Last week, there was a story I kept meaning to discuss, but never got around to it. Massachusetts’ governor, Mitt Romney, was seeking cooperation with federal officials to allow state troopers to arrest illegal aliens. Under the proposed program, select officers would receive special training from Immigration and Customs Enforcement on identifying illegal aliens, as well as beign given the authority to detain them for violating federal law. (This story was also covered by the Boston Globe, who kind of glossed over the “illegal” aspect and plastered their front page with “Troopers Would Arrest Immigrants.”
Well, the Boston Globe can’t just leave this bone alone. It turns out that this program is not completely unprecedented. It was implemented in Alabama three years ago, so the Glob sent its crack investigative staff down south (after they had their anti-redneck shots, of course) to see how it has worked out.
It took some effort, but they managed to find some things they didn’t like about it. They begrudgingly acknowledge that about 200 illegal aliens have been caught by the troopers, including more than a few who were seeking legitimate drivers’ licenses with forged or “borrowed” identification papers. In another case, 13 of 15 people in a van pulled over for a traffic violation turned out to be “undocumented.”
So, with this program pretty much a resounding success (to the point where the governor wants even more troopers to undergo the 4 1/2-week training program), who could possibly object? Why, the usual suspects, of course.
The Public Defender’s office and the local branch of the ACLU have reached into their bag of tricks, and pulled out their most-frequently used story (to the point of being almost threadbare): “racial profiling.” Apparently, it’s irrelevant to these worthies that, according to the Pew Hispanic Center that 81% of all illegal aliens are from Latin America (and 57% of those are Mexican); to consider that an illegal alien is far more likely to be a Latino than any other ethnic group is just plain wrong. (Hell, in Massachusetts, a self-designated “spokesman” for the Brazilian community freely admits that about 2/3 of all Brazilians in the Bay State are here illegally.)
I hope Governor Romney gets his way, and Massachusetts state troopers start arresting illegal aliens. (And if they “accidentally” nab a few random Kennedys in the process, that’s a small price to pay.) And I’d like to see more states start picking up the slack where the federal government, for whatever reason, just hasn’t done its job.
Sometimes, when I’m not sure of where I ought to stand on an issue, I take a good look at who’s lined up for it — and sometimes, more importantly, who’s against it. I’ve found that if I take whatever side the ACLU is not on, I’ve got a better-than-even chance of being correct. And this is one more piece of evidence of how good a policy that is.
Just like screening only mid-eastern appearing folks at the airport is “racial profiling” because it just makes to much damn sense!
Let me ask the ACLU this: if a given group (race, creed, religion, sexuality, lite beer drinkers) is the group statistically breaking a given law, then isn’t the given group profiling itself?
In more personal terms, I like to say I’m not racist, sexist, or any other -ist; but where I went to high school 80% of all the misdemeanors were perpetrated by young black males. Thus despite ANY openmindedness on my part, over time what group will I look at with suspicion?
Or how about watching the little old black lady with a resperator and walker getting stip searched at the airport when all the 9/11 hijackers were Middle Eastern males?
Get real, ACLU. As a military analyst I routinely find and exploit common denominators to refine my research. Thus if I were studying illegal immigration in Boston and the common denominator was the Hispanic population, where would I focus my research efforts?
Thanks so much for this piece Jay. I’m going to add it as a post on my blog. I of course will give credit where credit is due.
Kuddos!
Ann Marie Curling
PR@electromneyin2008.com
Unfortunately, too many Chiefs of Police are not really ‘cops’, in the sense that they want to arrest people for breaking the law. They are largely political and therefore their main consideration is possible political repercussions. To cover their asses they spout the tripe that they want their departments to be “all inclusive” and “supportive of community oriented policing”. Gone are the days when you arrest someone, find that they are here illegally and slap a “Border Patrol Hold” on them. Today you’ll find that the Border Patrol, Ooops, Department of Homeland Security/I.C.E. is not interested.
