L.A. Times Finally Reports (In a Whisper) Immigration Status of Man Who Killed CHP Officer
The L.A. Times today finally reports on the immigration status of Domingo Esqueda, the suspected illegal immigrant and drunk driver who recently killed a CHP officer. In a story about the motorist’s arraignment, The Times reports:
Immigration authorities have placed a “hold” on Esqueda, a Mexican national, because they believe he may be in the country illegally, said Lori Haley, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokeswoman. He will be turned over to immigration officials after his criminal proceedings.
The L.A. Times has now finally caught up to its desert counterparts, the Victorville Daily Press and Barstow’s Desert Dispatch, both of which scooped The Times on this story.
Of course, the revelation in today’s Times story is given no prominence; it appears in a story on page B6. Meanwhile, the paper’s lead story on Page A1 opens:
Wading back into the growing debate over illegal immigration, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony on Tuesday denounced what he called “hysterical” anti-immigrant sentiment sweeping California and the nation.
Tell that to the family of CHP officer Gregory John Bailey.
It doesn’t take a drunk, illegal immigrant to run someone down. Sadly, U.S. citizens do it all too often.
Are illegal Mexicans disproportionately responsible for these deaths? If not, Esqueda’s case seems like a weak argument for tighter immigration.
Consider: Six CHP officers have been killed in the past five months in traffic incidents. Esqueda alone, as far as we know, was here illegally.
Which isn’t to say Esqueda’s status should be scrubbed from the story. Demanding its inclusion, however, seems arbitrary and like a petty attempt to paint all illegal Mexicans as dangerous criminals.
d-man (f3bcff) — 3/1/2006 @ 11:03 amPatterico, your ideology is so virulent and antagonistic that it causes you to see LAT conspiracies where there are none. This tragedy is a great example
Your immediate reaction to the story on the officer’s murder is to question the legal status ofthe immigrant driver, and to begin your charge that this is another example of LAT bias. {A reaction that seems less than compassionate, but then this is your blog, and it’s your conscience.)
In your later posts, you continued to demean the paper for not identifying the suspect’s status, when in fact no other media outlet had verified it, either. Because it had not been confirmed.
You even sarcastically headlined one post:
“…We’ll Be Reading About This in the L.A. Times Real Soon.” (02/27). Well, in fact, we did read about it real soon. Two days later. As soon as the paper had factual verification of the suspect’s status (on /2/28), a story quoting an Immigration authority was in the paper on the nex day.
Again, it seems the earlier speculation about the guy’s status had not risen to fact; when it did, the LAT reported it immediately.
Finally, you refer to the prominent p1 play given to the Cardinal Mahony story. Characteristically, you mistake prominence within the paper for whether the paper advocates for or against a certain position. That the Cardinal came out with such a sweeping call for civil disobedience among 288 parishes qualifies as significant & breaking news. Thus, p.1 play.
The Cardinal story, in fact, does a lot to belie your theory that the LAT is trying to bury the issue of illegal immigration. Indeed, the story and the placement are assured to incite greater sentiment on all sides of the issue.
I’m sure the the murderer’s illegal status will be seized upon by community leaders, issue advocates and opinion columnists, and it should be. The LAT’s news gathering job, however, is to provide accurate information, contect and story-telling. Not advocate for various causes and issues.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 3/1/2006 @ 11:32 amThis quote struck me: ” Al Qaeda operatives would not trek through miles of deadly desert to infiltrate the nation.”
So suicide bombers from a desert region would be less willing than the millions of illegal immigrants already crossing the border to cross this deadly desert?
Eddie Colletta (f7e3d3) — 3/1/2006 @ 11:44 amRe. 3, Eddie: I missed that quote on first reading. I can’t think of a more idiotic notion. It’s so blatantly and comically wrong that he’s diminishing the idea of religious sanctuary, which has some ethical and humane substance.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 3/1/2006 @ 1:19 pm#1) 1/6 = 16.7%. It would be startling news if 16.7% of police officer deaths in America were caused by illegal aliens.
perfectsense (024110) — 3/1/2006 @ 1:20 pmjmaharry,
I invite people to read my posts rather than rely solely on your characterization. I have been very careful with my wording throughout my discussion of this issue; your characterization of my posts seems to suggest otherwise.
