Turtles aren’t known for their acute hearing ability. We have to be kind of … watertight and don’t have an “outer ear” so to speak, but we do sense vibrations and pressure. Technically, I suppose you could say we filter out most of the noise and high frequency daily fluctuations, and pay more attention to more significant and important low frequency events, trends and pressure. Even if we did hear something impulsive and alarming, it’s not like we’re going to respond too quickly anyway.
Because our ears are pretty much inside our heads, it takes something pretty significant to make a turtle’s ears “perk”. But perk they do and perk they did, when the first thing we heard after the fatal stabbing last July of Lorenzo Valentin Carachure, was that money was being collected to ”send the boy’s body back to Mexico”.
*Perk!* What? Why would his body need to be sent to Mexico? Didn’t he live here? Was he visiting? As it turns out, yes he did live here. But he wasn’t born here. He was born in Mexico. So… then… his parents were also born in Mexico? Turtles can be a little dense, why was he living here if he wasn’t born here? Was he living here legally? These questions were never raised or addressed, by the media or the City.
Then a voice from outside the pond… “Shhhhhh you would be wise to stop right there - don’t ask any more questions. The Political Correctness Police will be at your door in no time you racist! You are very close to offending people who have no right to be here. How can you be so uncompassionate? Even if the parents are here illegally, he was the victim, how could you be so insensitive to the family?”
But … if the victim was involved in a gang, born in Mexico and not a citizen, isn’t there a chance that the perpetrators were born in Mexico as well? Shouldn’t this question be looked into? I mean could illegal immigration have anything to do with this gang problem? We can ask questions can’t we?
“Shhhhhhh!! You’re being insensitive and you’re going to offend someone.”
Huh? When did the right to not be offended get written into the Bill of Rights? And when did the Bill of Rights become extended to citizens of another country? And why does it make someone a “racist” to question someone’s citizenship? Nobody is questioning those of the same race that are here legally. Isn’t the correct term “nationalist”?
Some of the Scientist Turtles like to hypothesize in order to get at the causes of a problem. Let’s not jump to the conclusion that there is a link between recent gang activity and tolerance of illegal immigration. Let’s for now just hypothesize that there is a link between illegal immigration and say, prison overcrowding. And then maybe a link between prison overcrowding and gang activity. It seems safe to assume that without illegal immigrants there would be fewer in prison, and it seems safe to assume that those who are in and out of prison have developed some kind of association and network.
Now let not the liberal rabbits get too excited just yet. Nobody said all illegal aliens are criminals (presuming that crossing the border illegally itself is not a crime). Everyone knows they are all hardworking family oriented people that just come here to improve their lives. But how exactly do we know that they ALL are that way, when we do no screening of who comes across?
With unrestricted borders, is there any chance that some of the criminals from Mexico are here, in AND out of prison? Surely, at least some of them are criminals. It’s just a hypothesis.
So the next step after hypothesizing, is to find some facts to support or disprove the hypothesis. All we needed to do was type “santa barbara county prison illegal immigrant” into the Google toolbar to find enough to convince us we have a problem. The facts are too many to fit here, but just as an example let’s quote a few statements from http://www.cap-s.org/newsroom/opinion_releases/alcorn_its.html
Statistics gathered by immigrationcounters.com reveal that over the past ten years, the cost to provide social services to illegal aliens exceeded $397 billion, while the cost to educate illegal alien children was nearly $14 billion. The cost of incarcerating illegal aliens over the past 6 years was $1.4 billion. These costs are greatly compounded by the general increase in population due to the birth rates of immigrants.
There are few jurisdictions left in America that are not affected by the negative realities of illegal immigration. Communities in California are among the most adversely affected in the nation—as a recently released report by Santa Barbara County’s Civil Grand Jury elucidates.
