Now the "Star Spangled Banner" has been translated into Spanish. The producer of the translation, Adam Kidron, argues that now the anthem appeals to a larger immigrant audience:
“The intention of recording ’Nuestro Himno’ (’Our Anthem’ ) has never been to discourage immigrants from learning English and embracing American culture,” Kidron said. “We instead view ’Nuestro Himno’ as a song that affords those immigrants that have not yet learned the English language, the opportunity to fully understand the character of ’The Star Spangled Banner,’ the American flag and the ideals of freedom that they represent.”
I say it’s great that he wants everyone to learn about the ideals of America. However, there are plenty of other ways of achieving that goal. Creating an alternative national anthem seems misguided at best and subversive at worst. I do not see how this misguided translation advances the cause of immigrants or serves their interests. Instead it creates further division in our society.
Of course all this is a prelude to Monday’s looming work boycott by some immigration groups. There are many ironies and absurdities surrounding this event, not the least of which is that these immigrants are fighting for their right to work in this country by boycotting work. Of course the anti-immigration forces are up in arms that these undocumented aliens (who according to them should not be allowed to work and be sent back home) are daring to stop work. Even President Bush got in on the act this morning:
He called on immigrants and activist groups to rethink plans to walk out of work on Monday in protest of congressional efforts to crack down on illegal immigration. "You know, I think it’s very important for people, when they do express themselves, they continue to do so in a peaceful way, in a respectful way — respectful of . . . how highly charged this debate can become," he said, in a Rose Garden news conference he called to tout new figures showing robust economic growth in the first quarter of this year.
God forbid the slave laborers walk out of their work and cause hardship for the slave driving businesses.
All of these goings on makes me wonder if it is time to ratchet down the rhetoric and the divisive behavior. The immigrant groups need to take a deep breath and realize that they are advocating that undocumented aliens who are in this country illegally be given legal status. That status is a privilege that this or any other country grants foreigners within its borders. As such, I would suggest that perhaps confrontation is not the best way to gain that privelege.
The anti-immigration forces on the right also need to step back from their saber rattling and wall building. It is probably time to realize that there is a neighbor called Mexico to the south that the United States must live with. Short of going to war with Mexico (dare I even mention it), a comprehensive solution needs to be found that can address this unchecked flow of immigrants. The solution to the immigration problem does not lie in building a wall but in removing the economic incentive that underlies this migration. That means investment in Latin American economies that make it a reasonable choice for the poor in those countries to stay in those countries.
Of course I suspect, as Polimom suspects, the situation may already be completely out of control. In that case, the only thing left to do is to let the lunatics run the asylum.
hmmm, ingrid just wrote about that. as u say, the two sides are extreme in their wants. i know too many people trying to do the right thing and properly with monies paid to lawyers in applying and waiting, and waiting, and paying some more just to be scr3w3d.
on the other hand, if there were reasonable ways for undocumented workers to be documented, maybe they would…
on the other hand, there is too much vested interest and/or emotions in this debate to listen to anyone and think them neutral and reasonable and unbiased…
that goes for u and me both…:-??
dude, bias and vested interests are fine. No one is neutral in real life. But this debate has been turned into a crisis first by the right (with passage of that draconian bill in the House) for political gain – nice wedge issue. Some immigrant interest groups have taken the bait and are providing the fodder now for this phony debate we are having.
Its time to step back. This is a complicated issue which needs a serious public policy debate. As a wedge issue, not only does it energize the Republican right, but it also drives a wedge between the Hispanic community and the Black community. It was a calculated risk by the Republicans to shift away from the Iraq issue before the November elections, and the left has taken the bait hook line and sinker. =d>
One problem with your post (and I should note that it is hardly your fault, as it appears the media at large have bought this ’Nuestro Himno’ chicanery hook, line and sinker) is the characterization of this recording by Latin pop stars as “the ‘Star Spangled Banner’ […] translated into Spanish.”
In all actuality it is no such thing.
The lyrics to the ’Nuestro Himno’ are available here:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld
/chi-060426nuestro,0,6454902.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I’ve taken the liberty of copying and pasting them here for you and your readers to peruse.
——————————————
Nuestro Himno
Published April 26, 2006
Verse 1
Oh say can you see, a la luz de la aurora/Lo que tanto aclamamos la noche al caer? Sus estrellas, sus franjas flotaban ayer/En el fiero combate en senal de victoria,/Fulgor de lucha, al paso de la libertada,/Por la noche decian: “Se va defendiendo!”
Coro: Oh, decid! Despliega aun su hermosura estrellada,/Sobre tierra de libres, la bandera sagrada?
Chant:
It’s time to make a difference the kids, men and the women/Let’s stand for our beliefs, let’s stand for our vision/What about the children los ninos como P-Star
These kids have no parents, cause all of these mean laws.
