April 04, 2006

Maybe we ought to treat illegals like Mexico does

It's worth noting the chutzpah it takes for an illegal immigrant to join a protest which claims illegals have a right to stay, live and work in the U.S. Maybe these illegals, especially Mexicans, ought to consider how their own country treats illegal immigrants, particularly from Central America:

Mexico’s own immigration policies are the exact opposite of what it relentlessly advocates in the United States. Its entry permits favor scientists, technicians, teachers of underrepresented disciplines, and others likely to contribute to “national progress.” Immigrants may only enter through established ports and at designated times. Anyone not presenting the proper documentation and health certificates won’t get in; the transportation company that brought him must pay his return costs. Foreigners who do not “strictly comply” with the entry conditions will face deportation. Steve Royster, who worked in the American consulate in Mexico from 1999 to 2001, presided over several deportations of Americans who had overstayed their visas. “They were given a choice: accept deportation or go to jail,” he says.

Providing full college tuition or all-expenses-paid secondary and primary education for illegal American students in Mexico? Unthinkable. Until recently, U.S.-born children of Mexican parents weren’t even allowed to enroll in Mexican public schools, reserved for Mexican citizens only. The parents would have to bribe officials for Mexican birth certificates for their kids. (The 1998 change in the Mexican constitution to allow dual nationality now makes enrollment by U.S.-born Mexicans possible.) “We’re not friendly with immigrants; that’s a big difference with the speech we have here with American schools,” admits a Mexican diplomat.

Mexico’s border police have reportedly engaged in rapes, robberies, and beatings of illegal aliens from Central and South America on their way to the U.S. Yet compared with the extensive immigrant-advocacy network in the U.S., few pressure groups exist in Mexico to protest such treatment. If Americans run afoul of Mexico’s border police, watch out. In 1996, the Mexican police beat and shot in the back a teenage American girl who had led them on a high-speed chase in Tijuana.No one in the U.S. or Mexico raised a fuss, at least publicly.

Contrast that incident with another that occurred in the U.S. a few months earlier. A vanload of Mexican illegals in California had fled from the border patrol and the Riverside County deputies, throwing metal bars and beer cans at their pursuers and sideswiping cars to divert attention. When the van stopped, the deputies caught two of the fleeing occupants and beat them. Mexico’s foreign ministry turned the beating into an international human rights incident, attributing it to “discriminatory attitudes that lead to institutional violence.” Mexican diplomats formally protested to state and federal officials, and helped the two beaten Mexicans file multimillion-dollar lawsuits against the deputies and Riverside County.

The Center for Security Policy has even more interesting information. It notes, "Mexico deals harshly not only with illegal immigrants. It treats even legal immigrants, naturalized citizens and foreign investors in ways that would, by the standards of those who carp about U.S. immigration policy, have to be called 'racist' and 'xenophobic.'"

In addition, the Mexican Constitution provides for the following:

  • Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country." This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.
  • Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones.
  • Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered "indispensable" include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.
  • Article 55 denies immigrants the right to become federal lawmakers.
  • Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights.
  • Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country." What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen's arrests.
  • The Mexican constitution states that foreigners - not just illegal immigrants - may be expelled for any reason and without due process.

Mark "The Great One" Levin examines the results of a Rasmussen poll that includes the following:

Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.

A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.

Well, of course it makes sense to enforce existing laws before you make new ones. It'd solve much, if not most, of the problem.

Lastly, beware "May Day" -- ANSWER and co. are planning The "Great American Boycott of 2006" hoping to persuade lawmakers ... well, you can guess. ANSWER organized the recent Los Angeles protest to -- get this -- win "full rights for undocumented workers." Maybe they ought to consider taking these protests down south of the border. Wonder how successful they'd be there.

Chris Hitchens has the scoop on ANSWER.

UPDATE: Greg at Rhymes With Right had a very similar post up early this morning. Honest -- I didn't even see Greg's piece! Nevertheless, go check it out for another take.

Posted by Felix at April 4, 2006 07:21 PM | TrackBack

Comments  (We reserve the right to edit and/or delete any comments. If your comment is blocked or won't post, e-mail us and we'll post it for you.)

"It's worth noting the chutzpah it takes for an illegal immigrant to join a protest which claims illegals have a right to stay, live and work in the U.S. Maybe these illegals, especially Mexicans, ought to consider how their own country treats illegal immigrants, particularly from Central America"

That's a fascinating bit of logic you have there. So what you are saying is that people have no right to advocate for something in another nation unless they have the very same thing in their own nation.

Does that really sound right to you?

Moreover, can you point to anything these Mexican immigrants have said that indicates that they approve of Mexico's immigration laws and practices?

Have you possibly attributed a position to them that they might not hold?

Posted by: Dana Garrett at April 5, 2006 01:15 AM

"Pursuant to Article 33, "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."

This is one of my favorites because it reminds my of the American colonists. They worked, they paid taxes but Great B. said they had no right to political representation. Thus the USA rebel phrase, "No taxation w/o representation."

But you see that's just the thing. The vast majority of the Free Trade Refugees from Mexico do pay taxes to the USA. But you are saying they deserve no political representation.

But I do agree w/ one thing above in your post. It's possible to deport 11 million people. We have already seen the model during WW2. The Nazis were able to deport millions of people in cattle cars. Of course a great number of them died because they were packed in and conditions were inhumane. But you see the people they deported had no legal rights and so Nazi Germany could do whatever the hell they wanted.

Do I understand you to be also advocating that Free Trade Refugees lose all legal rights?

