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. Some of the children have undocumented parents, but not most.

    We don’t have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy; the Supreme Court ruled long ago that all children have the right to go to school regardless of their or their parents’ legal status. We don’t ask because it doesn’t matter, but they sometimes tell.

  2. By the way, here’s a discussion we haven’t had yet: why do those who favor strict restrictions on immigration think that Congress has the power to restrict the flow of people across borders at all?

    The Constitution only says that Congress has the power to “establish a uniform rule of naturalization”, that is, of the rules for becoming a voting citizen rather than merely a resident of the country. For the first hundred years of our country’s existence, there were no laws restricting who could come here. Those were introduced with the blatantly racist anti-Chinese laws of the late 1800’s, and the Supreme Court refused to address their constitutionality at all on the grounds that the restriction of immigration is a “plenary power” of the other two branches over which the Court has no oversight. Perhaps it’s time for that notion to fade away.

    Interesting, isn’t it, that many of the staunchest proponents of immigration control also consider themselves strict constructionists of the Constitution.

  3. Delataire says:


    If immigration should be based on a country’s population rather than a fixed number, would you be willing to go by the country’s population based on world population?


    By the above chart only 1.62% of all immigrants could come from Mexico. You did imply that countries with a greater population should be able to send more people.

    Have you been to Miami? There’s no drive by look at the rich or poor. The neighborhoods are separated by the river, flood control canals, highways, expressways and interstates. The entire metropolitan area is a hodge podge of mini-Berlins; wall included. When crime happens, it’s generally a poor person in a poor neighborhood committing a crime against another poor person.

    You’ve seen riots on the news? Did the rioters gather together and get on a bus to go riot in another area, or did they riot in their own neighborhood?

    There aren’t mobs of people running from neighborhood to neighborhood committing crimes. They stay in their own communities where they know who has what, and where it might be.

    That’s why you can’t paint an easy picture of poor and rich being in eachother’s face.

  4. JGFitzgerald says:


    Why screw it up with facts? Much as I admire the tenacity of those who argue point-by-point with the anti-immigrant crowd, the fact is those people need undocumented workers more than Pilgrim’s Pride does. If they did not have Latino immigrants to attack, they would have to blame all their troubles, and their under-achievement, and their bitter lives, on black people or Jews. I wonder who they would fall back on as scapegoats if we had an immigration law that suddenly made the undocumented “legal.”

  5. eso says:

    Jeremy. That’s an interesting point! Establishing border control’s is certainly not prohibited anywhere. I think you could argue that the war clause gives the country right to defend it’s territory from invasion.

  6. Renee says:

    If by “invaders”, you mean destitute people looking for a better life.

  7. Justin C says:


    That’s a great point. Those that hate the idea of increased immigration always default to the same arguments, whether there is anything behind them or not.

    The first thing you always hear from someone against increased immigration is the fear of an increase in the crime rate. Their fear is so great that they defy reason. Why would someone who traveling hundreds of miles on foot, entered a country like the US without legal permission and then commit a petty crime? It attracts attention and takes the one thing away from them they wanted, to live in America.

    I found a very interesting quote from a research paper about the crime rates of immigrants.

    “A 1997 paper jointly sponsored by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and the Urban Institute typifies this view:

    Few stereotypes of immigrants are as enduring, or have been proven so categorically false over literally decades of research, as the notion that immigrants are disproportionately likely to engage in criminal activity…(If anything) immigrants are disproportionately unlikely to be criminal. ”

    From http://www.cis.org/articles/2001/crime/toc.html#fear

  8. seth says:


    “The first thing you always hear from someone against increased immigration is the fear of an increase in the crime rate”

    then isn’t it kind of funny not to have encountered that on this thread? it’s clear that some commenters are coming from a pretty right wing place, but the complete absence of the stereotype you present (that anti-immigration (or anti-current u.s. immigration policy) folks rely primarily on fear and racism)) leads me to believe that your thinking and rhetoric are likely no clearer or more scrupulous than theirs.

    as i understand it, this thread is about the inadequacies in our current policy which led to this unfortunate culmination of events.

    if you’d like to propagandize about the evils of the right, it might be best to take it somewhere else.

