//
you're reading...

Immigration

UNLV Student Attacked for Immigration Status

To the Editor,

I write this letter with a heavy heart and deep concern for UNLV students, the campus, the community, and my safety. I was recently informed by three current UNLV CSUN (Consolidated Students of the University of Nevada) Student Government members that a CSUN Senator had plans to file a legal case with the elections board against me for wanting to become a CSUN Senator as an “illegal.” This senator is Rachel Stephens. The same senator who has run on campaigns with and was endorsed by our current CSUN President Mark Ciavola and number of the other individuals on the Rebels United circle who control CSUN.  I am so disgusted and disheartened by the current leadership in CSUN. The three individuals who spoke to me said she was freely insulting me, calling me an “illegal” and even going as far as saying she would report me to the federal government to get me deported. This was all done on the third floor of the Student Union in the CSUN offices.  Insultingly, CSUN is entirely funded by student fees; as a matriculated student, the money I work so hard to earn for tuition pays the salary Stephens enjoys as a senator.

I am a third-year History and Women’s Studies dual-major honor student at UNLV. In addition, I have a been a critical leader of a myriad of student organizations such as CSUN, the Rebel Pride Council, UNLV Spectrum, the Rebel Service Council, MEChA de UNLV, and the Alternative Spring Break program. I am involved in my university and campus because I passionately care. I never imagined my desire to better my campus and community could lead to something like this.

I am not illegal. I am undocumented—there’s a difference.

To say  otherwise strips away my very humanity and defames me as a mere object of scorn and subjugation rather than a loving son, driven student and dedicated member of our community.  My very brave and beautiful mom and dad brought me to the United States when I was a little less than two years old. Their hopes were for me to grow up in what they saw as the greatest place on Earth—America; to receive a good education, work hard, and have the opportunities they never had; to do with my life things beyond the imaginations and realities of living in the small pueblo they were raised in.

I am not writing this because I seek sympathy or even understanding. This is not about me. This is about the division, the hateful rhetoric and the many people on the third floor CSUN offices of the student union who continue to offend, disgrace, and disempower the UNLV student population. A lot of issues came to light with the recent elections invalidations, but the work is not done. Mark Ciavola and a gang of those under him have engaged in a number of ad hominem defamation of character campaigns—such as Stephens’ threat to deport me—that attack, humiliate, and silence specific people whom do not swear unyielding allegiance and walk in lockstep with their divide and conquer point of view. I will not be silenced. We need to be aware of the way the current UNLV Student Government leadership is treating the students they are supposed to serve and demand better.

-Jose Ramon Garcia

Discussion

52 Responses to “UNLV Student Attacked for Immigration Status”

  1. Do you mind if I quote a couple of your articles as long as
    I provide credit and sources back to your website?

    My blog site is in the exact same niche as yours and my visitors would truly benefit from some of the information you provide here.
    Please let me know if this alright with you. Appreciate it!

    Posted by google plus apps | June 4, 2014, 1:56 am
  2. http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/nov/29/immigration-status-unlv-student-senate-candidate-s/

    The Las Vegas Sun ran a story – initiated by Garcia – which on the whole makes Garcia look like an immature whiner and a political muckraker.

    The ‘letter’ Garcia wrote, republished here in the slime blog, hypes the hatred toward him NOT backed up by the interviews in the story.

    Garcia says, in the different versions now emerging, that it not about Rachel Stephens, but then how it is about Rachel Stephens – how it’s about him yet not about him – then it is about him and then but about the ‘anti-immigrant’ actions generally blah, blah, blah….

    Even the hispanic interviewee, Sen. Revelorio, says Stephens and the situation in general is not racist but based on rules and real concerns – and IF Garcia had just asked for himself instead of launching (my words) this propaganda and political smear campaign – the animosity and misunderstanding(s) would have been avoided.

    McAffee, your boy isn’t looking too good – at all! I guess the Sun’s reporters and their work product have more an obligation to the truth than your slime blog does!

    Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 30, 2012, 8:07 am
  3. Jose,

    The UNLV community stands with you!

    Posted by Steve | November 27, 2012, 3:28 pm
  4. No one is an “illegal” or “illegal alien”!

    The terms “illegal” and “illegal alien” are inaccurate, misleading, dehumanizing and racist.

    1. Just because the US government uses these terms does not mean it is justifiable or okay. Let’s not forget how the US government has also justified slavery/racism, no voting rights for women/sexism, etc, the list goes on. Being critical of the language the government imposes on minority is a must, especially with a country like the United States, which has a long history of hatred and discrimination against minorities.

