June 6, 2007

Hugh, We Thought We Knew You!

Hatched by Dafydd

I hate having to struggle so hard not to use the D-word, or even the L-word about a man I respect as much as I respect Hugh Hewitt; and it's equally hard to defend Sen. John McCain (R-AZ, 65%). But I am too honest to let this slide, so here goes -- and let the chips fall off the old block...

All day, Hugh has been running a deliberately truncated clip from McCain, in which we hear the senator say the following: "We’re not going to erect barriers and fences."

Hugh also said that McCain "let his guard down" when he said this; Hugh's clear implication is that McCain is "admitting" that he -- and by extension, everybody who supports the immigration bill -- secretly longs to kill the fence entirely, throw open the borders, and loudly invite all the terrorists here. Hugh added that this has effectively killed McCain's campaign.

But construing McCain's sentence-fragment that way -- to put it as delicately (and Swiftian) as I can -- is saying "the thing that is not."

First of all, what McCain really said was this: "-- we’re not going to erect barriers and fences." That is, what we heard was not the complete sentence.

When I heard the sound bite on Hewitt's radio show, I immediately became suspicious by the cut-job that was done by... well, by somebody, I know not who. The audio starts about a millisecond before those words and ends about a millisecond after... it's really tight.

That generally makes me believe that the audio editor was trying to remove all trace of preceding or succeeding words that might change the meaning. And in fact, when I finally found it on the penultimate page of the debate transcript, I discovered that I was quite correct.

The carefully clipped-out word at the beginning was "and": "And we’re not going to erect barriers and fences." Why such a fuss over one conjunction? Because it tells us that there is much more to this answer than than a simple sentence; there is a context that we're missing. It's as if someone claimed the Second Amendment read, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." The odd grammatical construct warns you that you're missing something important.

But even the full answer fails to give us the full context; I still got the impression I was missing what McCain was talking about:

MR. BLITZER: I’m going to go back to Jennifer in a second. (Applause.) But I want Senator McCain to respond as well. When you hear what Congressman Tancredo says, what goes through your mind?

SEN. MCCAIN: It’s beyond my realm of thinking. Look, America is the land of opportunity. The question was just asked, “What is it to be an American?” It’s to share a common goal that all of us -- a principle -- are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

That means we go as far as our ambition will take us. That means we have a better life for ourselves and our children. And the lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door is still the ideal and the dream. Of course it has to be legal. Of course it has to be regulated. And 18 months, by the way, will go by while we fix the border before we do anything else on this issue.

But America is still the land of opportunity and it is a beacon of hope and liberty, and as Ronald Reagan said, a shining city on a hill. And we’re not going to erect barriers and fences.

What "Congressman Tancredo says?" What did Tom Tancredo say this time? I had to flip back to the previous page in the transcript to find out what the heck this exchange was all about; and at last I understood what McCain meant...

Here is the complete exchange, going all the way back to Tancredo, starting on page 26 of the transcript, about two-thirds of the way down. It's longish, but it's worth reading to understand the anatomy of a smear (arrgh! I let slip the S-word!):

MS. VAUGHN: Erin Gardner’s here with us tonight. Erin, you live in the Gate City, Nashua, New Hampshire.

Q Yes, I do.

MS. VAUGHN: What is your question tonight?

Q With regards to illegal and legal immigration, in your opinion, what does it mean to be an American? What are the tangible and intangible attributes of an American?

MS. VAUGHN: Congressman Tancredo.

REP. TANCREDO: It means, number one, cut from the past. If you come here as an immigrant, great. Welcome. If you come here legally, welcome. It means you cut your ties with the past, familial — especially political ties with the country from which you came.

But let’s be serious about this, you guys. We talk about all the immigration reform we want, and what it’s got to get down to is this: Are we ready for a timeout? Are we actually ready to say, “Enough is enough”? We have to stop all legal immigration except for the -- for people coming into this country as family members, immediate family members, and/or refugees. Are we willing to actually say that and say enough -- is it -- we have got to actually begin the process of assimilating people who have come in this great wave of immigration. The process of assimilation is not going on.

And how long? How long will it take us for that -- for us to catch up with the millions of people who have come here, both legally and illegally, and assimilate them? I’ll tell you this. It’ll take this long: until we no longer have to press 1 for English and 2 for any other language. (Applause.)

MR. BLITZER: I promised, Governor Huckabee, you’d have a chance to weigh in on this immigration issue. Do you agree with Congressman Tancredo that the U.S. should effectively end most legal immigration into the country?

MR. HUCKABEE: No, I disagree with that. I think that there are a number of people that we should welcome into this country. And it’s -- certainly engineers and doctors and scientists that we may need legally coming here....

MR. BLITZER: Mayor Giuliani, are you comfortable with what Congressman Tancredo says about immigration to this country?

