They adjectives are true however. A union representative pales in comparison to the head duck IMO. “Amnesty” is now and not 2004 (the articles date) anyway.
I strongly suspect that your definitions of “xenophobic” and “bigoted” are “anyone who opposes illegal immigration,” so it’s not worth arguing the point. On your definitions, yes, anti-illegal immigration people are necessarily xenophobes and bigots and let’s just go the full nine, Nazis. So noted – but only on your highly-personalized definition of said adjectives.
For the proposition that border patrol agents know more about what is happening than politically-motivated Administration spokesmen, on the very fact specific issue of whether border agents are seeing more illegals coming in, and more of them citing a possible amnesty as their motive, following Bush’s initial announcement of his plan, I don’t think I need a cite beyond cf. common sense.
And the whole point is that, yes, the plan which was announced in 2004 is the genesis of the bill currently up for consideration, so the issues are indeed the same.
“SignonSanDiego” is a xenophobic and bigoted organisation? Hehe. Hehehe.
No, really. It’s a “chamber of commerce” type site, I think.
The adjectives were, I believe, directed at the the two other citations provided. Vdare is notoriously racist. Fairus is arguably xenophobic. (I say arguably because they have attempted to distance themselves from their clearly racist (and now departed) founder and often the determination of whether they are xenophobic is in the eye of the beholder.)
Ah. Sorry. I thought the adjectives were being applied to all of the cites.
While we seen that there are some people and and articles on VDare that one could rightly categorize as racist, not everything/everyone is. The broad brush you, and others use, in an attempt to quash all information from the website is jsut as wide as that criticized by you and others when talking about other issues. Guess when it works in your favor it’s just dandy. And regarding FairUS, if having a stance against people who sneak into the country = xenophobic, they sure are. As are a good portion of congress and many, many people who are legal immigrants.
Tsk, tsk.
I live in San Diego. I commute 45 miles round trip to work every work day. I listen to the traffic reports on the radio. Those traffic reports include a report from the border crossing stations (the San Ysidro and Otay Mesa stations), as the traffic from there flows up the I5 and I805, heavily impacting the commuters using those highways.
I recall that the last time President Bush talked about a “workers permit” type visa (coincidentally, in 2004, when those articles are from), the “wait time” at the stations went from an average of 45 minutes (at the time in the morning that I am listening to the radio), to 75 minutes literally over the span of a single weekend. No other factor seemed to be immediately apparent, for example a crop failure in Mexico forcing a wave of folks north. This observation is roughly the same as the border agent cited in the article above.
The wait times have dipped somewhat since then, but continue to remain higher than they were in 2003.
While these only qualify as anecdotes, they shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand just because they are anectdotes.
You may ask what has the traffic at the border stations have to do with illegal border crossings. Well, not every illegal immigrant crosses into the US through the remote locations. Some come through the border stations. (I am not sure if the border agents are supposed to check every vehicle or not…)
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280873,00.html
Notice at the bottom:
If I were really xenophobic, I would think Mexican people were stupid, but of course I don’t – they are acting as perfectly economically-rational participants in a market that has provided an incentive to get their feet on U.S. soil, with the deal having been sweetened by the prospect of amnesty.
Understandable as economic self-interest – the U.S. has better economic opportunities and a more stable and (comparatively) non-corrupt political and economic climate. But these very benefits are due in no small part to the fact that America has developed (or at least in the past has paid lip service to) a social contract and legal framework wherein flouting the law and social norms is Not Okay. Sure, we can think of plenty of examples when this code was observed only in the breach. But there’s at least a default assumption that rules matter. From what we hear of Mexican politics, law enforcement, etc., there’s not even the pretense of following the rules if you can get around them. Well, it turns out maybe the rule of law matters, and maybe Mexico and other f’d-up places from which people are inclined to emigrate to the U.S. are f’d-up precisely because of the mindset that rules don’t really matter when they’re inconvenient. I have sympathy for people living in poverty in a f’d-up country, but I am not sure the solution is for them to break one more law or outsource their homeland’s pathology (as opposed to working to build an open and prosperous society back home). As has been said, and notwithstanding the fact that many illegal immigrants do work very hard and under poor conditions – one of the traits that you would probably look for in prospective new citizens was someone whose first act on U.S. soil was not a crime.
No. A review of Vdare demonstrates a site that is wholly and unequivocally xenophobic. It reproduces anything that will denigrate any group that is not “white American” in nature, uncritically reproducing any article that meets its agenda. Now, it is true that a few articles actually have some legitimate sources. However, it makes far more sense in those rare cases to look up the primary source from which the information has been taken and cite that than it does to rely on the uncritcal reproduction of bad science, manipulated statistics, xenophobic opinion, and racist drivel that is the bulk of the Vdare material.