  9. JGFitzgerald says:

    “Propagandize about the evils of the right”? The wrong, actually. I was not referring to those of a particular political persuasion, but to those who, here and elsewhere, give every indication of being Know-Nothing anti-immigration bigots who make up their evidence off the tops of their heads, or cite those who do. And, by the way, deporting Maria is stupid.

  10. seth says:

    way to get back on topic


  11. Delataire says:

    The Italian Senate just passed Europe’s toughest anti-illegal immigration law 157 to 124. Italy’s lower house of legislature already passed it last May.

    1) Those harboring illegal aliens in their homes face up to three years in prison.
    2) Immigrant parents must prove legal status to register a birth.
    3) Illegal immigrants must be deported to detention centers in Libya before they can apply for asylum.
    4) Illegal aliens will face huge fines and will spend six months in detention centers before repatriation.
    5) Outlaws using child panhandlers.
    6) Sanctions unarmed citizen patrols to aid local police.


    and how Mexico treats it’s illegal aliens

    Pursuant to Article 33, “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.” This ban applies, among other things, to participation in demonstrations and the expression of opinions in public about domestic politics like those much in evidence in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere in recent days.
    Equal employment rights are denied to immigrants, even legal ones. Article 32: “Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable.”
    Jobs for which Mexican citizenship is considered “indispensable” include, pursuant to Article 32, bans on foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports.

    Foreigners, to say nothing of illegal immigrants, are denied fundamental property rights. For example, Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters.”
    Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.” What is more, private individuals are authorized to make citizen’s arrests.
    Article 16 states, “In cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” In other words, Mexico grants its citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution. Imagine the Minutemen exercising such a right!
    The Mexican constitution states that foreigners — not just illegal immigrants — may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”


    So Joe, Italy and Mexico, our allies, who have these laws, does this make them “Know-Nothing anti-immigration bigots”?

    Why is deporting Maria stupid? She was given an extra year to stay and finish high school. Where is the gratitude for that? Why is there such greed? She was given a year, yet she wants more. When does the greed stop?

  12. When we start looking to Italy and Mexico for examples of good governance, God help us.

    America’s proud heritage (and perhaps the main reason for its prosperity) is that we welcome the immigrant. When it is impossible or highly improbable to get here legally, that ain’t welcoming.

  13. Delataire says:

    Jeremy, other than greed and impatience can you offer one reason why Maria’s parents chose to bring her here illegally?

  14. You don’t know much about their circumstances, and what I know is limited to what has been in the paper and what I remember from years ago when she was my student. Why don’t you write Maria a letter and ask?

    Is there anything you value enough to break a law if that law caused it to be separated from you?

  15. Delataire says:


    I do not feel that Maria’s parents love her. No parent places the child they love in a circumstance where some unspeakable act may or may not happen.

    They broke the law to bring her here, whinned until the law was bent to generously allow her to finish school, and still it’s not enough. It’s nothing but wanton disregard for our laws and greed.

    Jeremy there are laws that both you and I disagree with. At this point all we can do is sign petitions and send off faxes to our congressmen and senators. Yet should a time come when we are forced to take more drastic actions, how far are you willing to go?

    At some future date I honestly expect there to be another civil war.

  16. I love it…everyone else needs to follow the law no matter what, but you’re ready to take part in a violent revolution. Disconnect much?

  17. Delataire says:

    Jeremy, the fever of a liberal mind never fails to astound me. How does speculating upon a future date as others have done before me, and others will do after me, denote that I am going to be a willing participant? Why is it that everything which is uttered by a multicultist leftist seemingly imply that there is going to be violence? I do not recall the Germans fighting one another when they tore down the Berlin Wall and Iron Curtain. Do you think so little of your fellow Americans?

  18. “At this point all we can do is sign petitions and send off faxes to our congressmen and senators. Yet should a time come when we are forced to take more drastic actions, how far are you willing to go? At some future date I honestly expect there to be another civil war.”