MR. GIULIANI: No, I’m very uncomfortable with it. I mean, the reality is, it’s one thing to be debating illegal immigration. It’s a very complex subject. I think we’ve had a very good debate about it. And I think the bill needs to be fixed in the way that I’ve indicated. But we shouldn’t be having a debate about legal immigration.

Abraham Lincoln defined what an American is better than I’m going to be able to do it or Congressman Tancredo or anyone on the stage. Abraham Lincoln, who fought the know-nothing movement, said being an American is not whether you came over on the Mayflower or you came here yesterday. How much do you believe in freedom? How much do you believe in freedom of religion? How much do you believe in freedom for women? How much do you believe in the right to vote? How much do you believe in the rule of law?

The person who believes in that the most is the best American, and the person who doesn’t isn’t an American.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

MR. GIULIANI: That’s Abraham Lincoln’s words. We should always be open to legal immigration. It reforms us. It makes us better. It brings us people who want to make a better life for themselves --

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

MR. GIULIANI: -- and their families. If we lose that, we lose the genius that has made America what it is.

MR. BLITZER: I’m going to go back to Jennifer in a second. (Applause.) But I want Senator McCain to respond as well. When you hear what Congressman Tancredo says, what goes through your mind?

SEN. MCCAIN: It’s beyond my realm of thinking. Look, America is the land of opportunity. The question was just asked, “What is it to be an American?” It’s to share a common goal that all of us -- a principle -- are created equal and endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

That means we go as far as our ambition will take us. That means we have a better life for ourselves and our children. And the lady that holds her lamp beside the golden door is still the ideal and the dream. Of course it has to be legal. Of course it has to be regulated. And 18 months, by the way, will go by while we fix the border before we do anything else on this issue.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you.

SEN. MCCAIN: But America is still the land of opportunity and it is a beacon of hope and liberty, and as Ronald Reagan said, a shining city on a hill. And we’re not going to erect barriers and fences.

MR. BLITZER: Thank you, Senator.

At last, light dawns on marblehead: John McCain is not talking about the security fence to stop illegals; he is opposing "barriers and fences" against legal immigration! And so did both Gov. Mike Huckabee and Mayor Rudy Giuliani when they were asked the same question... two candidates who oppose the immigration bill.

I'm truly and deeply disturbed by what Hugh Hewitt has done here. Whether you're for or against the immigration bill; whether you think we should have an enforcement-only bill first and only later other elements, or take a comprehensive approach; whether or not you support Tom Tancredo's call for an end to legal immigration to the United States (except for refugees and immediate-family reunification); and even if you despise John McCain -- how can anyone possibly support deliberately misleading the listeners about what McCain said, just in order to make him sound like an apparachik from La Raza?

Will we, the party of Abraham Lincoln, conduct this debate honestly? Or must we sink to the fifth bolgia of the eighth circle of Hell with Sens. Charles Schumer (D-NY, 100%), Pat Leahy (D-VT, 95%), Dick Durbin (D-IL, 100%), Joe Biden (D-DE, 100%), and other such politicians corrupted by contributions, power, or ideology?

I really, really dislike John McCain; I think he has been a disaster for the Republican Party; and I think he would make a disasterous president because of his temper, his vendettas, his moral preening, and his tendency towards being an iconoclast.

But the man simply did not say that we wouldn't have a security fence against illegal immigration, and it's just morally wrong to manipulate an audio clip to make it appear that he did. This issue is tough enough without having to wade through a quagmire of "the things that are not" -- from fellow Republicans.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 6, 2007, at the time of 6:49 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2148

Comments

The following hissed in response by: NoMoreBlatherDotCom

Talk about hoist on your own petard. Tancredo didn't "call for an end to legal immigration..." He wants a time out while we assimilate those who are here now. Anyone who thinks that's a wacky idea should move to central L.A. for a month and then get back to us.

As for McCain, he's a sleazy demagogue; he knows there's a difference between being anti-Hispanic and opposing developing a bilingual nation, but he's also a sleazy Quisling so he just couldn't help himself.

The above hissed in response by: NoMoreBlatherDotCom [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 6, 2007 7:25 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

I'm with you on that. Intellectual honesty demands consistent treatment of anyone who would manipulate media for their own purposes. Hugh Hewitt deserves the same kind of verbal paddling that the clone-stamp fauxtographer in Lebanon got.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 6, 2007 9:00 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

NoMoreBlatherDotCom:

Talk about hoist on your own petard. Tancredo didn't "call for an end to legal immigration..." He wants a time out while we assimilate those who are here now. [Emphasis added]

Really? And when exactly does this "time out" end? Tancredo said when he would want it to end... do you recall?

If you've forgotten, you can look at this very post.

