New Haven Independent

Posted by: cedarhillresident | September 20, 2007 1:56 PM

GREAT RESEARCH!!!! We kind of knew deep down that these people were not the kind of people you want living next door to you...but for the press to slack and not know or not print this is really very wrong. Are they trying to stare people?? Well a total bravo!

Posted by: on whalley | September 20, 2007 2:10 PM

In his bit about eugenics he forgot to mention Ms. Sanger and the American Birth Control League (Planned Parenthood.)

Since we're digging up speciffic peoples dirt and painting huge sweeping generalizations over large groups of people with them we would have to conclude that Planned Parenthood, not unlike Sanger, wants to abort every black baby on Earth.

Dont get me wrong. Its nice for people to know who the psychos are but very often people stand shoulder to shoulder and very rarely are their mindsets identical.

After all, does Robert Byrd make all Democrats Klansmen? Does Larry Craig make all Republicans hyppocrites? C'mon. I can understand why when on one the side of a particular issue a person may resort to using association arguments to demonize the opposition but it really should stop. I'd like to think that people have more sense than that.

It doesnt say much of the CAP fellows, but then thats an attempt to discredit based on association and generalization now isnt it? See how that works, rather does not work?

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | September 20, 2007 4:17 PM

This is an old subject and a favorite whipping boy of pro-illegal immigrant people like Henry. This is no more important to the whole discussion than it is for Henry to identify himself as being hispanic; that he is married to the former head of Junta, a latin advocacy group who supports sanctuary cities and is pro-illegal aliens. Who cares? It wouldn't change my opinion at all in either situation.

And by the way, South Bend is hardly mainstream media. It's a cross roads in the middle of corn field and there are more people in Indiana who think like him including his associations, than think like Henry. Take that to the bank.

Posted by: Paul Bass | September 20, 2007 5:47 PM

Note: Henry is not Hispanic. Watch out for those assumptions! This is to me emblematic of the immigration debate -- people make assumptions based on last names... (Think of the witch hunt going on with immigrant-haters trying to get their hands on the list of recipients of municipal ID cards so they can comb the list for Hispanic-sounding names and try to make targeted families as miserable as possible.)

Posted by: Henry Fernandez | September 20, 2007 7:10 PM

To On Whalley:

Thanks for reading the article and commenting.

I do think that you may have missed my basic points. I was not trying to say that all people who oppose immigration (or undocumented immigrants) are racists. I was saying two basic things: (1) that specific people who have built the leading national anti-immigrant organizations have highly problematic and easy to find ideologies based in racism and eugenics and (2) that the press quotes them as experts without mentioning their actual hatred for other racial groups.

As to your specific point about guilt by association, I believe you may have misunderstood the direction of my argument. I was not making the point that one individual taints a group. I was making the point that choosing to associate with a group is a defining part of who you are. Thus, if there are former klan members in the Democratic party, that does not make all Democrats klan members. But if one chooses to join the klan (or regularly actively participate with it), then one can be assumed to hold its views.

When leaders of the national anti-immigrant organizations regularly attend and even join meetings of the Council of Conservative Citizens (which was built from the ashes of the White Citizens Council and where African-Americans and Latinos are frequently described in its journal as less than human), then they know what they are doing and they can be said fairly to hold the racist views of the organization they join.

None of us should be held accountable for who else might send their kids to our daycare, or who else might choose to live on our block. That would be guilt by proximity and unfair. However, John Vinson, who I profiled, co-wrote a book saying the South should secede from the United States to protect white people and he did so in 2004, not 1854. He is a racist nut who is regularly quoted by the mainstream press as an "expert" on immigration. His bias, not by association, but by verifiable action, is so great that it should disqualify him from commenting as an "expert" on the pressing issues of the day.

I am not saying he cannot comment, but he should be described as what he is, which is not a rational "expert." If the press wants to quote Vinson, it should note that his views are those of a person who wants the South to secede and believes that God wants the races of the world to be separate (as he has written).

So again, thanks for considering my opinion piece. We may not agree but I don't in any way feel you should be disqualified from commenting. Hopefully, with a second read, we may still not agree but you won't feel that my point was to taint everyone who may believe differently than I do.

Henry Fernandez

Posted by: jms | September 20, 2007 9:48 PM

" Does Larry Craig make all Republicans hyppocrites?"

Does he really need too? Do we really need Larry Craig to draw that conclusion? I thought it was common knowledge that all Replublicans were hippocrates.

I all seriousess... I really do thank Henry Fernandez for doing the research and digging up the dirt on the hidden relationships and political agenda's of all these rabid anti-immigration protest folks. Hopefully in doing so he can further advance his own hidden relationships and agenda's.

