The Unethical Self-Delusion Of Open-Borders Supporters

She was killed because an illegal immigrant didn't want her to report that he was illegal, but her death had nothing to do with illegal immigration., or the fact that her killer was able to kill her because he was here illegally.

She was killed because an illegal immigrant didn’t want her to report that he was illegal, but her death had nothing to do with illegal immigration or the fact that her murderer was able to kill her because he was here illegally.

The New York Times op-ed headline online is (at least until someone at the Times figures out how damning it is)…

“My Wife’s Killer Was Not an ‘Illegal Immigrant’”

Author Andy Ostroy‘s wife, actress Adrienne Shelley, was murdered by an illegal immigrant, and the fact that the Times thinks this headline is a responsible one speaks volumes to the increasing dishonesty from Democrats and the news media on the issue of illegal immigration.

Ostroy ties himself into logical and ethical pretzels while explaining his kindly open-mindedness over the murder of his wife by “a 19-year-old undocumented Ecuadorean construction worker” who feared she would report him and have him deported. Writes Ostroy:

“Given the anger and grief I still feel, I could easily be seduced by Donald J. Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric that is the cornerstone of his presidential run. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists,” he said as he began his campaign in 2015. And in these final weeks before the election, rather than tacking to the middle, he seems to be doubling down. “We’ve got some bad hombres,” he said in last week’s debate, referring to immigrants who commit crimes.”

First, Donald Trump’s rhetoric is anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, not “anti-immigrant.” The intentional blurring of these two very different categories is a strategy of deceit. Any writer who engages in it has marked himself as untrustworthy, and any publication that does the same has also flagged itself as dishonest and biased.  The use of the intentionally vague term “undocumented” immigrant is similarly proof of unethical advocacy. The immigrants at issue are here illegally, hence they are illegal. If they had documentation that they were illegal, they would still be illegal, and if they had documentation that they were legal, that would be additionally illegal, since the documents would necessarily be false.

Second, such rhetoric is the only responsible rhetoric there can be, since it is existentially irresponsible for any nation to pretend that breaking its laws is anything but undesirable and wrong.

Third, Ostroy’s own account proves Trump accurate. Illegal immigrants are bringing crime: his wife’s murderer did exactly that. (Trump did not say that all illegal immigrants brought additional crimes along with their initial one of breaking the immigration laws, but the Big Lie is thoroughly in place that he did.) Yet Ostroy refuses to be “seduced” into believing that an illegal immigrant brought murder into this country and his life, so he denies the fact that the man was an illegal immigrant, and the self-evident fact that the term “bad hombre” describes him to a fairtheewell. The amount of self-delusion and denial of reality it requires to hold this particular absurd position must be exhausting.

Ostroy goes on…

“But Adrienne was not murdered by an illegal immigrant, per se. She fell victim to a depraved killer who simply happened to be an undocumented immigrant. It is an obvious distinction, almost too obvious, but it’s an important one to consider as the country goes further down the dangerous path of demonizing those not born here.”

Oh! She was murdered by an illegal immigrant, but not by an illegal immigrant per se! That makes perfect sense! Actually, it makes no sense at all. The killer didn’t just happen to be an “undocumented immigrant,” that is, an illegal immigrant. Ostroy could legitimately argue that he just happened to be black, or Ecuadorean, or short, or a construction worker, but the fact that he was here illegally is completely relevant and absolutely related to her death. The man was already a law-breaker, and had demonstrated by his manner of entering the country that he possessed less than the necessary respect for our laws, or laws generally. Moreover, if he were not here illegally, he would not have murdered Ostroy’s wife of anyone else.

Is Ostroy lying, stupid, deluded, corrupted, or does he just presume, along with the Times, apparently, that his readers are?

And again, we have the deceit of the intentionally omitted key fact. Nobody, including Donald Trump, is “demonizing those not born here.” Without quibbling over the term “demonizing,” it is those who are not born here and in the country illegally who are being demonized, and justly so. Why does Ostroy skip that part? Why do his editors skip that part? They do it, I am certain, because their position makes no logical, legal or ethical sense on the merits, so they distort the issue.

More distortion:

“At his rallies and during the debates, Mr. Trump has painted a dark picture of an America overrun by foreign criminals who come here to rape, pillage and murder our innocent civilians.”

I see: many come here AND rape, murder and engage in other crimes, but they didn’t come here TO do those things. Thank you, sir, for that fine distinction, and may I ask, “How the hell do you look at yourself in the mirror?”

I suspect the answer is that his adoption of progressive cant on this subject, much of it cynically linked to the desire to dominate a growing voting bloc, just as Republican passivity on the same issue is driven by the desire by its corporate funders to continue paying unconscionably low wages, has permanently damaged his ability to apply reason to the topic. Here’s more:

“His reason for killing Adrienne, and the relatively lenient sentence he received, certainly feeds Mr. Trump’s xenophobic, fear-mongering narrative. But beyond the rhetoric, there’s no clear cause and effect. His rationale was no different from that of an American citizen who in the act of a crime kills his “witness” to avoid prosecution and imprisonment. Attributing his heinous act to his immigration status dilutes the more relevant truth that he lacked the ability to know right from wrong and had zero respect for human life.”

There’s no cause and effect! He killed Adrienne because he was here illegally and didn’t want to be deported, but the fact that he was here illegally was irrelevant to the murder! This is the level of critical thinking, apparently, that is deemed sufficient to justify a forum in the New York Times.

“His rationale was no different from that of an American citizen who in the act of a crime kills his “witness” to avoid prosecution and imprisonment.”

Yes, and what was the crime that he committed murder to cover-up? It was the crime of entering the country illegally.

“Attributing his heinous act to his immigration status dilutes the more relevant truth that he lacked the ability to know right from wrong and had zero respect for human life.” 

Here, let me fix that sentence for you, Andy:

“Attributing his heinous act to his illegal immigration status highlights the more relevant truth that his upbringing in a different culture may have impeded his ability to know right from wrong,  and that his lack of respect for U.S. laws was mirrored by his zero respect for human life.”

Andy’s distortion of logic and facts really gets rolling now. I added the letters to make unraveling this mess easier:

(a)”Yes, we have an immigration problem that is in desperate need of reform. (b) Yes, some illegal immigrants commit crimes, some of them violent. (c) But so do blacks, whites, Asians, Christians and Jews. (d) Mr. Trump often claims that two million undocumented immigrants have been convicted of crimes, but in fact the figure is actually 176,000, according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (e)The reality is, Americans have appreciably more to fear from their fellow citizens than from undocumented immigrants.”

