(Ross D. Franklin-Pool/Getty Images)

Santa Clara County would house as many as 50 unaccompanied immigrant children arriving at the Mexican border under a plan being considered by the county’s Board of Supervisors. We’ll discuss the proposal and hear from critics, who say it does nothing to address underlying problems with immigration.

Guests:
Jeffrey Smith, county executive, Santa Clara County
Don Barich, community activist representing groups including the Liberty Volunteers, Conservative Forum and Tea Party Patriots of Silicon Valley

  • jurgispilis

    If we continue to accept them, they will continue to come. Foreigners need to understand that coming to the US illegally is not an option, neither is visiting under a tourist visa and overstaying.

    • Ehkzu

      Roughly half the populaton of Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and probably Belize would come here if we let them. That’s around 60 million people.

      What the advocates for illegals never acknowledge is that Central Americans interested in coming here pay close attention to both the letter of American policy and how it’s carried out in practice.

      Every previous amnesty–notably the one in ’86–communicated to these 60 million people that if they could get over the border and hang in there for a few years they could hope for their very own “permiso” to say permanently.

      Thus the ’86 amnesty–billed as the very last for all time amnesty–triggered a massive influx of illegal immigrants.

      What amnesty advocates also fail to acknowledge is the adverse impact of millions of unskilled laborers on the current American job market for unskilled laborers–whose unemployment rate is sky-high–far higher than for other groups, apart from workers over 60.

  • Skip Conrad

    Why do you refer to them as “immigrant children”? They don’t have the status of being an immigrant, having possession of an immigrant visa. So they’re actually simply foreign children, and not immigrants as all (except perhaps in somebody’s imagination).

    • Ehkzu

      If you want to be inarguably neutral, you can call them “underaged citizens of other countries.”

  • Kurt thialfad

    The underlying problems with our immigration system include providing incentives for aliens to stay here illegally. We protect from deportation, illegal parents who have a child born on US soil. We allow illegal aliens to attend public schools, get employment, pay taxes, even get a mortgage, without having to admit to their illegal status.

    Immigration reform should include the removal of such incentives.

    • Ehkzu

      Best would be a universal biometric database like India’s. Then and only then would we know who’s here legally and illegally, and we would know who’s contributing to our society and who isn’t.

  • Ben Rawner

    Doesn’t CA already have a huge illegal immigrant population problem? How is it a good idea to bring more into CA? Who says these children won’t just run away and continue to fill the illegal ranks?

    • Whamadoodle

      Who said we have an immigrant “population” problem? The problems with illegal immigration are that it forces people most of whom otherwise never break a single law to break the law to come here and to work.

      Also, that their under-the-table work deprives us of the taxes they would pay, so in fact, saying “bad 10-year-old! No fair coming without papers!” does nothing more than cost us MORE money, when if we gave out work visas more freely, we’d have not only their tax money, but the benefits that come when their work is made legal, and they are better able to start businesses (which immigrants do at higher rates than local people do, as studies have shown).
      However, I’ve never known their POPULATION numbers to be the problem. What causes you to claim that?

      • Ehkzu

        Sure, because California has infinite resources–infinite water, infinite arable land, infinite jobs for unskilled laborers.

        Oh, wait. The state government tells us mandatory water rationing is coming within months.

        Meaning it’s not Cornucopia California. It’s Lifeboat California. And you want to let more people into the lifeboat.

  • Another Mike

    So these kids would essentially be “exchange students.”

    How long would they stay? Is there any movement to make their homelands less terrifying?

    • Skip Conrad

      And how do you match them up with family in the US? DNA testing? Any documents would be dubious, and would need to be carefully scrutinized. The potential for fraud seems very high.
      For example, what if the kid’s gangbanger shows up to pick him up?

  • evelyn

    Lets remember that children are the mist priced resource of a society. For parents and guardians to place kids in such a risky situation there has to be extreme desperation and possibly higher risk of harm at home. this just as other global humanitarian crisis and these children are refugees of our declared war on drugs and excessive previous deportation policy. giving them shelter while they await their day in court is the least we can do.

    • Skip Conrad

      The average wait time for that day in court is 2 years. Keeping a foreign “exchange student” without compensation would be hard on any volunteer homeowner.

    • Ehkzu

      Honduran children are the most prized resource of Honduran society. All the world’s threatened children–and there are somewhere in the vicinity of a billion–are not–unless America declares itself ruler of the world–American resources. They’re their countries’ resources. Show some respect for other nations’ sovereignty, culture and history.