Your immediate reaction to the story on the officer’s murder is to question the legal status ofthe immigrant driver, and to begin your charge that this is another example of LAT bias. {A reaction that seems less than compassionate, but then this is your blog, and it’s your conscience.)
“Compassionate”? “Conscience”?
I have no idea what your point is here. How have I shown any lack of compassion or conscience? I just don’t get your point . . . at all.
You seem to be making assumptions about my position on immigration. You’re not a long-time reader, I know. I discuss the topic at some length here, including what I would do about it.
I don’t expect everyone to be fully familiar with all my views — but if you’re going to start questioning my compassion or conscience, I think you owe it to yourself to find out what my actual views are. Or if you don’t know, you could always just ask.
As soon as the paper had factual verification of the suspect’s status (on /2/28), a story quoting an Immigration authority was in the paper on the nex day.
Two small desert papers scooped the LAT on critical details of the story. One had details two days ago that would have put any reasonable person on notice that the defendant was likely illegal. Another had official confirmation yesterday. The LAT is slow out of the starter’s gate.
I wonder why?
Patterico (4d4be8) — 3/1/2006 @ 1:30 pm6, Patterico: My point isn’t about your views on immigration.
My point concerns your ideological ferver to prove some kind of bias at the LAT. I hinted at this in my first line: “Your ideology is so…”
The officer gets mowed down, and a few hours later you’re posting to score points in your ongoing war against the LAT, and making a joke in the process. I think that’s pretty cold, i.e., lacking in compassion.
I think your response to my #6 is a dodge anyway, as I have a valid point, and addtionally called you out on your sarcastic headline. You certainly won’t admit this, so it’s easier for you to obfuscate things.
Or, perhaps, I was unclear in what I was saying above..
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 3/1/2006 @ 3:49 pmThere is in, fact, a point to be made about illegal immigrants being made a “protected group” (both by compassionate well-meaning people and by limousine liberals who need them to mow their lawns, look after their kids and
nk (47858f) — 3/1/2006 @ 4:38 pmpluck their chickenspick their vegetables at substandard wages). Several points actually but the main one being thst they are criminals solely by virtue of being here. To ignore or downplay the fact of illegal immigration seems to me to be the equivalent of downplaying or ignoring the criminal history of any other homicide suspect. Is the LAT restrained in its “police blotter” stories about the rap-sheets of other suspects? If so, it will be the first news source I have heard of that is.You know, there’s a lot of fault to go around on the “illegal immigration” thing. I wonder how many homeowners card their gardener’s helpers or their housecleaners. Do you only have your car washed by legal immigrants? Do you question the busboy as he cleans away your table?
Until we are willing to do these things, there will always be people who want to take these crappy jobs because it’s far better than starving in Mexico.
The problem isn’t illegal immigration, it’s the insane policies that limit legal immigration. Supply meets demand, regardless of the law. If you want orderly immigration, create a system that allows for it. We don’t have that now, walls won’t help, the border patrol can’t help, nothing will help as long as citizens find it necessary to import the labor they need.
I’d probably feel different if there were lots of Americans standing outside Home Depot looking for work. There aren’t, and if there were some do-gooder would be helping them get welfare instead.
I really can’t fault people who come here to work their asses off in hope of a better life. We need to do a better job of matching our laws with reality. As it stands, it’s kind of like the 55MPH speed limit: widely ignored.
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 3/1/2006 @ 4:41 pmNK–
As I alluded to in the last post, when millions are ignoring a law, the problem is likely with the law.
Tell me, when the 55MPH federal speed limit was in force, do you think that the majority that ignored it were “criminals solely by virtue of” exceeding it? Or was the law so stupid as to be unenforcable?
Kevin Murphy (9982dd) — 3/1/2006 @ 4:46 pmKevin,
Regardless of whether I agree with you about our
nk (57e995) — 3/1/2006 @ 5:04 pmirrational immigration laws (and I probably do — they have been described as “representing the fears and prejudices of the times in which they were passed”), I do not believe that that leaves the LAT off the hook. As I alluded before, have they ever restrained themselves about the criminal history of a poor black/white/Indian/Eskimo suspect?
Another had official confirmation yesterday. – Patterico
You mean the Victorville Daily Press?
They called him a “suspected illegal immigrant” and quoted unnamed officials saying, what the Barstow paper revealed, that Esqueda “was found in possession of multiple forms of identification with different names.”
That’s not “official confirmation.” It’s more one paper failing to attribute new information to the one that broke it. A bit discourteous. Entirely within norms.
http://www.vvdailypress.com/2006/114113738998996.html
steve (ab55e3) — 3/1/2006 @ 5:12 pmI disagree with the view that says that no one is willing to do certain jobs. I don’t see it that way at all. The problem is that people are not willing to pay enough for the jobs to attract workers. Pay enough and the work will get done.
Also, so much for letting the free market work in the U.S.: taking advantage of people who are desperate to make a couple of bucks isn’t something to be proud of either.
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/1/2006 @ 5:24 pmRe 7, my own post, two more things:
Ferver should have been fervor.
And, me questioning whether one of your posts is compassionate is a far, far different thing than questioning your compassion as a human being. But, then you know that — mistaking a specific case for a general condition must be one of the rhetorical tricks you use in court.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 3/1/2006 @ 5:27 pmThe officer gets mowed down, and a few hours later you’re posting to score points in your ongoing war against the LAT, and making a joke in the process. I think that’s pretty cold, i.e., lacking in compassion.
To say that I don’t have compassion for the family of the slain officer is, to put it bluntly, a bunch of crap.
Have you ever been to a police officer’s funeral? I have. I have great respect for what police officers do — hence my criticism of the paper.
I am criticizing a newspaper’s decision to delay and downplay the publication of information relevant to a critical debate in Southern California, regarding a policy (lax immigration policy) that has arguably cost this officer his life. Spare me the lectures about compassion.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 5:38 pmThey called him a “suspected illegal immigrant” and quoted unnamed officials saying, what the Barstow paper revealed, that Esqueda “was found in possession of multiple forms of identification with different names.”
That’s not “official confirmation.”
Here is a quote directly from the story, steve:
Sounds like official confirmation to me. The fact that the officials gave additional information about the suspect doesn’t mean that officials didn’t say he was a suspected illegal; to the contrary, the story explicitly says that officials *did* say that.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 5:43 pmDemanding its inclusion, however, seems arbitrary and like a petty attempt to paint all illegal Mexicans as dangerous criminals.
I’ll be blunt again: bullshit. It’s an attempt to get a paper to print relevant information. Pure and simple.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 5:44 pmSorry Patterico, but to an extent I suspect that you’re proving jmaharry’s point in # 17. Not mentioning his citizenship is relevant because a man was killed by an illegal immigrant. Why point that out if it didn’t make illegal aliens look bad? Or if I’m wrong, then how is it “relevant information?”
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/1/2006 @ 6:01 pmjmaharry
If the murderer in this case were an escaped prisoner, would it be “arbitrary and a little petty” to ask that the LAT report it? No. What’s the difference? Neither belongs driving around on the streets of CA, drunk or sober. If he was in Mexico, where he legally belongs, the officer would be eating dinner with his family right now. Instead he is in a box.
nyy23dm (907320) — 3/1/2006 @ 6:10 pmSorry Patterico, but to an extent I suspect that you’re proving jmaharry’s point in # 17. Not mentioning his citizenship is relevant because a man was killed by an illegal immigrant. Why point that out if it didn’t make illegal aliens look bad? Or if I’m wrong, then how is it “relevant information?”
I’m really struggling to remain civil because my point seems so basic and I’m essentially being accused of racism by people who are having a hard time reading simple arguments.
It’s relevant information, once again, because if this illegal immigrant were not here, this officer would be alive. In other words, what nyy23dm said in #19.
We hear all the time about the wonderful benefits of illegal immigration: cheap lettuce at the store and a low-cost nanny for your kids. Well, there are costs, too. Here’s one of them: Gregory John Bailey.
That is a far cry from “paint[ing] all illegal Mexicans as dangerous criminals.” Of *course* they are not, and of *course* I am not saying they are.
It’s stupid for me to even have to say this. Can’t you people read?
A fair reader of my posts on this issue would not be making such ridiculous accusations.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 6:50 pmI’m not accusing you of racism Patterico. I don’t agree with the way jmaharry phrased that, actually, so I should’ve explained that. I’m just accusing you of not liking illegal aliens. I don’t like them either, but for different reasons. At any rate, your singling out a murderer does seem to me to be trying to paint them as ruthless and I just don’t like that tactic, that’s all.
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/1/2006 @ 7:14 pmAt any rate, your singling out a murderer does seem to me to be trying to paint them as ruthless and I just don’t like that tactic, that’s all.
Well, I don’t either, which I why I don’t use that tactic. I don’t think all illegal immigrants are ruthless, and anyone who said something that stupid would earn my just contempt.
The guy has *not* been charged with murder, by the way, but simply vehicular manslaughter. That suggests to me that he has no prior DUIs, since if he did he might be a candidate for a “Watson” murder charge.
I could say: “I don’t like your tactic of attempting to paint him as a murderer when he has not been charged with that.” But that would be a silly thing to say — wouldn’t it?
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 7:22 pmNo one “needs” to hire illegals. Many employers want to do so, however, because it’s so cheap – for them. Unfortunately, though, illegal aliens are not cheap in general. Domingo Esqueda appears to be a case in point. From the perspective of society as a whole, his presence in the U.S. was a really bad deal. But from his employer’s perspective, I have no doubt he was a bargain.
Xrlq (debb7e) — 3/1/2006 @ 7:36 pmThe purpose of this series of articles is to reveal “…information relevant to a critical debate in Southern California…” and it just so happens that the man is accused of “vehicular manslaughter.” And yet you’re not trying to make them look bad?
Psyberian (9eb2a7) — 3/1/2006 @ 7:37 pm“Criminals” is too strong a term, as speeding is an infraction, not a crime. More importantly, I’m not sure that the stupidity of the 55 mph speed limit transfers to the non-stupidity of those who advocate securing our borders. What does transfer is that in both cases, it’s far from clear that the government has ever seriously tried to enforce the law, so I think it’s a bit premature to declare such laws “unenforceable.” I have little doubt that if driving 56 mph were punishable by death, we’d quickly find out that the 55 mph speed limit was pretty damned enforceable after all.
Perhaps you’re using the -able suffix in the same ambiguous way that the Annals of Improbable Research once used -ible, back in the days when they were called the Journal of Irreproducible Results, and “irreproducible” meant either that the results cannot be reproduced, or that they should not be reproduced.
Xrlq (debb7e) — 3/1/2006 @ 7:45 pmPsyberian–
The problem is that people are not willing to pay enough for the jobs to attract workers. Pay enough and the work will get done.
So, you’d set the bar so high that young people, immigrants (legal) or marginal workers with minimal skills can’t get work? Employers will hire only the most qualified people that apply. That will be from a different set at $10/hour than at $5/hour.
You may think that this is a kindness to the working poor, but what it really does is force them out of the job market. Not a kind thing at all.
I’ll bet you $100 against a jelly donut that there are no non-Latinos standing outside Home Depot for work — and that usually pays more than minimum wage, BTW.
The only thing that the current immigration law manages to reliably do is prevent the collection of taxes from these workers.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/1/2006 @ 7:54 pmThere is an INS hold on Esqueda. I think that about cinches the question of his status.
Tomorrow is the viewing of Officer Bailey, funeral on Friday.
The illegal status is, indeed, relevant. As I pointed out in another thread on this subject, last November Jaime Zavala Garcia gunned down a CHP Officer on Interstate 15 in Ontario … that officer survived while Jaime (illegal) and his brother fled the state towards Kansas.
There is an incentive for illegals to flee the state…if they can make it to Mexico they will NOT be extradited if they face the death penality or LWOP.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:09 pmxrlq–
You assume that we can secure our borders. You also assume that the best way to do so is by draconian law enforcement. You also assume that we really want to.
People pay what they are willing to pay for certain work. Some jobs only get done at a certain price. Double the cost and you don’t have happy well-paid workers, you have no job and no worker. At $30 for a car wash, I’ll damn well do it myself.
Here we have a case of willing workers (more than willing — they climb over barbed wire fences to get these jobs) and willing employers. Why is it necessary for government to get in the way? I never took you for a union hack, but that’s about the only group that gains from preventing these contracts.
The answer is to reform the immigration laws so that Mexican immigration is given large quotas, and the need (in at least an economic sense) for low-cost labor is met. The current setup is untenable and all the police in the world won’t fix it (nor would it be a very nice place to live if it would).
What I really don’t get is the need to restrict immigration this way. Why? If you’re concerned about welfare costs, enforce laws about immigrants getting that, but the current movement against illegals borders on a general anti-immigrant crusade. Nothing that is being said involves how to do this thing orderly — it’s almost as though the legal status isn’t the real issue.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:10 pmI think the Mexican Supreme Court changed the rules to allow extradition for LWOP crimes. Didn’t the killer of Dep. March just get caught, and didn’t the Mexican government agree to extradite him for an LWOP trial?
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:12 pmThe purpose of this series of articles is to reveal “…information relevant to a critical debate in Southern California…” and it just so happens that the man is accused of “vehicular manslaughter.” And yet you’re not trying to make them look bad?
If you want a response, you’re going to have to make an intelligible point. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Honestly.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:13 pmGood Lord, talk about over analyzation and nitpicking. The bottom line is the Times has a history of omitting or whitewashing details regarding ethnicity or immigration status if it suits their agenda. A few examples:
The Times regularly decries the large number of Californians without health insurance while rarely mentioning the great majority are in the country illegally.
The Times often speaks of California per student funding being among the worst in the country. I have never seen the Times point out that this is because we are educating the children Mexico without reimbursment. If you look at the total dollars spent vs. the number of students that are US citizens, California is among the leaders.
Can anyone remember the Times reporting on a “hate crime” that was not commited by a white male? Have any of the Hispanic/African-American jail brawls been described as hate crimes? Of course not, they are reported as ethnic differences that must be solved by the LA County Sheriff’s Office power structure (white, by the way).
The Times has a long history of this sort of thing. If the Times thinks revealing the racial component of a story will harm their agenda, the information is usually witheld. Trying to nitpick the details of this particular story (i.e. what did the Barstow Bird Cage Liner mean by *suspected* illegal alien..) is a crude attempt at obfuscating the issue.
Jeff C (428193) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:15 pmWhat I really don’t get is the need to restrict immigration this way. Why? If you’re concerned about welfare costs, enforce laws about immigrants getting that, but the current movement against illegals borders on a general anti-immigrant crusade. Nothing that is being said involves how to do this thing orderly — it’s almost as though the legal status isn’t the real issue.
I assume you’re not talking about me. I gave my opinion in a post linked up the thread in comment #6.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:27 pmI’m just accusing you of not liking illegal aliens.
That’s wrong too. I don’t like illegal immigration. I’m sure I would like plenty of illegal immigrants.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:31 pmI’m with Kevin on this (comment #26). Our current immigration laws seem expressly designed to provide a supply of slave labor — illegal immigrants who dare not unionize or complain about low wages or working conditions. It may be the fault of their home country for not being able to afford them a decent living but it is just as much our fault for exploiting them. At first I was sceptical about President Bush’s Guest Worker Program but now I would endorse it wholeheartedly if it included a mandatory 10-year prison sentence for any employer who did not properly sponsor his otherwise illegal worker. Anyway, that’s not the law we have right now and I think our host has a very good point about the treatment of illegal immigration by news sources who would try to find and publish my vehicular accident record if I ever caught their attention.
nk (bfc26a) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:32 pmEveryone reading this comment thread: read this post of mine. I linked it up the thread, but it’s clear that nobody is reading it. I address: compassion for illegal immigrants; the argument that Americans won’t do shit jobs; GWB’s guest worker program; etc. So go read it already.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:42 pmHey, Patterico. Don’t let them change the subject. Let the question be not whether the children of sharecroppers should stil chop cotton but whether foreign cotton-choppers should be allowed into our country according to law.
nk (bfc26a) — 3/1/2006 @ 8:53 pmIf no American citizen or legal immigrant is willing to wash your car for a price you are willing to pay, then maybe you should do it yourself. Why should the rest of society put up with more crime, pay more welfare benefits (which I define broadly, to include ER visits, government schools, and all the other net costs of illegal immigration), just so you can get your car washed on the cheap? In effect, you’re asking the rest of us to subsidize your car wash. No, gracias.