A distortion and rationalization carnival!

a) By “reform,” Democrats and progressives mean “a system that allows current illegals to stay and benefit from breaking the law, and that promises not to inconvenience or punish new lawbreakers, as long as the immigration laws are the only ones they break. You know. Reform.”

b) None of which would have occurred if the illegal immigrants weren’t here in the first place. By the way, you slipped up and said “illegal.” Watch it.

c) So do blacks, whites, Asians, Christian and Jewish citizens. But see, Andy, at least they belong here. That’s the issue.

d) Ah! So “some” isn’t a handful, but a minimum of 176,000, which is approximately 176,000 too many. Of course, it’s much worse than that. A relatively small percentage of  felonies are reported, especially sexual assaults.  An even smaller percentage of those reported lead to arrests, and for obvious reasons, illegal immigrants are more difficult to track down. So how many crimes are committed by illegal aliens? I’d estimate 250,000, to be conservative. That’s a lot of victims to shrug off, but Andy shrugs off the murder of his wife, so he’s equal to the task.

e) This is the “more people die in car accidents than in terrorist attacks, so we shouldn’t worry about terrorism” argument. It is, and has always been, an uncommonly stupid and dishonest argument. Because there are deaths that we can’t prevent, we shouldn’t do anything about the deaths we can prevent. Brilliant. When an argument stoops that low, you know the advocate has nothing.

For the rest of the op-ed, Ostroy pivots to the standard “this is a nation of immigrants” deflection (this is also a nation of laws) and the legally and ethically irrelevant appeal to emotion of extolling “the millions of foreigners who have come to the United States in search of a better life. “

Once again he intentionally combines disparate groups, so to disapprove of lawbreakers is to disapprove of legitimate immigrants. Moreover, all lawbreakers are “in search of a better life.” Thieves, embezzlers and burglars believe that more money will give them  better lives. Killers think that eliminating human obstacles to their objectives will lead to a better lives. Gangsters and traitors are after better lives, the same with tax cheats, frauds, and people who violate government policies while endangering U.S. security so nobody can see their e-mails. Wanting a better life is the desired end: it doesn’t validate or justify lawbreaking, and illegally entering the country is still breaking the law.

Ostroy’s column is a leading candidate for the most inept and dishonest advocacy piece of 2016. It should be no surprise that the topic is illegal immigration.

 

96 Comments

Filed under Citizenship, Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Family, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement

96 responses to “The Unethical Self-Delusion Of Open-Borders Supporters

  1. Steve-O-in-NJ

    I think posts like this are beginning to smack more and more of “a voice in the wilderness.” Like it or not, Jack, open borders is coming. The only thing we can do is hunker down and hope that in 2020 the GOP has learned its lesson.

  2. THE Bill

    “Ostroy’s column is a leading candidate for the most inept and dishonest advocacy piece of 2016. It should be no surprise that the topic is illegal immigration.”

    Especially since he sued the contractor and the building management for allowing a illegal immigrant on the job site.

  3. I get why they come to America, I think I understand to a degree the logic at play here…. But they didn’t just magically appear in the middle of America…. There’s a decision at some point to break the law. Whether they overstay a Visa or hop a border, their presence in the country is contrary to the law, and if we all agree that the number of illegal immigrants hovers somewhere around 11 million, then the group as a whole have committed the same crime at least 11 million times collectively. Who cares if they’ve only been convicted of 170,000 crimes? There were 2,878,672 (real number) ICE deportations between 2008 and 2015, you just didn’t bog down your courts attempting to get convictions on them all.

    And strangely enough, the government resource* for that number says that between 31 and 59% of those ICE removals were of people who DID have convictions, in fact, if you do the math on them, there were 1,433,847 criminal ICE deportees. There were more than 170,000 convicted illegal immigrants removed in single calendar years.

    * https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics

    • Highlights from the report specifically relating to FY2015:

      -ICE conducted 235,413 removals.
      -ICE conducted 69,478 removals of individuals apprehended by ICE officers (i.e., interior removals).
      -63,539 (91%) of all interior removals were previously convicted of a crime.

      -ICE conducted 165,935 removals of individuals apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.
      -59% of all ICE removals, or 139,368, were previously convicted of a crime.
      -ICE removed 75,829 criminals apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.
      Of the 96,045 individuals removed who had no criminal conviction, 94 percent, or 90,106, were apprehended at or near the border or ports of entry.
      -The leading countries of origin for removals were Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
      -1,040 individuals removed by ICE were classified as suspected or confirmed gang members.6

  4. dragin_dragon

    Just so Mr. Ostroy understands this clearly, I am NOT an immigrant. I am, in fact, a native American, born in Paris, Texas. In order to find an immigrant in my heritage, I’d have to go back to before the Revolutionary War. I believe most Americans share this trait. Thus, this nation may have been founded by immigrants, but it is no longer a ‘nation’ of immigrants.

    • Don’t argue by their rules.

      “America is a nation founded by immigrants? Wonderful. You realise that was 600 (or 300, if you want to get sticky) years ago, right? Are we really comfortable in using centuries old policy to dictate current actions, or just the ones that seem to positively reflect on your already held beliefs? Perhaps we should reinstate slavery? Take the vote away from people who don’t own land? No, no I’m pretty sure you didn’t mean that. More than that, America was a nation founded on LEGAL immigration. We had more room over here, and we needed people to come and work. WORK. I know it’s a strange concept, but way back then, there weren’t any social programs, so people either worked, begged, or starved. I’m not saying that’s a great system, but it was THE system, and it’s the system you seem to be holding up as an ideal.”

      • dragin_dragon

        In actual fact, HT, the original immigrants came to this country well over 20,000 years ago. If memory serves, a Folsum point has been found that is that old, and there is some evidence that people migrated to this continent 65,000 years ago or longer. I’m not really up on the latest archeological studies. And, just FYI, that is, indeed, the system I am advocating. Everybody comes here legally, and everybody works until retirement.

    • Wayne

      This is totally off the topic but do you know Harry Dean Stanton of “Paris, Texas”?

      • dragin_dragon

        Unfortunately, no. I am considerable older than he is, but we were born in the same hospital. My mom and dad left there shortly after the end of the war (both were employed in the construction of Camp Mackey, I think it was).

      • dragin_dragon

        OK, I’ve got to start proofing my replies. HDS is considerably older than I am…not vice-versa.