See this can’t happen, not only about the Latins.
Asians, blacks and whites and all they do is adding
more and more, let’s not start a war
with all these hard workers,
they can’t help where they were born.
Verse 2
Sus estrellas, sus franjas, la libertad, somos iguales
Somos hermanos, es nuestro himno.
En el fiero combate en senal de victoria,/Fulgor de lucha, al paso de la libertada,/Por la noche decian: “Se va defendiendo!”
Coro: Oh, decid! Despliega aun su hermosura estrellada,/Sobre tierra de libres, la bandera sagrada?
——————————————
Not only only does the song, at least with respect to the lyrics, appear to be dishonest, trite and puerile (“These kids have no parents, cause all of these mean laws.” What?) but it would appear that the “Star Spangled Banner” is merely being “sampled” for some schlocky, propagandistic pop tune for consumption in Mexico and the Latin American world.
As an American, I find that behavior offensive and disrespectful to the official anthem of my country.
Likewise, were I to take the Mexican national anthem, “Mexicanos al grito de guerra” (available here: http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Mexicanos%2C_al_grito_de_guerra), sample perhaps one-tenth of the lyrics, and pepper the rest of my song with anecdotes about how former Mexican President Carlos Salinas was a friend of drug lords (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/mexico/family/carlossalinas.html) and how Mexico is a “mean” and discriminatory country with a constitution stating that LEGAL immigrants are banned from public political discourse, certain basic property rights, and equal employment rights (which is true: http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/Mexicos_Glass_House.pdf) I certainly suspect some Mexicans might be offended.
Frankly, I wouldn’t blame them.
Mr. Kidron’s comments about the song are purposefully disingenuous at best, and plain old lies at worst.
Perhaps the most glaring problem with ’Nuestro Himno’ is the fact that Spanish language versions of “The Star Spangled Banner” have been in existence for more than 80 years.
The following article, entitled “‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ in Spanish”, highlights three notable Spanish language translations.
http://spanish.about.com/cs/culture/a/usanthem.htm
One of the translations cited is the 1919 version penned by Francis Haffkine Snow.
http://spanish.about.com/cs/culture/a/usanthem_2.htm
It is known as “La bandera de las estrellas” meaning “the flag of stars” and the sheet music is viewable at the Library of Congress website below.
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cocoon/ihas/loc.natlib.ihas.100000007/default.html
In the end, the ’Nuestro Himno’ is simply a crass piece of pseudo-political junk. If the individuals responsible for its production wanted to record “The Star Spangled Banner” in Spanish they easily could have. Evidently, they chose not to. In regards to the Spanish language world, the song is dishonest and doesn’t further its creators’ case that illegal aliens “are America”. With respect to Americans, the song (and its concept and execution) are offensive and disrespectful to our national anthem. It’s divisive all ways around.
Perhaps a better name for the song would have been “Esos gringos estúpidos”.
Guy, the MSNBC link does actually quote some lines from the song and points out that the lyrics are vastly different. I didnt specifically mention it in my post, perhaps I should have – that’s where the “subversive” remark came from.
Hi, again.
I have to question one of your assertions made in response to a fellow commentor.
“But this debate has been turned into a crisis first by the right (with passage of that draconian bill in the House) for political gain – nice wedge issue.”
When you say “that bill”, I assume you are referring to H.R. 4437: Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 sponsored by F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. [R-WI]. And when you characterize it as “draconian”, I must assume you are referring to the provision which would make illegal presence a felony punishable by (I believe) up to one year in prison.
Hopefully we’re on the same page thus far.
Now, before I comment on why your assertion that the bill is “draconian” and a right-wing “wedge issue” is problematic, I just want to make sure you understand the laws as they currently exist.
As the laws currently stand, “unlawful presence” (meaning to be in the United States without permission of the government) is a violation of the Immigration Act and a deportable offense under Immigration and Nationality Act Section 237 (a)(1)(B) which says:
“Any alien who is present in the United States in violation of this Act or any other law of the United States is deportable.”
But it is not a crime (meaning simply residing in the United States illegally cannot get you thrown in jail, unlike in Mexico). It’s an important distinction to make.
There are two ways in which an individual becomes an unlawful presence: either a person overstays a legally issued visa, or a person “improperly” (illegally) enters the United States (i.e. “border jumping”). Both actions violate the Immigration Act and both actions are deportable offenses because the individual in question has now become an “illegal presence”.
But here’s the interesting part. The fact is, even if Sensenbrenner had never sponsored his bill, a good percentage of the illegal aliens already residing in the United States would still be (and still are) de facto felons.
That is because under Title 8 Section 1325 of the U.S. Code, “Improper entry by an alien” is a federal offense.