Posted by: Dana Garrett at April 5, 2006 01:27 AM

Dana, Liz Allen called; she wants her playbook back!

Play 1: reverse logic

"...can you point to anything these Mexican immigrants have said that indicates that they approve of Mexico's immigration laws and practices?"

Who cares what the illegals approve of? The point is that Mexico needs to clean up its act on all fronts, and all these dopey activists should be complaining about that and not agitating for the US to be an enabler for business as usual.

Play 2: compare the opposing view to Naziism.

Shame on you Dana, for using the hack tactic. The only ones who compare to the Nazis for sheer brutality are the Communists.

Posted by: G Rex at April 5, 2006 08:52 AM

Speaking of Communists, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that ANSWER's big protest is on May Day - the Commie 4th of July. Sorta like how Earth Day is celebrated on Lenin's birthday.

Posted by: G Rex at April 5, 2006 08:55 AM

That's a fascinating bit of logic you have there. So what you are saying is that people have no right to advocate for something in another nation unless they have the very same thing in their own nation.

Does that really sound right to you?

It doesn't to me because that's not at all what Felix wrote. What you're doing is called "projection" -- making someone say something which they did not so that it fits your desired attributes of said person. Kind of "emotional blackmail," so to speak.

Here, let me assist you: He is saying it takes a lot of balls to organize hundreds of thousands of protestors in a foreign country (which allows you to do such, BTW) to protest for that which you claim is a "right" -- even though you are not a citizen and entered the country ILlegally. We have seen such in Mexico ... when? Where? Where are the protests about the noted draconian portions of the Mexican Constitution? Perhaps you can enlighten us, Dana, since we seem to be unaware of these massive protests against the "racist, xenophobic, etc." Mexican government. Protests by, and on behalf of, ILLEGAL aliens in Mexico, BTW.

This is one of my favorites because it reminds my of the American colonists. They worked, they paid taxes but Great B. said they had no right to political representation. Thus the USA rebel phrase, "No taxation w/o representation."

Unfortunately for you, however, this doesn't work either. The colonists were English citizens protesting taxation w/o representation, ¿verdad? (See, I threw in a little Spanish in there. Isn't that neat?) Illegals are not citizens -- they came illegally, after all (hence the definition of the word) ... they broke the law, but you'd complain on their behalf that since "most of them pay taxes" (which taxes, BTW?), they're somehow "entitled" to representation. A "voice," if you will. Interesting.

We have already seen the model during WW2. The Nazis were able to deport millions of people in cattle cars.

Oh yes. The last refuge of the emotionally blackmailed -- the use of Naziism. That's about as rational as claiming the Arab world has made myriad "peace offers" to Israel over the decades, all the while not backing them up and/or providing "evidence" that does nothing to legitimately substantiate such claims. AND knowing all the while said Arab states hardly mean "peace" as their culture is continually imbued with Jew hatred (no Israel on maps, hatred of Jews taught in schools, etc., Jews are "usupers," and, how could we forget, complete annihilation of the Jewish state) Sound familiar? It should. Funny, then, that someone who utilizes such a ridiculously morally relativist "argument" to continually castigate the Jewish state uses Nazi imagery to make a point.

Meanwhile, looks like a stalwart leftist voting bloc has a problem with illegal immigration.

Lastly, perhaps you could learn a thing about hypocrisy. Just a little. You falsely accused us of "censoring" you when you had attempted to leave a comment, and indicated that we had "banned" people (ie, Jason) before. The latter is true, and we've stated the reasons why ad nauseum. However, I and others have noticed you have recently done exactly the same thing. Is that "censorship"? While I concur that even remotely advocating murder is a damn good reason to ban a commenter, you indicated, I believe, that criticism of your Israel views as anti-Semitic or borderline anti-Semitic is "hate speech," and thus penalized by banning. Oh, goodness! Yet, here you are, in comments, making a connection between Felix's post and a Nazi program! If we were like you, we would label this as "hate speech" and ban you. And, if we did, that would most likely warrant a full post response over at Delaware Watch, in all its egotistical self-righteousness.

We're sorely tempted to believe all this is all a little game you like to play to get whatever sort of satisfaction it is you derive from it; however, your severe degree of self-absorbed seriousness belays true consideration of such a notion.

Posted by: Hube at April 5, 2006 04:01 PM

Just noticed this curious term in Dana's post: "Free Trade Refugee." Is that the new lefty PC term for illegal alien? Jeez, talk about Orwellian doublespeak!

Posted by: G Rex at April 5, 2006 04:37 PM

And notice that he dares to pull out the Nazi card after indicating that he felt it made me a troll when I used it on his site. I think that projection amy well be his problem -- eitehr that or rank hypocrisy.

Posted by: Rhymes With Right at April 5, 2006 04:57 PM

"Dana, Liz Allen called; she wants her playbook back!"

Translation: instead of raising a counterargument to my arguments, you'll just chalk it all up to some (your) hallucinated rhetorical style you imagine I have. What makes the charge particulary comical is that on this matter Liz joins the wingnuts. The Mexicans are invaders and stealing jobs like picking fruit that Americans would love to have, Lou Dobbs is a saint, and we need a Berlin Wall on the border. All that you've done is give us a page from your playbook: viz, don't provide counterarguments but find some pretense to dismiss the original arguments w/o dealing w/ them.

"The point is that Mexico needs to clean up its act on all fronts, and all these dopey activists should be complaining about that and not agitating for the US to be an enabler for business as usual."