  5. deery

    We hold the solution to illegal immigrants pouring across the border in search of a better life in our hands. We could just refuse to hire them. Simple and elegant. But we like our cheap landscaping, our cheap childcare, our cheap contractors, our cheap produce, etc, and we just won’t do it.

    If we stopped hiring, the push to come over drops by itself. Look a how the estimated number of immigrants dropped precipitously during the “Grew Recession.” We simply lack the will to do it.

    • Spartan

      Exactly. There is a simple and elegant Congressional solution to illegal immigration that doesn’t require an increased police form or a massive wall to maintain — only federal legislation that imposes mandatory huge fines and imprisonment (for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants).

      • This is the “self-deportation” approach that Mitt Romney was crucified for. The Obama Justice Department prosecuted as a civil rights violation sections of an Arizona law that included such a provision. Are you seriously arguing that the Democratic Party would support such a law? If they did support it, then the most hypocritical of the GOP legislators who have dragged their feet on the issue would not dare block it.

        Of course that law makes sense, ethically and legally. Of course, like the immigration laws themselves, they would have to be enforced.

        • deery

          I would support laws that imposed huge fines for businesses that were not diligent in hiring only people who should be legally working here. I suspect many Democrats would.

          But this is where the business wings of both parties collude to thwart the will of the people. Businesses are addicted to the cheap labor, simply put. That law will never pass.

          • I suspect very, very few Democrats would. Otherwise, you are correct.

          • Spartan

            I would support such a law.

          • Spartan

            It has to be more than a fine though. The big banks pay fines all the time but they still find it more profitable to break the law and get slapped on the wrist afterwards than comply in the first place.

            If a company hires someone with excellent forged papers, I would be willing to give that company a pass OR at least have it pay a small fine. But a company that knowingly employs cheap illegal immigrants as part of its business model? Jail time.

            I would also exempt private individuals. From time to time, I hire landscaping or other services. If I am retaining an individual, I shouldn’t be held responsible if his contractors are illegal. That burden should rest with the individual being retained.

            • Spartan,
              Those are some pretty stiff penalties against citizens that are hiring people that the government refuses to stop at the border, I’m curious what would you do the the illegal immigrant (that the government refuses to stop at the border) that applied for the job? What about sanctuary cities?

              • Spartan

                It’s easier to enforce a workplace than thousands of miles of land and sea borders. That’s one of the reasons why the War on Drugs is a failure.

                As for sanctuary cities, that’s up to the Federal Government about what to do.

                • Spartan said, “It’s easier to enforce a workplace than thousands of miles of land and sea borders.”

                  Okay, that’s your opinion. I disagree.

                  You didn’t answer this question: I’m curious what would you do the the illegal immigrant (that the government refuses to stop at the border) that applied for the job?

                  • Spartan

                    Your question is nonsensical. I already explained the border problem. As for the rest of your question, any such employee would be a federal employee so your concern is imaginary. I was a federal employee once — I had to possess multiple forms of identification, provide a full work history (going back to the dawn of time), fingerprinting, drug screening, and a full background check. My finances were looked into and my neighbors were questioned.

                    Are you really worried that an illegal immigrant would get the job? They tend to avoid federal authorities as a general rule. If an illegal immigrant did apply, he/she simply would not get the job and would be promptly deported.

                    And you’re just wrong on the border question Zoltar. Drugs pour in everyday from Mexico and by sea. We can’t police our borders, they are simply too large.

                    • I’m honestly not sure you answer my question or not; so I’ll ask the actual question part one more time without my little embellishment.

                      I’m curious what would you do the the illegal immigrant that applied for the job?

                      Don’t read into the question.

                    • Spartan,
                      I think this is your answer, I must have skimmed over it before…

                      “If an illegal immigrant did apply, he/she simply would not get the job and would be promptly deported.”

                      I’m not sure how you’d do that but I think that would garner you some strong support from the political right including me; however, the political left is gonna have a really good time demonizing you and calling you a Republican maybe even a Trumplican for that opinion. 😉

                    • Spartan, “And you’re just wrong on the border question Zoltar. Drugs pour in everyday from Mexico and by sea. We can’t police our borders, they are simply too large.”

                      People said we can’t go to the moon; however, when someone said we can and we will something happened – we go it done.

                      Excuses in this regard are nonsensical rationalizations and actually used to prevent real efforts to try, why do anything if you actually believe that nothing can be done. Change the thought process and you’ll change the outcome.

                    • Chris

                      People said we can’t go to the moon; however, when someone said we can and we will something happened – we go it done.”

                      I think “let’s go to the moon” is a bit more of an inspiring, uniting message than “let’s deport them illegals.

        • Spartan

          Enforcement would come from ICE. They are deporting people by the thousands, it doesn’t take that much longer for the investigator to find the place of employment. Many times, the illegals are found at their place of employment.

    • deery said, “We hold the solution to illegal immigrants pouring across the border in search of a better life in our hands. We could just refuse to hire them. Simple and elegant. “

      So you would absolve the government of its responsibility to maintain secure borders and do everything reasonably within their power to stop the flow if illegal immigrants into the country and dump the responsibility upon the citizens of the United States to make our county less pleasing and less welcoming by forcing business to be suspicious of “immigrant looking” people by intentionally profiling to stop the flow?

      Hmmmmmm…………..

      I reject that line of thinking as the solution.

      • deery

        “The government” is us. Every citizen can exercise this power, if they choose, to not hire people under the table, but simply obey the law already on the books. However, there is no deterrent there, and people like cheap, so we dont do it. No profiling is necessary, just the ordinary amount of due diligence already required.

        • deery said, ““The government” is us. Every citizen can exercise this power…”

          deery,
          Give me a freaking break.

          Your solution is like putting out the fires in the trees surrounding the 100′ flames from the gas main flames and do NOTHING at all about the source of the gas main fire.

          I agree that business’ shouldn’t be hiring illegal immigrants but We the People are NOT the first line of defense, we are the last line of defense. Get your priorities straight deery!

          Again, I absolutely reject your line of thinking as the “simple and elegant” “solution”; it’s nothing but Liberal Magical Thinking.

          • I’m going to wash my mouth out with bleach after saying this… But deery is right on this issue.

            So long as we make it profitable for the illegals to come here, they will continue to find ways to come here, and so long as it’s profitable for companies to hire cheap labour, they will continue to do so. It’s insanity to assume that we can send the mixed messages of “We don’t want you here.” and “Hey, want a job?”, and then blame the illegals when they think it’s OK to come in.