Now tell me again when, exactly, we could resume immigration under the Tancredo proposal.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 6, 2007 10:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: Imperial Valley Christian Center

Wow!
Wow!
That statement of Tancredo's is incredible to me. And people want to deny that this is all about nativisim. All these years conservatives have been talking about liberals trying to amend the constitution through the courts and here Tancredo is reading things into the constitution that aren't there. If he wants this country to be for English speakers only then why doesn't he try amending the constitution to say so.

As for Hugh. Shame on him. Shame on him. Up to this debate on immigration I had considered him to be the most reasonable conservative voice in the blogosphere.

From a practical perspective the nativist conservatives seemed determine to do for the national Republican party what the prop. 187 did for the California Republican party.

From the perspective of a conservative Republican evangelical Mexican American the orgy of hate that the immigration debate is stirring up amongst conservatives is pretty shocking.

Seems to me that any party that would allow Tom Tancredo to participate in their Presidential primary debates sure doesn't want any Mexican Americans in it.

Greg Marquez
goyomarquez@earthlink.net

The above hissed in response by: Imperial Valley Christian Center [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 6, 2007 10:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Greg Marquez:

Seems to me that any party that would allow Tom Tancredo to participate in their Presidential primary debates sure doesn't want any Mexican Americans in it.

That's going too far the other way. You know how America works: Rather than censor ideas, even repugnant ones, we air them and let the sunshine in... we trust the good sense and sense of decency of the American voter not to vote for somebody whose ideas are way out of the mainstream.

That's why your ancestors and mine came to this country in the first place, or perhaps why your ancestors continued to stay here after the Mexican-American war, if they were already here before then: because it's not like Europe, Latin America, Asia, or Africa.

Tom Tancredo is "allowed" to be in the debate because he is a registered candidate for president of the United States. But he also has no chance whatsoever to be nominated, as even the vast majority of his supporters will admit.

In the same debate where Tancredo called for an end to immigration for an unspecified but probably endless period of time, the next three candidates spoke up and denounced his stupid idea... and two of them oppose the immigration bill!

Doesn't that speak to you more strongly of the real Republican Party than the nonsense of Tom Tancredo?

How about me? My wife is an immigrant from Japan. My family immigrated here from Poland in 1830, from Germany in the 1890s, and from Wales and England in 1634 (sailing with Leonard and George Calvert, brothers of Lord Baltimore, to establish the colony of Maryland).

If you've been reading Big Lizards, you know that I call for more immigration, not less; and that for me, the most important part of this bill is not border enforcement, not labor enforcement, not the guest worker program, and not the regularization of those illegals already here... it's the beginning of reformation of the legal immigration system itself.

I have championed a system that is fair, just, and most of all, predictable: I believe that when honest immigrants are told what they must do to be let into the country, then no matter how hard the task, they will set about it, rather than sneak in illegally.

But contrariwise, when the system is arbitrary, capricious, or even vindictive (some GS-12 at USCIS takes a disliking to you, you're gone); when one person is allowed in but another isn't, and nobody knows why; then even honest immigrants are willing to enter illegally. Why not? It's just a meaningless game with no rules anyway.

Why aren't I just as much a representative of the GOP as Tom Tancredo? We have about the same chance of being nominated for president... 0%!

So don't overreact. You don't speak for Mexican Americans any more than I speak for secular Jews; each of us is an individual who speaks for himself and some unknown number who happen to agree with us.

What will speak for the party is how Republicans vote in the upcoming primaries, how their representatives in Congress vote, and how the president -- who was elected with a very strong majority among Party voters -- acts.

Not what Tom Tancredo says or what Hugh Hewitt argues.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 6, 2007 11:41 PM

The following hissed in response by: EricOF

The intellectual contortions necessary to support this amnesty bill must truly be painful. This is one of the worst examples of word parsing in the face of an explicit statement with plain meaning I've seen in some time. It reminds me of those who defended Bill Clinton by saying "no, what does the word 'is' really mean?" Why would McCain be referring to barriers and fences against legal immigration? No one else has nor did they in that debate. Tancredo didn't mention erecting barriers and fences to stop legal immigration. Neither did Guiliani. Oh sure, they discussed legal immigration and whether it should be curtailed but you don't do that with barriers and fences. You may need them to make limitations on legal immigration meaningful lest someone simply go around the law but legal immigration is matter of policy. You authorize a certain number or type or you do not.

Your sad and pathetic spin seems to depend on the idea that McCain was speaking metaphorically. But since erecting PHYSICAL barriers has become central in the debate about securing our borders and since no one mentioned them in relation to legal immigration, he isn't speaking metaphorically. He prefaced the statement with the phrase "City on a Hill" and obviously believes that fences simply don't jibe with such a concept. It's a common statement from wobbly-kneed, bleeding-heart, hug-an-illegal ineffectuals that a fence is somehow antithetical to America and McCain simply declared himself their compatriot.