  • Ehkzu

    We should provide care for these children in their home countries. I’m sure those countries would welcome foreign aid to that effect.

    Most Americans think that if someone supports helping illegal immigrants in various ways they must be Republican, and if someone’s opposes that they must be Democrats. But that’s not true.

    There are Republicans who support helping illegals because they want to pander to the Latino vote. And there are Democrats who oppose illegal immigration because it harms working-class Americans, and because they believe immigration law and actions shouldn’t be left up to citizens of other countries.

    I’m one of those Democrats, and while I voted for Obama twice and don’t regret that decision (remember the idea of Sarah Palin being a heartbeat from the Presidency?), I oppose his advocacy for amnesty–although I do support the substantial number of deportations done on his watch, which Republicans tend not to recognize.

    In the matter at hand, caring for illegal immigrants is a federal problem that is the direct consequence of federal actions. I don’t understand why local government is inserting itself into this situation. Don’t they have their hands full dealing with local issues? If not, perhaps local government is too large.

    The notion that illegal immigrants are our responsibility because their illegal immigrant parents are already residing here illegally strains the imagination.

    And the notion that the situation in central America is our fault because we buy the drugs that finance the drug gangs is equally fallacious. The government doesn’t buy those drugs. I don’t. It’s an illegal activity here.

    Even if you accept the pure humanitarian pitch, anyone who’s aware of the situation in the world today knows that the children of El Salvador and Honduras are far better off than the children of many other countries. The many thousands of children who die of starvation every day in other parts of the world would gladly trade their situation for that of these children. And the war zones in the eastern Congo, the Central African Republic, Syria, ISIS-controlled Iraq, South Sudan and elsewhere are far more perilous.

    So why give these chidren preference over those children, just because they were able to get to our borders? How is it rational–even on strict humanitarian grounds–to leave this important facet of our foreign policy up to other countries?

    Ite smacks of the logical fallacy called “special pleading” in which an argument of principle turns out to be one group–in this case, Latinos–demanding favored treatment over other equally (or more) deserving groups.

    • Whamadoodle

      “the children of Honduras are far better off”??
      !! Lie much? It’s the country with the single highest peacetime murder rate in the entire world!

      • Ehkzu

        Yes, Honduras’ murder is indeed sky-high. But being murdered is just one way to die.

        According to the 2013 CIA World Factbook, Honduras’ mortality rate of 5.09 per 1,000 people ranks it 41 from the top, out of 235 nations and territories. The United States, thanks having the most guns per capita of any nation on Earth, has a rate of 8.39, a dismal 139 from the top. By that measure people should be fleeing to instead of from Honduras.

        Honduras had a mortality rate of 6 per 1,000 born for kids under 5, while the US rate was 8. And I counted 158 countries with worse rates than Honduras–39 with rates in the triple digits.

        http://www.childinfo.org/files/Child_Mortality_Report_2013.pdf

        Not to mention the areas where wars, rather than homicides, are killing large numbers of people under 18. All the ethnic minorities in ISIS-occupied Iraq and Syria. The unbelievable slaughters going on in South Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Central African Republic, and other localized conflicts.

        So while Honduras’ intentional homicide rate of .9 per thousand is the world’s highest, Honduras is far from the country where you’re most likely to die before your time.

        And while X% of kids from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala showing up at our border were threatened with homicide, all of the kids showing up were told to say they were threatened with homicide–including all the kids whose parents living here illegally sent for them now because the traffickers told them they’d get a “permiso” to live here permanently if they could get across the border–which is why they don’t run, but instead look for border patrolmen to surrender to.

        Of course if you’ve “pre-decided” that any child crossing our border deserves citizenship, then you’ll use confirmation bias to justify that decision by cherrypicking the data to find the figures that support your pre-decision, while ignoring or rationalizing contrary data.

        I can assure you that any Yazidi who have escaped execution by ISIS so far would gladly take their chances in Honduras rather than in the Caliphate. Ditto any Christian families that haven’t been able to escape their territory.

  • JJsKitchen

    This is a good, humane plan to temporary shelter children in need. Our country has a strong tradition of providing safe refuge to vulnerable people who are fleeing harm and violence. Thank you, Santa Clara County for being a leader in welcoming newcomers.

  • Michelle

    Something that seems to be forgotten by many people in discussing this situation is that these are just children. Children need to be cared for by adults, no matter where that care comes from shouldn’t be the issue. It is about caring for children, clear & simple. I’m proud to live in Santa Clara County today!