“Any alien who (1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact, shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both, and, for a subsequent commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18, or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/8/chapters/12/subchapters/ii/parts/viii/sections/section_1325.html
A decade ago (1996) the INS estimated that 60% of illegal aliens were improperly entering the US and 40% were becoming unlawful presences as a result of overstaying visas. At best it’s probably a 50/50 even split. (Though I highly doubt it because we know that just between January 2000 and March 2002, for instance, 3.3 million additional immigrants have arrived and the number of visas for Mexicans hasn’t been increased significantly.)
So the fact is, that of all illegal aliens residing in the United States (excluding those given amnesty in 1986) at least 50% have committed a federal offense punishable by jail time. And that’s if Sensenbrenner’s bill had never existed.
Now back to the earlier issue. While I in no way disagree that immigration is being used politcally for the fall election and possibly to divert some attention away from “The Decider’s” scintillating achievements in Iraq, I really have to question both your characterization of the bill as “draconian” and the party (in both senses of the word) you perceive as being responsible for the draconian state of the bill.
H.R. 4437: Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 was introduced by Sensenbrenner on Dec 6, 2005 with the felony provision for unlawful presence.
That fact has gotten a lot of media coverage.
But here’s the fact that hasn’t.
On December 16, 2005 Sensenbrenner sponsored an amendment to his own bill.
You can view a list of all amendments to H.R. 4437: Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 here-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?tab=amendments&bill=h109-4437
Sensenbrenner’s December 16th amendment is #19 on the list and is called H.Amdt. 656.
You can view the information about H.Amdt. 656 here-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/amendment.xpd?session=109&amdt=h656
So what was H.Amdt. 656?
“H.Amdt. 656: Amendment sought to reduce the maximum sentences in the bill for illegal entry and unlawful presence to six months.”
Yes, Sensenbrenner sponsored an amendment to his own bill to scrap the felony penalty (as detailed in this USAToday opinion editorial authored by Tom Tancredo and entitled “Myths vs. Facts”).
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-03-29-opposingview-immigration_x.htm
But Sensenbrenner’s amendment to get rid of the felony penalty failed. Why?
You can view the voting details for H.Amdt. 656 here-
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2005-655
There were 164 (38%) “ayes” in favor of scrapping the felony provision and 257 (59%) “nays” in favor of keeping the felony provision.
And who cast 191 of those 257 “nays” that defeated the amendment and kept the felony provision?
Democrats. You can check for yourself.
Yes, 191 Democrats voted to keep the felony penalty.
If you really believe the bill is “draconian” and that the “right-wing” (basically meaning Republicans) are responsible for that fact, you’re going to have to explain why the Democrats overwhelmingly voted to defeat an amendment that would have erased the felony penalty.
I hope to hear your comments.
PS. I like your blog’s layout.
I found the lyrics on MSNBC and I’m repasting them for your readers:
Based on this translation reported by the Associated Press, I don’t have a problem with it. If it helps them understand the meaning of the national anthem, I’m all for it.
The real divisive issue for me is how Mexicans are depicted by the media. Being an assimilated third-generation Mexican-American with a college education, I’m offended when someone calls Mexicans Reconquistas, criminals, and other terms I won’t repeat because I find them repulsive.
Both sides need to extend each other an olive branch instead of the middle finger in this debate but it’s too late. Neither side wants to tackle the obstacles that will solve the problem: NAFTA and international law
Ignoring these two obstacles, passing HR4377 and building a wall won’t solve anything.
PS – for anyone who wants the real facts on immigration, here’s an Op/Ed I found on Town Hall, written by an intelligent conservative.
Guy,
The amendment 656 argument has been floated so many times its getting old. Before I get into specifics, its laughable on its face to suggest that Sensenbrenner and Tancredo were somehow trying to do the immigrants a favor.[-x
656 was proposed by Sensenbrenner as a way of establishing the felony clause. 656 did not change the penalty from a felony, it just changed the maximum sentence. Voting for 656 by democrats would have been voting to keep the felony clause in.
To reiterate, 656 maintained the penalty as a felony. Therefore a “yes” vote for 656 would have been a “yes” vote for the felony penalty. It was a nice bit of politics by Sensenbrenner but it failed.
I have to wonder why since you so meticulously cited the legislation that you would be sloppy on this particular fact. It does not seem to me to be an accidental slipup. It seems that you are intentionally misrepresenting the facts to try to deceive me and my readers. Please try to be more straightforward in the future.
As for 4437, what really makes it draconian is that it makes housing or aiding an illegal alien a felony. That would put a lot of churches and charitable institutions afoul of the law. (Since you like to sound lawyerly by citing the legislation, look this up in section 202 of HR 4437).
That will teach you to listen to Tancredo. :o)
I am seeing that most people are missing the “point” of the debate. The problem is quite similar to the flag burning issue.