The above hissed in response by: EricOF [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 1:07 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

Greg ,
TO say the least Tancredo is not the entire party. HE is a hack that likes the spot light. His John Tanton views are the extreme. HEck Ron Paul is in the debates. We can't keep out Tancredo if we keep Paul. Plus if Tancredo was banned then that just gives him more publicity. Let hima nd Tancredo split up the vote

Second, As to MExican American Republicans. Where the heck are they. All the anti immigration groups are sending all emails. doing interviews saying all the MExicans will be Democrats. It would be helpful if they got on the tv, radio, and write some articles. I go over to the National Hispanic assembly site and to say the least they are not that geared up. The only Mexican American voice I hear is Ruben Navarette and I am not sure if he is even a Republican. Are Hispanic republicans not being booked? If so we need to know that so that can be exposed.

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 1:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

ERICOF
"wobbly-kneed, bleeding-heart, hug-an-illegal ineffectuals that a fence is somehow antithetical to America and McCain simply declared himself their compatriot"

Why do that I find that to be " sad and pathetic spin".

ANyway, I think that Dafydd is correct and it can be seen clearly in the transcript

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 1:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

By the way Greg has a excellent article he wrote here
http://www.ivchristiancenter.com/2007/05/antiamnesty_or_.html#comment-71982164

Look at hislink on Derbyshire good grief. That is ironic if you look at his writings on the corner yesterday

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 2:25 AM

The following hissed in response by: Jewels

Yikes. And double yikes.

That is truly sad. I never would have thunk it of Hugh. It's kind of sad, really.

Thanks for pointing this out, Dafydd. Not just so we know about Hewitt's shenanigans, but also for the Tancredo information. That guy's just a tad too nuttso for my liking.

The above hissed in response by: Jewels [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 4:57 AM

The following hissed in response by: nk

I'm very surprised to learn this about Hugh Hewitt. He has been the most vocal of the radio hosts I tune in to against "single-issue" Republicanism. (Which bothers me to some extent because I am a simple-minded fellow and don't like to think about too many things.)

I know that he admires Tancredo greatly. He has had him on his show more than once and was very deferential to him. It could be a case of the "enemy of my friend is my enemy".

The above hissed in response by: nk [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 8:00 AM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

lsusportsfan and greg:

Why do you have to be a Mexican-American or some other hyphenated hispanic American to have a valid opinion on this bill? Why does it matter at all whether you're black, white, blue, purple, brown? I think folks ought not to immigrate illegally. I also think the legal immigration system needs reform...but this bill ain't the way to do it.

I also happen to think that Tancredo is right. We brought in people from all languages and all over the world for over a century and expected all of them to speak English. Suddenly within the past decade we no longer require it. Instead, as an apologetic society we cater to them, furthering the ideals of victimhood by essentially stating that to be born in a non-English speaking household is some kind of disability that needs to be accommodated for. Recently an arabic language public school opened up. What's next? Will the senate be required to debate in English, Arabic and Spanish?

Anyway, to "qualify" myself for the debate I am a first generation American who's family legally immigrated from Chile. And every single one of us speaks English unless we're in the house.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 9:11 AM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

k2aggie07:
You said:
"Why do you have to be a Mexican-American or some other hyphenated hispanic American to have a valid opinion on this bill?"

Who said that you have to be. I am not Mexican American and I think I have a valid opinion. In fact I am adopted that is adopted and have no idea of "roots" . No one is saying that you have to be a non WASP to have a opinion.


"Why does it matter at all whether you're black, white, blue, purple, brown? I think folks ought not to immigrate illegally"

It matters for several reasons. First it appears from what I am reading on the net and in many comments sections that many people assume they know all about hispanics and Mexicans. They are surely telling us that their culture is a threat. I see it all the time. Rememeber Buchanans book last year. I am told that all the Mexicans will vote Dem when they become citizens. I am told that most of the "mexicans" are so far removed from our American culture that they will not assimilate. So I point out a real life MExican American that is a son of illegals. I also remember tales of people such as Italins that when they came to Mississippi to work on the farms that they were basically seen and refered to as the 'N" word. People thought they knw all about the ITalians and the Slavs and all these non white Eastern European folk. His opinion is needed

You said
"We brought in people from all languages and all over the world for over a century and expected all of them to speak English. Suddenly within the past decade we no longer require it"

All the evidence indicates that Hispanic immigrants are picking up the language as quickly as other groups. Look at the Germans immigrants a s a example. We see evidence of this all the time. Even though we have more hispanics Spanish Speaking Television has reached a plateau. THey are having to do more programs and have channels in English.This is one reason why Murdochs Spanish station he started recently is having a lot of trouble.

You said
"Anyway, to "qualify" myself for the debate I am a first generation American who's family legally immigrated from Chile. And every single one of us speaks English unless we're in the house"

LEts be clear. You might put the words Qualify in "quotes" but don't attribute that word to the conservatives that are supporting this bill. No one told you or others that they cannot have a opinion.