No one has denied that Mexico has a lot of "cleanup" it needs to do. Who are these people you imagine are not saying this? (Are they riding around in black helicopters?) But why Mexico's problems means people in the USA cannot advocate proposed immigration policies in the USA they think are abominations is a leap in logic I cannot comprehend.

"Shame on you Dana, for using the hack tactic. The only ones who compare to the Nazis for sheer brutality are the Communists."

How did the deportees get to the concentration camps in WW2. Did the Nazis wish them there? No they herded them together like cattle. The analogy is the same because the numbers are nearly the same. The repubs in Congress--the ones capitalizing on immigrant fear mongering as a wedge issue--want to deport approx. 11 million human beings. No amnesty, no guest worker program. Pure prevention and deportation. So how will 11 million people be deported w/o widespread human rights violations and "accidents" during the process? The USA is incapable of imprsioning several thousand people in the Middle East w/o violating theor human rights. Why would any of you think that 11 million people will find it a nice trip home escapes all reasoning. Think about what you are proposing. That was the point of my analogy.

Ah, only communists raise the Nazi analogy, eh? LOL! Check again. So have plenty of winngnuts.

"Speaking of Communists, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed that ANSWER's big protest is on May Day - the Commie 4th of July"

Your lack of providing good arguments is only eclipsed by your inaccuracies about history. May Day begin in the USA, not the USSR. Look it up. But I do agree w/ you about one thing. I wish that would move it from May 1st because that was the day Dubya dressed in his flight suit in 2003 and gave us the impression that Iraq was on the verge of becoming a docile & peaceable dependency. Remember those wonderful words "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" placed behind him. May 1, 2003.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished%21

I wold just love May 1st to be reserved forever in the collective memory as a symbol of conservatve ineptitude and republican bungling. That reminds me. Let me ask you. How's your war going guys? Any flowers thrown in the paths of the liberatiors yet?

May 1st, May 1st, May 1st, MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! LOL!!!!!!!

"Where are the protests about the noted draconian portions of the Mexican Constitution? Perhaps you can enlighten us, Dana, since we seem to be unaware of these massive protests against the "racist, xenophobic, etc." Mexican government. Protests by, and on behalf of, ILLEGAL aliens in Mexico, BTW."

This is irrelevant. I don't even know why you et al keep raising this point. Let's suppose the refugees were from a country far mor brutal than Mexico, say, the nation that is chummy w/ Bush and the repub party especially: Saudi Arabia, a place where they chop off people's heads in the town square--you know, one of our "friends" in the war in terror, the nation whose leaders Dubya openly hold hands with. Say the refugees came from there. Would you argue that because the refugees don't protest in Saudi Arabia but do protest w/ sympathetic Americans in the USA that somehow their protest in the USA is illegitimate? Would you guys be here arguing they should be willing to have their heads chopped off in SA before they come around here protesting? On 2nd thought, some of you guys might say that.

In any case, this is just another cannard you right wingers are raising. You want to keep claiming that it's mostly illegals comprising the hundreds of thousands of protestors against the repubs' cruel bills. But it's not. It's mostly USA citizens. But that would be too damning for a right-winger to admit for obvious reasons.

"Oh yes. The last refuge of the emotionally blackmailed -- the use of Naziism. That's about as rational as claiming the Arab world has made myriad "peace offers" to Israel over the decades, all the while not backing them up and/or providing "evidence" that does nothing to legitimately substantiate such claims."

That's a lie. I gave this to you in an e-mail which I still possess. Press me on this and I'll post it and everyone will know you are a liar.

"Unfortunately for you, however, this doesn't work either. The colonists were English citizens protesting taxation w/o representation"

Nice spanish, but try reading a little USA history. The colonists point precisely was that w/o representation the status of "citizen" was vacuous. But perhaps you agree w/ the Brits on this matter.

"Funny, then, that someone who utilizes such a ridiculously morally relativist "argument" to continually castigate the Jewish state..."

You have become desperate. PROVE that I have CONTINUALLY CASTIGATED Israel. In fact, I have an e-mail from you were you actually apologize to me for FAlSELY accusing me of anti-Semiticism. Keep this up and I will post it and show everyone that you are a hypocritical smear artist.


"You falsely accused us of "censoring" you when you had attempted to leave a comment, and indicated that we had "banned" people (ie, Jason) before. The latter is true, and we've stated the reasons why ad nauseum."

You did ban me. Your reasons for banning Jason were crap. I've already covered this. And when I protested my ban, presto! the ban disappeared.

"you indicated, I believe, that criticism of your Israel views as anti-Semitic or borderline anti-Semitic is "hate speech," and thus penalized by banning."

Damn straight I did. But I said, even challenged some of the wingnuts, to point to a single place where I have ever said:

1. Jews per se were bad people or contemptible or whatever anti-semities say about them. No one has ever provided the proof I said anything like that. They won't because it doesn't exist.

2. That Israel doesn't have a right to live safely & securely w/in its own boundaries. I'm still waiting on the proof I said that. No one has provided it because I believe and have said just the opposite.

I will say, though, it's interesting that you are far from my arguments above and are now just repeating slurs already dealt w/ before and for which, when you uttered them, you apologized later. Interestimg. But the proof of your apology exists. If anyone wants a copy of it, just e-mail me. You'll learn how Hube will change methods when it suits the occassion.

"Yet, here you are, in comments, making a connection between Felix's post and a Nazi program! If we were like you, we would label this as "hate speech" and ban you."