The flag was/is a Holy talisman, sacred in all ways. Likewise, the national anthem is the psalm of the true believers and as such, can never be modified. Any altered rendition, no matter how truthful and accurate, is an affront to the true believer.
I have seen this behavior in Christian sects when new versions of the Bible are printed. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth result. When believers feel under assault by the other, they tend to rally around the familiar and reassuring objects they hold dear. It is therefor unsurprising that this new version of the national anthem has had such a lightning rod effect.
Faith requires no justification and is immune from doubt. Those who require justification to support their faith do not have a solid foundation in what they believe. This concept is applicable in this case.
Those who are rallying around the old song are unable to see how the new version can broaden and strengthen the beliefs they support because it is both different and percieved as coming from others on the outside. Their faith in the ideals that are the basis of our country are likewise shallow and on an underbuilt foundation, unable to weather the buffeting of societal change.
When we embrace new ideas, we are made stronger. When we hide from them, we are impoverished.
:)>-
“To reiterate, 656 maintained the penalty as a felony. Therefore a “yes” vote for 656 would have been a “yes” vote for the felony penalty. It was a nice bit of politics by Sensenbrenner but it failed.”
That’s absolutely incorrect.
Democratic politicians and immigrant rights advocates have admitted this fact-
“Immigrant-rights advocates were not impressed by the promise from Frist and Hastert. Sen. Edward Kennedy (news, bio, voting record), D-Mass., dismissed the GOP statement as “empty rhetoric.” Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, an immigration advocacy group, said it was “cold comfort” to illegal immigrants who could still be jailed on a MISDEMEANOR.” [emphasis mine]
…
Rep. Luis Gutierrez (news, bio, voting record), D-Ill., said Democrats deliberately torpedoed Sensenbrenner’s amendment to reduce penalties in order to make the House bill unpalatable.
“We weren’t going to help them,” he said of the bill’s Republican backers. Voting for Sensenbrenner’s amendment, Gutierrez said, would still have amounted to criminalizing illegal immigrants because they would be charged with a MISDEMEANOR. [emphasis mine] “I wasn’t going to collaborate,” he said.
Under the law, people who cross the border without permission are already guilty of a criminal misdemeanor. But people who enter the country legally and then overstay their visas – as many as 40% of the nation’s estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, according to Sensenbrenner – are guilty of a civil violation.
As have media outlets like Media Matters.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200604240006
“On December 16, 2005, the GOP-led House passed a stringent immigration reform bill sponsored by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. (R-WI). Among the legislation’s components was a controversial provision subjecting illegal immigrants to possible felony charges (unlawful presence is currently a civil violation). But prior to the final vote on the bill, Sensenbrenner proposed an amendment to reduce the penalty from a felony to a MISDEMEANOR.” [emphasis mine]
What you are saying about “maintaining a felony” is blatantly untrue. If you are against all criminal penalties (meaning misdemeanors) that’s one thing, and I can respect that, but your previous assertion is false and the fact that Sensenbrenner’s amendment lowered the penalty to a misdemeanor has been admitted by Democrat politicans, immigrant rights groups and left wing media outlets.
I would also suggest viewing the Congressional record.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, under current law, illegal entry into the United States makes an alien subject to a Federal criminal misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison. However, unlawful presence itself, such as by overstaying a visa, is not a criminal offense, but only a civil ground of inadmissibility.
Forty percent of the current illegal alien population entered legally, but overstayed their visas. The other 60 percent of the illegal alien population came here by illegal means and are therefore already subject to criminal penalties for committing a Federal criminal offense.
At the administration’s request, the base bill makes unlawful presence a crime, such as unlawful entry already is. This change makes sense. Aliens who have disregarded our laws by overstaying their visas to remain in the United States illegally should be just as culpable as aliens who have broken our laws to enter and remain here illegally.
In the base bill, the maximum penalty for illegal entry was increased to a year and a day, and the same penalty was set for unlawful presence, to make the enhancements for these offenses consistent with the other penalty enhancements of the bill.
[Time: 16:15]
The administration subsequently requested the penalty for these crimes be lowered to 6 months. Making the first offense a felony, as the base bill would do, would require a grand jury indictment, a trial before a district court judge and a jury trial.
Also because it is a felony, the defendant would be able to get a lawyer at public expense if the defendant could not afford the lawyer. These requirements would mean that the government would seldom if ever actually use the new penalties. By leaving these offenses as misdemeanors, more prosecutions are likely to be brought against those aliens whose cases merit criminal prosecution.
For this reason, the amendment returns the sentence for illegal entry to its current 6 months and sets the penalty for unlawful presence at the same level. Some have argued that this provision would require 11 million prosecutions. That is not true. Prosecutorial resources are limited, and authorities would rather quickly deport an alien whose only offense is to be here unlawfully rather than to prosecute and have to detain that alien pending trial.