            I’ve called your system a bug zapper before, and I’ll stand by that: You tempt these people in with a bright shiney light that is the promise of a better life (even if it isn’t as good a life as the average Americans), and then you give it to them! They get jobs, find homes, they send their kids to school, for Christ’s sake. After all that, just to be especially cruel, every now and again ICE snaps up a couple thousand of them and ships them home.

            I mean, seriously… What’s the point? If you’re just going to welcome with open arms the ones you don’t zap, and you only zap what… half a percent per year? Why even bother? Shit or get off the pot. If you can’t even stomach the idea of punishing people aiding and abetting the crimes you’re so concerned about, then they can’t really be as big a deal as you’re making it out to be.

            • Humble Talent,
              We are in disagreement.

              Did you miss that I said, “I agree that business’ shouldn’t be hiring illegal immigrants” I mean that sincerely and I think they should be punished for doing so but that does not change my opinion one bit.

              When we are not focused on the borders to stop the actual flow, then the “hoards” just walk in (yes I know that’s hyperbole), not just the ones that want the jobs, their whole family. The point is that those exact same individuals that illegally cross our borders that are enticed by those jobs could enter the United States legally and work the same damn job with no fear of being deported, they are choosing to be illegal and people are blaming it on the businesses – I call bull shit – if the illegal applicant wasn’t there someone else would take the job and life would move on.

              • You realise none of that actually refuted a single thing I said, right?

                • Humble Talent said, “You realize none of that actually refuted a single thing I said, right?”

                  Since the point wasn’t to refute then we agree on that.

                  You are agreeing with deery (please proceed to the laundry room for the bleach), I disagree with the solution presented by deery; therefore, by association I disagree with you too. I was simply reiterating my opinion, just wording it in a different way.

                  • “please proceed to the laundry room for the bleach”
                    I know, right?

                    “I disagree with the solution presented by deery”
                    I think he might be oversimplifying… Will it solve the problem on it’s own? Probably not, but the problem almost certainly won’t be addressed in any meaningful way while employers are still paying these people to be here. I can’t help but identify those employers as a legitimate problem, and one that needs to at least be on the radar, because if you ignore it, it exacerbates the problem.

                    • Humble Talent said, “I can’t help but identify those employers as a legitimate problem, and one that needs to at least be on the radar, because if you ignore it, it exacerbates the problem.”

                      I agree; point them out, fine them, criminally prosecute egregious repeat offenders but dumping this all on employers to handle is absolutely not the “simple and elegant” “solution” as proposed by deery there MUST be a primary focus on the border.

                      The problems caused in the USA my illegal immigration are not just with employment of illegal immigrants, the problem directly and indirectly affects almost every dollar spent for taxes, health care, etc.

                    • Spartan

                      We can’t enforce every inch of our land and sea borders. How much money are you willing to try to make that happen? Plus, lots of illegal immigrants actually come here legally and then outstay their travel, work, or student visa at which point they become illegal. Are you going to stop all air travel too? Ooh, put an electronic monitoring bracelet on every foreign student and tourist?

                    • Spartan,
                      Don’t throw your hands up yet; things that are worthwhile to do are not always easy.

                      Doing nothing more or doing less on our borders and dumping “all” the responsibility on business owners to be the front line of illegal immigration is unacceptable.

                      Analogy (take it for what it is): Would you freely open the doors to your home and allow a pack of wolves to wander in and then tell your family to make sure not to feed the wolves and report any wolf that tries to eat your food making sure you don’t give the food to them and report that lone wolf to the authorities while you ignore the rest of the wolf pack?

                    • Spartan

                      Wolves are actually beneficial creatures to the environment and have gotten a bum rap.

                      And sure, I lock my doors — all 3 of them. It doesn’t cost any money and I don’t need to use federal tax dollars to hire someone to do it. Now, if I had 3 million doors to lock, I’d probably think up a better policy.

                      And there is no “dumping” of responsibility on any employer. They already have the responsibility of verifying that someone is legal to work in the U.S. You have to have multiple forms of ID including a social security and/or passport to work here.

                    • Spartan said, “Wolves are actually beneficial creatures to the environment and have gotten a bum rap. And sure, I lock my doors — all 3 of them.”

                      Beneficial but you won’t let them into your house, maybe it’s only fair that others have to deal with the wolves not you and your family; that kinda makes you anti-wolf bigot. 😉

                      Spartan said, “It doesn’t cost any money and I don’t need to use federal tax dollars to hire someone to do it.”

                      So this is all about money? Doing what’s right doesn’t even come into play? What would you do with the borders if you had an endless supply of money to stop illegal immigration – would illegal immigration finally rise to a conscious level of seriousness?

                      Spartan said, “Now, if I had 3 million doors to lock, I’d probably think up a better policy.”

                      Like a do nothing policy? A policy that makes the businesses the only active illegal immigration watch dogs in the country? A policy that demonizes businesses for having jobs available and absolves the government of its duty?

                      Spartan said, “And there is no “dumping” of responsibility on any employer. “

                      A friend of mine likes to use this word a lot; balderdash! If the only ones that are required to actively look for illegal immigrants and turn them in are businesses then they are most definitely being dumped on!

                      Be honest; you, deery, and others want to blame businesses for all the woes of illegal immigration the country and absolve the government of their duty to secure the borders; how far will y’all go with the anti-business garbage.

                      Spartan said, “They already have the responsibility of verifying that someone is legal to work in the U.S. You have to have multiple forms of ID including a social security and/or passport to work here.”

                      Do you realize that you just presented an argument that strongly supports voter ID? Need I say any more along those lines or do you need a dissertation?

                      I’m a real curious sort; maybe it’s time for me to look back at conversations on this blog about voter ID and check out your pro/con arguments.

                    • deery

                      Voting is a fundamental right, having a job is not. That would be one key difference, amongst others.
                      No one is demonizing businesses, but pointing out that as long as there is demand for illegal immigration, people will come, especially of we continue to look the other way on punishing businesses that willfully hire illegal immigrants. If there is no demand, there is no supply. And it is a much more inexpensive solution than building massive walls all around our country. People complain about taxes now. I can’t imagine the complaints when that price tag becomes known.