I never said any such thing about Felix. I never said that he was a Nazi...like you and others have said that I am an anti-Semite. I just agreed that deporting 11 million people is possible because the Nazis did it, that doing it however caused many deaths, that the legal basis for it was depriving the deportees of all legal rights, and asked if he had really thought through the implications of supporting not recognizing any legal rights of the Free Trade Refugees. How you get an accusation that Felix is a Nazi out of that is psychologically interesting but logically laughable.

""Free Trade Refugee." Is that the new lefty PC term for illegal alien?"

The term is my own invention. I'm thrilled to discover it's so effective w/ people like you.

"And notice that he dares to pull out the Nazi card after indicating that he felt it made me a troll when I used it on his site."

Rhymes, you called me an anti-Semite. I asked you to provide the proof as outlined above. I'm still waiting...lol!!

Posted by: Dana Garrett at April 5, 2006 09:58 PM

In the spirit of Free Trade Refugee, I'll create a new term that is bound to apply to something down the line: Open Borders Prisoner.

Posted by: The Unabrewer at April 5, 2006 10:11 PM

I prefer the term "pop-up target" myself.

Maybe someday, instead of printing pamphlets instructing illegals how to infiltrate our country, the Mexican government will post signs warning them that they may be shot on sight.

My position stands: institute a responsible guest worker program, and assume anyone else is either a terrorist or a drug smuggler. Sniper rifles, not walls, are the answer.

Posted by: G Rex at April 6, 2006 10:10 AM

"This is irrelevant. I don't even know why you et al keep raising this point. Let's suppose the refugees were from a country far more brutal than Mexico, say,..."

Far more brutal than Mexico! I love the way you slipped that in as to imply that Mexico is a brutal country and these poor souls are running to escape the sword. They are being encouraged to leave by their own government! They are not fleeing to escape a ruthless regime!

"Saudi Arabia, a place where they chop off people's heads in the town square--you know...Would you argue that because the refugees don't protest in Saudi Arabia..."

This sounds racist to me. Are you saying that it's commonplace in Saudi Arabia for people to have their heads cut off in the town square and people simply acquiesce? Saudis are so barbaric that there is no outrage when people have their heads cut off? There is no dissent? It’s so common that people do and say nothing?

You attack Hube for saying things far less stereotypical and divisive, yet you say such things so blithely. You would have posted about this claiming Hube and us Colossus guys are "cultural supremacist" just like you did previously.

"...they should be willing to have their heads chopped off in SA before they come around here protesting? On 2nd thought, some of you guys might say that."

Here we have yet another reprehensible blanket statement made by a child. Illegal Mexican immigrants do not face anything remotely close to what you offer here and you know it.

You, yourself, Dana have said that you didn't think anyone at Colossus would advocate violence against Islamic people, yet here you are saying they would rather see Saudis (Mexicans) beheaded before coming to America and protesting! Unreal!

For you, making such comments is fine; however, when it is done by another you scream like the child you are. You banned BMC from your blog for saying that you hate Jews. Yet in the very same row of comments, you decry Emil Shue as “hating Muslims, liberals and whoever you happen to hate this week.” And when Dutch asked for proof all you could provide was a link to this. Where is the proof that this guy hates who you say he hates? You are so quick to criticize and ban Emil Shue and BMC for not providing proof, yet you make such statements all the time.

What’s good for the goose, Dana. You should really try and be a little more “progressive” when it comes to such matters. You are making a complete ass out of yourself!

Oh, and how is it possible for immigrants to pay so much into the economy (taxes etc.) when they are sending "chunks" of what little money they earn home to Mexico or wherever?

Posted by: Gooch at April 6, 2006 02:34 PM

Sorry, that link did not work. Here is the text:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/delawarewatch/114007246335735752/

Posted by: Gooch at April 6, 2006 02:36 PM

That's a lie. I gave this to you in an e-mail which I still possess. Press me on this and I'll post it and everyone will know you are a liar.

You can post whatever you wish if the urge fills you. I am completely aware of the e-mail (and others, too) and its contents. (If you so decide, however, I hope you'd be ethical enough to not include things said in confidence.) I wrote some very nice things about you, and you about me in return. It is a shame you allowed differing opinions by myself and others on your blog to ruin this friendliness.

Regarding said e-mail, notice I wrote in the comments here "and/or providing 'evidence' that does nothing to legitimately substantiate such claims." The link in our e-mail to which you're referring clearly falls into this category as it did not deal with the so-called "right of return" to name one, which, in essence, translates to "no more Israel." You even wrote, if memory serves, that "I knew this wouldn't satisfy you." That was correct, but I did state I appreciated the source. However, I am STILL waiting for that Arab League peace offer that you mentioned over HALF A YEAR AGO. One would think that that is sufficient time to "find" such an offer.

You have become desperate. PROVE that I have CONTINUALLY CASTIGATED Israel.

Well, you can check out here -- http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/114289.php -- for starters. For example, you state "Oh, well, Israel does that all the time about Iran" regarding the statement "sabre rattling and threats to destroy Israel." When/where has Israel expressed a desire to destroy Iran other than in retaliation for same? Then there's "As I have already indicated, peace for Israel has been offered by the Arab states in the region for nearly 30 years. It is Israel that rejects peace largely because of its real estate ambitions." This last sentence is the real kicker as it denotes that the Jewish state rejects peace merely b/c it wants more land. It doesn't care about its security, for instance, and the basic "fact" that "It is Israel that rejects peace" is a -- how to put this -- a hilarious laugher, one noted so eloquently by Benjamin Kerstein when he thoroughly took apart Chomsky in analyzing his debate with Alan Dershowitz: http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2006/02/noam-chomsky-is-iconic-mass-murderer.html

But, personally, no (as I indicated in that e-mail), I do not think you're an anti-Semite. Satisfied? You're just sorely misguided. But, based on the above examples and others, I can see where people can get that impression. And given your proclivity to utilize dubious analogies like the one against Felix here, and the "racist" angle on my post about that book on Lincoln, maybe my view about you is changing. And maybe my view is that you're so filled with self-righteous vitriol that anyone else (in your view) can be tarred w/whatever epithet you deem "correct" -- because it's "just" -- but it is a mortal sin for one to do so to you. It's a real problem you ought to consider.