  19. Renee says:

    “I do not feel that Maria’s parents love her.” Are you serious?? Look at the risks they have taken to get her out of El Salvador and give her a better life here in the USA!

    If you had a child (do you have children?) that was in a 3rd world country and you were enjoying a better life in a more stable country and you were constantly thinking about and missing and worrying about your child, wouldn’t you risk everything to get her out of there and to your home with you with a chance for a better education and better food and a better life?

  20. Also, from one of your posts on VNN:
    “I agree that the infrastructure should be attacked. However, it should be attacked in a manner that causes resource denial to areas that the ZOG [that’s Zionist Occupied Government for those of you not familiar with extremist parlance] will be forced to expend materials on to “keep under control”.” – source

  21. Delataire says:

    Jeremy if you’re going to quote, quote in accurately.

    Originally Posted by cillian
    Well hypotheticly, it would take the military about 6 months to mount a response; but in the mean time the cops atf fbi etc would be doing double shifts.

    So a hypothetical thread on a hypothetical senario….

    Jeremy do you fear us that much? If you do, then I am sorry. I wish there was something I could do to console you.

    Renee, would you trust your child to a smuggler, knowning that the smuggler might do some harm to her? What if the smugglers raped a defenseless 12 year old Maria and sold her into prostitution? These things do happen.

    Someone give me a single reason as to why Maria’s parents did not go through the consulate and/or embassy to bring Maria here legally? Was it impatience and not wanting to wait however long…? Was it greed in wanting to have another tax deduction?

    If you want me to be more sympathic towards Maria, give me a reason to do so.

  22. I don’t fear you, I pity you.

    I’m done with you until you can be honest about what positions you actually hold.

  23. Brooke says:

    Wow that’s a lot of tap-dancing! Ok, Delataire, since obviously you’re going to keep tap-tapping away, until someone just point blank asks you the question, here goes…you believe a civil war is coming. When said civil war comes, do you have any plans to be an active participant in the rebellion.

    And you asked why people assume there will be violence. Because you used the term “war.” War is inherently violent, and civil war is especially so, historically. And you were drawing comparisons to the first civil war by saying “another civil war.” Last one was pretty darn violent. Brother against brother and all of that.

  24. Delataire says:

    Brooke, all empires eventually fall. So to will the “American Empire”. When it does, if I am still alive, I will do what I must to defend myself, as I imagine you will do.

    War does not necessitate violence. Afterall there was no violence between the US and USSR during the Cold War.

    What I see happening is Americans becoming so pissed off at the do nothing congress and senate that they take matters into their own hands. Both the democrats and republicans are to blame for this. A bill dies either in the house or senate, gets pushed to the next year due to election, breaks, or fails in committee. In the last five years congress and the senate could have come up with some new immigration plan that could have helped Maria, but no, they’re too busy playing off special interests to get elected.

    What will happen when the majority gets fed up with this? Perhaps they’ll follow Thomas Jefferson’s words

    “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. … What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure. ”

    Jefferson’s time imo was more violent than our time. I see no reason why the US cannot have it’s own Orange Revolution.

  25. Brooke says:

    I didn’t ask you if you would defend yourself if attacked. I ask you, pretty much point blank, if there is a civil war, would you would be an active participant in the rebellion that sparks it. Yes or No will suffice.

    The Cold War was called a cold war because it was mainly based on cold relations between the nations and a break down in diplomacy. There would be no way for there to be a civil war, on our soil without there being some form of violence. And I think you know that, too, seeing as you equated it with the civil war we had before, AND your “hypothetical” comments on how it should be carried out.

    Not sure what Jefferson has to do with it. I didn’t ask you what Jefferson thought about civil wars or revolution, or whether he’d support your right to join in civil war. I asked you whether you’d join and actively participate in the rebellion that leads to civil war.

  26. Delataire says:

    Brooke, there is not a simple yes or no answer. In a hypothetical civil war wether or not I become an active agent depends upon the circumstances that I find myself in. I’m sure you’ll agree that something happening in Harrisonburg is different than something happening in LA.

    As for the hypothetical thread elsewhere, an act of sabotage is not to be equated with actively engaging armed forces.