The County of Santa Barbara is suffering a lack of jail space and is agonizing over a proposal to build a new $153 million jail. The annual operating cost of this jail would be $19 million. While the Grand Jury found that 10 to 20 percent of the county’s prison population consists of illegal aliens; it is a safe bet that overall county crime statistics are disproportionately affected by foreign immigration and by the offspring of illegal aliens born in America. The need for more jail space is in no small measure a consequence of illegal immigration.
Mike Brown, the county’s Executive Officer, forewarns taxpayers that the rising cost of the jail, social services, and heath care will reduce the county’s ability to provide other services, and suggests that the county encourage more development to provide a broader tax base to support services.
- Randy Alcorn
In other words, we need more people who work and contribute to society so we can pay for services required by the increasing numbers of those who don’t. Alarming enough? We think so, even the anti-development and environmental crowd should have enough cause for alarm.
Next column – what are we doing about it? Is Santa Barbara an undeclared “Sanctuary City” for illegal aliens? And our thought question for the week: Which will have greater environmental impact in the County of Santa Barbara in the next ten years, global warming, or unrestrained and accommodated illegal immigration? Ask your favorite City Councilmember what they think is more urgent, a “fossil-free” park, a light blue line on our streets, or doing all that can be done to prevent red blood from being spilled on that same park or street? Turtles have questions…but slowly and steadily, we will find answers.
The Conservative Turtle is not an individual but a group of like-minded individuals and a forum on local issues from a conservative point of view. Visit www.conservativeturtle.com if you would like to leave your feedback, thoughts, questions, answers, your concerns, your ideas, your support. Or email here
19 comments:
Loved your article on Illegal aliens and political correctness.......I wouldn't be surprised if we were a sanctuary city with Marty Bloom at the helm. I hope the legal residents read your article and get it.....we will go under as a city/county if nothing is done
to relieve the prisons of the overcrowding and the social service hand outs. Please give us a commentary on those running for office who are supporters of sanctuary cities, and undocumented aliens.
How dare you ask these questions? America's new number one virtue is tolerance at any cost. It does not matter if hospitals shut down or jails become overcrowded. You don't ask these questions in Santa Barbara! Our elected officials are afraid to ask to the real questions and instead stick to the safe ones.
Good for you for asking and for the Daily sound for printing.
Bill
Your columns are pretty silly - your awkward turtle analogy isn't even cute, much less poignant. And this column's entire premises is based on some fantasy that liberals won't discuss illegal immigration. Are you serious? Who is snuffing the debate? Please, give me one example of how you've been silenced by the Big Mean Mayor.
And your whole "science" trip is laughable. I think the writer of this column may be in high school. Science, to a turtle, is to think up a question and then Google it. HA!
You're pointing the finger at the wrong people, and if you're serious about solving the problem you might actually address it: the illegals are here because someone is willing to employ them. You should tell the rich turtles to follow existing federal and state labor laws and not hire workers who at best provide forged documentation and worst none at all. Unless the Mayor has illegal aliens mowing her lawn, she's not contributing to the problem.
Worker Bee -
You have characterized our column in many ways - laughable, silly, "not cute", insipid etc. You are entitled to your opinion but the fact is you read it. whatever the content, a columnist's goal is to get readers, so silly or not it seems to be working. We're not particulary interested in a useless critique, and not sure what your motivation is, self promotion or do you just want to silence or discredit us somehow? Do you fear a conservative voice so much?
We are interested in a constructive forum. As observers we note that generally speaking, those on the left are great at criticizing, but weak on better ideas. We published your comment only because of the idea you presented which is valid and constructive. We are not pointing fingers, we are trying to expose ALL causes not just point fingers at one or two, as the City has done. You are absolutely correct, the employers have much to do with the problem, but not everything to do with it. I am also not sure if you are implying that all Turtles are "rich" or what, but let's not make that assumption. If we were rich I'm not sure how much we would care about the streets of Santa Barbara. That is a rather bigoted statement and broad assumption about what conservatism is about, and those behind it.