It is also interesting to note how you tilt from legal argument to moral argument whichever your view of a matter can better utilize. With Israel, for example, it's legal. With illegal immigration, it's moral.

I never said any such thing about Felix. I never said that he was a Nazi...like you and others have said that I am an anti-Semite. I just agreed that deporting 11 million people is possible because the Nazis did it

Isn't that special! You know as well as I (and everyone else with a high school education) EXACTLY what your intention was here with the Nazi analogy, just like your "racist" dig on that Lincoln post. This is the essence of your "game" -- "Look, they called me this, but I didn't do that." Blah, blah, blah. You really DO think people are stupid, don't you? How Chomsky-esque of you.

As I mentioned a while back, I will not continue this tit-for-tat. It serves no purpose. I haven't been reading and commenting at your site b/c of just this. Maybe -- again -- you'd give me the same courtesy? You can feel free to continue to comment here, but how's about us Colossans use the "Garrett Rule" for determining what warrants a ban: you make use of "hate speech" (like the Nazi and racist analogies to our statements/arguments), and the ban is on. (Oh, I know, I know -- you didn't explicitly state such! But see the above paragraph.)

Posted by: Hube at April 6, 2006 06:31 PM

You did ban me. Your reasons for banning Jason were crap. I've already covered this. And when I protested my ban, presto! the ban disappeared.

This is an outright lie. It's also paranoia. As I noted, and others have backed up, our server gets gimpy at times when blocking spam. It's even blocked MY comment once! Don't believe me (you said you didn't)? Check out where Rhodey asked the server powers that be about JUST THIS: http://munuviana.mu.nu/archives/153016.php. Look what Rhodey posted! You'll notice another peron had a problem with a WaPo link! Oooooh, but somehow, SOMEHOW, the server knew it was Dana Garrett posting that one time and decided to nix that nasty link he had! No such ban ever "disappeared" b/c there never was one in the first place. Whatever comment you subsequently left after the "banned" one obviously wasn't affected by the spam filter and/or glitch.

As for our reasons for banning Jason, please define "crap." Wait, I know -- "reasons with which Dana disagrees."

Posted by: Hube at April 6, 2006 06:41 PM

BTW, I had to divide this into two posts b/c -- yep -- our server was preventing me from posting the top section of my whole original comment (which is now my second comment above) because of "questionable content"!!! See???

At any rate, my 6:41 comment should be read first.

(Also, FYI: the server is still stuck on standard time. The actual time of the post was 7:41, etc.)

Posted by: Hube at April 6, 2006 06:44 PM

“You can post whatever you wish if the urge fills you. I am completely aware of the e-mail (and others, too) and its contents. (If you so decide, however, I hope you'd be ethical enough to not include things said in confidence.) I wrote some very nice things about you, and you about me in return. It is a shame you allowed differing opinions by myself and others on your blog to ruin this friendliness.”

That’s right. I refuse to stand by and listen to BS saying that people standing in line for food doesn’t constitute a fact of hunger in America but merely some lefty’s “subjective” feeling. You could have made the same heartless argument about the people of Darfur. When it comes to undeniable human need, I make no apologies for castigating people who callously deny it.

“Regarding said e-mail, notice I wrote in the comments here "and/or providing 'evidence' that does nothing to legitimately substantiate such claims." The link in our e-mail to which you're referring clearly falls into this category as it did not deal with the so-called "right of return" to name one, which, in essence, translates to "no more Israel."

If memory serves me correctly, the right or return was never a central issue. The central issue was my claims that in 1976 the Arab nations that had gone to war w/ Israel as well as the PLO had made Israel a peace offer in a UN resolution that would have guaranteed Israel the right to live safely and securely within its own boundaries. You said it didn’t exist. In fact, you even consulted some “experts” (I found them on the web and the discussion; it was a hoot) who said it didn’t exist and I must be crazy. I placed a link to it on Mike’s site where we had the same discussion. For SEVERAL WEEKS it sat there while you went around claiming that I never provided it. Finally I e-mailed it to you. It was there in black & white.

Yes, I predicted that it wouldn’t meet your standard because 1) I knew you would be too embarrassed to admit that I knew something about the subject you didn’t and which wouldn’t allow you to maintain your view that the PLO had not offered a REAL PEACE to Israel for over THIRTY years; b) you wouldn’t want to admit to a fact that right-wingers deny continuously either willfully or, I suspect, as a consequence of a general incompetence that doesn’t allow them to discover the information for themselves like the “experts” you consulted.

But the UN resolution makes it abundantly clear. Israel was offered a real, guaranteed peace and Israel rejected it. The right-of-return garbage you are tossing in now wasn’t even part of the deal.

“You even wrote, if memory serves, that "I knew this wouldn't satisfy you." That was correct, but I did state I appreciated the source. However, I am STILL waiting for that Arab League peace offer that you mentioned over HALF A YEAR AGO. One would think that that is sufficient time to "find" such an offer.”