The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 9:46 AM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Dafydd- McCain said "we're not going to erect barriers and fences".The way I read that it supports Hewitt.No offense, but I think you're torturing the transcript in an attempt to see meaning that isn't there.Maybe not going to erect barriers and fences means just that.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 11:05 AM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

All the evidence indicates that Hispanic immigrants are picking up the language as quickly as other groups. Look at the Germans immigrants a s a example. We see evidence of this all the time. Even though we have more hispanics Spanish Speaking Television has reached a plateau. THey are having to do more programs and have channels in English.This is one reason why Murdochs Spanish station he started recently is having a lot of trouble.

Yeah? How many German broadcast stations are you aware of? Or Arabic? Or Hebrew? Or Italian, French, Swedish, Vietnamese, or Chinese?

How many times do you see rallies of Chinese illegal immigrations (there are a lot here) waving their home country's flag and saying "This land is ours"?

The situation today, now, is not the same as the situation before. First of all, even in the great migration it was controlled. The only way people could get into America was by boat. No one (or very few) came from Mexico. And guess what? Illegal immigration wasn't a problem. The people that came here wanted to be Americans, not Mexicans or Guatemalans living in America. And we required that they learn the language; we didn't print signs (street signs!) or legal instructions to get a driver's license or any other sort of legal document in their home language for them.

There is change occurring in this country, but its not in the pro-English direction. I live in Texas. I've seen this my entire life. It's not getting better; its getting worse. Of 39 FM radio stations in Houston, 9 are in Spanish. Of the 31 AM radio stations, 9 are in Spanish. Its not a problem of folks speaking Spanish in their homes -- its a flat-out refusal to use English in the public forum, and a bend-over-backwards acquiescence by society to accommodate.

The only reason this is being debated at all on a national level is because (finally) folks in New York and Connecticut and other places that "matter" are starting to feel it in their pocket books. Now take that back 20 years and you know how folks in Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California and Texas feel. We're passionate about it because we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 11:28 AM

The following hissed in response by: Trickish knave

I read and reread your post, Dafydd, to make sure I was comprehending your point of view correctly. I even read the actual transcript instead of your post to see if perhaps there was something missing.

I just don't see your interpretation of McCain's comments being anything other than a straighforward remark. I think that you became suspicious just because the word "and" was edited out and saw something that wasn't there.

Interestingly enough, McCain didn't even bother to vote on the Coburn ammendment this morning. I think more could be read into that than his remark about barriers and fences.

The above hissed in response by: Trickish knave [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 11:38 AM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd,

I love this site and your different take on issues. In this case though, I have to side with Hugh. I'll grant that my reading comprehension and english useage skills do not even register in comparison to your own.

Anyway, it looks to this guy that McCain was simply being McCain and saying that we are not going to erect barriers and fences.

It's possible that Hugh is wrong, it is also possible that you are wrong. Hugh has a big microphone, he should ask for McCain to clarify his comments. I'd be willing to accept whatever McCain said in clarification.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:10 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

k2aggie07
Yeah? How many German broadcast stations are you aware of?

When the main German migration came we didnt have tv. In fact we didnt have radio. But there were significant German papers

Or Arabic? Or Hebrew? Or Italian, French, Swedish, Vietnamese, or Chinese?
Actaully there are significatn Arabic station that people listen too . That is on satellite. They differ from culture to cultre. There is a hewbrew press still. As to French just 20 years ago there was an abundance of French Radio stations and other outlets in Louisiana. THe world did not come to a end.

"How many times do you see rallies of Chinese illegal immigrations (there are a lot here) waving their home country's flag and saying "This land is ours"?
First why do Chinese illegas not show up at demostrations? I think the answer is obvious. They don't want to get deported back to communist China and some I expect might be imprisoned. It is a different situation

"Illegal immigration wasn't a problem. The people that came here wanted to be Americans, not Mexicans or Guatemalans living in America. And we required that they learn the language; we didn't print signs (street signs!) or legal instructions to get a driver's license or any other sort of legal document in their home language for them."

LEts be clear here. When most people of these people immigrated here they paid a shipping company and arrived. It is not like today. In fact the concept of Illegal alien was unknown in much of the 18 th century.

Also most Italians, Irish, Poles didnt come here because they were infactuated with the Declaration of Independence or wanted to spend days by the River James contemplating the Federalist papers. They came here for opportunity. LEts get a good guest worker program. One Fourth of the Italians that came here in the early Century came here to work and went back to Italy. I suspect there is a similar dynamic here. Also in many immigratns communities yes things were printed in other languages

worse. Of 39 FM radio stations in Houston, 9 are in Spanish. Of the 31 AM radio stations, 9 are in Spanish. Its not a problem of folks speaking Spanish in their homes -- its a flat-out refusal to use English in the public forum, and a bend-over-backwards acquiescence by society to accommodate.