    • Kurt thialfad

      We know it’s not just kids, because kids on their own would never be able to navigate the journey. They kids are being transported by adults (or at least under the guidance of adults) who are members of smuggling gangs. This where it becomes disturbing – what is the purpose of these trafficking gangs bringing Central American minors to the US?
      I suspect it’s a vast kidnapping scheme, which is very profitable for the cartels, who essentially control our border.

      • Whamadoodle

        They are ESCAPING criminal gangs, who are violent–this has been reported often by this very station. Honduras, for example, has the highest murder rate of any country on earth that’s not at war. That is plainly the reason these children are coming. El Salvador, likewise, is overrun by violent gangs. This is not in dispute (except perhaps by the Glenn Becks of the world, but they’re not exactly credible…).

        Demonizing the children who are coming is a new low, even by Glenn Beck and his sort. Can’t we show just a tiny bit of class, and grace, as a country?

  • I think that our country needs to devise, and then stick with a reasonable program for situations like this; one that recognizes that immigration cannot be an infinite, unruly process, but also sticks to the hallowed tradition that this country is a beacon and a refuge for the “tired, poor and huddled masses”.

    Outside of Tucson, Arizona, we had the embarrassing, pathetic spectacle of the very “un-Christian” behavior of the gun-toting, anti-immigration crowd that surrounded and furiously taunted a school bus full of YMCA kids, thinking that they were the dreaded Central American children. This is the face of modern xenophobia. More “sophisticated” and media-sensitive xenophobes have figured out a clever, sensible-sounding whitewash: our pocketbooks.

    “We have enough problems already”; “where is all the money going to come from”? Well, I know it will be unpopular, or even mindblowing to many, but let’s raise some G-D taxes already! I would willingly, even gladly pay reasonably higher taxes to support reasonable federal programs. The past 30 years of mindless, gung-ho, and exceedingly income-unbalanced tax-cutting has created an atmosphere in which ANY new tax is greeted with a widely acceptable miserliness that is out of proportion to the actual impact upon individual citizens. If a couple of hundred, or even a couple thousand of yearly increased tax dollars *really*–I mean REALLY–breaks your bank, then there is something else significantly wrong with your finances.

    Where would this country be if we had given into the xenophobic ranting of past centuries?? The Irish, Southern European, and Eastern European “ethnic” (non-WASP) immigrants were all feared to be disease-carrying, culturally incompatible (Catholics! Jews! Olive skin!) invaders who would break our government’s finances and destroy “American” values.

    It’s distressing to hear so many echoes of centuries-past xenophobia in current claims of “dirty”, “diseased”, even “violent gangster” Central American pre-teens–have we learned nothing from history? The current crop of immigrants-to-be, largely from Hispanic countries, have already become a very important part of our economy, just like so many of our ancestors did in years past.

    The American value of compassion, and our proud traditions are important enough to warrant funding a national program to better organize their immigration into this country. And please, let’s never again pull stunts like gathering on the roadside with irate, poorly-spelled signs, and heavy personal weaponry to lie in wait for a bunch of really scared and tired kids getting their first impression of this nation.

  • Whamadoodle

    People always pretend that “it’s not bigotry, it’s the fact that they don’t have papers.” Hm… so in other words, if our immigration quotas had only been set high enough, and we legally let in all who wanted to apply from here on (provided they have no criminal history), then you’ll all be fine with that, correct?

    This is just spiteful pulling up of the ladder. “My ancestors were allowed to come here, but you don’t get to. I’ve got mine, suckas!” It’s spiteful when applied to adults who risk (and often suffer) death to come here. When people scream “go home!” at little KIDS? I’m so sorry, but guys and gals–that’s low. There’s no making that pig look pretty. If we’re talking about pre-teens, forced to flee from violent criminal gangs, could we just knock it off? I mean, get real–the numbers are small. Even if they were high enough for you EVER to notice it without the right-wing news hyping it up, there’d still be no excuse. There is simply no need to do that. It’s low.

    • Ehkzu

      Many who oppose immigration of uneducated central American campesinos are bigoted. Many others are not. Lumping both groups together is itself bigoted.

      Those who are not bigoted rarely favor limitless immigration–that’s a straw man argument. Instead, this group believes that immigration should focus on admitting people who can benefit America: people with college degrees and/or business/artistic success; people who can speak fluent English, regardless of national origin.

