NYT picks up Martinez story

Brent Finnegan -- June 25th, 2009

New York Times reporter Ginger Thompson wrote a story for The Caucus blog about Maria Martinez, the HHS grad being deported to El Salvador this summer. There wasn’t much additional info regarding Maria’s status outside of what was included in the DNR stories, but the commenters at the DNRonline ended up being part of the article.

Back in Harrisonburg, the teenager’s case ignited furious debate. Readers of the local newspaper were split between those who see her case as an example of the ways current immigration laws tear families apart, and others who say the failure to enforce those laws is why so many illegal immigrants are here in the first place.

The Times story paints Maria’s plight against the impossible background of Capitol Hill gridlock; politicians who listen, but can’t or won’t do anything about it. Sen. Mark Warner said he couldn’t help Maria, either, as the issue is out of his jurisdiction. The article also adds that there were “some 360,000 high school graduates between the ages of 18 and 24 who would have qualified for legal status under an immigration bill that failed to pass in Congress two years ago.” Read the full story.

119 Responses to “NYT picks up Martinez story”

  1. Barnabas says:

    I’ve said this before on here and now I’m gonna say it again. Mexico should become a U.S. territory or a new group of States. Then we could be more directly involved in solving the problems that are forcing their people into a position that makes them desire an escape to the U.S.. Then all the bigots and racists would have to accept the Mexicans as citizens. This actually goes against my political stance of being against big government, but I think it could work.

  2. eso says:

    Brooke: You made a point about the education being high school level in Mexico, so I thought you were talking about unskilled people.

  3. eso says:


    You have me confused with someone else. I’m hopefully soon becoming engaged to a “non-white” person. :) So no, I don’t “believe that America is for white’s only?”

    I am against racial discrimination and know affirmative action is counter productive.

  4. Brooke says:

    One does not have to complete high school to have a skill or trade of some sort. :-)

    And thanks for the clarification on your viewpoint. Congratulations on your upcoming engagement!

  5. eso says:

    I’ve never said I didn’t want minorities in our country. I want the border controlled, and an orderly immigration policy that is of our choosing, and which benefits us.

  6. eso says:

    Brooke: Thanks :)

  7. eso says:


    It’s OK. JGFitzgerald is a “Bitter underachiever on the fringe, looking for somebody to blame. And he has the ‘facts’ to prove they’re right, often from hburgnews.com and other such sites, but never from mainstream or legitimate sources. And the mainstream sources will never print their ‘facts’ because, presumably, the DNR is part of the anti-whatever conspiracy (or just too dumb to see it). There is no doubt he sees his reality as plainly as a UFO in front of your face, but I wonder what it is about his observations – or is it their tenacity? – that can draw a thread out to one hundred comments. Do people with less fringe outlooks hope to persuade them, or are the normal people just curious? Regardless, it’s strange to see a sudden burst of obvious truth in one of their observations, specifically, they don’t want any more dumb people in this country. It still cracks me up.”

  8. Lowell Fulk says:

    Actually, there is some pretty good discussion going on here. Just think,… if folks in Congress would actually speak about ideas and thoughts and possible solutions and possible compromises toward solutions with the degree of give and take and for the most part, respect, which you folks are exhibiting.

    You’re setting a good example for our government to learn from.

    Thank you all.

  9. Renee says:

    eso: I was responding to Deltaire when I made those statements. Congrats on your future engagement.

    Deltaire: I know multiculturalism isn’t referring to multi-race offspring (though many arguments against it do), but to appreciation of the diversity of the human race and embracing of one another socially – and that is what I had in mind when I made my comment. I was trying to get you to clarify what you meant by “Political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity all need to go.” I don’t understand why someone would want multiculturalism and diversity to “go” or what you meant by that statement, unless you meant social separation of races.

    Also, the wikipedia article that you linked to is under dispute for neutrality and factuality.

    It doesn’t make sense to argue that our “national culture” is “downgraded” by celebrating other cultures, or that by embracing people of other cultures and mixing socially, the individual cultures will be lost… which are points made in the section of the article you linked to… I still don’t get why anyone would label multiculturalism as “dangerous” except out of fear of people different from themselves.

    What is it about America’s culture that you are afraid of “losing” if we welcome people from foreign nations? Is there some benefit to remaining (really becoming, because America has never been single-race) homogeneous in terms of skin color and ethnic background? Is there something special about the white race that needs to be preserved at the exclusion of other races?

    I just don’t get it.

    And while we’re on the topic of race, these people need to stop pretending they asked the group of black kids to leave their pool because of “overcrowding”. Obviously, the pool knew how many were coming in advance when the camp paid them. Also, a person representing the pool made a statement talked about “complexion” and “atmosphere” of the club to a Philly TV station. Absolutely racist – they need to apologize to those kids.



