans.

Which is exactly why the modern conservative movement has worked so hard to dehumanize people of color.
grumpy realist

July 18, 2014 at 4:43 pm

@Tyrell: except that if you keep stopping Hispanic-looking people in downtown Tuscon as opposed to pasty white people, there IS a racial sorting going on….

Heck, we’ve probably got more illegal immigrants here in Chicago from places like Ireland and the Ukraine (especially now) than we do from South America and Mexico.
Grewgills

July 18, 2014 at 5:01 pm

@grumpy realist:
and Poland and Russia and their ‘mafia’ are there too
Barry

July 21, 2014 at 9:08 am

@Jenos Idanian #13: “What’s drawing these kids is the 2008 law (written and passed by Democrats, who controlled both Houses at that point)”

That’s odd; I could have sworn that Dubya was president. I also could have sworn the the GOP had enough Senators to block anything.
Barry

July 21, 2014 at 9:17 am

@Stormy Dragon: “So the proposed solution to immigration is to place the southwest portion of the country under martial law? ”

Basically.
al-Ameda

July 21, 2014 at 11:58 am

@Jenos Idanian #13:

“What’s drawing these kids is the 2008 law (written and passed by Democrats, who controlled both Houses at that point)”

Let’s face it, the reason current Republican conservatives have a problem with these immigrant children is that they perceive them to be future Democratic voters.
Barry

July 21, 2014 at 3:48 pm

Doug: “Arizona Republican”

You coulda stopped right there 🙂