Even if an alien were prosecuted under this provision, a conviction of unlawful presence would not prevent an alien from some day attaining legal status or even citizenship if the alien would otherwise qualify.
Making unlawful presence a crime, however, would serve as a greater deterrence to aliens overstaying their visas. For these reasons, I ask that the Members support this amendment.
I believe the above speaks for itself in regards to why they attempted to scrap the felony penalty, and also dispels the myth that mass prosecutions were going to be sought.
You also said:
“As for 4437, what really makes it draconian is that it makes housing or aiding an illegal alien a felony. That would put a lot of churches and charitable institutions afoul of the law.”
Unfortunately you are grossly misinformed on this point as well.
To begin with, penalties for aiding and harboring illegal immigrants already exist. That’s precisely why and how prosecutions such as following take place.
“13 motel owners charged with housing illegals”
By Jerry Seper
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
November 11, 2005
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20051110-114152-2251r.htm
And-
“Couple accused of harboring illegal immigrant”
Oct. 19, 2004
http://www2.jsonline.com/news/wauk/oct04/267997.asp
As for the idea that churches will be prosecuted, again let’s refer back to the USA Today op-ed piece.
“It has been said that if you tell a lie 1,000 times in politics, it becomes truth. Before we reach that threshold, there are two myths that must be dispelled about the House’s bipartisan immigration reform bill:
• The first myth is that the House bill would make criminals out of priests who run homeless shelters and soup kitchens.
The bill would not substantially change decades of law with respect to religious organizations. From 1986 until this year, no organization was allowed to conceal, harbor or shield an alien from law enforcement “in reckless disregard of the fact” that the alien is in this country illegally. During those two decades, no church was shut down for providing basic social services to illegal aliens. Regardless, I think congressional leaders would be open to language that reaffirms current practice and clarifies the bill’s intent.
Unfortunately, the things you are claiming simply are not true.
mash, yes, i noticed that as well. for someone who took the time to either research, or maybe they are that knowledgeable, this was no slip, but seemingly intentional.
so lets see i understand. some people complain that undocumented visitors are a burden on the government, so when we find them, instead of putting them on the next plane back to their home country, further burden the state by imprisoning them, the pt of which would be what exactly?
speeding is a crime, so is cheating on ur taxes, as are a number of things. though not all felonies, if the government was unilaterally prosecuting all criminals, however they are defined, then ok, fine, jail the u.v.’s. but this measure is obviously targeting specific groups. i seriously do not believe a brit or german or japanese is going to be put in the slammer for 6 months for overstaying their visas.
this bill was, is, completely discriminatory, and the people against it should realise that what they are perpetuating is pure prejudism.
why this has become a latino thing is beyond me. other blogs have cited how the deshi communtiy isnt saying much, some infering the diaspora is keeping mums out of self interest.
i am always amazed at how the most voiciferous critics, many of whom are offspring of illegal immigration in the 50’s 60’s etc, are always going on about its the law, how these people are a drain on society etc…
BS, undocumented workers.visitors are not eligible for gov. programs, and they dont always show up at hospitals to get free treatment, many dont go at all fearing being caught and deportation…
TedB: “When we embrace new ideas, we are made stronger. When we hide from them, we are impoverished.”
man, u could not have put it any better. good on ya!!=d>
I think this sums up the debate nicely:
Dear President Bush:
I’m about to plan a little trip with my family and extended family, and I would like to ask you to assist me. I’m going to walk across the border from the U.S. into Mexico, and I need to make a few arrangements. I know you can help with this. I plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws. I’m sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Vicente Fox, that I’m on my way over? Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrat s for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. All government forms need to be printed in English.
4. I want my kids to be taught by English-speaking teachers.
5. Schools need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. Please plan to feed my kids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
7. I will need a local Mexican driver’s license so I can get easy access to government services.
8. I do not plan to have any car insurance, and I won’t make any effort to learn local traffic laws.
9. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from Pres. Fox to leave me alone, please be sure that all police officers speak English.
10. I plan to fly the U.S. flag from my house top, put flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
11. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and
don’t enforce any labor laws or tax laws.
12. Please tell all the people in the country to be extremely nice and never say a critical word about me, or about the strain I might place on the economy.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all the people who come to the U.S. from Mexico. I am sure that Pres. Fox won’t mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely. However, if he gives you any trouble, just invite him to go quail hunting with your V.P.
Guy,
If you are using Tom Tancredo’s op-ed as your source for reassuring immigrants you must think I am an idiot. Trust Tancredo to say the new law is really the same as the old law. Then why do we need the new law?!? Please, Tancredo has zero credibility – trust Tancredo on immigration, simply laughable.