      You believe immigration should focus on people who America can benefit. If they happen to be able to cross our borders by hook or by crook. But the people in far worse circumstances than Salvadoreans and Guatemalans aren’t so near. However, I’m sure your infinite generosity would be fine with airlifting them here.

      The list should start with children who are starving to death (many thousands do each day). A billion people on Earth are starving right now, and a significant percentage of them are children, spread across the Third World. And of course it’s only fair to bring their parents.

      So that’s a billion people added to America.

      Next, violently persecuted minorities. That would start with Middle Eastern Christians and members of other sects–Druze, Yazidi, Bahai, Zoroastrians–who Islamist zealots consider heretics, in ISIS-controlled Syria and Iraq, and all the other Arab and Persian countries and Pakistan that are controlled all or in part by Islamist zealots. That would add, oh, let’s say tens of millions more.

      Next, civilians in combat zones who are being killed/raped/mutilated in large numbers, in the Eastern Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq. That’s millions more.

      Next. people who can’t find work because their country is severely overpopulated. That’s probably another billion people.

      Since you place no restrictions on who we are to save, I give you your New America: pretty much the same as India today, with a middle class of a few hundred million people plus over a billion subsistence-level/starving peasants.

      Now if you place limits on the largesse you demand we provide–limiting admission only to those in the most severe situations–that would leave out pretty much all the children now coming to join their illegal immigrant parents in America, from Guatemala and El Salvador. Because as bad as their situation is–and it’s bad, to be sure–the situations of the other groups I’ve mentioned is even worse. They’re just farther away, and their families don’t have $7K to pay coyotes.

      This is the single issue that’s driving so many working-class Americans into the Republicans’ eager arms. It’s their jobs that are being threatened, not those of sentimental middle-class Americans. Ditto their neighborhoods that are being invaded–not nice middle class neighborhoods like the ones most of us commenting here live in.

      Lastly, you seem to have no realization of the fact that America is overpopulated relative to our water supply and our agricultural resources, which are now based on such reckless exploitation of the environment that they’re unsustainable. And of course every American consumes, on average, more resources and produces more pollution than the average citizen of any other country. Those vast stretches of the West are empty because they’re waterless. Global warming is making the climate less predictable–including our water supply. California’s current drought, which will soon bring us to mandatory water rationing statewide, could last a dozen years or triple that.

      In which case our state’s ability to support the 38 million people currently here would no longer be here.

      It’s nice to care about others. It’s less nice to do so in a way that pays no heed to logic or consequences.

      • Whamadoodle

        Talk about straw men–neither I, nor anyone else I’ve ever heard, has advised airlifting a billion people here (I WISH we could, of course–but then, it would be more efficient just to move every person to where there were 1) resources and 2) infrastructure on which they could build businesses. But since it is impossible, you’re saying something silly). What I said was that those who can come here, should be allowed in–just as you and I or our ancestors kindly were, I’d remind you.

        “jobs… being threatened”
        As mentioned, this is false. As The Economist, and several others, have reported, studies show again and again that immigration is a net economic BENEFIT to a country, not a drain. This is partly because, as mentioned, immigrants are more likely to become entrepreneurs than the native-born.

        As to over-population, the WORLD is overpopulated; compared to much of the rest of the developed world, our population density isn’t bad at all. Japan has four times California’s population, in less space, and Germany almost three times. That goes for water and everything else.

        Let me ask you something: would your ancestors who came here (or you, if you are an immigrant) be allowed in, if you were the guy who was making the decisions as to who’s allowed in or not? Why, or why not? By what criteria would you be one of the privileged few that you would allow here? If we’re going to talk logic.

        • Ehkzu

          Thanks for reinforcing your example of care without regard to logic or consequences, to which we can add “and dismissing all challenges with rationalizations and fallacious arguments.”

          First, jobs. Skilled workers–like the numerous immigrants I know here in Silicon Valley–contribute to the economy. But here I was talking about unskilled laborers, who even liberal economist Paul Krugman agrees drive down wages (and give employers the means to bust unions) in the unskilled labor market. These are not the people who start companies, overwhelmingly. They are the people who–through no fault of their own–have nearly broken the emergency medicine system in the Southwest, and have driven down unskilled wages (adjusting for inflation) 5-25%, depending on the locale and the particular jobs involved.

          Funny how little concern unlimited immigration advocates show for the unskilled laborer segment, which continues to show unemployment figures above 20%.