We have never said that we have been silenced by the Mayor. We have not said that she is contributing to the problem. Our point is that she is not DOING enough about the problem, it is not her top priority. We don't blame her as the cause. We are exploring ALL causes. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say or accomplish, to keep this constructive you could have just limited your comment to:
"You should tell the rich turtles to follow existing federal and state labor laws and not hire workers who at best provide forged documentation and worst none at all."
We agree!
However,looky here we seem to have a problem when we try to do that, with the ACLU and liberal judges:
From:
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/
blog/2007/10/us_immigration_enforcement_eff.html
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and members of his department have reason to be more frustrated today. A federal district court judge in San Francisco placed a temporary injunction on the department's effort to crack down on employers who employ illegal workers.
The injunction freezes the federal government's efforts to use so-called no-match letters in which employers are informed that workers' Social Security numbers don't jibe the government's records.
After being informed of an inconsistency, workers have a chance to show that the government's records are wrong. If they can't, employers are bound by law to fire those workers or face federal fines and even criminal sanctions
Labor groups, the American Civil Liberties Union, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and immigration groups joined together to sue the federal government, claiming that mistakes in the federal database would penalize workers legally entitled to work in the U.S.
Turtle,
You consider yourself wise in the way of science and principled thinking, no? Then tell me how you interpret criticism of the no-match list as a liberal cause when careful study of the matter would reveal that is simply not a viable solution to the problem of illegal immigration regardless of which political fence you lean upon?
The problems people have with no match letters are that the database by which SSNers are matched is flawed, and therefore bound to wrongfully indict thousands of the legally employed. This does nothing to help business or workers and it certainly does nothing to thwart the offenders: companies that blatantly employ illegal immigrants off of the books. Thank goodness a number of wise people are insisting putting the brakes on this wrongheaded effort.
There is only one solution - enforce the existing laws and force employers to pay legal workers a legal wage. Then, we have to accept that the cost of our food will double, etc. I'm fine with that arrangement. Are you? Or would you prefer the government merely pretend like it's interested in cracking down on illegal immigration and employment by unleashing smoke and mirror tactics like the shoddy no-match letter sham?
If you are indeed what you say you are - a careful and meticulous thinker influenced only by facts - you'll be hard-pressed to organize an argument that supports how no-match letters address the root of the immigration problem: Mayor Marty Blum (oh, and also companies who knowingly employ thousands of low-wage illegal immigrants.)
Bee you seem more obsessed with stinging the turtles than solving problems. This is not about the Turtles and how wise they are. We mostly are just asking questions and presenting information, and topics for discussion. We are hosting a forum about problems, that's it. You should respect your host. Your input is welcome, your sarcasm and criticism of the messenger rather than the message is not useful. All of our statements may be presumed to be preceded by "Correct us if we're wrong". And we also use this for input of information that we are not aware of. This is not about our self righteousness, our superior knowledge or about us at all. That is why this is an open forum. We contribute, you contribute.
Lay down your verbal weapons! Peace!
Turtle,
You write:
"We mostly are just asking questions and presenting information, and topics for discussion. We are hosting a forum about problems, that's it."
No, you're not. You're column and blog is titled: The Conservative Turtle. It is political, outright. You take stabs at the current left-leaning local city council.
If you want to host a forum about problems, you should start a blog called "The Problem Blog" and simply post things like: "We have a gang problem, what can we do to solve it?"
Otherwise, you open yourself to directly to scorn. As it were, I'm the only one responding with earnest points. I'll kindly go away. Then, you'll be left with no debate. Is that what you would like?
Yes, Bee, because one of the biggest problems is the current left-leaning local city council. It is during their term the larger problems have been allowed to fester. Are you afraid that will change when a spotlight is placed on what they are not doing?
Nobody is asking you to leave, we are asking for constructive input, rather than personal criticism of the host.
The left, rather than present positive constructive ideas, always seems to prefer to criticize and discredit the source of views from the other side, with personal attacks, rather than attempt to compete in the arena of ideas. You have demonstrated that quite well. Do you have ideas about how to reduce the gang problem? We would love to have them. Or do you prefer just to criticize ours, simply because of the color of our shells?