I must be missing something. Your bit of indirection is clever I admit, but the new law does specifically make it a felony to house undocumented aliens (section 202). Now I can take Tancredo’s word for it that this is a benign provision and no one need worry, but that is not how we make laws in this country.
So to the point about reducing the sentence in 656 to 6 months. It still retains it as a criminal offense rather than a civil penulty. I apologize if I was inexact in the wee hours of the morning. The advantage, as you actually show by Sensenbrenner’s comment, of reducing the sentence from 1 year 1 day to 6 months is that the heavy expense to the public is reduced thereby making it easier to prosecute the alien. The point is it criminalizes the offence and that is why the democrats would not support it. As far as making it criminal, the distinction between a criminal misdeamenor and a felony is a distinction without a difference to the alien. Its really hard to blame the democrats for this bill – but nice try. It WAS a republican bill and the republicans ARE the majority.
Oh, I almost forgot the ludicrous 700 mile wall on the border that is also in this bill.
The point remains the same, the law is draconian. Besides, this bill would never pass the Congress and the republicans know it (it will die in the Senate or in conference). It is being used as a wedge issue for the elections only.
LAKingsFan57, dude, and TedB, I agree with that the solution to the influx of immigrants lies in economic development in Latin America. It is obvious but it is not sexy politics. Spreading hate brings out the base, unfortunately.
All these guys calling Mexicans and other Latin Americans names are the same people who like their dishes washed and their lawns mowed cheap. A bunch of hypocrites.
I just got off the phone with an acquaintance who told me that most of the legal immigrants who work in his factory are not showing up to work on Monday in solidarity with their more unfortunate brethren. Its going to be a very slow work day.
Although I do not think it is the right thing to do on Monday as a matter of good politics, if the no-shows are large, it will show this country what should be obvious. That there is a large shadow population here that needs to be contended with. However, this show of force may come at the expense of votes in November.
this is reeeally a touchy subject for some people, based on how the talk about it or in this instance how they seem to write about it, here and on other forums. i find it a bit perplexing how impassioned some folks get.
curious…
dude, I crossposted on Daily Kos and got pummelled from both sides. It does seem to bring out the passion in people.
I knew the post would generate some controversy but I thought it was important to try to ratchet down the rhetoric.
Oh well. :((
“I apologize if I was inexact in the wee hours of the morning.”
Please be honest. You said (and I quote):
“656 did not change the penalty from a felony, it just changed the maximum sentence. Voting for 656 by democrats would have been voting to keep the felony clause in.
To reiterate, 656 maintained the penalty as a felony. Therefore a “yes” vote for 656 would have been a “yes” vote for the felony penalty. It was a nice bit of politics by Sensenbrenner but it failed.”
That’s VERY clearly not the case and I believe you are (now) aware of that fact. Either you were being untruthful or you were misinformed, but this wasn’t a case of “inexact”. There’s no shame in admitting an error. If we want to discuss this rationally we both need to be honest.
My point is hardly based solely upon Tom Tancredo’s “word”. The truth is that no church or charity has been charged or shutdown since the 1986 amnesty. That’s a fact.
[And as an aside, I wouldn’t be quite so quick to cast aspersion on Tancredo’s “credibility” if I were you. Given that you didn’t know the facts of the amendment (unlike Tancredo) and then attempted to blame your ignorance (and I’m not using that term as an insult) on the “wee hours of the morning” (a bit of rhetoric totally negated by the fact that when I posted at 4:15am the facts were very much the same) it would appear that your own credibility is not exactly in pristine condition.]
“[…] the new law does specifically make it a felony to house undocumented aliens (section 202). Now I can take Tancredo’s word for it that this is a benign provision and no one need worry, but that is not how we make laws in this country.”
Yes and one has to know an illegal alien is an alien illegal in able to be culpable for housing an illegal alien. Similarly, it is a felony to hire an illegal alien but employers are not allowed to ask someone’s immigration status. Therefore, if an illegal alien gives an employer fake documents, Social Security Number, etc. (another crime) the employer has hired a person who, based upon all available evidence, was not an illegal alien. The same standard would be applied to an apartment manager (for example) if an illegal alien provides said manager with a SSN that (though in actuality falsely) identifies the illegal alien as legal.
We have to use basic logic here.
As for how laws are made, we use a series of checks and balances, as well as comprises such as amendments. I believe 656 would fall under the category of the latter.
Also, you made the following assertion:
“The advantage, as you actually show by Sensenbrenner’s comment, of reducing the sentence from 1 year 1 day to 6 months is that the heavy expense to the public is reduced thereby making it easier to prosecute the alien.”
Exactly where in the world did you get that from?
“By leaving these offenses as misdemeanors, more prosecutions are likely to be brought against those aliens WHOSE CASES MERIT CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.” [emphasis mine]
And
“Some have argued that this provision would require 11 million prosecutions. That is not true. Prosecutorial resources are limited, and authorities would rather quickly deport an alien whose only offense is to be here unlawfully rather than to prosecute and have to detain that alien pending trial.”
Your assertion is flatly negated. Also, if the intent here is to start revving up prosecutions, how come the DOJ hasn’t prosecuted the 50% of alien aliens who have committed a federal offense through improper entry? That law has been on the books for decades. Your claims have no basis and are simply unsubstantiated conjecture.
Moving on to your note about the “ludricrous” wall, I have to ask, is that description made from an intent standpoint, or one of executable feasibility?
Surely you’re aware of a little road known as US Route 66?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Route_66
So American engineers were able to build a 2,347 mile continuous road more than half a century ago but constructing a wall less than a third of the total length is patently impossible, huh?
Or perhaps you’ve heard of the Great Wall of China?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Wall_of_China
The aforementioned wall stretches 3,948 miles. The southern border wall would be less than one-fifth the total length. Oh, and construction of the Great Wall ended in the 17th century.
You must have quite the low opinion of American engineers and modern technology if you think it is “ludicrous” to propose construction of a wall less than a fifth the length of a 17th century structure.
I must then assume you were instead referring to intent.
The 1986 amnesty of approximately 3 million illegal aliens was supposed to solve the illegal immigration problem.
Obviously it did not and we are now facing what would seem to have been a quite predictable case of deja vu.
As we speak, thousands of people are crossing the border illegally in order to make in it in time for amnesty.
Migrants rush to border hoping for passage
Clearly this amnesty will not solve the issue of people crossing the border illegally. We’ll just have another amnesty in 15 years if nothing is done.
So I have to ask, why not build a wall?
If the proposed amnesty is just about the 11+ million people who are ALREADY here, and “are America” and are contributing, etc. what is the problem with building a border wall and securing the border in order to prevent future illegal immigration problems as a result of improper entry?
Amnesty (though it would reward people who broke the law) would “bring people out of the shadows”, etc. and building a wall would end the issue once and for all.
What is your rationale for opposing a border wall if the amnesty is only about the people ALREADY here (as opposed to being a positive signal to spur a future wave of illegal immigration)?
Guy, first about Tancredo. He’s pretty well established as an extremist. I can only assume that since you seem to think he has credibility, you fall in the same fringe.
About knowing the law, I have read the bill. Well before you cited it – read my earlier post if you like. But, if you believe you have pedantically taught me something, than I am better for it. However, this is not a debate, this is something else. Feel free to find something else in these words to pick apart.
It does your argument no good. The distinction between “felony” and “criminal misdemeanor” is what exactly from the alien’s point of view?
We started this discussion because I said the law is “draconian”. And it no doubt is. Let me see, you mistated the bit about housing aliens being a felony. Did you also learn something? Were you misinformed or simply being misleading? Hmm?
What is your point exactly? That the democrats are tougher on immigrants than republicans? That democrats are playing politics? I’m not sure exactly.
And about building a wall, its ludicrous not because of the things you mentioned. You are very much like Don Quixote tilting at windmills (strawmen). I realize that its easier to debate against an imaginary opponent, but its time that you faced reality.
The wall argument is ludicrous not according to me, but maybe you should ask the US Border Patrol chief. He seems to think its foolish. Read my previous post on the wall issue. I wont waste time linking to it – you are industrious, I’m sure you can find it.
I am still cracking up that you somehow think Tancredo is someone with credibility. I almost think you are pulling my leg. =))
“Guy, first about Tancredo. He’s pretty well established as an extremist. I can only assume that since you seem to think he has credibility, you fall in the same fringe.”
Tancredo has obvious strong opinions about the issue. But he’s an extremist now, is he? Based upon what? That fact that he adamantly opposes illegal immigration?
I guess Cesar Chavez must have been an extremist as well.
“Cesar Chavez, a labor leader intent on protecting union membership, was as effective a surrogate for the INS as ever existed. Indeed, Chavez and the United Farm Workers Union he headed routinely reported, to the INS, for deportation, suspected illegal immigrants who served as strikebreakers or refused to unionize.”
“On the non-violent front, Chavez and the UFW picketed the offices of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, demanding that the INS crack down on illegal aliens, according to a recent article in the California Political Review.”
“In 1969, the UFW organized a march through the Coachella and Imperial Valleys in Central California to the United States-Mexico border to protest growers’ use of illegal immigrants as strike breakers.”
Or is he an extremist because Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Ill calls him mean names like “racist” and “bigot”?