Houston is growing and is the NEW York of the South. What do you expect? It is also the commercial gateway to all of latin America. However I bet the children are leaning English just as fast as the former immigrants that we have seen. They will add to the culture but they shall become americanized too.


The only reason this is being debated at all on a national level is because (finally) folks in New York and Connecticut and other places that "matter" are starting to feel it in their pocket books. Now take that back 20 years and you know how folks in Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California and Texas feel. We're passionate about it because we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more"

Conn legislature just approved in state tutuin for illegas. They seem to have a different take. Also I am not picking up in any significant way that New York is fearful of this new wave of immigration


The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:14 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

It should be remembered that about five generations ago Spanish was the language most everyone, including Indians, spoke in the southwest. After all, look at the history of the region.

So it seems a lot of people did a good job of assimilating. I think the problem is that to some people it will not be assimilation until it looks like the northeast. Which is never going to happen.

I can remember my father in law telling me about growing up in German town in Cincinnati back before the war. Somehow all those people speaking German everyday not only assimilated, many of them fought against Germany in WW2.

America is full of people from Cajuns to Italians to the Amish who somehow managed to fit in.

I think Tancredo is a disgrace and I also think that people like Hewitt doing things like this just pathetic.

People can blame Bush for breaking up the coalition or whatever, but Bush is not the side of the debate pitching a fit everyday about something. I know I am getting really tired of these people trying to push everyone else around.

A coalition {political or otherwise} is supposed to be an alliance. However, what I am hearing from these people is that the rest of us are just supposed to fall in line and to hell with having an opinion of their own. I am just supposed to say Bill is bad.... fence first... bill is bad... fence first... over and over and over in a sort of mindless drone until my masters have won the day. To hell with that.

It was these kind of tactics and that kind of attitude that made me leave the Democrats. I can honestly say that this debate has made them look a lot less loony in comparison.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

Terrye
SO true

Also how can assimilation occur if illegals can't fully participate in American society. 12 million is a lot of people for that to be happening too.

It is a tough situation at times. Howeverever not dealing with most here that want Citizenship is not going to make the situation better as to that topic.

In the end I am not seeing a whole lot that is different. The fact is when these MExican America kids go back to visit relatives in Mexico they are different. THey are Americanized. I have read countless accounts of that.


The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:44 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

As for other people speaking languages, I live in Indiana and I go to an Amish auction today and hear people speaking Dutch.

If you were in New York no doubt you could walk down a street and hear people speaking Yiddish and Chinese and Pakistani and heaven only knows what else.

I have a client in her 80's who still lapses into Italian from time to time and she was born here, but her parents weren't.

Until well into the 20th century there were places in Louisiana where French was still spoken on a daily basis. The fact that they did not have cable radio or TV does not mean they would not have had the same kind of stations if they were available, but then again many of these people were more isolated and so that meant learning the language was not so important for many of them.

It is difficult to compare the situation of today and then. I know the ancestors I had come over came when all that was necessary was getting off a boat. The rest of my ancestors were Indians and so as far as they were concerned, everyone was an immigrant.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:47 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

LSU:

Well, look at the Irish. People said they would not assimilate, but they did. However, there were some of them who sent money to the IRA as well. So that kind of connection is very difficult to break.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: NoMoreBlatherDotCom

DAB is *************, and I'm surprised that a fairly well-known blogger is still supporting the POS bill even after virulent hacks like HH and The Cap'n have bailed.

I was unable to read what the "Imperial Valley Christian Center" had to say because I immediately thought of this: jclw.com/wiki/index.php?title=Larry_Grover

Obviously, Tancredo was being hyperbolic; there will be no law written which will monitor when phone systems aren't bilingual. A clue as to when he might consider a good time to allow more immigration might be when things like this are no longer promoted:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1846033/posts

One wonders exactly why there has to be HurricanePreparedness specific to Hispanics. And, those who are intellectually honest have to agree that such programs not only are power centers for racial demagogues, they also tend to drive the U.S. into Balkanization. Unfortunately, DAB is on the wrong side.

[NoMoreBlatherDotCom, personal attacks on or insults of anyone, especially the hosts, is not tolerated; please review the Reptilian Comment Policy. Future posts that engage in this kind of name-calling will be deleted. Find a way to make your point without personally insulting anyone here. -- the Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: NoMoreBlatherDotCom [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 12:57 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

So, no more blather...you always do what the bloggers tell you do? Good boy, heel.

I think they are just pandering to their audience myself and it is not a great big audience at that. Most people do not read blogs or care what they say. That is just a fact. Instapundit might get 100 or 200 thousand hits a day, but 70 million people voted on American Idol.