    In your opinion is there zero chance for a non-violent confrontation in the US?

    I feel that Jefferson could be summarized as the government needs to be reminded that it’s power come from the people and not this charade we have every four years.

  27. Brooke says:

    Ah yes, but an act of sabotage WOULD be against the law, and therefore there IS an instance in which you would be willing to break the law, if you personally felt breaking the law is warranted. Correct? I think that was what Jeremy was asking you. You indicate that people should only change the law and write their representatives, but that doesn’t seem to be how you really feel, since you talk about it all being a charade. You seem very much of the mind that once in a while breaking the law is necessary to tell the government that something is not right. Seems to me that you might agree with the Martinez family, then, especially since they did so with out violence, and that what they did has no shone a light on what may be something in our laws that needs to be addressed and changed. And if so, isn’t that good?

    And as far as sabotage not being violent, I think you only have to look as far as Bill Ayers to see how that can go horribly, horribly wrong. I don’t think he meant to kill anyone either, and yet, he did, and people see him as a terrorist. How is what you’re hypothesizing about any different?

    I am well aware of what Jefferson was saying. I can read, and comprehend what I read. I know you and I are not on the same page, spiritually (the whole “asiatic religions” thing), but to me, as a Christian, we are told to obey the governments. Now if that applied to corrupt governments like that of the Roman Empire, who actually killed Christians, then surely that applies to the federal government. The only time Christians are told to disobey the law is if it’s telling them to do something that’s wrong, or telling them they can’t do something that they have to do (share the gospel, worship God, etc.). Honestly, when you get right down to it, The American Revolution may well have been disobedience in the sight of God. I’m conflicted on that as a Christians.

    As far as taxes – no matter how much we’re taxed, for me as a Christian, we’re told to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s. And we DO have a voice, every 4 years. Most just choose to use (waste?) that voice to perpetuate the 2 party system. I don’t think we get to revolt just because our fellow voters let us down in that regard, or because we let ourselves down in that regard. But no, I don’t think violence, or property destruction, is the answer. Why does there need to be a war, civil or otherwise, to address that? There doesn’t! And it’s not the answer.

    Just like I don’t think breaking the law is the answer for the immigration problems. I think cases like this shine the light on inequities and problems with the system that need to be addressed, but the answer isn’t breaking the law. The answer is doing something about the inequities that those instances have shone a light on, and working within the system, or if necessary making changes to the system. But in as peaceful a manner as possible.

    I know you and I will not agree on this, but that is my take, for what it’s worth.

  28. Renee says:

    Deltaire, you said “What I see happening is Americans becoming so pissed off at the do nothing congress and senate that they take matters into their own hands.”

    Things would have to be VERY bad in this country for the American people to take up arms against the US Government. Really, honestly, we’re not even close to that.

    If that many people were that pissed about congress (and yes congress has very low approval ratings, but not overthrow-worthy ratings), the turnout at house/senate seat elections would be higher.


    And your assessment about the dangers Maria’s parents put her through to smuggle her into the US could be true – there are bad people out there, especially among those getting paid to break the law, but if you think about it, that means her parents thought the risks of leaving her where she was were even worse, and/or the benefits of bringing her here were worth the level of risk they assessed. It is not fair of you to state that they don’t love her because they put her life at risk. I don’t know if or why they didn’t try legal avenues to bring her here first, but I’m almost certain that a parent wouldn’t put their child through a dangerous illegal system unless they were desperate to get her out of there and into the US.

  29. Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh says:

    Nothing says treason like taking up arms against our elected government. The rightwing would do well to learn from the violent missteps made by the radical left some 40 years ago – you will be rejected by America and bring disgrace upon your movement.

  30. Brooke says:

    Ah, but apparently it’s only treason if they disagree with the cause. If they agree with the cause or action then it’s patriotic dissent, and something that would be embraced by our forefathers. LOL

  31. Delataire says:

    Bubby, the funny thing about treason is, that it is only treason if you lose.

    Read through this article


    and google aztlan

    These people receive government funding and grants. The senate and house chase after their votes. Yet, you never hear or read about these people. It’s always the evil racist White man that has to be put down and punished. Who taught us to be racist?

    Brooke, depending upon who was Emperor of Rome, either christians or non-christians were displayed in the colesseum. If only Julian had not died, the world would be a far better place.

  32. Delataire says:

    Brooke, what would you do to fix our broken immigration system?

  33. Brooke says:

    I would revamp it so that anyone who really wants to come here and work hard and contribute can, not just if they’re in the right field of work or have the right educational background, or have access to an immigration lawyer.

    I’m a fairly educated woman, and well-read, but even I had trouble wading through the tons of documentation that is required to know what it takes to apply, let alone actually apply. I can’t imagine what it must be like for someone coming from a country where they barely have access to a high-school level education, let alone college or post-graduate. It’s WHY many of them are coming here…so their children will have access to better opportunities to advance than they did.

    Gone are the days of Ellis Island where you just had to find a way here. Not that that didn’t take tons of sacrifice. Some people gave up everything they had just to get here, to bring their families over and provide them a better life. Well, that’s just what a lot of South/Central American immigrants are doing – risking life and limb to get here.

    If someone is willing to come here to work hard to provide for their family, doesn’t have a criminal record, and wants to be a contributing member of society, I think we should welcome those folks with open arms, and I think we need to make it more feasible for them to do so. And yes, when they do, I think any and all minor children should be allowed to join them.

    On the other hand, if someone comes here and starts causing problems, driving drunk, dealing drugs, then back they should go. But we need to give them a chance, and right now, very few actually have that chance due to how the system is set up.

  34. Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh says:

    Yeah, I’m familiar with those punk ass latino reconquista loudmouths. They remind me of the skinheads – other side of the coin really. Dumb and Dumber. There will no more be an Aztlan than there was a Confederate States of America. When did you quit America?

  35. Delataire says:

    When did I quit America? I wouldn’t say quit, more of desire to change things.

    Political correctness, multiculturalism, diversity all need to go. Programs such as the University of Delaware trying to instill that “only whites can be racist”



    I could go on and list dozens of other things that piss me off, but these, if tossed out would take the others with them.

    Brooke, if there is a need to make sure that people do not have criminal records, how can we go about doing it in a timely and efficient manner? And how hard will a criminal record be examined? Would some offenses be ignored?

  36. Brooke says:

    Why would you remove multiculturalism and diversity? Do you honestly believe this country should be for whites only? And if so, what if someone is of mixed heritage? Or do you want to outlaw that, too?

  37. eso says:

    We have enough unskilled people here. Some people might call some of them down right dumb. I don’t think we need to bring any more from another country.

  38. eso says:

    I haven’t looked at Delatire’s links yet or his postings on other sites, but I think we would disagree on lots of stuff.

    But I have to ask Brooke if she encourages diversity for diversity’s sake alone?

  39. Bubby Hussein, Hillbilly Sheikh says:

    You want to change things? Then tone it down a notch, Americans are not a fearful, hateful lot. We like people and other cultures. Hell, we are a mix of many cultures. We are about respect for freedom. Start with the respect part. The rest sorts itself out pretty well through the golden rule.

    PS. Those folks at the World Net Daily are working you like a red-headed mule. Give them a wide berth.

  40. Brooke says:

    No one said anything about unskilled. I said it’s hard when they’re only offering visas for a very limited set of skills. Big difference.

    Diversity for diversity’s sake? Depends on what you mean by that. I find that there is something to be said for learning about different cultures, and learning what each culture has to offer. Food, music, heritage, language. While I definitely want my kids to learn about and respect their own heritages, I also want them to be open to learning about and appreciating people of many different backgrounds. I think being of the mindset that only one’s own culture has value is sad and myopic, not to mention rather bigoted.

    I think the better question is why some people seem to be against diversity for the sake of being against diversity.

    Again, do you honestly believe that America is for white’s only?

  41. Renee says:

    Being against diversity-enhancing programs and “only whites can be racist” statements is one thing, not wanting minorities in our country is another. If you don’t like “special treatment” initiatives, present your arguments against the people/organizations that put those initiatives in place.

    However, I think a lot of people (not all, but many) that say they are against those programs that benefit minorities aren’t just arguing against the special-treatment programs that help certain groups, they are really trying to find a more palatable way of saying they don’t like people that aren’t white, or foreign, or whatever. Not liking programs is different than not liking people because of their ethnicity or country of origin. And affirmative action is a separate topic altogether from immigration reform.

    And what is meant when you say you’re against “multiculturalism”? Is that a way of saying “people of different races shouldn’t mix”?

  42. JGFitzgerald says:

    “I don’t think we need to bring any more [dumb people] from another country.” This, from ESO, cracks me up. Every time I look at it. Now we know. It’s not their jobs he and Delaware are afraid of losing. It’s their status.

  43. seth says:

    sweet name calling….
    almost makes you seem more intelligent.

  44. Brooke says:

    Wait a minute, Seth – didn’t you just do exactly what you’re accusing Joe of? LOL

  45. JGFitzgerald says:

    He did. And I did. But it’s still funny when people like them back into the same generalizations they’re trying to not be a part of. But, to go all profiler on you, those folks are generally defined by status. Bitter underachievers on the fringe, looking for somebody to blame. And they have the “facts” to prove they’re right, often from bitterblamingfringe.org and other such sites, but never from mainstream or legitimate sources. And the mainstream sources will never print their “facts” because, presumably, the MSM are all part of the anti-whatever conspiracy (or just too dumb to see it). There is no doubt these people see their reality as plainly as a UFO in front of your face, but I wonder what it is about their 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.

  46. seth says:

    i don’t think so (i think i avoided calling names through the omission of a baseline),
    maybe i’m missing something.
    and even if i am, i’m inclined to say that an administrator of the site should proably be more aware/respectful of the rules than a mere ‘whelp’ attempting to stir the pot.

  47. Barnabas says:

    “…jingoism, racism, fear, religious fundamentalism: these are the ways of appealing to people if you’re trying to organize a mass base of support for policies that are really intended to crush them.”
    — Noam Chomsky

    “As long as you hate, there will be people to hate.”
    — George Harrison

    Prejudice is the child of ignorance.
    — William Hazlitt

    No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.
    — Nelson Mandela

    O Lord, help me not to despise or oppose what I do not understand.
    — William Penn

    To divide along the lines of section or caste or creed is un-American.
    — Theodore Roosevelt

  48. seth says:

    good quotes,
    but the question at hand seems to be whether you believe the u.s. can take every unskilled worker from around the world who would like to come here in search of a better life. it seems that people believe that as long as people are law abiding, there should be a place for them here. i’m inclined to think, particularly with the sort of economic situation we’re facing right now, that’s just crazy talk.

    i know that it may feel good to say that “anyone who really wants to come here and work hard and contribute can,” but to me, that kind of thinking seems to be pretty out of touch with reality.

  49. What’s odd, Seth, is that the 12-15 million undocumented, generally unskilled people do in fact already have jobs here. If we kick them all out and let in the current 5,000 a year, or even bumped it up to 150,000 unskilled worker visas a year, that would leave us in the lurch for decades to come.

    An underappreciated fact is that the flow of workers INTO the US, especially to do agricultural jobs, has prevented a significant flow of capital OUT of the US as agribusinesses would have pretty much been forced to move out of the country to find labor at the price they’re willing to pay. So which is better for our economic health: letting people in or letting more businesses out? Ironically, the same forces that are staunchly opposed to the former seem to have no problem with the latter.

    In spite of the current economic climate, there are LOTS of low-wage jobs open. Unfortunately, they’re not the kinds of jobs that many Americans are applying to do because they don’t feel they would provide enough pay for their needs.

  50. Delataire says:

    Brooke Renee, multiculturalism has nothing to do with a person being multiracial.


    The opposition section should enlighten you.

    Jeremy, with so many in prison


    who may or may not be unskilled, why not use them instead of illegal aliens?


    Surely all of these non-violent drug offenders would relish the opportunity to be outside doing something instead of being confined with the other violent offenders.

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.