                    • Spartan

                      Zoltar — you are being intentionally obtuse. All employers have the federal requirement of verifying the right to work in the US. All of them. There is no extra duty imposed. Employers are doing it because they can get away with it. These undocumented jobs is what is drawing illegal immigration to the US. Fix that and illegal immigration goes away.

                      I’ve never said that I am anti-voter ID. So your gotcha is meaningless.

                      The point is that Deery’s, my, and Mitt Romney’s (!) plan to fix illegal immigration would work, and it would cost a fraction of the plan that you propose. More importantly, your plan would fail. And if doing “what is right” is your paramount concern, then you shouldn’t have any problems with holding employers responsible.

                    • “So this is all about money? Doing what’s right doesn’t even come into play? What would you do with the borders if you had an endless supply of money to stop illegal immigration – would illegal immigration finally rise to a conscious level of seriousness?”

                      You’re like… the embodiment of the reason Liberals think Conservatives are idiots right now. Did you really just suggest that money should not be a consideration when there’s something “right” to be done?

                      How do you justify companies using jobs as bait to lure foreign nationals into breaking the law? If you aren’t, then why the hell are you arguing this? And how the actual fuck does any of this translate into being “right” in your head?

                      Where did you get the idea that these things had to be mutually exclusive? Why couldn’t you both secure the border, and give employers a disincentive to break the law? And on that note…. Why the hell are you on the side of not enforcing employment law? It’s illegal to hire illegals for fucks sake! How do you justify a respect for law and order in the face of utterly ignoring an entire sector of America breaking the law?

                      “Like a do nothing policy? A policy that makes the businesses the only active illegal immigration watch dogs in the country? A policy that demonizes businesses for having jobs available and absolves the government of its duty?”

                      How about a policy of not leaving thousands of dollars in cash on the counter top and advertising with giant neon signs that the money is there, behind the unlocked door (or the locked door with a doggy flap, for that matter)?

                      I want to do what I think will work, and I think that baiting deer in your backyard while simultaneously bitching about them eating your cabbage is stupid. Build a wall? Secure the borders? Fine! Great! But Spart is still right: About 40% of illegal immigrants come in legally and overstay Visas. It’s the pinnacle of stupidity to assume that the wall will work when it only addresses half of the intakes and you continue to give them solid financial reasons to be there. There HAS to be more to the plan to make it work. HAS to.

                      You know what the actual parallel is here? “Don’t steal these thousands of amazing, crispy, delicious dollars, it’s illegal and wrong. But we all know people like money, so if and when you do, about 5 in 1000 of you will be punished severely.” It’s like the the plot to a Saw movie. It’s sadistic. And you want to talk about “Right”? “I want to play a game.”

                      “Do you realize that you just presented an argument that strongly supports voter ID? Need I say any more along those lines or do you need a dissertation?”

                      Won’t sway me. ID the hell out of your voters. You should. Mexico does, Canada does.

                    • Humble Talent asked, “Did you really just suggest that money should not be a consideration when there’s something “right” to be done?”

                      Nope I suggested or implied nothing of the sort, that’s a twisted misrepresentation of the question I posed to Spartan. Why didn’t you attack Spartan in an equal manner for her direct implication that money is the only consideration – which is what I directly addressed? Why the double standard HT, WHY?

                      Humble Talent asked, “How do you justify companies using jobs as bait to lure foreign nationals into breaking the law?”

                      A company having a job available is a “bait to lure foreign nationals into breaking the law”? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? How dare those evil companies have jobs available; damn them all to hell and back! Seriously Humble Talent; are you listening to yourself?

                      No on the flip side of that; can you actually prove, using verifiable evidence, that there are literally companies actually baiting foreign nationals into breaking the law? If there are then the people at those companies that are making those decisions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

                      I think what you, deery, and Spartan have completely ignored are my statements that show that I think we should do BOTH secure the border and continue employment checks and we probably should be doing much more than just those two things! What you three appear to be ignoring is that the security of our physical nation actually starts at our borders and entry points, that MUST be a prominent concern and dealt with appropriately.

                      How many times do I have to say that employers that hire illegal immigrants should be prosecuted before you three actually believe that what I say is exactly what I believe?

                      How many times do I have to say that the United States Government is NOT doing it’s job to secure the borders, deport illegals immigrants, and prosecute those that hire illegal immigrants before you will acknowledge that it is a fact? It’s the governments JOB to secure the borders and the governments job to enforce the law including immigration law and the government has fallen flat on it damn face and NOT appropriately done its job; but go ahead and continue to blame businesses with your ludicrous smears.

                      Now lets please stop this ridiculous nonsense and move on.

                    • dragin_dragon

                      Z, this may be one of the most accurate representations of what NEEDS to happen I have ever heard. Thank you.

                    • “Nope I suggested or implied nothing of the sort, that’s a twisted misrepresentation of the question I posed to Spartan. Why didn’t you attack Spartan in an equal manner for her direct implication that money is the only consideration – which is what I directly addressed? Why the double standard HT, WHY?”

                      *snort* Hear that Spart? Zoltar thinks I won’t call you out when I think your wrong.

                      Seriously though. She isn’t saying that. I don’t think deery is either. If you take a step back and actually look at what they’re saying, nothing precludes active border security… They just don’t think that border security is a complete answer. And I think they’re right.

                      “A company having a job available is a “bait to lure foreign nationals into breaking the law”? What the hell kind of nonsense is that? How dare those evil companies have jobs available; damn them all to hell and back! Seriously Humble Talent; are you listening to yourself?”

                      Have you ever had a job in your life? Because if you have, then you know that you have to supply a Social Security Number to your employer. This isn’t a case of holding a job fair and an illegal immigrant wandering in off the street, an employer has to drastically circumvent the system in ways that are illegal even if the employees were citizens to pay these people. You should know this, but your bias is making you stupid.

                      “No on the flip side of that; can you actually prove, using verifiable evidence, that there are literally companies actually baiting foreign nationals into breaking the law? If there are then the people at those companies that are making those decisions should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.”

                      They… Employ…Them. I don’t know what kind of mental picture you have going here. No, there isn’t a guy with a dollar bill on a stick coaxing someone inch by inch over the border…. But these people are coming here because they think that someone is going to give them money, and when they get here, people give them money, then they tell the fam back home that people here are going to give them money, and the cycle continues.

                      “How many times do I have to say that employers that hire illegal immigrants should be prosecuted before you three actually believe that what I say is exactly what I believe?”