First, starting any phrase with "The left always..." is setting yourself up to say something meaningless but polarizing ala Rush Limbaugh. You say you want to avoid the pratfalls of such a pundit, but there you are - leveraging your one fan's pot shots to distract attention from the issue: I've said twice now that the mayor and the city council can do practically nothing about illegal immigration - which you suggest leads to gang violence in Santa Barbara - and that the solution is for federal and state officials to crack down on illegal employers. Then, you and me will commit to simply paying more money for our goods and services so that companies can pay fair wages. So let's get back to the debate and quit discussing your childish turtle persona (is this a serious discussion or a children's book?): How is the Santa Barbara city council responsible for policing state-wide law-breaking employers? Isn't the root of the problem a state and federal law enforcement issue? And finally, why do you insist on making this a left-right issue? I would suggest that you are a tool of those you apparently dislike if you imagine the root of all your problems are because "the left always...".
I'm the only one contributing a solution on your blog, so please quit insisting I'm not. If you can't handle me making fun of your moronic persona while making a larger point maybe you should put your crayons away and go home.
Subject: Letter to the Editor (Daily Sound): Response to the Conservative Turtle
Editor-
Conservative Turtle has an interesting perspective on immigration.
For instance, when a kid is murdered, Turtle wants to ask if that kid's immigration status, or that of the kids' parents, related to the kid's stabbing. Insensitive? Maybe. But it's Turtle's assumption that one would necessarily follow the other that has me questioning Turtle's logic on the issue.
Then there are the costs of immigrants. Turtle's number is $397 billion over 10 years. But Turtle's sources give nearly a half-dozen estimates for the cost, and some not showing whether there are taxes paid by immigrants (sales/income tax, etc). The source does not explain the $397 billion estimate.
That being said, if taxpayers earning over $137,000/year pay 57% of all income taxes, then most of us are a net cost to state/federal governments. The majority of us are free riders.
Turtle also discusses the County's jails (no, they are not prisons) and overcrowding. Turtle doesn't mention that the Grand Jury has recommended a North County Jail since 1994 (before the immigrant surge of the last decade), that the recommendation is due to the 55% of inmates coming from the North County (which incurs transportation/personnel costs for moving inmates to the Main Jail), or that if we deported 20% of our jail population comprised of immigrants, the Main Jail would be only 4% below capacity. In short, there's more to it, Turtle.
I appreciate Turtle. We'd likely agree that employers are part of the problem. Just consider all things—there's always more to it.
-David Esparza Jr
Hello David -
We like to have as much constructive input to this forum as possible, and we don't claim to have all the facts and all the answers. We are mostly trying to shine a light on what is being overlooked by the City.
We publish what info we have and welcome further input, especially by those who may know better.
In response to what you provide, first let us say that we did not presume the murder was a direct result of immigration status, but there is potential it could be a contributor to the cause of the problem. We merely noted that it was not looked into as a possible contributor to the cause, and carefully avoided by the City Leaders. The point we have been developing is that no possible contributor to the cause of gang violence should be ignored in a sincere effort to stop the problem.
We are not talking about immigrants in general, we are talking about illegal immigrants. An illegal worker normally does not pay income taxes. Also, there is a difference between being a legal "free rider" and an illegal one. We don't have the resources to both support the "free riders" of this country as well as those that drift in from other countries for the very purpose of the "free ride". We have a higher obligation to those who are here legally, than those who are not.
Yes we agree there is more to it, but that doesn't mean any part should be ignored, all of it should be looked at. We were not suggesting this is the whole problem, but a significant part that should not be overlooked. Definitely, illegal immigration contributes, it seems to be the amount of contribution you question. Our question is, why should ANY additional cost be tolerated from illegals that should not be here when we have enough problems already as you concur?
Thank you David, we truly appreciate your input and readership.
"Our question is, why should ANY additional cost be tolerated from illegals that should not be here when we have enough problems already as you concur?"
Let's rephrase your question into wording that highlights the challenge and the solution:
"Should we PAY for social services illegal immigrants consume BUT also benefit from the contribution they make in terms of our lowered cost of food, hotels, services, etc."
In other words, everything has positives and negatives, Turtle. You directly benefit from illegal immigration and you need to accept that.
You probably won't post this, as I'm beginning to believe you're seriously uninterested in responding intellectually to a real position that differs from your own.
Bee, your comments will be addressed in time. We don't seem to have as much time for this as do you, and are not sure how much public interest there is in a spar between us and yourself, but we have and will print everything you have submitted to date.
As previously stated, in the future if your submissions continue to contain childish personal and defamatory name calling and critique of us, rather than a direct discussion of the issues, we may choose not to publish.
It isn't a matter of not being able to handle your opinion of us, we just don't think it is constructive or of general interest, other than to showcase an example of an arrogant condescending leftist persona that we spoke of from the beginning. Stay tuned.
Conservative Turtle-
Thanks for the response.
You may put my letter on your blog, if you wish. I would hope, and ask, that the response you put would be similar to the feedback below, in tone and content.
To be honest, this letter below is in quite a different tone than the op-ed piece in the Daily Sound. That piece, while containing much of the same information as below, likely angered (and offended) many people who disagree with your perspective. I know that causing offense is hardly a reason to hold back a viewpoint-- on this I agree with you. Rather, I bring this up because it might help sway opinion if an op-ed piece is written as below.
On another note, while reading Blogabarbara, and reading the discussion on the creation of your blog, I knew from the start that you were trying to create a balance on local politics. Though I am a registered Democrat, some and many of my policy beliefs run counter to what I refer to as 'the Circle' of Santa Barbara Democrats. They have a set of views, often not as Progressive as they think they are, often more concerned about power than about people, easily swayed by one interest group or another.
I'm sure you understand what I mean-- every member of every organization is on the board or belongs to every other organization. To jest, the whole situation is incestuous, and when I think about it I feel like I need a cold shower.
Keep blogging! It may be difficult in a town like this. And the dearth of friends with money, power or prestige in this town may lead to an acute awareness, and sometimes a defensive posture. If I might offer some advice, remember the major audience in this town is made of Democrats. If you want to influence them, bring to light issues and debate how they debate-- on occasion. You did a bit of this in the op-ed, but only at the end, at which point it seemed disingenuous. Nonetheless, your perspective is appreciated... greatly.
I'd love to talk with you(s) about the issue of employers of those who came into this country illegally or under quasi-legal circumstances. I think we likely agree on the premise of this one, and even if that's where agreement ends, it might be something to work on anyway (I have no problem reaching across the aisle, as they say).
My perspective is that employers want the low wages, and end up exploiting immigrant labor. This has implications for both the 'liberal' and 'conservative' perspectives-- employers are part of the immigration problem, and employers are preying on this vulnerable class. The worst part: the City set up the area and contributed to both side of the problem. If it means a citizen group that tracks employers who hire undocumented workers from 'the wall', or citizen pressure to get the SBPD to do it, then so be it. But it is a problem, in any case.
Enjoy the rest of the weekend.
Cheers!
-David Esparza Jr
Back to your 8:30 am yesterday post Bee, you provided another nice example of out-of-context quoting to make your point, as the left always SEEMS to do. You partially quoted us as saying "The left always..." but left out the next word "seems" which kind of deflates your argument. The left always seems to do this.
You also seem to want to discredit and characterize us by associating us with the likes of extremists like Rush Limbaugh, or other partisans or book peddlers, as the left always seems to do. We all know by now that associating us with extremists is an intimidation tactic that is supposed to make us cower in fear and shut up because who wants to be like Rush Limbaugh? It is the secret leftist signal to ignore anything we say because we are just like "HIM" or just one of "THEM"
Next we will try to weed through your rather uncivil mean-spirited personal attacks, critiques and character assassination attempts (didn't we predict this in our first column?) about how moronic and childish you think we are, while biting our tongues to refrain from getting personal with you in return, and trying to be mature enough to avoid calling names.
