Blunt Unilaterally Imposes Racial Profiling Slippery Slope on Missouri
I try not to be shocked by the anti-American depravity of Matt Blunt, but I did not foresee this one: "Citing an “unnatural influx” of illegal immigrants, Gov. Matt Blunt on Monday ordered state troopers to start checking the immigration status of every person they arrest." Emboldened by the Governor's anti-immigrant stance, the Highway Patrol has decided to go even further and run computer checks on anyone they want - “If we think they’re illegal, then we would be checking them,” said Lt. John Hotz, a spokesman for the patrol.
What, exactly, do you think it will take to trigger a suspicion that "they're illegal"? Tan skin will suffice. A latino last name will suffice. A plastic statue of the Virgin Mary will suffice.
What has happened to the Republican party? Didn't they used to be the small-government party? Has their love of white supremacy overridden their love of liberty?
Today, they are coming after the Hispanic population - running their names through government databases at any opportunity. Do you honestly believe that they'll stop there? On a dark night at a traffic stop, a Jew might look swarthy and Arabic, so let's run them through the database, too. And why should we limit ourselves to immigration issues? Why don't we look for a broader group of crimes? Why don't we look for anyone on the no-fly list?
And why should we endure the risk of the nonwhite criminal class avoiding occasional traffic stops? Why don't we go ahead and set up a few checkpoints at key locations?
Is it really hysterical of me to ask if anybody remembers when saw the Soviet Union as an enemy instead of a model? We already have our secret prisons . . .
Labels: Blunt (baby), GWOT
posted by Dan at 8/28/2007 08:08:00 AM
37 Comments:
Oh didn't you hear? When the US does it, it's OK. At least that's what this administration seems to think anyway.
Two Words: Real ID
Gee, Dan, your title is a lie, based upon the quote from the article.
Blunt ordered checks on every individual arrested. Unless you wish to argue that only Hispanics are arrested in the state of Misery, that means individuals of ALL races will be checked.
You might have had a case if you argued that Highway Patrol officials imposed racial profiling, but that wouldn't give you the sexy headline or the chance to lie about a GOP elected official, would it?
By the way -- opposition to illegal immigration and illegal immigrants is no more "anti-immigrant" than opposition to rape and rapists is "anti-Sex".
Great post. I like your post, kansas city blue blog's post , and tonys kansas city post on this. Other local bloggers should join in and stand by your side.
Thanks, Mama. See, I'm not always wrong!
Greg - I'm impressed with your attention to words, coming from a guy who claimed that homosexual marriage was going to be imposed on the nation, and who called the troops losers. Good work, and your confusion is understandable, since you are a Texan. The flaw in your analysis is that the Governor has asserted control of the Highway Patrol here in Missouri, and has used them freely for political purposes. Because he has unilaterally changed the policy, he has unilaterally imposed a racial profiling slippery slope on Missouri.
Your analogy is offensive. Crossing the border or overstaying a visa is not anything like genuine rape, and you should be ashamed of yourself.
Well, Dan, I stand by that analogy.
And it is clear that you are fundamentally dishonest, because I said neither of those two things which you attribute to me.
Greg - Please don't come here and lie. Here's your quotation on gay marriage: "many of us have been concerned about the unilateral imposition of homosexual marriage upon the nation by judges". Game, set, match.
As for calling the troops losers, here's a citation to your page: http://rhymeswithright.mu.nu/archives/223639.php
You fabricated a quotation by Harry Reid, and, when I called you on it, you could not document the quotation, so, indeed, it was you who called the troops "losers". Game, set, match.
I'm glad, however, that you attempted, however lamely, to catch me in a mistake. It shows that you're finally starting to pay a little attention to the truth. Maybe there's hope for you.
So I wasn't the only one that found what Greg said uneducated and disgusting?
Not at all, Midtown. To conservatives, overstaying a visa and struggling to support a family is exactly the same as forcibly raping a woman. Same thing.
The difference is that you don't see them forming vigilante groups and gathering to protest sex crimes. I guess, to them, the immigration issue is actually somehow worse. Despicable bastards.
No, Dan, they are not "exactly the same thing".
However, the analogy works in this case. Try a little logic here.
Immigration offenses are to immigration as sex offenses are to sex.