Reps Tancredo, Gutierrez engage in nasty exchange
[Not that Gutierrez has a lot of room to maneuver in the whole “extremism” debate given that he worked to get convicted terrorists out of jail.
http://www.discoverthenetwork.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1265
“In 1999 Gutierrez worked with fellow Puerto Rico-connected lawmakers and Progressive Caucus members Nydia Velazquez (D.-New York) and Jose Serrano (D.-New York) to pressure Democratic President Bill Clinton to free convicted FALN terrorists whose bombs had killed six men, women and children and had blinded or maimed several police officers. Gutierrez pressed President Clinton to pardon even those FALN killers who refused to express remorse for their terrorist acts.”
And-
http://dir.salon.com/story/politics/feature/2002/02/04/faln/index_np.html
“This, as it happens, was one of the few post-Sept. 11 media references to the United States’ long history of grappling with Puerto Rican terrorism. That’s baffling, considering that as recently as August 1999, President Clinton offered to commute the sentences of 16 members of the Puerto Rican terrorist group FALN (a Spanish acronym for the Armed Forces of National Liberation). It was FALN that was responsible for the Fraunces Tavern attack, as well as over 100 bombings during the 1970s and 1980s, largely in New York and Chicago.”
…
“Those who lobbied for the clemencies have little interest in defending them today. Clemency supporters who did not return calls for this article include the Democratic Puerto Rican representatives Nydia Velázquez and José Serrano of New York and Luis Gutierrez of Chicago, who both acted as Washington proxies for nationalist-leaning Puerto Rican activists in the FALN furor and even pushed for unconditional pardons. (Clinton at least required that the prisoners renounce violence — and some would not, and were therefore denied clemency.) Collectively, Velázquez, Serrano and Gutierrez bowled over Puerto Rico’s single nonvoting representative to the U.S. Congress, the pro-statehood resident commissioner Carlos Romero-Barceló, who repudiated talk of the FALN members as “political prisoners” and opposed pardons outright, though he later accepted conditional clemency.”]
Also thank you for the nice ad hominem attack against me. Very effective debating strategy.
If you knew the history of the bill and failed Amendment 656, then why did you claim:
“656 did not change the penalty from a felony”
“To reiterate, 656 maintained the penalty as a felony.”
That’s not true. Period.
“The distinction between “felony” and “criminal misdemeanor” is what exactly from the alien’s point of view?”
Well if they went to a library or read a newspaper I think it would be pretty clear;
1.What the distinction between a felony and a misdemenor is from a legal standpoint; and
2.What the difference in possible (though unlikely to be applied) penalties would be.
Though it is nice to know that you feel we should cater our legal system and laws to the personal whims of people who commit federal offenses and reside in the country illegally.
From my point of view, I find it annoying that I have to pay for things in the grocery store. I’d certainly prefer if I could just leave without paying. I imagine there are many people who find standing in the check-out line inconvenient. Hopefully the laws against shoplifting will be changed in order to better accomodate our whims, ignorance and “views”.
“Let me see, you mistated the bit about housing aliens being a felony.”
No, I didn’t misstate anything. If you scroll upwards I believe you’ll find that it was you who brought that issue up, not me. If you’d like to discuss it we can.
Guy said:
Do I need say much more? Oh wait, there’s more from you:
Yup, Tancredo is an extremist. You are entitled, of course, to your own opinion.
And wait there is more extremism and perhaps a bit of racism from you:
And then there is this from you:
I’m not sure I said anything of the sort. But then again it must be hard to hear over the hate chants coming from within (<--ad hominem attack). You might want to consider peddling your hate elsewhere. \:d/
Did we not already discuss the part about how illegality and housing is analogous to illegality and employment?
I.E.
“Yes and one has to know an illegal alien is an alien illegal in able to be culpable for housing an illegal alien. Similarly, it is a felony to hire an illegal alien but employers are not allowed to ask someone’s immigration status. Therefore, if an illegal alien gives an employer fake documents, Social Security Number, etc. (another crime) the employer has hired a person who, based upon all available evidence, was not an illegal alien. The same standard would be applied to an apartment manager (for example) if an illegal alien provides said manager with a SSN that (though in actuality falsely) identifies the illegal alien as legal.”
And no, churches and charities will not be charged for 10 zillionth time.
How was my comment “extremism” and “racism”?
Libraries have legal books and dictionaries. (Including Spanish language in mostly linguistically Spanish areas). That’s one way to look up both the definitions and difference between felony and misdemeanor.
Also libraries in most (almost all counties) have some form of internet access (though the connection speed and number of computers vary obviously).
Libraries also have newspapers on hand.
Libraries are also a free resource for information (if cost is an issue for an illegal immigrant).
I’m not sure how any of that is offensive.
Very good reading. Peace until next time.
WaltDe
It was a very nice theme! Just wanna say thank you for the data you have fanned. Just continue composing this kind of post. I will be your faithful reader. Thanks once again.