Hopefully you can contain personal criticisms and characterizations of the host and focus on the issue the next time you have something constructive to contribute.
We already agreed with you about the employer contribution to the illegal immigration problem, but we will not agree that there is nothing the City can do about it, or that it is the only contributing cause to the problem, and thus the solution.
Worker Bee says:
I've said twice now that the mayor and the city council can do practically nothing about illegal immigration - which you suggest leads to gang violence in Santa Barbara - and that the solution is for federal and state officials to crack down on illegal employers. Then, you and me will commit to simply paying more money for our goods and services so that companies can pay fair wages.
The mayor and city council most certainly can do something about illegal immigration and that is to enter into a 287(g) agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and take advantage of other offerings to aid in local community problems with immigration and enforcement thereof. In fact, ICE depends on this cooperation. As far as we can determine, the city has done nothing to take advantage of any means for cooperating with and aiding ICE. See:
http://www.ice.gov/pi/news/
newsreleases/articles/070821dc.htm
It is also rather narrow minded to say that this is the only cause of the problem and the only solution and that the entire blame lies elsewhere - on the Federal and State level. If you need an example of just what a mayor with the political will can do about this issue have a look at
Mayor Lou Barletta at smalltowndefenders.com
As far as paying more for goods and services... what's the difference whether we pay more for our hotels and food, or if we pay more to support public services? We pay either way. As it is now, the only ones benefiting from illegal immigration are the employers or slave owners, they get cheap labor, but we pay the cost that they save themselves, whether by way of taxes or the price of food, hotels and other services, makes no difference. The cost to society outweighs the benefits. I would be happy to pay more for services , less in taxes, and have fewer public safety problems. What is the cost of a young innocent life? Priceless.
"Should we PAY for social services illegal immigrants consume BUT also benefit from the contribution they make in terms of our lowered cost of food, hotels, services, etc."
Umm, actually we prefer there were no illegals at all. Yes then the costs of goods might go up, but taxes could go down to compensate, there might be less violence on the streets, health care and emergency services might be better, legal immigrants and citizens would not have as much competition for jobs, they would not be discriminated against if they were not bilingual when seeking a job. There might be fewer child molesters and rapists and sexual predators on the streets, fewer drive-by shootings and stabbings, fewer drunk drivers , fewer uninsured motorists, ... what were the benefits again?
Finish the wall. Deport every illegal alien in our prison system. Identify and process illegals here now. If they are here illegally they have broken the law. I am envisioning camps all over the country to clearly identify and process these people, ala Miami in the late 70's when Castro expelled thousands from Cuba. I would have advocated this before 9/11, but with the shape our borders are in now we're basically asking for another day like that. Only through the diligent work of our intelligence agencies have we averted a second attack on our soil, and I seriously can't comprehend how we've been able to do that. The borders are so porous that five cells could enter through our southern border with a six month plan for concerted attacks in six cities. So long as they stay off the phone and keep away from the internet they could go undetected here for a long time before the day of execution. The only way to defend against that is to identify EVERYONE and SECURE THE BORDERS. ACLU be damned, it's what we need if we don't want another 9/11 or something worse. I've been called racist for stating my views on the alien problem, but it has nothing to do with Hispanics or Hindus or Nigerians or any race. In other words, all aliens have the same color skin in my eyes, it's their immigration status that defines them WHILE THEY ARE HERE. I think it's ridiculous that some people have to be so PC that they would endanger themselves and their families to lay on the perversity ERRR diversity side of the bed. What is there to be afraid of? Given a chance to identify these people, the government will be better able to provide for them once they get their immigration status in line.
Just my opinion.
Post a Comment