I already told you that the Arab League piece is in a newspaper article. I’m not responsible for the internet not existing in the early 80s. Anyone can claim that proof doesn’t exist if it isn’t delivered in a medium at the time the medium didn’t exist. That’s just cheap and sophomoric.

“Well, you can check out here -- http://colossus.mu.nu/archives/114289.php -- for starters.”

How is an argument that you and I had, which you initiated, evidence that I “continually castigated” Israel? How many times have I discussed it my near 800 blog posts at my site? Can you find 10 times, even five? This is what you right-wingers do. You insinuate that ANY criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic and even then you deliberately confuse hatred of an ethnicity w/ criticism of a nation. That’s how you lie and smear others. If I have it in for Israel, then why isn’t a big theme on my blog? How could I resist it?

“For example, you state "Oh, well, Israel does that all the time about Iran" regarding the statement "sabre rattling and threats to destroy Israel." When/where has Israel expressed a desire to destroy Iran other than in retaliation for same?”

Now we are talking about destroying Iran? The ever shifting goal posts of Hube. Attacking Iran—yes, they have threatened that many times. How does stating a fact mean I hate Israel? Retaliation? They have made the threat preemptively. PLEASE learn to argue someday.

“Then there's "As I have already indicated, peace for Israel has been offered by the Arab states in the region for nearly 30 years. It is Israel that rejects peace largely because of its real estate ambitions." This last sentence is the real kicker as it denotes that the Jewish state rejects peace merely b/c it wants more land. It doesn't care about its security, for instance, and the basic "fact" that "It is Israel that rejects peace" is a -- how to put this -- a hilarious laugher, one noted so eloquently by Benjamin Kerstein when he thoroughly took apart Chomsky in analyzing his debate with Alan Dershowitz: http://antichomsky.blogspot.com/2006/02/noam-chomsky-is-iconic-mass-murderer.html”

Well, I did prove my point. 1976 was exactly 30 years ago. Sorry, but the laws of mathematics are incapable of hating anyone. As far as the real estate reference is concerned, that also is true. Israel has NEVER offered to cede over all of the west bank and gaza to the Pals, contrary to international law. Even now their unilateral plan leaves Israeli settlements in the West Bank, keeps a large swath of the most fertile land w/ abundant water sources (Jordan Valley), cuts off access to Jerusalem, and leaves the wall intact in areas that it simply incorporated into Israel that were supposed to belong to the Pals. Anyway you cut it, in EVERY offer Israel has made it has demanded real estate as the price for peace. I don’t invent these facts. I merely describe them and elicit their obvious implications. If Israel were mostly concerned about security, it would realize that peace is the best source of security.

Benjamin Kerstein: isn’t he one of those experts you consulted that didn’t even know about the 1976 UN resolution. LOL!!! That’s your problem, Hube. You don’t even know who the real experts are on your side. You continually mistake hacks and hucksters as experts like your god Horowitz, whose butt I kicked:

http://delawarewatch.blogspot.com/2005/08/e-mail-exchange-with-david-horowitz.html

If I can kick his butt, he’s nothing. Time to wake up smell the coffee, pal.

“But, personally, no (as I indicated in that e-mail), I do not think you're an anti-Semite. Satisfied?”

I’m satisfied for today. Yesterday your implications were clearly the opposite.

“You're just sorely misguided. But, based on the above examples and others, I can see where people can get that impression.”

This amounts to no more than saying because I don’t buy into the official right-wing line about Israel & the Pals, then I can’t be credible. You know, intellectual rubbish.

“And given your proclivity to utilize dubious analogies like the one against Felix here,”

You just assert it’s dubious w/o arguing the point. How will 11 million people be deported guys? NONE OF YOU have even given that a moment’s thought. All you can do gnat-swarm the person who asks the question.

“and the "racist" angle on my post about that book on Lincoln,”

Go back and look at it. I never said you were a racist. But the author’s claims you provided in the post, I believe a case can be made that he is. Speaking of racism, I read recently someone’s claim that Horowitz said that blacks actually benefited from slavery. God I hope that isn’t true.


“maybe my view about you is changing.”

Ah, I wondered how you could invent a way to accuse me eventually of anti-Semitism again.

“And maybe my view is that you're so filled with self-righteous vitriol that anyone else (in your view) can be tarred w/whatever epithet you deem "correct" -- because it's "just" -- but it is a mortal sin for one to do so to you. It's a real problem you ought to consider.”

I have considered it. No one knows my personal downfallings more than me. I don’t believe that I am better than most people. In fact, I’m mostly aware of how far I fall short of where I would like to be. But, the truth is, I do feel I am morally better than any wingnut. I realize you think that is uppity, but it really isn’t. It just means that wingnuts are so morally reprehensible that even an average person like me is light years ahead morally of a wingnut. So you see, Hube, it’s not that my standards are too high. It’s that your standards are too low.

“It is also interesting to note how you tilt from legal argument to moral argument whichever your view of a matter can better utilize. With Israel, for example, it's legal. With illegal immigration, it's moral.”

Why do you persist in bringing up things I have already explained to you before? As I said at Mike’s place. When a law instantiates the appropriate moral value, it’s perfectly OK to use the law. When the law doesn’t, it’s better to cite the moral value. That’s consistent w/ the maxim of doing the right thing. It’s also consistent w/ the truth that law isn’t always moral. These are simple truths. Hube. They’re not tricks.

“Isn't that special! You know as well as I (and everyone else with a high school education) EXACTLY what your intention was here with the Nazi analogy, just like your "racist" dig on that Lincoln post.”