The illustration I'm offering is that to oppose the breaking immigration laws is no more anti-immigration than opposing sex offenses is anti-sex.
And as for the two examples offered above, you took a satirical piece on Harry Reid's irresponsible seditious/treasonous statements about the war being lost and attempted to turn it into something it wasn't.
And in the other, the context makes it clear I'm talking about the use of the courts to overrule the will of the people on marriage, while you insist that I'm arguing we will all be forced to personally commit acts of sodomy.
In both instances, you distort the words and the context to LIE.
Sort of like you do in this post.
greg - "...I'm talking about the use of the courts to overrule the will of the people on marriage..."
Was I out of the country the day that national referendum took place? I don't know that the national "will of the people" is opposed to gay marriage.
Besides, I would think you conservatives would be all for gay marriage. You are always bemoaning the decline of The Institution of Marriage, with more and more couple deciding to just cohabitate rather than enter into a binding, legal commitment.
If the gay/lesbian community wants to embrace your cherished marital institution, I would think you would support that as a way of rescuing and preserving the institution.
After all, why should heterosexuals be the only group to enjoy arguing, fighting, being ignored, being taken for granted and be denied sex for forgetting to take out the trash?
The more the merrier, right?
Dan likes to make everyone happy and says nothing. Travelingal said it best but did not go far enough.
Homeland security demands that we crack down on illegals, and we probably have to re-think the Democratic position on gun control as well. No country can survive that cannot control its borders, control for disease and allow people to defend themselves from threats. Real Democrats owe it to the people to live in a real world.
Dan -
However you might disagree with Greg, he's right on this one. Checking the illegal immigration status of anyone ARRESTED is a no brainer; I'm amazed it wasn't done routinely anyway. You've mis-stated, via hyperbole and innuendo, the policy of the State, apparantly for purely political purposes, so you can score some cheap points slamming Republicans (i.e. "Has their love of white supremacy overridden their love of liberty?" Care to provide any real evidence to back up that slur?).
And Greg's analogy is perfectly apt.
The real shame here is that this is (or perhaps used to be) a blog I routinely respect, even if I disagree with it, because while I may indeed disagree, generally you don't display full blown BDS. That appears to be changing.
Oh, by the way, to answer your question ("Is it really hysterical of me to ask if anybody remembers when saw the Soviet Union as an enemy instead of a model?"), the answer is yes. Such a "question" is the equivalent of a Godwin violation, negating any rational argument with the hyperbole of ridiculous comparisons.
Too bad, Dan. You've fallen far.
Greg,
I think we all understand the point you are trying to make with your analogy. Unfortunately for you, your analogy revealed a bit more than you intended.
The analogy is inept, not apt, because it compares a malum prohibitum (bad because we say so) violation (unapproved immigration)to a malum in se (inherently bad) violation (rape). We get the broader point you're trying to make, but you shoot yourself in the foot trying to make it.
You might have had a case if you argued that opposition to illegal immigration is no more "anti-immigrant" than opposition to tax fraud is "anti-tax deduction." But then your analogy wouldn't be so sexy, would it?
The issue of illegal immigration is not a republican vs democrat nor a conservative vs liberal issue. It is an issue about the sovereignty of our nation. Either we are, and we enforce our immigration laws or we are not, and we throw open our borders to anybody who wants to enter. I believe in a sovereign nation.
Now, who's to blame for all this shit? Well, how about those lawmakers who refused to build the fence that was mandated by law. And, how about those lawmakers who enacted the real ID law but didn't provide the funding to the states. And, how about all those damn greedy employers who turned a blind eye to the law and knowingly hired illegals or worse yet, actually imported them. And finally, how about all those illegals who broke into the country and stole identities or fabricated them, knowing full well that was an illegal act. Those that went on to commit felonies are the worst of them.
So, now, the problem has become so overwhelming that the citizens of this country have had to raise holy hell to get anything done. Why? because they cannot any longer afford to bear the financial burden that illegal immigrants are putting on their school systems, medical facilities, etc the list goes on. And when an illegal immigrant commits a crime that involves an innocent civilian, well then things boil over.
Then, on top of that, we are called racist, bigots, "despicable bastards" (I really didn't like that one, Dan) which only plants are feet more deeply in the ground.
So, here we are. Pissed off at each other. Calling each other names. Most of this mess isn't our fault at all. Our friggin lawmakers, both republicans and democrats, let this happen, in fact wanted it to happen. I say, vote their asses out of office. I also hope they throw the goddam book at those greedy employers too.
Maybe, just maybe after our government pulls it's head out of its ass and enforces current law, we can worry about changing our immigration system to make it more workable. Until then, quit blaming the ordinary people who had nothing to do with this freaking mess to begin with.
Travelingal - just a quick comment while I'm at work - I'm not calling all who want to make immigration changes "despicable bastards". Only those who would equate illegal immigration with rape. I suspect that we can agree that someone who comes here illegally to try to make a living for his or her family (a fairly typical immigrant, though there are worse, of course) is vastly different from a rapist, and the non-violent crime of crossing a border is vastly different from raping a woman.
Disagreeing with me on immigration issues, where I am certainly no expert, does not make you a despicable bastard. Equating rape and immigration does, though.
Dan -
I don't know why I'm responding to this but . .
Greg did not say that rape was the same as illegal immigration; he did not "equate" the two. You understand that, of course. As an attorney, you know a thing or two about analogies. Rather, rou're being willfully obtuse, and for purely partisan and ideological reasons.
Greg spelled the analogy out; you're a smart guy, Dan, I'm certain you did not misunderstand. Need it be spelled out in small words for you? Continuing to claim the analogy is what it is not is just as deceptive as the original post.
I had always thought you were better than that. Apparantly not.
Sophia's little "malum in se" vs. "malum prohibitum" wordplay is just as deliberately obtuse. Whether it's inherently wrong or just statutorily illegal is beside the point, and I have no doubt that Sophia knows that, too.
But intellectual honesty apparantly gets in the way of ideological posturing; honesty has now been shoved aside in favor of ideological bombthrowing.
Are you about to dive off the same deep end as much of the moonbat left, Dan?
I'm going to take Dan at his word on this one (regarding despicable bastards, thank you Dan), but I also don't think Greg was equating illegal immigrants to rapists. Perhaps he could have used an analogy that was less inflammatory, but his point was correct.
It is no wonder we are at each other's throats given the cards we have been dealt by our lawmakers. The comprehensive immigration package offered by the senate was a joke. Gang members could have simply renounced their "gangship" and been given amnesty. 12-20 Illegal immigrants would have been made legal literally overnight (24 hr waiting period to conduct a background check...are you kidding me???.)Then, after this temporary legal status, immigrants would have to wait 14 years to gain full citizenship? How insane is that? On top of that, the Congressional Budget Office issued a report that said at best the Senate plan would have only reduced illegal immigration by 25%. What kind of a joke of a government do we have? I think they believe we're fools. Well, I think they found out differently.
Answers? Well, I've got my ideas but time, space don't allow here. But I'll tell ya this. Despite the differences expressed on this blog, I bet we could come up with a better plan than our elected officials did.
"I'm going to take Dan at his word on this one (regarding despicable bastards, thank you Dan), but I also don't think Greg was equating illegal immigrants to rapists. Perhaps he could have used an analogy that was less inflammatory, but his point was correct."
TG is nicer than I am, Dan, but she certainly understands what an analogy is, even if you choose not to.
And TG, I'm certain that with some effort, we could come up with a better bill, as bloggers, than our congresscritters did. Of course, we aren't running for office, or seeking to raise the funds for same . . .
Anonymous me,
"Whether it's inherently wrong or just statutorily illegal is beside the point, and I have no doubt that Sophia knows that, too."
No... it really isn't beside the point. If we opened up our borders tomorrow a ton of people who are unwilling to violate our current immigration laws would gladly move to America. If we legalized rape tomorrow, I presume you wouldn't run out and rape the first attractive women who turns down your sexual advance. Perhaps this presumption is incorrect on my part.
And perhaps you are in the habit of being deliberately obtuse and making arguments that are beside the point, but I don't do these things. The prohibitum/ in se distinction is meaningful. If you don't recognize that then you are not being honest about your opposition to immigration. Greg's analogy was not merely inflammatory, it was fatally flawed if it was trying to illustrate anything other than an opposition to immigration that goes beyond the legal/illegal distinction.
I know what an analogy is. And I know that most analogies are crap. People are frequently too lazy, or too inarticulate to say what they mean so they try to illustrate it with an analogy. This also frequently results in them revealing more of what they really mean than they intend to reveal. I'd say that's what happened here. Craig made his point that he's opposed to illegal immigration and not immigration itself. And an intelligent reader of his point could reasonably conclude that he is insincere based on the way he illustrated his point.
First, I am no fan of Blunt, but even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Second, and this is a little stretch, but Blunt is actually just calling for a more strict interpretation of "Jakes Law".
Last paragraph of my 6:09 post should read "Greg," not "Craig."
Sophia -
The issue was not illegal immigration (though it's perhaps become that); it was Greg's (correct) characterization of Dan's original post as inherently dishonest. DAN turned that into an attack on immigration issues.
The point - that opposition to illegal immigration is not the same as opposition to immigration - is made perfectly with the analogy. That Greg used the distinction between rape and sex to illustrate the distinction between illegal immigration and legal immigration, illustrates only that the analogy between the two can be seen clearly and without misunderstanding. The prohibitum/ in se distinction is important in some contexts, of course, but this isn't one of them.
That you and Dan chose to twist that analogy in PC fashion speaks volumes about you and Dan, but does not speak poorly to Greg in the least. That fact that you include in your comment a thinly veiled accusation that I am a budding rapist, given the opportunity (i.e. "If we legalized rape tomorrow, I presume you wouldn't run out and rape the first attractive women who turns down your sexual advance. Perhaps this presumption is incorrect on my part.") only illustrates the point completely. Wrapping that attack up in pop psychology - over the internet, no less! - makes even clearer your intent to ignore the point and press home the ideological attack.
You wrap up writing that "an intelligent reader of his point could reasonably conclude that he is insincere based on the way he illustrated his point."
By "intelligent reader" you mean, of course, "agrees with me." Typical left-wing arrogance.
This "intelligent reader" concludes no such thing. The only insincerity here is from Dan, who wilfully misstates the Missouri policy, and you and Dan, who then attack an analogy for what it does not say. Greg was dead on. Dan, and you, chose not to deal with Greg's points, but to twist his analogy and attack him.
THAT speaks volumes.
Sadly, AM, that has been happening more and more often.
And Sophia -- an intelligent reader would clearly see that I am not equating the two is not saying that they are identical. Which proves to me that you are not an intelligent reader -- or that you are being every bit as dishonest as Dan.
However, I will gladly spell out my thought process. Dan claimed that opposition to illegal immigration (a bad thing)is opposition to immigrants (generally speaking, a good thing). I tried to think of something that is clearly a crime that decent people oppose -- and then twist opposition to the crime to be opposition to a related thing that is (generally speaking) a good thing. And I wanted it to be an analogy that is equivalent to Dan's foolishness in a manner that is clearly "writ large".
'voices' or 'amy' or head' - "No country can survive that cannot control its borders, control for disease and allow people to defend themselves from threats..."
That ship sailed a long time ago. Give it up.
We are headed towards a single, planetary culture and government. None of us know what that will look like. But it is inevitable. It WILL happen and there isn't a damn thing a bunch of gun toting nationalists from ANY country can do to stop it.
It might suck ass. It might be transcendantly awesome. Most likely it will vaccilate between suckassishness and awesomeness in subtle, varying degrees that will be debated by the next milleniums talking heads.
anon 11:28 - borders don't exist anymore. What part of that don't you get? The ebb and flow of economical supply and demand overwhelmed arbitrary borders a long time ago. Globalism is a reality. It's here. Get used to it.
sophia - YAWN STRETCH!! I'm sorry. Did you say something?
travel - "It is an issue about the sovereignty of our nation." There are no sovereign nations anymore. Not if you define a soveriegn nation as one with a completely unique culture, history and language. Modern communication has eliminated that boundry. For better or worse. It just doesn't exist anymore.
Look, people. The time when "America" was populated by "Americans" and "The United Kingdom" was populated by Britons; Europe was populated by "Europeans", etc is OVER! It's been over for a long time and it will never come back!
Everybody lives everywhere and we all have to figure out how we are all going to get along!
Gentlemen,
Rape is not bad sex. Rape is not about sex. These statements are not "PC twists," they are the considered wisdom of those who have dealt with rape and its consequences. It is unfortunate that those of you arguing that Greg's analogy was perfect cannot grasp that.
Anonymous me,
The only issue I've addressed is Greg's analogy. Funny how using inflammatory analogies tends to distract from whatever it is you want to talk about it. I offered a better analogy to make the alleged point. You and others wanted to defend the rape analogy. Sorry if you're not satisfied by the ensuing discussion.
My comment didn't include a "thinly veiled accusation" that you're a budding rapist. It included an open statement that I assume you would not go out and rape someone tomorrow if it became legal, and an acknowledgment that I could be wrong in that assumption.
By "intelligent reader" I mean someone at a certain level of reading comprehension. For instance, a reader who knows that "could reasonably conclude" does not mean "would conclude" or "must conclude."
Greg,
I didn't say that you said the two were identical. I argued that they were sufficiently different to make it a bad analogy.
As for your thought process... yeah, I got it. The first through third time. Except for the "writ large" part. I suspect you mean "hyperbolic." Either way, if your point was to not only analogize the quality of your opposition to illegal immigration but to demonstrate the foolishness of Dan's original argument - your analogy collapses under the weight of your grand intentions. (i.e. it still sucks)
XO,
thanx 4 the feedback!!! ur teh awesome!!!!
Sophia -
I'll stand by every word. You've offered nothing aside from more thinly veiled insults.
Typical.
Anonymous me,
Well, gosh. If you think any argument that points out the flaws in your argument is a thinly veiled attack on you personally then you're probably a little too emotional to be having this discussion.
WARNING! TRANSPARENT INSULT AHEAD: Pussy.
I forgot to sign the post above.
As a public high school teacher in Texas, you may rest assured that I know how these folks live -- a number of them are my students.
And as one whose adult life and livelihood involves the study of history, I can tell you that I am aware of much of what you cite -- but note the differences as well. But the difference is that those immigrants in the past were here legally. You conveniently gloss over that "minor" detail.
As for my beliefs about rape, rest assured that i agree with the whole power/violence angle -- and given that someone EXTREMELY close to me is the survivor of sexual assault, I don't trivialize that crime.
Incidentally, I did ratchet down my analogy a bit -- as originally typed, the analogy mentioned child molestation, not rape. I was trying not to be inflammatory...
Why do I come here from Texas? Because Dan and I have a history of reading and commenting on each other's site.
And coming from a military family with roots in Rhode Island, California, and Illinois, I wasn't educated by Texas schools or Texas textbooks -- which, I'd like to tell you, are the model for the nation.
And by the way -- the term more likely to be applied by Democrat terrorists and criminals was undesirable, not illegal, because these individuals were acknowledged to be here legally. There was a eugenics movement -- but that was encouraged by Planned parenthood founder and abortion advocate (as well as Hitler supporter) Margaret Sanger.
And let me put this in small sentences for your tiny intellect.
I.
Don't.
Say.
Illegal.
Immigrants.
Are.
Molesters.
Or.
Rapists.
I.
Say.
They.
Are.
Law.
Breakers.
I.
Say.
That.
Opposing.
Immigration.
Crime.
Is.
Not.
Opposing.
Immigration.
Any.
More.
Than.
Opposing.
Sex.
Crimes.
Is.
Opposing.
Sex.
Hopefully that helped you out.
Greg - as a history teacher, you must be aware that LONG before the Mexicans that you apparently fear so greatly started crossing our soverign borders and invading sacred U.S. lands, the borders of the United States expanded, by armed, miltary force, to include much of what used to be Mexico!
Imagine our shock and dismay to discover that our newly conquered Mexican lands contained a lot of (gasp!) Mexicans!
As some hispanics are fond of saying "We didn't come to America. America came to us!"
Listening to someone from Texas complain about Mexicans crossing the border sounds a lot like Isrealis complaining about those pesky Palestinians. "Why don't they just go back to their own...oops...wait a minute..."
Spare us the righteous indignation.
Tell me again how many American students in those Model Texas Schools of yours are studying the harvesting of fruits and vegetables, roofing, hotel room cleaning and landscaping?
After all, the best way to keep Mexicans from coming here and "stealing our jobs" is to already have those jobs filled by hard working Americans! I think it is the Patriotic Duty of Texans to Protect The Soverignty of the United States of America by getting out of their air conditioned condos and go pick me some cheap lettuce! Then go strip the jizz covered sheets from the Motel 6 room where I nailed that cocktail waitress.
THAT would be safeguarding America's borders FAR more effectively than building fences.
Exactly XO! These fake conservatives are just using racism to solicit money and votes! Anyone with a brain knows that everything that Republicans are saying is hypocritical trash. They want immigrants to "assimilate", but yet they stop them from going to schools and want to prosecute anyone that helps them in the assimilation process. They say that they are Christian and Moral, but yet they want to kick immigrants and their children out of homes and jail their landlords and any people that put them up including local churches. They want immigrants to pay for what they are using, but yet they are paying for public benefits with the $90-140 billion in taxes paid; which far exceeds the amount used in public benefits.
The State of Texas did a study in December of 2006 stating that The absence of the estimated 1.4 million undocumented immigrants in Texas would be a loss to the gross state product of $17.7 billion; a loss of $66.5 million in exports to the rest of the world and a labor force loss of 714,100 workers.
It also showed that Undocumented immigrants produced $1.58 billion in state revenues, while The Comptroller estimates that undocumented immigrants paid more than $513 million in just local taxes, including city, county and special district sales and property taxes; which exceeds the $1.16 billion in state services they received.
Hey, XO -- we kicked their asses fair and square. :) And you can go pick your own lettuce, you liberal elitists.
And again, you simple-minded iris lass, I welcome legal immigrants. Those who are here illegally can go back home and to the back of the line.
But since you mention the numbers, might I point out that these same border-jumpers cost my county nearly $100,000,000 in medical care last year? Yeah, that is how much the Harris County Hospital District (that's Houston) spent on the medical care for illegals. That would be about 20% of the tax revenues estimated by the Comptroller's office, just in a single county. Take it statewide, and just the medical care for the border jumpers would eat up every penny of that local half-billion dollars in taxes paid. And then we would have to start talking about other social services, education, law enforcement costs due to the high crime rate among illegals. . . I think you can do the math. These folks are not just lawbreakers, but also a drain on the public coffers. The Comptrollers report is, I hate to tell you, simply wrong in its analysis.
And for what it is worth, I'd be all for allowing other foreign nationals -- including Hispanics, since you think I'm operating on a bias against them -- into this country to work, and even to immigrate legally . But that is the key -- I want folks whose first action upon entering America is not to break this nation's laws.
greg - When Texas broke from Mexico and fought for independence, a whole lot of Mexican nationals joined that fight with their American counterparts. They thought they were all fighting for the same goal. As soon as the newly independent Republic of Texas succeeded in joining the United States, they mounted a major campaign to kick all of the Mexicans out of Texas and back to Old Mexico.
"...we kicked their asses fair and square...I want folks whose first action upon entering America is not to break this nation's laws..."
How can you not choke on the stench of your own hypocrisy?
Do you really think that it is "legal" for one country to forcibly invade another country militarily, take it's land, impose it's own form of government on an unwilling populace and treat the native population as not just 2nd class citizens, but vermin to be eradicated?
Oh, of course you do. I forgot. You're a Republican.
No doubt the architects of the Mexican/Amarican war thought we would be "welcomed with open arms" as "liberators" and the "heralds of democratic freedoms" from the "Oppresive Spanish Conquistidors".
But I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions. Stop the "Republican Rope-a-Dope" and tell me again how many American students in those Model Texas Schools of yours are studying the harvesting of fruits and vegetables, roofing, hotel room cleaning and landscaping?
"...And you can go pick your own lettuce, you liberal elitists.
..." I'll go pick mine when you go pick yours. We'll do it together. Call it a "team-building exercise".
Perhaps you'd also like to roof a stranger's house in August, landscape a stranger's yard and try to keep everything "green and happy" despite global warming while making less than minimum wage, trying to support yourself and your family in another country.
For a supposedly educated person, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
"For a supposedly educated person, you (Greg) really have no idea what you are talking about"
My thoughts exactly XO. The same most definitely can be said for the anti-immigrant movement going on. Because that's exactly what it is: anti-immigrant.
homeland security are looking for terrorists. You never know.
Post a Comment
<< Home