We had a young officer murdered by a 3 time deported illegal alien. You’d think after the second time, they’d have thrown his ass in prison before deporting him, but no, they just shipped him back across the line.
Sadly, the Bush administration is not interested in enforcing immigration law.
>>In more personal terms, I like to say I’m not racist, sexist, or any other -ist; but where I went to high school 80% of all the misdemeanors were perpetrated by young black males. Thus despite ANY openmindedness on my part, over time what group will I look at with suspicion?
The simple liberal answer is that it is the WHITE MAN’s fault that blacks are arrested. Never mind hey are actually COMMITTING the crimes…but to a liberal, it’s the WHITE MAN who MAKES them commit the crime…and also looks for MORE black crime to arrest.
AreoFANatic:
Your stereotyping of liberals isn’t surprising, seeing as how you apparently are ready to defend racial profiling but, for the record, this simple liberal’s view is that stereotyping helps perpetuate the undesirable behavior by 1) angering innocents of the effected group and 2) increasing the likelihood that the entire community will also contribute to furthering the problem.
For example, if the teenaged black youths in a poor neighborhood are the usual perps of shoplifting, and you and other shopkeepers in the community refuse to hire John Doe, a 17 year old reponsible black teenager, solely because he’s black — that’s one more unemployed black teenager who, being the victim of stereotyping and racial profiling, may over time end up resorting to shoplifting.
Ignoring the stereotype, and hiring responsible black teenagers as clerks in your store, may reduce the shoplifting by black teenagers in your store. Stereotyping and racial profiling, in my opinion, instead will contribute towards making the problem worse.
For example, if the teenaged black youths in a poor neighborhood are the usual perps of shoplifting, and you and other shopkeepers in the community refuse to hire John Doe, a 17 year old reponsible black teenager, solely because he’s black — that’s one more unemployed black teenager who, being the victim of stereotyping and racial profiling, may over time end up resorting to shoplifting.
And after you have hired 27 different black 17 year old John Does and they have pilfered you business blind from the inside, you’ll no longer hire anymore of them.
Lee:
Or you may unwittingly hire a thief [of any color] who will conspire with others to steal you blind. Have you ever run your own business?
Why the heck does it take a professional state trooper 4 and a half weeks of special training before he can arrest an illegal?
That’s gotta cost $10 to 20K each.
Heck. ol’ Barney Phiff can do it!
Thanks Lee!
I know alot of conservatives won’t believe this; but I honestly try to be independent and keep an open mind when it comes to my politics. But repubs make it hard for me to do for obvious reasons. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that liberal leaning posters like Lee usually get it when it comes to matters of race.
Republicans on the other hand…. well, see the completely moronic amd absurd statements from RFA and AeroFANatic above.
Honestly, I don’t think it’s racism that makes posters like the two I mentioned say the dumb things that they do. I chalk it up to just plain ignorance. When the only contact you have with people of color is from your nightly news, I guess such statements are inevitable.
Interesting study done… I’ve got the link in the top post of my blog in case anyone wants to look… I’ll check to make sure it still works.
It was about how much money people were willing to give to Katrina victims. They divided it up by political affiliation… turns out Republicans are stingy. Democrats and Independants are more generous. No surprises there.
Then they got to doing more data crunching and found out this tasty tidbit of demographic information…
Republicans were equally stingy to everyone, no mater what their race.
Democrats, OTOH, thought that *white* victims deserved more money for longer periods of time than *black* or other minority victims.
I was shocked. I’ve always been aware of the stereotypical “bigotry of low expectations” among the liberal “group politics” sorts, but simply responding emotionally to a story about Katrina victims and asked how much money they should get and for how many months… they gave more money to white people. Not side by side… the victim’s story was the same each time with the race changed, and each person got one chance to say what the person deserved to get.
Republican responses didn’t show differences according to the race of the victim.
Democrat responses gave more money to white victims.
I keep being told by people I presume are self-identified liberals that racism is a real problem in the US yet today. That, as a common example, a black presidential candidate could *never* get elected because people are just not ready to vote for a black president yet.