          I remember black laborers in New Orleans being interviewed after Hurricane Katrina, talking about how they’d been getting good work in rubuilding the city until the Mexican illegals showed up. Then the American blacks were all tossed under the bus, because the illegals were cheaper, easy to cheat, and had no legal recourse if they did get cheated or injured.

          Second, overpopulation. Liberals understood the overpopulation problem until the mid-1970s, when a wealthy liberal Catholic businessman donated a stunnng amount of money to the Sierra Club on one condition: that it shut up about overpopulation. Which it did and has to this day.

          The problem with the overpopulation issue is that both liberals and conservatives deny it. Liberals because they live in terror of being called racist (since the most obviousl overpopulation is in the Third World), while conservatives believe they have a God-given right to breed, even if there’s no food for the offspring to eat.

          Your airy dismissal of water issues–when California is on the verge of mandatory rationing–exemplifies the inability of ideologues to consider the adverse consequences of their beliefs. Look up “porous aquifer” “water table salinization” “salt water intrusion due to sea level rising” and “global warming” for starts. And beyond our borders, consider all the countries that depend on water coming from another country, upstream.

          Exhibit A is the Colorado River delta in Mexico, which was once a rich agricultural area and is now desert, due to our damming the Colorado and reducing the flow to Mexico to a trickle. Imagine if Mexico were able to take us to some future world court and get their water flow restored. What would LA drink? Desalinization is expensive and energy-intensive, BTW. It’s no panacea.

          We can’t depend on the amount of water we used to assume was forthcoming from Mother Nature. California’s population has quadrupled since I was born here, while unsustainable irrigation has created vast agricultural areas that are now starting to fail, since overpumping–a national and world crisis–causes porous aquifers to collapse, after which they lose their ability to store water. Forever.

          Japan and Germany are located in different climates, both with a lot more average rainfall than California overall. Only our coastline north of Manchester or therabouts has anywhere near enough rainfall to compare with those countries.

          And they’re overpopulated as well. As I said, overpumping of porous aquifers is a worldwide problem. And neither of those countries have the huge tracts of desert California has.

          And the proof is in the pudding. We will soon have mandatory water rationing statewide, even as people like you advocate bringing in unlimited numbers of additional people–all of whom need water as far as I know. Rationalize that away.

          As the latest IPCC climate report (currently in draft form) states:

          “North America: Many climate-related hazards that carry risk, particularly related to severe heat, heavy precipitation, and declining snowpack, will increase in frequency and/or severity in North America in the next decades (very high confidence). Climate change will amplify risks to water resources already affected by nonclimatic stressors, with potential impacts associated with decreased snowpack, decreased water quality, urban flooding, and decreased water supplies for urban areas and irrigation (high confidence).”

          http://ipcc-wg2.gov/AR5/images/uploads/WGIIAR5-TS_FGDall.pdf

          The truth is that while liberals decry the Republican War on Science–which is pervasive and toxic to our civilization–liberals are also hostile to science when it reveals truths they find inconvenient.

          First and foremost of which is the notion that Earth has infinite resources–Cornucopia Earth. That’s a much funner place to live than what we really have–Lifeboat Earth–where, to quote future President Clinton, we will face “hard choices.”

          if you’re unable to acknowledge that America in general and California in particular have a finite carrying capacity, and that many of the practices currently feeding and watering us are unsustainable in the long run, then you’re really no better than the no-nothing Tea Party types currently plaguing American politics.

          As far as immigration policy goes, my ancestors all came here in the 19th century as unskilled laborers–when we needed unskilled laborers, and had jobs for unskilled laborers.

          That situation is not true now. Immigration policy must be appropriate to the times.

          And our times should welcome people with skills we do need, like my friend from the former East Germany with a Phd in physics who’s now a programmer in Silicon Valley, well able to support his wife who has no advanced education and their two children.

          But note that even in the skilled labor area, many Americans with BAs, BSs and more are complaining that the high tech industry in bringing in lots and lots of H1B workers who don’t have really advanced skills, just because they’re cheaper.

          I would also take a page out of Mexico’s immigration law, that forbids immigration of any ethnic group large enough to change Mexico’s culture.

          Since Mexican-Americans now represent at least one out of ten Americans, we’ve done that. It’s no skin off my nose–especially since I speak Spanish, have lived in Mexico, and am quite familiar with Latin American culture. But working class Americans are upset by driving down streets they grew up on seeing stores with names and descriptions they can’t read. Doubtless you dismiss such complaints as bigotry.