All this so that the hardliners can end up right where they started from. Wow, that is progress. I bet you could put 20 of these people in a room and they would be at each other's throats in a matter of hours fighting about exactly what kind of wall they just have to have.

Meanwhile, another 12 million could sneak in here some other way and they would be completely oblivious to it. After all, they don't want to document people so there will always be a place for illegals to hide and they refuse to even think about the millions that came in here without ever seeing that border. For that matter they do not deal with the fact that half of Mexico could be up here before they stop arguing about exactly what kind of wall we will have.

They are a joke. They don't care about illegal immigration. They just want to demagogue the issue and gain political influence for their little club. If they cared they would have come up with a viable alternative that could actually get past the House and Senate. And so far all they have done is bitch and make a bad situation worse.

I know most of those blogs are off my bookmarks. I have decided that the left does not have a monopoly on loons. And if you lose enough center right Independents like me you can kiss the White House goodbye.

In fact, if I remember correctly back in 2000 Pat Buchanan got a whopping 1% of the vote. Now there is the guy to emulate.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 1:55 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

NoMoreBlatherDotCom
"*****************,"

[LSUsportsfan, we also don't allow quoting of insults or personal attacks. No offense, but this quotation must go as well. -- The Mgt.]

Classy

"I'm surprised that a fairly well-known blogger is still supporting the POS bill even after virulent hacks like HH and The Cap'n have bailed."

I forgot we elected to them to speak for all of us. Let us just get rid of congress and all the staff. Hugh and Michelle Malkin know what is good for us. THey are bloggers and people that write the modern version of a OP ed.

"I was unable to read what the "Imperial Valley Christian Center" had to say because I immediately thought of this: jclw.com/wiki/index.php?title=Larry_Grover"

Wow that is nice. Boy that is the way to get supporters.

"One wonders exactly why there has to be HurricanePreparedness specific to Hispanics. And, those who are intellectually honest have to agree that such programs not only are power centers for racial demagogues, they also tend to drive the U.S. into Balkanization. Unfortunately, DAB is on the wrong side."

To save lifes. We do the same thing on the coast as toi the Vietnamese because many of the older folks that immigrated still are not be best Englsh speakers. Unlike their children. It is called saving lives. By the way the Vietnamemese on the Coast that are great Americans and hard workers in the shrimo industry are producing great Americans. Like I said there are efforts to make sure that lanquage difficulties dont stop lives from being saved. It is not balkanization.


The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 2:51 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Terrye:I'm flabbergasted.You are actually arguing that people don't care about illegal immigration.Also that 20 "hardliners" couldn't agree on what kind of fence to build.And that these same hardliners don't want to document illegal aliens already here.Wow.Pardon my rudeness but ********************.I'm amazed at the vast quantity of wrongness you managed to pack into a brief blog comment.Simply Amazed.First, the fence we want would seal the border at least as well the one near San Diego already does.Construction details and precise route are open to discussion.Second, conservatives care very much about this issue-enough to leave the Republican party over it.Third, and as I said elsewhere, the problem is that this bill won't fix any problem we have now.Keeping quiet about the problems won't help fix anything.The bad situation isn't worse-it's just now in the public eye.The problem is Bush and the Democrats.They just don't want to stop illegal immigration.And-bye the way-it looks like the Bush bill can't make it through congress either.

[Xennady, see above posts for why your post has been edited. As with NoMoreBlatherDotCom, future such insults and personal attacks will get the entire post deleted; continued violation can get the poster banned.

I assure everyone here, Big Lizards will move aggressively to retain control of our comments section. -- the Mgt.]

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 3:03 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

"The problem is Bush and the Democrats.They just don't want to stop illegal immigration"

Bush is the President that in part made us confront this problem. Bush from what I ahve seen is a man if integrity. If there is reasons or evidence to show us that he lying fine. I ahvent seen it

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 5:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

Xennady, Trickish Knave, Baggi:

The honest thing for Hugh to have done is present McCain's remark in context, and let us decide what he meant. Hugh can certainly offer his own interpretation; it's his show.

But that was not enough; Hugh wanted to dominate the spin... so he presented nothing but the sentence fragment itself, shorn of all context, in a sound bite that he played about six or seven times just in the hour and a half I listened to him... coupled with repeated claims that McCain had "let his guard down" and shown his true colors.

Do you consider that to be either fair or honest? Or do you believe that, when McCain is the target, anything goes?

Terrye, LSUsportsfan, K2aggie07:

There are at least three Armenian language television channels in California; there is a Japanese channel, a Korean channel, and many other languages also have a channel. It's not just Spanish.

These are privately owned television stations engaging in American capitalism. What would you have us do, K2aggie07... ban them?