That “need,” which is really just a desire to get something for nothing, will never be met. As long as we have anything short of completely open borders, it will always be cheaper – to the employer, that is – to pay illegals under the table rather than hire legals above board. What you’re missing is that the free market only works when rational market actors make genuine cost-benefit analyses. That will never happen when one person reaps the benefit and another bears the cost. If a truly civic minded employer had considered hiring Domingo Esqueda, he might have looked at the guy’s criminal history, hired an actuary to determine how much he’d save the employer in wages vs. how much he’d cost society by using public resources disproportionally, and concluded that on balance, Esqueda was a bad investment. But why the devil should be think that way? After all, he, as the employer, stood to gain almost all of the benefits of Esqueda’s cheap labor, while bearing no more of the costs than any other member of society. Sure, Esqueda could have ended up running over his employer, which would have truly sucked for him, but the employer could discount that possibility heavily because it was no more likely to happen to him than to anyone else.
Xrlq (debb7e) — 3/1/2006 @ 9:06 pmPatterico
You’re correct. I forgot about the Mexican Supreme Court ruling. Hopefully that will get the more heinous murderers who have fled across the border extradicted up here.
nk
What you fail to understand is that the Mexican government has an incentive to keep illegal aliens in the US – estimated at around 10 million — that’s the cold hard cash these illegals send to Mexico on a regular basis. Indeed, it generates more revenue to Mexico than their oil industry.
And PUH-LEESE, let’s stop with the “doing jobs no one else wants”… don’t Americans do construction work any more? Install drywall? Install swimming pools?
Employers wanting to lowbid a project find lots of illegal aliens willing to work for a bit less and for under the table cash because the illegals have no stake in America. They live 15 to a small house in order to gather as much cash as possible to send home.
And that’s the honest ones. Hispanic gangs are heavily illegal and engaged in violent crime. The Mexican Mafia is a heavy presence in the CA prison system and is very territorial about the drug trade it controls in the state.
I’d like to see the contractors who stop into Home Depot or other “day laborer” areas and pick up illegals get busted and tossed into jail.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/1/2006 @ 9:24 pmI disagree with the view that says that no one is willing to do certain jobs. I don’t see it that way at all. The problem is that people are not willing to pay enough for the jobs to attract workers. Pay enough and the work will get done.
That’s another way of saying that the market value of the labor is lower than what most Americans would be willing to accept. Exactly what are you suggesting here? If a business would get $5/hour of value if a certain job were done, are you saying the business should pay $15/hour for the laborer anyway? If you insisted, the business would choose to do without the labor rather than overpaying for it… and one more person who might have been perfectly happy with $5/hour will be unemployed.
Also, so much for letting the free market work in the U.S.: taking advantage of people who are desperate to make a couple of bucks isn’t something to be proud of either.
Wait, what? What you describe is exactly the way the free market works. Supply and demand determine prices. Insisting that people pay more for a commodity (labor) than they value it, that’s interfering with the free market.
What you call “taking advantage of people who are desperate to make a couple of bucks”, I call “entering into a mutually-beneficial relationship with a willing partner”… and I think it is something to be proud of.
Voice of Reason (d427f3) — 3/1/2006 @ 9:54 pm8: “illegal immigrants being made a “protected group” (both by compassionate well-meaning people and by limousine liberals who need them to mow their lawns, look after their kids and pluck their chickens pick their vegetables at substandard wages).”
There are more groups involved than that. Banks want their deposits and mortgages, banks and Mexico want their remittances, corrupt politicians like Bush want donations from companies that profit off illegal immigration, the far left wants a proletariat, racial power groups want more racial power, and speaking of which, Gil Cedillo wanted to include immigration status in the Unruh Act.