I’ve always denied it, because I don’t *know* anyone like that.
But I always assumed they were talking about me and my friends… not their own self.
“I hope Governor Romney gets his way, and Massachusetts state troopers start arresting illegal aliens. (And if they “accidentally” nab a few random Kennedys in the process, that’s a small price to pay.)”
Here’s one time I’ve got to pay homage to Microsoft. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
I know alot of conservatives won’t believe this; but I honestly try to be independent and keep an open mind when it comes to my politics.
What a complete load of crap!! I’ve read your statements here f-n and you’re full of sh*t trying to claim your open minded. Hell, your statements following this crock highlighted above prove it. Your posts define ignorance!
Wrong J.R., my posts define truth. Your posts, on the other hand, define someone who is totally brain washed and who lives his/her life from the comfort of a large Kool Aid cup.
But all is not lost; I have a couple of to do things for you to help you out. This is just because I care. Ready?
1. Turn the channel from conservative talk radio.[Maybe just once a week would be nice]There is a world outside of Rush, and Bill Bennett.
2. Watch something else besides Fox News.
3. Try to hit a library or book store every once in awhile. [Not only will it imporve your vocabulary, but you might actually meet other people]
4. Listen to other points of views.
5. And try to travel beyond the border of whatever red state you live in.
Now I promise you, if you start doing those five liitle things; the next time you post, you might actually make some sense.
Gee, fn, let’s see how I (as the author of this piece) do with your advice:
1) I listen to NPR every weekend.
2) I almost never watch Fox News, and only then for the headlines (or the last 15 minutes of Brit Hume — the “finally” video clip at the end is almost always a guaranteed laugh)
3) Confirmed biblioholic
4) Read plenty of blogs from the “other” side, plus the always-diverse comments here
5) Live in a (barely) blue state, surrounded by some of the bluest of the blue (Maine, Vermont, and especially Massachusetts), and leave my state frequently
Gee, fn, could it be my constant exposure to that bluest of blue states, Massachusetts, that lets me see, up close and personal, just how hideously wrong that side is? That state is owned — lock, stock, and barrel — by the Democrats. (Don’t let the GOP governor fool you. The legislature is over 85% Democratic, in both houses, as is the entire congressional delegation.) And it’s such a disaster that people are fleeing in record numbers. Hell, the city of Boston alone has recorded a drop of over 30,000 people in the last five years.
I do disagree with J.R., though. Your pieces don’t define ignorance. They define arrogance, condescension, willful wrongheadedness, and demonstrate a marked dishonesty, but they aren’t ignorant.
Compared to the above character flaws, ignorance is very easily treated. It just requires education and exposure to the truth (such as living next door to Massachusetts for almost 40 years, and visiting it on a very regular basis). The others, though, are often incurable.
J.
“Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance…”
~MLK~
Sorry Jay, ignorance of the type demonstrated here is not “very easily treated”, and all the education in the world won’t change that. But that’s fine, it takes all types to make a democracy work. It just seems that those of your ilk have a harder time accepting that fact than others. It’s that simple.
BTW, just because I disagree with you and most of your posters, doesn’t mean that I am dishonest. Sometimes I might choose to confront the intellectual dishonesty I find on this site with sarcasm,-since facts wont’s work- but that does not qualify as “wilfull wrongheadedness”, or “condescension”. In my world, it qualifies as disbelief.
Perhaps ignorance was a poor word choice on my part. But I stand by the rest of my assertions about you f-n. Now of course, your assumptions about me couldn’t be further from the truth. I don’t listen to Rush or Bill Bennet. Up until 3 months ago, I lived in Massachusetts, can’t get much bluer that that. I grew up in Jersey, another blue state. Love the library, and traveled just this weekend.
You start being honest yourself and I’ll listen to you. Until that time comes though I will treat your posts with the knowledge that you are only here to spout criticism. You choose not to debate ideas and instead try and demean others from your perceived moral high ground.