No, Hube, you don’t know that. You are lying. What you are doing is trying to torture something I did say into a general indictment of my character. The reason you are doing that is because that’s just about all you ever present in an argument w/ some occasional startling brilliant exceptions. But most of the time all you have is smear, innuendo, and slander.

“This is the essence of your "game" -- "Look, they called me this, but I didn't do that." Blah, blah, blah. You really DO think people are stupid, don't you? How Chomsky-esque of you.”

How Horowitzian of you. What are you going to say next? That Bush never said we went after Iraq because of WMD like your god Dave did before I smacked him down? Once again, you need to learn better rhetorical tricks from better teachers because that one came straight from Dave.

“As I mentioned a while back, I will not continue this tit-for-tat. It serves no purpose.”

Oh, you won’t, eh? And what is all this?

“I haven't been reading and commenting at your site b/c of just this. Maybe -- again -- you'd give me the same courtesy? You can feel free to continue to comment here, but how's about us Colossans use the "Garrett Rule" for determining what warrants a ban: you make use of "hate speech" (like the Nazi and racist analogies to our statements/arguments), and the ban is on. (Oh, I know, I know -- you didn't explicitly state such! But see the above paragraph.)”

If I ever call any you a Nazi like people explicitly called me an anti-Semite at my place, then you would have a point. But if you want to ban for something I didn’t say and in fact don’t believe, then do so. Of course, I’ll write about it on my blog and place it on the internet in various venues so people will know exactly what kind of place COR really is. That would be my duty.

Maybe, you guys could consider actually responding to the arguments I make instead of offering the never-ending drone of personal smears. You know, like how are 11 million people going to be deported w/o committing all kinds of human rights abuses?

Posted by: Dana Garrett at April 7, 2006 12:01 AM

What -- no apology about that supposed "ban" we inflicted on you? No wonder.

If memory serves me correctly, the right or return was never a central issue. The central issue was my claims that in 1976 the Arab nations that had gone to war w/ Israel as well as the PLO had made Israel a peace offer in a UN resolution that would have guaranteed Israel the right to live safely and securely within its own boundaries. You said it didn’t exist.

That's right -- I said it didn't exist b/c you didn't provide a source for the claim until much after I asked for such.

Second, do you purposely refuse to read what I said? Yes, you do. I said "and/or providing 'evidence' that does nothing to legitimately substantiate such claims." The 1976 resolution does nothing to offer REAL peace. It was written at a time when the PLO charter still called for the annihilation of Israel and demanded that all post-1948 jewish immigrants be expelled -- and this UN "offer" states the PLO as the legitimate representative of the Palestinians! It refers to "the palestinians right to an independent state in palestine," which is what -- the right of return! Section 1b mentions this EXPLICITLY. This must be another example of you vaccilating between law and morality -- here it's the "law" (even though UN Security Council resolutions are not law) despite the so-obvious immorality of the whole deal. You say When a law instantiates the appropriate moral value, it’s perfectly OK to use the law. Yes -- the very people who are absolutely dedicated to your destruction are entitled (by UN "law") to return "home" AND compensation when it is THEY (and their religious brethren) who refused the LAW (UN mandate) in the first place -- and attempted to kill Jews in the first place! THAT'S an "appropriate moral value"???? You give "gall" a whole new meaning. And you go apoplectic when I query about homeless statistics. I find it absolutely amazing this criticism of Israel when its Arab neighbors refuse to recognize its right to exist, and even if they pay lip service to that notion, do little to actually BELIEVE it and TEACH it.

And this is where I lose my lunch: But, the truth is, I do feel I am morally better than any wingnut.

Yep. And this Israel debate sure "proves" that!! And you wonder why people may wonder about your anti-Semitism. A "morally better" person who subscribes to what would amount to the destruction of the Jewish state.

Alan Dershowitz sums it all up with this:

I agree and I think that the history has to be objectively verifiable, and it doesn't become true because Professor Chomsky says it's true. There was a two-state solution proposed by the United Nations in 1948, and if the Palestinians had accepted what the Israelis accepted, a small non-contiguous state with "Bantustans", to quote Professor Chomsky, and instead had not invaded, and if the Egyptians had not occupied the Gaza, something that nobody complained about-it was literally a prison for 20 years-and if the Jordanians hadn't occupied the West Bank-literally a prison for 20 years, and had the situation gone forward as it was supposed to go forward in '48, we would not be here. We would have a two-state solution. But, what happened is, it's clear that the Palestinian and Arab leadership was more interested in destroying the nascent, Jewish state of Israel than in establishing a Palestinian state. That is simply the truth, and there is no way to deny that. And no amount of rhetoric can undercut that reality.

And I CONCEDED that yes -- you finally provided a source for your 1976 claim! What else do you want? My point about you saying it "wasn't good enough" is precisely that -- it is hardly a genuine "peace" offer for that noted above. But I THANKED YOU for the link and source! Yeesh.

**********

I've broken my vow here again, but this "morality" play demanded it. But, don't worry Dana. Despite what you write here about me, I have that e-mail saved where you mentioned just the opposite: extremely nice things, about my intellect and character in particular. Should I say "Press me and I'll post it"?

Nah. I have more class than that.

Posted by: Hube at April 7, 2006 03:39 PM

Dana, simple question. See if you can answer it.
Why is it ok for you to say that Emil Shue hates "Muslims, liberals and whoever else you happen to hate this week" without providing any proof, yet when someone says that you hate Jews, proof must be provided instantly or they are banned from your site?

Please, enlighten us, Dana.