How about the Spanish-language billboards and newspapers in Los Angeles, San Diego, Anaheim, the San Joaquin Valley? How about the Chinese-language billboards, restaurant signs, and newspapers in San Francisco? The Hebrew-language signs and newspapers in the Fairfax district of LA? Must these all be shut down?

Foreign-language newspapers, signs, billboards, and yes, television stations exist because there is a market; but most people who utilize them also speak English.

Assimilation in America does not require abandonment of all emotional and linguistic connection to "the old country;" it requires only a merging into the melting pot of America, seeing oneself as an American first -- but not to the utter exclusion of any element of culture not brought here by the earliest American immigrants (who, by the way, spoke Spanish long before any spoke English -- and possibly Norse even before that).

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 5:11 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Dafydd: Point taken.But as I think McCain was accurately summarized maybe Hewitt just wanted to save airtime.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 5:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: xennady

Isusportsfan: Bush has not made us confront this issue-congressional Republicans have.I never said Bush was lying.I don't ever recall hearing him say the he wanted to stop illegal immigration.It seems plainly obvious that he does not.I believe this is stupid and wrong but it does not touch his integrity.

The above hissed in response by: xennady [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 5:37 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

You needn't put words into my mouth. I have no problem with Spanish TV (they show soccer games) or radio or any other language. I also have no problem with people speaking their cultural language at home, or there being an "ethnic" part of town where the locals speak something other than English, or celebrating cultural holidays, or eating their cultural foods, or living their cultural life. Doesn't bother me because I have empanadas del horno every year for my birthday with a torta mil hojas for dessert because I was raised in a Chilean home. You missed my point entirely.

When you cater to people who refuse to learn the language (or, barring that refuse to use it) you encourage their recalcitrant behavior. Having bilingual menus, bilingual legal documents, bilingual anything-sponsored-by-government should be flat out illegal. It only exacerbates the problem of a lack of will to assimilate by encouraging secluded, separatist behavior.

That's what I think Tancredo meant, and that's why I think he received applause.

Y'all are just as bad as the shrill idiots on the left screaming that all conservatives are anti-immigrant. I'm not anti-immigrant, I just want them to be Americans, not Mexicans-living-in-America.

As for Isusportsfan, you said
First why do Chinese illegas not show up at demostrations? I think the answer is obvious. They don't want to get deported back to communist China and some I expect might be imprisoned. It is a different situation

I thought deportation (and, by corollary, enforcement) was impossible under the current laws? What is the difference in the situation, pray tell, other than the shape of their eyes? Justice is blind, is it not? Can our courts only deport Asians and not Hispanics? How about Arab illegals?

Give me a break. By your own testimony Hispanic illegals are a protected class, vassals under the flag of their feudal lords on capitol hill.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 7, 2007 8:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Trickish knave

Hewitt presented a concise quote and for the discerning listeners who thought perhaps there was more to McCain's remark we did check up on it. Hewitt interpreted McCain's quip as did you. Leaving out the 'and' did little to persuade my interpretation. Then again, who really knows why the sound editor cut the 'and' out- to save time or to deceive?

You also interpret our being OK with Hewitts editing as a sign that I dislike McCain.

Or do you believe that, when McCain is the target, anything goes?

Now whose being dishonest? After reading and watching the discourse I beleive McCain said exactly what he meant.

I've listened to Hewitt and Medved for a while now. They both hit the issues with a fair perspective alhtough they might stray a bit from my stance. A good example is Medved's idea to round up all the homeless and put them in insane asylums. Even the best of them can be kooky at times.

The above hissed in response by: Trickish knave [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 11:24 AM

The following hissed in response by: leftnomore

Dafyyd, as usual you have nailed it. I have been a reader and general supporter of HughHewitt.com/Townhall blog for a long time. But he and his fellows have lost me with their screaching and "BBS," as you coined it. I have written repeatedly to them about the dangers they are inflicting with this Bash hate. How do they expect to run against two entities in 2008-- the Demon's and the president? They can't, and this self destruction seems to please them, at least until Hillary outlaws them with new FCC rulings.

Thanks for some sanity, and this thanks comes from an evangelical white boy.

The above hissed in response by: leftnomore [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 3:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: leftnomore

Sorry, "DAFYDD"! Will I ever learn to spell, oh Great Hisser?

The above hissed in response by: leftnomore [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 8, 2007 3:04 PM

The following hissed in response by: Frank Laughter

I completely disagree with your conclusion: "But the man simply did not say that we wouldn't have a security fence against illegal immigration..."

You're ASSUMING that he meant LEGAL immigration ONLY when he made made the "barriers and fences" utterance but I have a copy of the interview and I've listened to it several times. He was talking about illegal, or at best he meant we would have no barriers and fences against any kind of immigration, whether legal or illegal.

I greatly admire your blog but in this case you're wrong.

Isn't language wonderful?

The above hissed in response by: Frank Laughter [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 9, 2007 5:39 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved