National Council of La Raza misses the mark when it uses a prominently-placed graphic to encourage web site visitors to “take the hate out of the immigration debate.” To be on target, the group needs to encourage everyone in this country to obey the law.
Today, NCLR, the Mexican-American Legal Defense Education Fund and other organizations are promoting the nonexistent hate crime angle to the immigration policy debate in an effort to silence the debate altogether.
Federation for American Immigration Reform claims the outrageous behavior by these so-called “immigrants rights groups” is part of a calculated strategy initiated after the defeat of the Senate’s immigration amnesty bill last year. Furthermore, FAIR states these groups have three major goals:
1. Silence legitimate immigration policy debate by claiming efforts to advance interior immigration enforcement and state-local cooperation cause “hate crimes.” They provide no proof whatsoever.
2. Manipulate the data regarding anti-Hispanic crime in this country in order to deflect from real immigration issues facing the American people.
3. Pressure the incoming Obama Administration first to halt all interior and work site enforcement and then to endorse amnesty legislation and an increase in overall immigration.
To learn more about FAIR’s position, read this news release or visit the FAIR web site, http://fairus.org.
To see the news release NCLR issued today, click here.
To learn more about hate crimes, read ‘Love Crimes’ Receive Little Attention from FBI.
8 responses so far ↓
1 Brian // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:02 pm
So what is the problem with taking hate out of the immigration debate? Are you arguing for keeping it in?
2 hotoffthepress2 // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:05 pm
Brian,
I’m arguing that the concept of “hate crimes” is a joke and that these folks are trying to capitalize upon flawed laws as a means to deflect the nation’s focus from real issues related to illegal immigration.
3 Brian // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Everyone has there way of looking at different issues. But, isn’t it always best to keep hate out of any debate?
4 hotoffthepress2 // Nov 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm
Brian,
Of course! I don’t hate anyone, but I do hate when groups use laws that never should have been passed to push an unrelated agenda of lawbreaking (i.e., illegal immigration).
5 Brian // Nov 24, 2008 at 2:11 pm
I don’t agree that hate crime legislation shouldn’t have been passed. Why shouldn’t crime committed for hateful reasons be more severely punished? Isn’t it a proper function of government to both attempt to deter hate related crimes and to send a message as a society that hate is not tolerated?
I don’t really have an axe to grind on immigration issues. Obviously for groups opposing immigration reform to say that proponents are motivated solely by hate, would be wrong. Seems to me, it is equally simplistic to say it is all about “obeying the law,” as if there is no debate about what the law should be.
To me its reminiscent of Prohibition. Millions of people violated Prohibition. The simplistic response would have been to “obey the law.” The more meaningful solution was to repeal prohibition. Or that the response to people committing civil disobedience during the Civil Rights era was to “obey the law” rather than to pass legislation assuring the right to vote and other rights.
By mocking a simple statement that no one could disagree with – Take Hate out of the Debate – and then by grossly simplifying a complex issue by saying its all about obeying the law, just loses all those of us in the middle.
6 hotoffthepress2 // Nov 24, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Brian,
I’m curious. How does one differentiate between prosecuting a “hate crime” murder and a murder not ID’d as a “hate crime”? And how do you know if there was any hate involved?
7 Brian // Nov 24, 2008 at 3:23 pm
I’m not a prosecutor, but my understanding is that when someone tells everyone he knows that he hates “faggots” and wishes they all were dead, then goes out a murders a gay stranger, that might be evidence of a hate crime. A jury will hear the facts and decide if hatred of a protected class of persons was a motivation for the defendant.
8 hotoffthepress2 // Nov 24, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Brian,
Are red-headed people a protected class? How ’bout folks with freckles? Glass eyes? Tobacco chewers? Are they protected?
There’s no difference in the end. When someone’s dead, they’re dead. Attaching the “hate crime” label to a crime makes no difference to the victim or his/her family, does it? It’s just political correctness run amok.
Leave a Comment