                      The problem is that we read all the other things you say, and every time we suggest actually doing that, you strawman us and treat us like we’re sharpening the pitchforks. No one has said, not once, that border security isn’t part of the solution, I challenge you to find a single instance of that, and it you can’t, maybe you should just stop.

                      “How many times do I have to say that the United States Government is NOT doing it’s job to secure the borders, deport illegals immigrants, and prosecute those that hire illegal immigrants before you will acknowledge that it is a fact?”

                      Oh do get fucked, sir. I gave the ICE statistics on the top of this comment section, America has detained and deported 2.3 million people in the last seven years, only about third of which in any calendar year were domestic. The departments are doing a decent job with an impossible task. I’m not the one struggling with facts.

                      “It’s the governments JOB to secure the borders and the governments job to enforce the law including immigration law and the government has fallen flat on it damn face and NOT appropriately done its job; but go ahead and continue to blame businesses with your ludicrous smears.”

                      Ludicrous….*tic*…Smears…? THEY DO IT you dishonest hack! They knowingly, predatorily employ cheap illegal labour, usually below the minimum wage, usually without taking deductions, usually without paying taxes. If any individual employer is not, then they aren’t the ones we’re talking about. And seeing as half of all illegal immigrants get to America in a plane and overstay as opposed to walking over the fucking border, you’re unhealthy fixation on a pile of stones will NEVER SOLVE THIS PROBLEM ON IT’S OWN. I know you’ve written the words, but I’m not convinced you understand them, because if we understand that the wall isn’t the complete answer, then you shouldn’t be so fucking staunchly opposed to a perfectly legitimate solution for the other half of the problem.

                      “Now lets please stop this ridiculous nonsense and move on.”

                      Drink bleach.

                    • Humble Talent,
                      “With all due respect, you’re starting to make “unhinged” look like safe haven.” H/T Cornelius Gotchberg @ madison.com

                      I think you’re in serious need of an exorcist today, you’ve been possessed by a… well…. you’ve been possessed.

                      After that spewage, I’ll go no further with you on this topic.

                    • Spartan

                      Zoltar — you do know that Humble secretly loves me, right?

                    • Spartan said, “Zoltar — you do know that Humble secretly loves me, right?”

                      Well that’s obvious. 😉 😉 😉

                    • deery said, “as long as there is demand for illegal immigration”

                      Here in lies the core of the fallacy; there is no “demand for illegal immigration”, none whatsoever! That’s a ginning up fallacy.

                      There are jobs available, and there are people willing to illegally come to the United States and take those jobs for less dollars per hour than a United States citizen would get at minimum wage. These under-cutting illegal immigrant job thieves need to be prosecuted and thrown the hell out of the country along with the illegals in their families, the businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants need to be prosecuted, AND the flow of illegals that actually make it across our borders needs to be diminished to a very small percentage of what it currently is. Simply put; if a person cross our border illegally they get thrown back on the other side of that same border at a legal border crossing point; the border needs to be a revolving door that immediately dumps illegal immigrants back on the side of the border from which they came, period!

                      The flow of illegal immigrants in this country must be a net negative value or the problems associated with illegal immigrants in the United States will never improve.

                      Time for excuses is over, this illegal immigration crap must stop.

                      Have I made myself crystal clear to all those that are reading?

                  • Spartan said, “These undocumented jobs is what is drawing illegal immigration to the US. Fix that and illegal immigration goes away.”

                    You keep talking about this as if there is only one aspect to this entire illegal immigration argument, that’s intellectually dishonest.

        • JutGory

          It is not as simple as that. It is not just a matter of not hiring people under the table. The Government knows that there are people here who are not permitted to work. But, the Government wants its money. So, the IRS set up a handy little thing called the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN). If you are here and not permitted to work but obligated to pay taxes (because you are somehow getting an income here), the ITIN gives you a number by which you can file your taxes every year. I would venture to say that 95% or more of ITIN holders are illegal aliens. They are not working for big companies (to do that, you need to get a fake or stolen SSN card), they open their own business. So, when I walk into a Mexican restaurant, I don’t know if it is run by a citizen or permanent resident, or if it is run by someone with an ITIN (and a kitchen full of ITIN holders).

          And, the IRS does not talk to ICE, because it’s all about the money.

          So, cracking down on employers only gets you so far, when it is very easy for an individual to get an ITIN, set up a corporation, get an EIN, and set up shop.

          The Government should be focused on the person here illegally because that is the job government is supposed to be addressing.

          And, frankly, I am not as concerned about the person working illegally or the company hiring the illegal alien. There is some twisted progressive notion that I need the government’s permission to work. It has all grown out of the income tax and social security. Now, it is fine for progressive to pretend that the government owns you and the fruits of your labor (after all, they are descendants of the slaveholders). But, conservatives have fallen into that mind-set and they really should know better.

          The Government does not own my body or the fruits of my labor. I do not need Government’s permission to work or sustain myself. Anyone thinking otherwise is a totalitarian at heart.

          So, shut up about the employers and demand that the Government do its job and pay attention to the fact that immigration is an area specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. For the Government to blame me for its inability to do its job is unacceptable.

          -Jut

          • “For the Government to blame me for its inability to do its job is unacceptable.”

            So much I agreed with, and then you went and tied it all up with crazy. It’s one thing to blame the government for not finding all the illegal immigrants, it’s another thing completely to blame the government for not finding all the illegal immigrants when you’re renting bedroom to them and paying them to build your deck.

            This should be the kind of thing the left and right actually agrees on, even if that agreement comes from ideologically different places.

        • Chris Marschner

          Deery, If I perform an ordinary amount of due diligence in hiring and consider any application from an individual as suspect if that individual speaks with a strong accent that I do not sense as native an proper how fast do you think it will take the justice department to find me guilty of discrimination? Wouldn’t there be a strong likelihood of disproportionate impact on minorities?

          Employers are required to obtain 2 forms of ID on the I9 form. The government dictates what are acceptable proofs of Identity. You can use a drivers license or military ID as one but the other must be a birth certificate (with seal) or a US Passport. These documents are often forged. Human resource personnel are neither trained nor equipped to ferret out forged documents.

          Your last line states if they would just perform the already required due diligence the problem would disappear. This suggests that most employers hire people to avoid paying higher wages. This is an unsupported claim.

          I will stipulate that many illegal immigrants would prefer to work rather than be receiving a handout. However, when work is no longer available and the conditions they escaped from are worse than being in poverty in the US then they will not self deport and are the forced into the underground economy. Women and girls are ripe for exploitation in the sex trafficking industry. Boys and men become cheap canon fodder for the cartels. Yes, support groups will emerge to provide relief and push for reform, but reform means legalization and access to more taxpayer provided benefits. And, the cycle continues.

          If open borders are so great why is Mexico trying to rid itself of Hondurans, Guatemalans, and Salvadorans?

          • I’d be willing to bet an extraordinary amount of money that the number of people working on forged documents is a fraction of a fraction of the people who get paid under the table by employers who ever file an I9. I’d be willing to let anyone who took photocopies of anything even resembling proper documentation completely off the hook… Those aren’t the people we’re talking about.

  6. Andy Ostroy is unquestionably a political hack being used as a political tool!

    I wonder what unethical political hack in the Democratic Party prodded Andy to write that nonsense? Were many thousands of dollars exchanged for spreading such ridiculous political propaganda; someone should check his bank account – seriously!

  7. Chris

    First, Donald Trump’s rhetoric is anti-illegal immigrant rhetoric, not “anti-immigrant.”

    No, it’s both. Trump has called for more limits on legal immigration many times. He also speaks strongly against refugees, who are legal immigrants.

    • Chris siaid, No, it’s both. Trump has called for more limits on legal immigration…”

      So in the mind of a politically left leaning person that defines Trump as an anti-legal immigration person? Yes or No

      Be very careful that just might be bait dangling at the end of a hook. You’ve been warned.

    • Regulating something is being against it? Anything short of unregulated immigration–that’s open borders by definition—is being anti-immigration?

      • Chris Marschner

        Jack ,regulating firearms to some on the left means outright bans.

      • Chris

        Regulating something is being against it? Anything short of unregulated immigration–that’s open borders by definition—is being anti-immigration?

        Is this a response to me? In what way? I never said regulating something was the same as being against it, nor did I call for unregulated immigration.

        I said that Trump opposes our current system of legal immigration and wants lower levels of legal immigration. That is an accurate representation of his stance (unless it’s changed since then–who knows).

        This alone does not make him “anti-immigrant.” But many of his most outlandish statements certainly do. Trump has questioned the impartiality of a judge because his parents were legal Mexican immigrants. He has said that Muslim refugees–legal immigrants–pose a huge threat.

        http://www.cato.org/blog/trump-against-legal-immigration-too

        To say he isn’t “anti-immigrant” absolutely astounds me.

        • Hilarious. You just said that wanting to regulate immigration proves that Trump is anti-immigrant after saying “I never said regulating something was the same as being against it.” Yet Trump’s proposals are just about regulating immigration, not stopping or discouraging it.

          • Jack,
            Here’s how critical thinking works for most of the political left…

            Republicans are wrong.

            …thus ends the critical thinking for most of the political left.

            The Ends Justify The Means

          • Chris

            Hilarious. You just said that wanting to regulate immigration proves that Trump is anti-immigrant after saying “I never said regulating something was the same as being against it.

            No, I didn’t. You seem to be equating “wants less immigrants” with “wants to regulate immigration.” You realize there are ways to regulate immigration without calling for fewer illegal immigrants, right?

            Furthermore, you have not addressed Trump’s anti-refugee sentiments, which are nakedly xenophobic. Saying Trump is not anti-immigrant sounds as ridiculous to me as saying he is not sexist would sound to you.

            • Chris

              Bah. That should have said “You realize there are ways to regulate immigration without calling for fewer LEGAL immigrants…”

            • It’s still a legitimate form of regulation, Chris. There are currently limits on LEGAL immigration, just not illegal immigration, a.k.a batshit crazytown. Deciding that there need to be fewer immigrants is no more anti-immigration than a library deciding that it needs fewer librarians is anti-librarian. Unless you are seriously arguing that any policy short of “Come on in, folks! The more the merrier!” is xenophobia, then your position makes no sense.

              • Chris

                Jack,

                I said more than once that wanting fewer immigrants alone doesn’t make Trump anti-immigrant.

                I said several times that Trump is anti-immigrant because of his nakedly xenophobic statements about immigrants and refugees.

    • Chris Marschner

      Like the 21 year old Syrian refugee posing as a 12 year old who was in fact a Jihadist

  8. Wayne

    I’m trying to figure out reasons why the guy wrote this incredibly stupid article. Can he not accept the fact that San Francisco being a sanctuary city was complicit in protecting this thug from being deported? If this happened to my wife, I would turn into another Marc Klaas (father of murdered 12 year old Polly Klaas) and do everything I could to get the law changed. There must be some sort of liberal PC guilt underlying Ostroy’s decision to write this nonsense.

  9. You hammer over and over again on the fact that this is about illegal immigrants, and yet you imply that this somehow constitutes a refutation of an open borders policy. You keep saying this is about illegal immigrants, not all immigrants, but under an open borders policy there would be very few illegal immigrants. So what’s the connection, other than the immigrants?

    On a related note, what’s your ethical opinion of the Underground Railroad which illegally smuggled black slaves into the northern states and of the people who helped them in the north, in clear violation of the democratically-passed Fugitive Slave Act?

    • Illegal immigration isn’t illegal as some kind of strange, accidental tweak of the law, illegal immigration is illegal because it describes a behaviour pattern that America wants to discourage. Whether as part of social engineering, or protectionism, or a slew of other reasons, some more valid than others… It’s fairly well accepted that a nation should be able to some extent to regulate the people that it welcomes into itself.

      Open borders doesn’t address the problem of illegal immigration, it just removes the legal ability to address the problems. It’s like saying that America has a murder problem, which would obviously go away if we only made murder legal.

      • Your murder hypothetical is an interesting example. We don’t say the problem is illegal murders. The problem is murders, and making them illegal is our way of fighting the problem. So what does that say about the relationship between immigrants and illegal immigrants? It’s just that they’re illegal, is it? They’re undesirable in some other way, with the illegality as a means of discouraging their immigration.

        “It’s fairly well accepted that a nation should be able to some extent to regulate the people that it welcomes into itself.”

        In other words, it is about the immigrants, not just about the illegal immigrants as Jack keeps saying. We as a society have decided that certain types of immigrants — such as serious criminals — are unwelcome, and those immigrants would be unwelcome whether they are illegal or not. Making it illegal is just a way of enforcing our pre-existing preferences against certain types of immigrants. We could very well oppose other immigrants, who just don’t happen to be illegal at this time.

        • I think you really have to tie yourself into a pretzel to get there… But I think I can make this clearer: You’re missing a piece: The label you’re missing is foreign national.