          But I don’t know any other country that would welcome having its own culture displaced by another. Today the most-watched TV station in LA, where I’m from, broadcasts entirely in a language other than English. There are parts of Miami where you’ll have trouble being served in stores if you don’t speak Spanish. Again, not a problem for me personally. But I don’t see why members of America’s dominant culture should accept it being displaced in areas of high Latino concentrations.

          And the culturally insensitive promotion of illegal immigration by liberal constituents and politicians is the single reason I believe we’re suffering from a Republican majority in the House. Democrats like you have driven working-class Anglo Americans into the eager arms of the GOP, which panders to their fears just as you insult them about them.

          Think about that this November 5th.

          • Whamadoodle

            You… you are aware, aren’t you, that Spanish-speaking people FOUNDED the cities of LA AND Miami… aren’t you?

            Yes, I DO dismiss it as bigotry when people yell about people not speaking English. But considering the inconvenient truth that the Spanish owned large parts of most places that do that complaining, I dismiss it as pure stupidity first.

            And unfortunately, you lie: “if you’re unable to acknowledge that America in general and California in particular have a finite carrying capacity, and that many of the practices
            currently feeding and watering us are unsustainable in the long run,”

            I just got DONE acknowledging that that was true, not only for California, but for the entire earth. I merely added the facts–which you don’t, and can’t, refute–that the whole earth has a finite carrying capacity, and unsustainable practices, and that California has less population density than much of the rest of the developed world. You lie.

            Sorry–screaming “GO HOME!” at a bunch of little kids is just tacky. It’s dirt-low. You all don’t want to look like bad guys, but you ARE bad guys. You KNOW you’re not suffering due to these children’s presence, you KNOW that they’re fleeing conditions that would leave you cowering in fear for your life (if you were lucky enough not to lose it to the gangs down there), yet you yell “get them out of here! They’re interrupting my wine and foie gras!” when you have no earthly reason to do so–just spite. Skin-flintedness.

            And what will you say when it’s you? When, say, who knows–we DO run out of water, and Canada is the country saying “sorry, friend; we don’t need people with your skills”? Your tune is going to change like THAT. I highly doubt you’ll graciously say “but of course–I’ll just starve to death, or be killed by our drugs gangs. Don’t mind me.” You’ll be eating all your high-and-mighty words so fast you’ll vomit them again. If it were you, fleeing some murderous criminal gangs like the Hondurans have, you’d BEG people to forget what you said here. You pretend that’s not true, or justify it, since you don’t want to look bad; but you know it.

    • Skip Conrad

      I seems to me that they traveled in the company of violent criminal gangs.

      • Whamadoodle

        The fact is, on the contrary, that they are ESCAPING criminal gangs, such as those terrorizing them in Honduras. It sounds as if you’re misinformed. Their parents sometimes hire coyotes to take them across the border, but the violent criminal gangs are the ones they’re escaping from. There are certain “news” outlets, however, that attempt to smear these children as criminal, and they disseminate this misinformation.

        • Skip Conrad

          Perhaps, they are ESCAPING criminal gangs, but they ain’t taking Greyhound. They are traveling in the company of coyotes, who are members of criminal smuggling gangs.

          • Whamadoodle

            …so, who cares? What part of my original post are you disagreeing with, then, and what is the point of saying that they’re forced to use networks of nonviolent coyote smugglers, who you say are part of gangs, in order to escape violent criminal gangs? Seems a cheap attempt to smear the kids at any cost.

            It’s so low.

    • Whamadoodle

      Anyway–People–bullying little kids? REAL classy. Is there nothing people don’t sink to, these days? Anyone who thinks they’re good at perfuming pigs, you’re not… you’re really not…

      And anyone doubting that it’s bigotry at the base of all this, note that the Ehkzu fellow below, who took umbrage and fumed so much that “it’s not bigotry!” then turned right around and said:

      “But working class Americans are upset by driving down streets they
      grew up on seeing stores with names and descriptions they can’t read.”
      and “But I don’t know any other country that would welcome having its own culture displaced by another.” and “I don’t see why members of America’s dominant culture should accept it being displaced in areas of high Latino concentrations.”

      Hahaha!! (Shakes head) Uh, no, pal–not bigoted, not bigoted at all. Not much, it’s not. In my city, we LIKE having diversity. I wouldn’t WANT the place to have a “dominant culture” instead of that. Yes, it is the very definition of bigotry to dislike such diversity.

Sponsored by

Become a KQED sponsor