In your view, that some minute fraction of its material has some basis in fact somehow lets you pretend that the overwhelming majority of its material is legitimate and then whine that it is unfair to dismiss it simply because over 90% of it is trash. I would never dismiss an article simply because it appeared on Vdare–provided I could find a legitimate source for the same material. If the only source is Vdare, then the specific bias of the site calls into question its legitimacy.
As to fairus, I noted that the issue was one that was “arguable” without claiming which side of the argument should “win.” (That it was founded by a racist xenophobe is a fact. That he was later pushed out of a position of leadership is also a fact. Whether his removal was the result of a desire to distance the group from his racism or a desire to distance the group from the bad reputation he brings (without necessarily disavowing his beliefs or goals) is arguable. I have not expressed an opinion on that topic.)
(And when did you suddenly become enamored of the opinions of congresscritters–unless it is just “dandy” when a few of them happen to agree with your views?)
Well, it appears that you’ve backpedalled from calling Vdare “racist”. That is progrees, good for you for realizing you should move the goalpost. Would it be safe to consider this a retraction of your original charge? Of course, you now use “xenophobic” as the new charge because it has a lower bar and is harder to disprove. Pretty slick. Now as I’ve noted before, if only you would use these considerable talents of yours for good… 
I am far from enamored with the critters. My point, which you know full well, is that not everyone who believes strongly that we need to control our borders and that those who sneak in should not be rewarded in any way—amnesty or amnesty light included—is not a xenophobe or a racist. I noticed how you were mum on the legal immigrants I mentioned who fall into such a category.
And I must ask, do you not see your post that I commented on and your initial post in this thread as a Mod as being at cross purposes. On the one hand you make a gentle attempt keep those-who-cry-racist-or-bigot in line, on the other you adopt the tactics like those employed by Unregistered Bull that you profess to want to quell.
Sorry, tom, I’m gonna have to give you another tsk, tsk.
Legal Hispanic-Americans are IIRC very anti illegal-immigration as they should be – they followed the rules, the others have not.
If I were less lazy I’d have excerpted the factual source cites from VDare rather than cite the article itself – I am sufficiently versed in the ways of debate, and SDMB debate, that I’d no more cite a partisan opinion piece (which VDare certainly is – not sure if it is “racist” or “xenophobic” per se, but YMMV) as probative of any disputed fact than I would cite a Bible verse as a deal-clincher in a theological debate 'round here.
No. VDare is racist. What I described was the manner in which their racism is manifest. Note that “white Americans” includes the element of race within its definition.
Now, if you would like to open a thread discussing the lack of racism in VDare, feel free to do so. This is an unnecessary hijack:
[ul][li]Huerta88 cited three links as evidence of a position.[/li][li]Unregistered Bull dismissed those citations with the comment.[/li]
[li]Huerta88 expressed surpise that one of the sites was being identified as racist. (Huerta88 still has the opportunity to defend the citations with supporting information.)[/li][li]I pointed out that three links were provided and that Unregistered Bull had only indicated two as prejudiced, indicating that the third site was probably not included in that charge.[/ul][/li]My only purpose was to avoid further confusion regarding which sites were being challenged on the basis of prejudice so as to avoid a hijack. You have decided to create a hijack, anyway, because you don’t like seeing your favorite sources slighted.
Since I did not intend to participate in the exchange between Huerta88 and Unregistered Bull beyond clarifying a single statement by Unregistered Bull, I see no reason for this hijack to continue. Take it to another thread.
Exactly. As are many legal immigrants with non-Hispanic backgrounds, as well.
Very wise. I have ceased using it as a place for cites because many around here start to whine to the high heavens, and it derails the debate. A little victory for the mob that shouts the loudest around here. Is the VDare site biased? Absolutely. Does it have some extreme views? Yes. But is the site as a whole racist? I’d say not. Xenophobic? Only if being against illegal immigration or wanting people to assimilate into the existing culture is taken to be xenophobic. Which it is not. But something like the Southern Poverty Law Center suffers from similar descriptions of extremism and bias, as well, yet that site is embraced. Such is the tilt of SDMB.