          An immigrant is someone who was a foreign national, but decided they wanted to live here, and displayed whatever traits the nation deems necessary for entry. An illegal immigrant is someone the nation doesn’t want, but decided to make their way in outside the law. A foreign national is someone who is not American, who may or may not wish to become American, if they want to be an immigrant, but are denied, and don’t come here illegally, then they are still a foreign national.

          Western Populations aren’t good at making babies, I think the natural birthrate is something like 1.6 children per woman. because of that fundamental truth, if nothing else, and I think there is much else, America needs immigration. What it doesn’t need are program leeches, Cartel Criminals, or Radical Jihadis. And so a certain throttle on immigration is part of the design, but that throttle doesn’t drop people undocumented in New Mexico… No, illegal immigrants become illegal immigrants when they make the choice to defy immigration law.

          • Did western populations forget to read the instruction manual on how to make babies?

            • Spartan

              No, they read those nifty online calculators now that tell you how much college will cost 18 years out. They scare you straight. That’s why we stopped at 2 and the vast majority of our friends stopped at 2. The rest of our friends stayed at 0 and won’t be living off cat food in their retirement like me and my husband.

              • My sister recommends Whiskas.

              • Interestingly enough, I read projections that the world’s population will become unsustainable in the near future. I doubt this. As the world modernizes (and it will unless the jihadis have their way, but even then the jihadis will probably be modernized out of existence after this post-WW2 oil induced middle-eastern population boom subsides)…but I digress. As the world modernizes EVERYONE’s cost of living will go up. Globally. This will actually have the effect of slowing population growth noticeably. I think as a world we peak somewhere between 10-12 billion, then we start a decline in population to a stable balance somewhere around 9.

                • dragin_dragon

                  Paul Ehrlich, Tex, made these dire predictions in his 1970-something ‘The Population Bomb’. He actually predicted the fall of civilization and the death of the human race, before 1984 from massive famine. I am told he has updated his doomsday scenario for more modern times, but he’s still failing to take into account leaps in food-production technology, which is what made him wrong in the first place.

  10. I confess: I am confused. Was his wife killed by an illegal alien/undocumented im/migrant or by a criminal who just happened to be an illegal alien/undocumented im/migrant? The convicted killer is Diego Pillco, a 19-year-old Ecuadorian who may or may not be an illegal immigrant.

    From what I understand, the author’s wife, Adrienne Shelly, was murdered by this guy Pillco, and he staged the scene to make it look like she committed suicide by wrapping a sheet around her neck and hanged her in her shower at her Greenwich Village office. (Nice touch.) Apparently, this nice young man told the police that, while on a work break, he had noticed Shelly returning to her apartment and followed her. After assaulting her and rendering her unconscious, he killed her by staging the fake suicide. What a peach. (In his first version, though, he told the police that Shelly asked him to reduce the noise where he was working and he got mad, threw a hammer at her and, afraid she would make a complaint that might result in his deportation, followed her back to her apartment, where the petite 40-year-old hit him, and was killed by a fall during a struggle. Again, what a peach.)

    Prosecutors reportedly thought if charged with murder Pillco might return to his original account and a jury trial could find him guilty of a lesser charge. So, the prosecutor made plea deal where Pillco was convicted of first-degree manslaughter and was sentenced to 25 years in prison without parole. Shelly’s husband appeared at the sentencing ;phase and said he and said he and his family would never forgive him, and that Pillco was nothing more than a coldblooded killer and that he hoped Pillco would “rot in jail”

    Afterwards, Shelly’s grieving husband sued contractor Bradford General Contractors, which had hired Pillco. In his lawsuit, the widower alleged, among other things, that “‘Pillco was an undocumented immigrant…’ Did you see what he did there? Pillco was an undocumented immigrant for the purposes of establishing civil (monetary) liability for Shelly’s death against the contractor and the building owner but he was not an undocumented immigrant for the purposes of criminal liability for the vicious crime Pillco committed against Shelly. That’s a cool spin, no? I realize that arguing in the alternative is quite common in legal proceedings, but this is quite a turn of phrase, no?

    I have read and re-read the op-ed piece, along with some of the comments about it. I don’t know which is more bewildering: The author’s cold, calculated rationalizations and apologies for the killer’s immigration status or the comments commending him for his strength of character and righteousness. The article’s tone makes me think of “It’s not personal, Sonny; it’s business.” The author describes that they took the deal because it made good business sense to do so. He writes, “We took the deal. It was, simply, a business decision, albeit one with a hefty emotional price tag.” That is an amazingly position – it’s just business, you know? Yet, the comments range from the “he’s an illegal alien” to “his immigration status is irrelevant to the crime because we are a country of immigrants”.

    jvb

  11. Paul Compton

    Wayne, I just have to pick up on something you said:

    “If this happened to my wife, I would turn into another Marc Klaas (father of murdered 12 year old Polly Klaas) and do everything I could to get the law changed.”

    Why wait until AFTER your wife was killed? Would a friends wife do? A neighbours? Someone in the same city? How about Polly Klaas?

    • Wayne B

      Paul, I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. The sanctuary city laws are idiotic and of course they result in the loss of life of many people. I am already committed to changing them asap.

  12. Paul Compton

    Sorry Wayne, I missed the depth of your position and jumped in on the incorrectly perceived shallowness of the: “If my …. I would”. My bad.

    I’m all bitter and twisted about the fact that so often people won’t get involved unless they are directly and personally affected. Perhaps this is because I so often see this failing in myself. Martin Niemöller’s statement rather sums up that attitude, although he did speak up at great personal cost.

    I have a real struggle finding the balance between isolationism, which at its best represents the attitude that I don’t have the right to interfere in other peoples lives and at worst cowardice that allows the little old lady to be beaten up by thugs because she is on the other side of the street and therefore not my problem, and interventionism which at ITs best is highly altruistic and at it’s worst bigoted egotism, imperialism and opportunism.

    • dragin_dragon

      The religion of Islam views women in very specific ways and puts stringent limits on their actions, modes of dress and, yes, thought patterns. Western women do not subscribe to any of those restrictions; thus are considered sluts, whores and hookers by most, if not all, Muslim men. They are, therefore, subject to any sort of depraved treatment the Muslim men devise. I would venture to guess that the Muslim men in question do not express any remorse at all and don’t really understand what all the fuss is about, in spite of what the article claims the young Serbs said.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s