  10. Renee says:

    Also, since America started with the conquering of the Native population, all of us that aren’t Native Americans had family that immigrated here at some point… I would think most of us have a family member that came here after the civil war.

  11. Brooke says:

    I still want Delataire to explain what he means by “diversity” and why it has to go. I still don’t feel I’ve gotten a straight answer on that one. Just a lot of stuff (on Myron’s blog) about how if we notice differences we can’t really be one.

    My thought is, we ARE different. America is, and has always been, comprised of people of varying cultures (even when it was primarily differences in what European nation you hailed from, LOL). And it’s even more so today. I’m really not getting how can “diversity” go, when our nation, by virtue of the fact that we, or our ancestors, all came here from other nations, is quite diverse. And noticing or even celebrating our differences, doesn’t in any way invalidate what we all, as Americans, have in common – which is our nation.

    The idea that we have to give up our cultural identities and become some homogeneous lump of humanity in order to be truly “American” is ludicrous.
    Of course, I have a suspicion that idea of everyone needing to be the same, primarily applies to certain populations more than others. ;-)

  12. Brooke says:

    (oops, it wasn’t Myron’s blog – it was Megan’s) :-)

  13. Delataire says:

    Brooke, on Megan’s blog you express that there can be many different types of christians, however, at the end of the day, they’re still christians because they all believe that jesus is their lord and savior.

    Likewise there can be many different kinds of Americans, but at the end of the day, everyone is still an American. Political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, reject this. They attack the idea of being American, IE western. All three do the following

    “The formal meaning of “diversity,” “cultural equity,” “gorgeous mosaic” and so on is a society in which many different cultures will live together in perfect equality and peace (i.e., a society that has never existed and never will exist); the real meaning of these slogans is that the power of the existing mainstream society to determine its own destiny shall be drastically reduced while the power of other groups, formerly marginal or external to that society, will be increased. In other words the U.S. must, in the name of diversity, abandon its particularity while the very groups making that demand shall hold on to theirs.”

  14. Brooke says:

    (Not sure where the blue came from. LOL)

  15. Delataire says:


    Its opponents consider it an oppressive ideological re-education tactic, that actually injures the ability of organizations to attain their goals. It has been suggested that diversity training reinforces differences between individuals instead of concentrating on their commonalities, thus helping to further racialize the workplace and creating situations where people “tiptoe” around issues such as how to relate to people of different cultures as opposed to people learning to communicate with and truly understand each other.[3] It may also, according to law professor Gail Heriot, amount to a “rather blatant form of racial and sexual harassment”.[4]



    Brooke, diversity can come in many forms. They are socio/political theorums. Do not force their implimentation or mandate their acceptance. Let individuals and groups decide for themselves if they want to practice them.

  16. Renee says:

    Delataire, you keep saying things that really don’t make sense to me, like: “Likewise there can be many different kinds of Americans, but at the end of the day, everyone is still an American. Political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity, reject this. They attack the idea of being American, IE western.”

    The idea that there are many different Americans, but at the end of the day, everyone is still an American IS what diversity-appreciating groups celebrate, isn’t it? Multiculturalism doesn’t “attack the idea of being American”… it makes sure we appreciate and understand differences while also noticing our commonalities enough not to treat a person like crap because of their skin color, or socio-economic status, or religion.

  17. Brooke says:

    Delataire, at this point you seem to have relegated yourself to regurgitating your talking points from dubious online sources, to the point that you are not making sense, and seem either incapable of or unwilling to answer the questions I’ve posed to you.

    Let’s just suffice it to say I don’t think you’ve even come close to making your case, and I heartily (although not surprisingly) disagree with your viewpoint. As such, we’re really going to have to agree to disagree, because at this point we seem to be spinning in circles.

Reader Tweets

Latest Flickr photos in the hburgnews Flickr pool
Announcements & Press Releases
  • Friendly City Grand Opening Set for July 9

    Friendly City Food Co-Op, Harrisonburg’s consumer-owned grocery, invites the community to come see its new destination for natural, organic and locally-produced products at the store’s grand opening 11 a.m.-5 p.m. July 9 at 150 East Wolfe Street.

  • Friendly City Becomes Member of National Cooperative Grocers Association

    HARRISONBURG, VA — Friendly City Food Co-op, slated to open this month in Harrisonburg, Va., has become the newest member of the National Cooperative Grocers Association (NCGA), a business services cooperative serving 120 consumer-owned food co-ops nationwide.

  • Harrisonburg Recognized as a Bike Friendly Community

    May 2: Harrisonburg was honored when the League of American Bicyclists announced the latest round of Bicycle Friendly Community (BFC) designations over the weekend to kick off May as National Bike Month.