Posted by: Gooch at April 7, 2006 04:29 PM

“It refers to "the palestinians right to an independent state in palestine," which is what -- the right of return! Section 1b mentions this EXPLICITLY. This must be another example of you vaccilating between law and morality -- here it's the "law" (even though UN Security Council resolutions are not law) despite the so-obvious immorality of the whole deal.”

Here’s your problem, Hube. It’s one that besets you at almost every turn: YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. Let’s take a relatively minor one example first. Adopted UN Resolutions do have the force of international law. That’s why Bush Sr.’s war w/ Iraq was legal but Junior’s is not.

Not here is the funny one. Israel’s objection to the right of return is not that Pals will return to what would be called Palestine (as you claim above), but that Pals would return to Israel after they were chased out of Israel in 1948:

“The question of whether or not Palestinians have a "Right of return" to lands within the State of Israel is, next to the question of the status of Jerusalem, one of the major impediments to a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians….”
“If all the Palestinian refugees and their descendants (estimates range between 4 and 8 million people) were to settle within Israel this would lead to a demographic shift which would end Israel's status as a Jewish state. Some also argue that if a large proportion of the exiled Palestinians were to return, catastrophic overpopulation would result.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_Return#Israel

I encourage readers of this blog to read for themselves the non-existent but very much existing 1976 UN Resolution that only the USA opposed on the Security Council and see for themselves exactly what Israel gave up: Peace & security w/ its neighbors and recognition of its existence:

The appropriate arrangements should be established to guarantee, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence OF ALL STATES IN THE AREA and Their Right To Live In Peace Within Secure And Recognized Boundaries;

http://domino.un. org/UNISPAL.NSF/9a798adbf322aff38525617b006d88d7/696d540fd7821bce0525651c00736250!OpenDocument

Perhaps you can get one of your expert chums to help you out here, Hube, w/ these next questions that I’m going use to continue humiliate you:

1. Since Israel IS one the states “in the area,” how isn’t Israel’s existence as a state not recognized in this resolution?

2. Since the resolution EXPLICITLY restates the “recognized boundaries” of Israel and the PLO agreed to abide by it if adopted, how was it that the PLO was going to recognize and not recognize (as you allege) Israel’s existence at the same time? Tell us, Hube, how is a contradiction not a contradiction. Answering that would be a real treat. In short, Hube, passage & agreement of this resolution would have made the PLO charter moot.


I believe I can tell you why Israel objected to the 1976 resolution. Because of these provisions:

“That Israel should withdraw from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967;”

And this one that you right-wingers continually deny is a matter of internation law:

“Reaffirming the principle of inadmissibility of acquisition of territories by the threat or use of force”

In other words, they didn’t like the real estate provisions.

“Alan Dershowitz sums it all up with this:… There was a two-state solution proposed by the United Nations in 1948, and if the Palestinians had accepted what the Israelis accepted, a small non-contiguous state with "Bantustans"”

There is something particulary appropriate about you citing a know plagiarizer—someone who plagiarized a fraudulent source at that:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1

Dershowitz’s claim is bogus since we are talking about a time 60 years AFTER 1948 and about multiple thousands of people who were disenfranchised who were noncombatants. Besides, when the Jews began to return to the area en masse before Israel was even a nation Zionists claimed a “right of return” based on Babylonian disenfranchisement in 200 BC (I might be off on the approx date). Only a slimy person like Dershowitz would begrudge a people an argument about events that a few are alive can remember.

It’s also appropriate that you would quote Dershowitz who knows absolutely shame in printing any smear and slander against his detractors, even going so far as to accuse one critic’s mother (a holocaust victim) of cooperating w/ the Nazis:

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=129

The point is especially appropriate because it is precisely what you have done to me. So when you assert, “And you wonder why people may wonder about your anti-Semitism,” I know exactly why they do it: BECAUSE YOU STARTED THE **LIBELOUS** SLANDER on the internet, even featured it via your link w/ the “phony intellectual” post AN D HAVE NEVER issued a FEATURED retraction of your slur. Your vicious libel is all the more the worse since I use my real name on the web while you hide behind a phony name. But I know who you are and where you teach. Suppose I start outing you w/ all your hateful posts and use your real name and indicate where you teach in DE from now on, Hube? Suppose I do to you what you’ve done to me: TELL A DELIBERATE LIE that defames your character using your REAL NAME on the worldwide web (you admitted as much on an e-mail to me) and NEVER post a featured retraction.

That’s what you did to me, Hube, and are continuing to do by dropping again and again the suggestion that people could reasonably think of me as anti-Semite. You are now suggesting a libel that you stated before explicitly. There’s no essential difference between the two and both indicate that you’re still a pig.

I’ll tell you this, though. You need to stop. You’ve suggested your libel about me too many times in this thread. Do not do it again.

Posted by: Dana Garrett at April 10, 2006 10:00 PM

"Why is it ok for you to say that Emil Shue hates "Muslims, liberals and whoever else you happen to hate this week" without providing any proof, yet when someone says that you hate Jews, proof must be provided instantly or they are banned from your site?"

The difference is elemenatary. The former is true and anyone can read it for themselves on my blog; whereas the latter is unprovable and in fact an outright lie, first started by Hube.

Posted by: Dana Garrett at April 10, 2006 10:04 PM

Wow, this thread is still going on? I guess that's why D-watch has been so thin on content.

"Suppose I start outing you w/ all your hateful posts and use your real name and indicate where you teach in DE from now on, Hube?"

Dana, what happens in fight club stays in fight club.

Posted by: G Rex at April 11, 2006 02:13 PM

Post a comment









Remember personal info?