Sorry... I can't really stay serious for more then one sentence.

JMS

Posted by: New Haven Tea Party | September 21, 2007 7:07 AM

So Henry's not hispanic...he makes the same assumptions you do Paul..that people who support enforcing our laws, or at very least, requiring these folks to make some effort, any effort, to get right with the law (aside from getting special amnesty), are "immigrant hating" people. That's a heroic leap and an incorrect one. The greater point is that if Henry thinks it's important for the media to provide the bio of its so-called experts including exposing all of their associations, then Henry should do the same thing which then, of course, diminishes the points he's trying to make. Is that fair? Seems to me that's the pot calling the kettle black.

Posted by: jms | September 21, 2007 8:11 AM

Tea Party,

I just read Henry's (very clear) response to Whalley above... and I think he did a pretty good job of making the distinction between catagorically dismissing (1) any random person who might hold opinions counter to his own on this subject.... as opposed to (2) some of the specific actual folks who seem to be leading that side of the debate on a pretty wide scale across the country and in the media. I don't find any of his points to come across as generalizing or stereotyping the "anti" side of this debate. He has targetted some specific people and aired a lot of dirty laundry and facts about them that certainly deserve exposure and more attention. You may not support or want to associate yourself with these extremists and their fringe views (at least I hope not) but you also cannot deny that they are latching onto this immigration debate for what appears to be nothing more then an opportunity to infuse it with hate and racism. Honestly in that sense they are probably doing more harm then good to any legitimate debate from the "anti" side as they (at least to me) raise immediate red flags which cause me to pretty much automatically dismiss anything they have to say as window dressing for hate speech. In other words I am always open to hearing different opinions and drawing conclusions, etc... but there is no way I could possibly take anything they (those mentioned in Henry's original piece) say even remotely seriously. What I have learned about them by reading this information strips them of all credibility in my mind. And if anyone on the "anti" side of this debate wants to be taken seriously AT ALL then they need to stand up and point fingers and very deliberately deperate themselves from these extremist opportunists.

Well done Henry. Sorry for the earlier humor at your expense.

JMS

Posted by: Albert Vosburn | September 21, 2007 8:19 AM

This op-ed is a distraction. No one is "behind" MY act of protesting illegal immigration.

Today, the New Haven Register published "Schools Fighting Illegal Students." I thought it was about immigration, but it was not. Tell me: why can a school system reject residents of the neighboring town, when it must accept illegal immigrants residing in its own town? A lawful resident should ALWAYS have priority for city services over an illegal immigrant.

So many in New Haven stand up and shout for those who's presence is an act of flagrant disregard for the law and for lawful residents and immigrants as well. Tell me: who is for US -- who are here lawfully?

Posted by: on whalley | September 21, 2007 9:07 AM

I see what youre saying and I saw that in the piece you wrote but obviously:

"I really do thank Henry Fernandez for doing the research and digging up the dirt on the hidden relationships and political agenda's of all these rabid anti-immigration protest folks." -JMS

My concerns are valid. Though you claim this was not your intention here is proof that the piece is being taken in just the way I assumed it would, as a definitive description and explanation of the intentions and motivation behind any and all who support stemming the tide of illegal immigration.

You are obviously smart enough to know that that this interpretation would be taken. JMS is not alone I assure you. Simple minds love this sort of information to bolster up their position. Just like so many who wish to see some border security eat up stories left and right about an illegal immigrant killing some one or carrying TB as if it is indicative of every last individual to make there way across the borders North and South. This is no different. Regardless of your intention this is the result.

Posted by: Edward_H | September 21, 2007 12:35 PM

(1) that specific people who have built the leading national anti-immigrant organizations have highly problematic and easy to find ideologies based in racism and eugenics

How does this invalidate realistic concerns over ILLEGAL immigration and its impact on the U.S.?

(2) that the press quotes them as experts without mentioning their actual hatred for other racial groups.

What qualifies one as an "immigration expert" anyway? The media must be using the same lack of standards when quoting so called "experts" on the opposite side of the illegal immigration debate as well. Neither side has a monopoly on supporter with views that are abhorrent to most Americans. There are just as many people on the opposite side of the ILLEGAL immigration arguement who believe the whole southwestern portion of the United States should be "given back to Mexico". According to one survey in 2002 of Mexican citizens about 58 percent of them agreed that the southwest US rightfully belongs to Mexico. How many of the so called immigration experts on the opposite side of the fence agree with this view?

