Actually, your point would be fine, if anyone else was making it.
My point is that you would never go into a thread praising the listmakers, and asking why people uncritically assume that the list is accurate. You only show up when *conservatives *call the cavalry. And that’s not exactly the spirit of unfettered skepticism.
Look, I showed up to correct error. That’s the (supposed) mission of this place.
You’re right that it’s much rarer for me to defend the liberal side here, although I can show examples of having done so. But seldom do I need to, because there’s an army of folks here all ready to leap on and dissect error in attacks on the liberal side, or errors in defense of the conservative side.
In a thread called “Have We Been Sold Out By Ms. Pelosi?”
Defending Ted Kennedy:
Defending Pelosi against the “diva” charge for wanting a bigger plane:
Pitting the GOP for its defense of Foley:
Defending Keith Olbermann against sneers that he panicked after getting fake powder in the mail:
Bricker has a freaking point. A verbal declaration of legality is no guarantee, not when the person has motive to lie. A legal immigrant would say they’re legal, and an illegal immigrant would also say they’re legal. The women are not necessarily liars, but neither is their testimony conclusive.
In either case, the means by which the list was obtained is still mighty damn suspicious if not outright illegal in itself, and it’s probable that same of the name on the list are legal. This is still a pretty ugly act with ugly repercussions, but in the case of the two women we simply can’t accept their assurances in and of themselves.
This is an ugly act, I agree, and to forestall objections from “my” side, I’ll point out that it would be ugly for a wide variety of crimes. The more heinous the crime, the more ugly the action is because the potential for error: a list of child molestors handled in the same way would be ugly because the horrific damage to the reputation of those on the list who were not guilty. The less heinous the crime, the more ugly the action because it arrogates to this “citizen’s” group the odious role of informer. At MOST, a person who believes another has committed a crime should report that crime to the police. Period.
Most likely. But… legal or illegal? You say “guilty,” as though data mining is a crime. But take a look at this site and its many clones to discover what can be learned for free.
In this case, of course, illegals have an interest in staying off the radar, so I doubt it was as simple as that. But your first comment is that they were turned in based on their “ethnicity, appearance, or country of origin.” If the list is indeed mostly illegals, then it’s very likely that some additional criteria was used.
I say “guilty” because information is being uncovered that these virtuous saints of fairness and rectitude may have committed a crime by the way they mined their data, who they received it from, and the types of data they were able to collect which, if found to be the case, is illegal in the state of Utah.
Very likely, in this case, I agree. However, in my opinion, it quacks, so pardon me if I fail to see any altruistic motive on the part of these folks. I think it would be asking for belief to be stretched beyond reasonableness to assert that surname was not a primary search criteria, considering that most, if not all, names on the list are Latino.
ETA: Hmm, I see now that Hispanic residents are beginning to contact local authorities as they find that their names are on the list. It should be interesting to see how this all washes out as it seems a number of the victims of this racist assault may actually be US citizens. Imagine that.
The organization I support as a board member is responsible for helping mothers-to-be and mothers of newborns with clothes, diapers, food, baby furniture, vocational training, and language classes. We keep records of all our clients, the vast majority of which are illegal aliens.
A ne’er-do-well with access to my organization’s records could easily compile a list similar to the one we’re discussing here. And so far as I know, they could do it without violating any law.
I note again that my actual organization would never do any such thing, and in fact as a result of this discussion I am going to make sure we stop documenting residency status, so we would not be compelled to release information someday that could be used in this way; what you don’t have, you can’t be subpoenaed into providing.
Right, I see. Well, it’s hard to argue with that: if they committed a crime, then clearly ‘guilty’ is the right word to use.
Again, it depends on how they assembled the list. It doesn’t make much sense to me for them to have taken, say, the phone book, and listed all the Hispanic names they see there. I imagine they started with some source more likely to yield illegal aliens – a government social services agency or a private one. If the former, we have the spectre of criminal violation.
In reverse order: I find that statement a bit more credible than the quotes offered earlier. There’s a huge difference, in my mind, between “No, I’m not here illegally,” and “I’ve been a legal resident for years and am due to get my US citizenship next month.” Obviously both are self-serving denials, but when you add in a easily-checked fact like that, in my view it gives much greater weight to the denial.
And then there’s this business: “…the writer ‘observes these individuals in our neighborhoods, driving on our streets, working in our stores, attending our schools and entering our public welfare buildings.’”
I wonder if this was the work of a group of lone amateur stalker-types, following people and doing basic Internet research? It just seems like the kind of mistake that would come from seeing a person with brown skin entering a “public welfare” building and automatically assuming illegal status.
Because in addition to providing services, we also act as a referral resource for state, county/city, and private programs other than ours. Some of those programs are only available to those people that can show a legal presence in Virginia, such as any Medicaid-funded aid or anything arising from state or local administration of programs mandated under 8 U.S.C. § 1621.
No, I’m not… I’m merely speculating. If I had confidently asserted it was a group of lone amateur stalker-types, following people and doing basic Internet research, THEN I’d be reading too much into it. And against the theory (again speculating) it just feels like the list is a bit too long for that to be the answer. 116 names? Sure, painstakingly compiled, one by one. Over a thousand? Doesn’t seem as likely.