9. Has some fine but low-wattage libertarian comments. Does he support massively subsidized labor, which is what illegal labor is? Does he support all the ancillary costs of illegal labor?
In 28., it continues. Here’s some news: 40% of Mexico’s population wants to move here. We cannot and should not let them in. And, if car washes cost $30, people would either do it themselves, or magical car washing machines would be invented.
That’s better than throwing foreign serf labor at the problem.
And, while the economic analysis is fun and all, allowing massive illegal immigration or even massive immigration from one country threatens the foundation of this country.
An instance can be found in another subject the LAT doesn’t cover: the political power that Mexico has inside the U.S. They even admit it, and they even admit that sending us more people gives them more power.
And, they’re able to find large numbers of useful idiots and outright traitors to help them with their goals.
TLB (f227f8) — 3/1/2006 @ 10:56 pmVoice
You are correct to a certain point if we were dealing with a level playing field.
However, illegals are competing unfairly with legals because they not only take a lower amount in pure cash and they both do not contribute, via taxes, to the infrastructure, but they also take advantage of the legals who DO contribute. They get education, medical care for free. Many get public assistance through fraud.
So Employer A plays by the rules – hired legals, pays payroll taxes, worker’s comp, social security, etc, carries insurance then loses a contract to Employer B who puts together an ad hoc crew of people he pays cash under the table while fudging his paperwork.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/1/2006 @ 10:59 pmRe: 15, Patterico
I was surprised by your vehement mischaracterization of my earlier posts and sentiments. Unfortunately, you refuse to deal with the germane points of the discussion we began on 2/27.
(To wit: What is the nationality/status of a perp? When that important to the story from journo. terms? When is that status confirmed? What is the LAT policy on these questions? Etc.)
Your interpretation that I don’t think you “have compassion for the family” is ridiculous. In #14, I delineated a very different idea.
From your first mention of the story on 2/27, I tracked right along with your accusations concerning the LAT’s “coverup” of the murderer/suspect’s immigration status. You sarcastically headed a post “…We’ll be hearing about this in the LAT real soon.” That was answered soon enough, indeed. The LAT confirmed the scumbag cop-killer was an illegal just two days later, when an INS official confirmed he was illegal.
Maybe you have too many threads/arguments going on to address this one cogently (and without venom). Or, perhaps you’re relying on rhetorical canards learned from your time in front of juries. Or, you’re just trusting that all these threads and posts get too confusing for people to realistically track.
Whatever — rhetorically asking if I’ve been to an officer’s funeral is not a reasonable answer, and hardly does much to reach a logical conclusion.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 3/2/2006 @ 2:57 amMaybe I’ve missed something here, but all of the debate seems to be focused on the fact that Mr. Esqueda was in the country illegally. It also seems to be true that he was
Driving without a license; and
Driving while intoxicated.
If the complaint is that we are not adequately enforcing the immigration laws, why aren’t we also complaining about the DWI laws and licensing laws not being enforced?
Dana (3e4784) — 3/2/2006 @ 3:29 amWell, they are. He has been arrested and is being prosecuted for that. Fat lot of good that does Officer Bailey.
Enforcing those laws wouldn’t have prevented this tragedy. Enforcing immigration laws might have.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/2/2006 @ 3:39 amOr, perhaps you’re relying on rhetorical canards learned from your time in front of juries. Or, you’re just trusting that all these threads and posts get too confusing for people to realistically track.
I’m not really interested in continuing a conversation with you since you have this habit of suggesting that I’m being dishonest. I already told you that the LAT got scooped by the small desert papers — and I figure it’s because the LAT reporters involved weren’t particularly interested in asking the relevant questions, and perhaps even thought it might be racist to do so. Maybe the reporters at the desert papers were more curious about this issue, as I was, and thereby reported the official confirmation of the immigrant’s status (as reported in the Victorville paper) at least a day before the largest newspaper in the region did.