Oh, so that is how you’re using “racist”. My mistake. I didn’t take your statement to imply that VDare can be charaterized as racist merely in the same way that organizations like the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are racist. That is what you’re saying now, right?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Now, if you would like to open a thread discussing the lack of racism in VDare, feel free to do so. This is an unnecessary hijack:
[ul][li]Huerta88 cited three links as evidence of a position.[/li][li]Unregistered Bull dismissed those citations with the comment.[/li][/QUOTE]
It is not a hijack. You commented on a post made by another poster and I commented on the opinions you put forth when doing so. I may have missed it, but I didn’t see your Mod Hat on in Post 24. It seems that you were in fact opining, not merely offering factual clarity to move the debate on. Or are we now to take your opinion as a non-Mod as 100% factual and unassailable?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
[li]Huerta88 expressed surpise that one of the sites was being identified as racist. (Huerta88 still has the opportunity to defend the citations with supporting information.)[/li][li]I pointed out that three links were provided and that Unregistered Bull had only indicated two as prejudiced, indicating that the third site was probably not included in that charge.[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
No, you did more. You offered an opinion as to the veracity of the adjectives offered by Unregistered Bull. You made yourself part of the debate.
Incorrect. See above. You offered an opinion as to the veracity of someone else’s accusations. You were taking a position in the debate. Are the opinions of the great tomndebb (cue angels singing) not to be questioned in debate?
Okay. I’ll take you at your word as far as what your intent was. Perhaps you should have not offered your opinions here then and started another thread yourself decrying VDare and FairUS. You’re asking for a free shot here as a poster. You get to level, or support, accusations of racism and xenophobia and then wave your hand and say “No, I’m not discussing that here. Open another thread.”
Sounds a little, what’s the word…unfair? Don’t you think?
Neither the Black Caucus nor the NAACP seek out and publish any and all literature that is intended to denigrate another race or ethnicity. That you would equate organizations who promote a group that has been and continues to be the subject of discrimination without denigrating other groups with an outfit that primarily denigrates any group that is not part of the majority shows the desperation of your argument.
I stated a fact to remove the potential stigma associated with SignonSanDiego.com. 
I merely identified the two of three sites that had already been identified as prejudiced, thereby releasing the third site from that accusation. I made no wholesale attack upon them.
You did not provide any evidence that VDare was not racist, you merely attacked me for having provided the context in which Unregistered Bull had made his claim. Your "intent’ does not appear to have had anything to do with providing evidence that Huerta88’s citations were legitimate. You provided no evidence that some independent group has information that confirmed the claim posted on VDare. You simply attacked me. That is a hijack. If the issue is one that you believe is sufficiently important to hijack the thread, then it should be sufficuently important enough to you to have its own thread. If it is not that important, then you are engaging in a pointless hijack.
A simple click would have revealed it to be the online edition of the San Diego Union-Tribune, city’s major daily newspaper. It’s definitely Republican-oriented editorially, as you’d expect anywhere with such a high military concentration, but come on now, people.
Oh, yeah, the OP - this bill doesn’t seem to have an overarching goal in mind, a simple, single problem it addresses in a way that appeals to our better nature. Reagan’s bill looked like simple compassion towards families that were being broken up by the big, bad gummint. This doesn’t. And there’s also the inescapable Bush factor by now - if he wants something, there’s a presumption in place now that he has to overcome, and he hasn’t shown he knows how or even recognizes the problem. He’s still thinking in the mode of “*You * Congress people go fix this problem *you * have. I’ll see you at the signing ceremony.” Doesn’t work that way in the leadership biz, pal.
When I challenged you on your characterization of VDARE as racist—which was not a hijack, by the way—this was your rationale:
So, if an organization is based on the interest of “white Americans”, they are racist. But if a group is concerned with the role of Black America or people of color, they are not racist. Do you see an inconsistency here, at least based on the rationale you gave in defense of your charge of racism that I called you on?
I didn’t say you made any wholesale attack. I cited your very words:
No, you are the one that made the claim, not me. There is no burden upon me. In fact, my original reply to you merely accused you of painting with a broad brush, something that people get called upon around here quite often. So if you don’t think it is not a broad brush transgression, you should have just supported your case, as was incumbent upon you. But you just want to hurl the accusation in support of it beiing a racist organization and have your opinion be taken as a cold hard fact. Don’t think so.
I don’t think so too, but you will be right is there was no evidence for that position.
Correction:
“but you will be right if there was no evidence for that position.”
Just by proposing a “white nationalist” angle it is enough for me to put them on the racist column. They are about the worse reference to use against immigration.
I admit, and have admitted in tha past, that there are indeed articles on VDare that have been fair to characterize as racist, in the worst sense of the word. Some of them written by people who are similalry racist. But that does not mean that everything on the site is racist by default. This is the broad brush argument I mentioned, the one that people are called upon all the time around here.
And for the record, just because the SPLC characterizes something or someone as racist, I don’t give that a whole lot of weight.