Posted by: jms | September 21, 2007 1:22 PM

Whalley,

Thanks for clarifying my point. All I hear (in mainstream media) from either side of this debate are people shouting at eachother over hypothetical/thoeretical positions... very few of them actually engage in any sort of constructive exchange of information or debate over anything close to reality. Mainstream news seems to love fueling these passions on either side by providing glorified coverage of immigrant related murders, home invasions and whatever else will get everyone's blood pressure up on either side. Because in the end... media coverage is about geenrating inetrest not solving problems. Except of course this website (humor). All I am really saying about Mr. Henry's article is that at the very least it allows us takes a brief step back and clarify some pretty important details about some of the key parties who chose to involve themselves in this debate and what their real roots are. To me that is both useful information and a somewhat refreshing take on the big picture. It allows me to begin seperating the legitimate interests from the nutjobs and begin to better hear and understand their arguements so I can draw my own conclusions. Again... I find this to be useful in light of a total lack of such insight and perspective from major media outlets.

JMS

Posted by: Edward_H | September 23, 2007 3:53 PM

Paul Bass

Note: Henry is not Hispanic. Watch out for those assumptions! This is to me emblematic of the immigration debate -- people make assumptions based on last names... (Think of the witch hunt going on with immigrant-haters ...)

Interesting that you would chastise New Haven Tea Party for assuming Henry is hispanic when your articles routinely assume and describe anyone who expresses views critical of illegal immigration as "anti-immigrant" or an "immigrant hater". I am sure New Haven Tea Party used Henry's last name and piture as a bisis to conclude that Henry might have been hispanic. What criteria do you use to assume all or most of anti-illegal immigrant protesters are "anti-immigrant"?

Posted by: jms | September 23, 2007 9:13 PM

Edward_H,

"What criteria do you use to assume all or most of anti-illegal immigrant protesters are "anti-immigrant"?"

Your question is a good one but it seems incomplete. It should read...

""What criteria do you use to assume all or most of anti-illegal immigrant protesters are "anti-immigrant" backwards hillbilly redneck Dittoheads?"

The (semi-serious) answer to your (actual) question is that I don't think anyone is really painting that picture. But it is kind of being painted for them. You may feel otherwise and that's OK... it's a free country... we can disagree. But if you pipe down and scroll way back to the beginning of this article I think you will find a link to an article that pretty clearly nails down solid connections between some of the more vocal leaders of the (I'll fully admit) important and totally legitimate anti-illegal-immigrant protest to vile racist organizations. Oddly I don't think anyone here is actually debating that particular point. Clearly if the people mentioned in the article have such allegiences then it is not unreasonable to call them "anti-immigrant" or racist or just plain un-American for that matter.

Is everyone who speaks out against illegal immigration such a person? No... they are not. But as I said earlier until the good folks on that side if this debate rise up and seperate themselves from the racist elements that are latching onto this issue like a fat guy at an all you can eat ice cream buffet then I don't see how you can be surprised that the people on the other side of the debate might question their motives. And for this alone... as an upstanding non-racist member of the anti-illegal-immigration debate... wouldn't it serve your best interests to do just that? I would be furious that these racist boneheads are hijacking and clouding an issue that clearly needs some constructive debate and resolution.

And I'm sorry for the redneck jibe... I can't help myself... I see humor in everything... I'm "small minded"... just ask Whalley.

JMS

Posted by: Edward_H | September 28, 2007 1:25 PM

JMS
Calling some of the people mentioned in Henry's article racist or predjudiced are logical assumptions based on the evidence presented. My issue is Henry's attempts to invalidate these people's arguements and concerns by simply concluding they are all racist. Henry himself claims one of the main points of his article was to show :

(1) that specific people who have built the leading national anti-immigrant organizations have highly problematic and easy to find ideologies based in racism and eugenics and

Yet he failed to show how such "ideologies based in racism" invalidate realistic concerns over illegal immigration. My guess is he never will.

The (semi-serious) answer to your (actual) question is that I don't think anyone is really painting that picture.

We definately disagree on this issue since I think Paul Bass in particular is one of those who are attempting to paint such a picture. One of the best examples that has stuck in my mind is this:

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/05/immigration_enc.php

Click here to read two of the flyers, which seek to appeal to blacks and Latinos to oppose immigrants

Reading his line describes the flyers as opposing all "immigrants" but if you click on the link the flyer clearly labels itself as anti "ILLEGAL alien" . So either Paul :

1) Did not bother to actually read the flyer
2) Read the flyer but does not understand the difference between "illegal aliens" and legal immigrants
3) has some agenda he has not revealed to the public

In my opinion Paul Bass is no different from the distributers of the flyer in the way he attempts to manipulate the thoughts and feelings of his Black and Latino readers by describing anyone against illegal immigration as "anti immigrant".