I don’t want to overstate my own role, but recall that I did send the information to the Readers’ Representative, who forwarded it to the relevant editors and reporters. Had I not done that, it might not have been reported as early as it was — which was still later than other papers considered less prestigious.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/2/2006 @ 3:44 amOur esteemed host responded:
Whoa! If the DWI and licensure laws had been enforced, then Mr. Esqueda wouldn’t have been on the road, driving while intoxicated, even if he was in the country, in which case Officer Bailey would still be alive.
If, on the other hand, you are saying that the DWI and licensure laws cannot be enforced until after a violation has occurred and the police become aware of it, then the same standard would apply to the immigration laws: they couldn’t be enforced (which seems to be the case here) until the authorities know that a particular person is here illegally.
[What about the wacky concept of devoting some real resources to keeping them out in the first place? — P]
Dana (3e4784) — 3/2/2006 @ 3:59 amDana
they couldn’t be enforced (which seems to be the case here) until the authorities know that a particular person is here illegally.
Uh, Dana? A lot of police agencies are under orders not to pick up even known illegals, or even inquire about a person’s immigration status.
Darleen (f20213) — 3/2/2006 @ 7:09 am“Mahony, a Los Angeles native of Italian and German descent, said his personal passion on the issue was sparked as a child, when he became close to the mostly Mexican immigrants who were hired to work at his father’s poultry plant in the San Fernando Valley.
As an elementary school student, Mahony said, he personally witnessed what he called a “terrifying” immigration raid on his father’s plant, leaving him with an indelible impression about the abuse of immigrant workers.”
According to Wikipedia, the Cardinal was born in 1936.
Immigration from the western hemisphere was unrestricted before 1965:
http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=research_research9c29
It, of course wouldn’t be fair to accuse the good Cardinal of making his anecdote up, but….
tm90007 (a6543d) — 3/2/2006 @ 7:40 pmRe 46, Now you’re taking partial credit for the LAT reporting on a Tuesday what an INS official said on the preceding Monday. Because of your email to the LAT’s Reader’s Rep.
I find that sequence of events highly implausible.
jmaharry (74c3ec) — 3/2/2006 @ 8:25 pmI’m not taking credit for it, I’m pointing out a possibility that you don’t find plausible, perhaps in part because you have the dates all wrong.
Patterico (8ccd07) — 3/2/2006 @ 8:58 pmI remember back in the mid 90’s a rookie cop on her first day on patrol with LAPD was shot and killed by an illegal with a .44 magnum. It is not unusual for illegals to shoot at law officers. Think about it. They’ve already broken the law to be in this country. THEY DON’T CARE ABOUT OUR LAWS.
Mexican illegals know if they kill somebody, they can run back to Mexico and be protected by their government.
PCD (21320e) — 3/3/2006 @ 10:41 amSomebody should do the research and investigate the status of all the perpetrators in the recent spate of CHP deaths…
Patricia (2cc180) — 3/4/2006 @ 1:16 pmI was formerly a restaurant owner in California. I hired illegal Mexicans because it was easier, and cheaper. They provided the required fake documentation, and I didn’t have the time to investigate every employee, nor did I have the tools to. I now have a completely different view. I deployed with John to Iraq. Besides being a friend and fellow soldier, he was a true leader, and a real professional. After John’s murder my attitude about illegal immigration turned dramatically. Had Mr. Esqueda entered this country legally, there would have been a higher likelyhood of him obtaining a driver’s license by attending a course and learning our laws. I’m not saying he wouldn’t have commited the same crime as a legal immigrant, but perhaps knowing our laws would have prevented this horrific event. The only way we fix this problem is to seal our borders, enforce our current laws (what a concept), and make it more difficult for employers to hire illegals. We have to make it easier to confirm legal status. As an employer, I would have loved a system where I could enter a name and SSN or TIN and verify legal status. Right now that does not exist. It’s too costly to investigate every employee, so employers don’t do it. As a former employer of illegals, I am ashamed to have contributed to this country’s problem. And I am ashamed that it took John Bailey’s death to bring that to light.
Rich (bfe21a) — 4/7/2006 @ 3:54 pminsurance homeowners new homeowners insurance philadelphia
minnesota homeowners insurance (002b0a) — 3/24/2007 @ 2:01 am