    2. The terms imply that immigrants are not humans and “don’t belong here.” We need to understand migration as a natural process. Migration is a natural part of life, around the world, people have been migrating for many reasons, often for survival and a better life.

    3. Many documented people commit so-called “illegal” acts like running a red light but we do not go around calling those people “illegals.” Immigrants have traditionally been targeted and scapegoated in the US and other countries for a variety of reasons.

    4. The terms are racist because they target people of color and open the doors to racial profiling. They also perpetuate racist ideas that people of color are of lesser value, criminals and outsiders.

    5.They are inaccurate because they often do not reflect the person immigrant status.Depending on the situation, they may be violating only civil, not criminal law or their status might be in limbo. Other terms people use to define a person undocumented status are “unauthorized,” “aspiring citizen” and “entered without inspection.”

    6. Using these terms demonizes immigrants for migrating and ignores how countries like the US have played a critical part in displacing immigrants from their countries through war and free trade. The implementation of NAFTA and CAFTA, negatively impacted Mexican and Central American peoples/economies through allowance of unequal and unfair subsidizations and the exploitation of labor.

    When speaking about immigration, we need to center the discussions in dignity and love! Acknowledging the naturalness of migrating!

    Posted by Manuel Santillana | November 27, 2012, 2:49 pm
  5. Why would you state names when writing this? It’s not like you actually have any upperhand in what you are saying. Illegal/undocumented. You are here without permission! No matter what, you can get deported. If I were any of those people you mentioned, I probably would follow through with trying to get you deported. You are in no way in any right and should have kept your mouth shut. For the safety of your family. Why would you expose yourself like this?

    Posted by Nicole | November 24, 2012, 7:30 am
    • I’m DACAmented. So I’m not putting myself or my family in danger. #ThanksObama

      Posted by Jose Garcia | November 26, 2012, 11:46 am
      • Deferred action is only a temporary measure and is not intended to, and does not grant, legal status to the individuals. In addition, it does not cure such applicant’s previous periods of unlawful presence. Only lasts two years.

        Also,
        “Pro: If you’re approved, you don’t have to worry about being deported for two years and you can get a job if an employer will hire you.

        Con: There is no path to permanent legal status, let alone citizenship. In many states, you can’t use the DACA visa to get what many undocumented immigrants really want: a driver’s license. You put yourself at risk of deportation since you have to apply for the visa from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the very government agency that has already deported more than 1.5 million people during Obama’s first term. You also put any undocumented family members at risk because the personal information you’re required to hand over to ICE includes your home address. While ICE didn’t know you existed before, now it will always be part of your life since it has a file on you, your fingerprints, and your personal information.”

        Read more: http://www.voxxi.com/daca-visa-program-dream-sour/#ixzz2DMNgz8vN

        Posted by Anny Ommus | November 26, 2012, 12:49 pm
        • Poor Master Garcia!

          Believes he’s home free now that Obama pandered after feeling the heat from that Telemundo interview and then ignoring Federal Law. The measure is TEMPORARY. Just enough to get Obama re-elected.

          He did nothing permanent when he had the WH and Congress and ‘promised’ results in “(my) first year”, LOL. What makes young master Garcia believe he’ll do anything if he faces any kind of debate about it?

          Young and foolish, master Garcia is. Devotion to Obama for a temporary scrap of status due to go away like almost every other ‘promise’ Obama makes. You are simply being used, Jose – while ignoring the political party which has demonstrated REAL results, answers and initiatives in this subject.

          Good luck, Jose!

          Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 26, 2012, 4:57 pm
          • Ignore Mr. He-man. He’s quite oblivious to the fact that the Republicans voted against the DREAM Act, which Democrats have been pushing for over a decade. He’s oblivious to the fact that SB1070 and bills like it have been passed by Republicans. The most atrocious parts of our immigration law was passed by Republicans. Abraham Lincoln would be a Democrat today. Notice that the electoral map looks essentially the same as it did around the Civil War, only in reverse color. The South is all red now… and they show their true colors everyday. Republicans in Florida are even publicly admitting their new election laws where simply meant to suppress minority and Dem voters.

            http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/11/26/1234171/florida-republicans-admit-voter-suppression-was-the-goal-of-new-election-laws/

            Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 26, 2012, 5:05 pm
          • McAffee = I love it when you’re flailing! The racist Southern Democrat; sponsors of 125 years of attacks on blacks – have been run out of the South = only to take camp on the coasts and the unionized-inductrial ‘rust belt’ states – where blacks are used as ‘human shields’ for liberal purposes.

            Can’t overcome a filibuster on the DREAM Act, with 4-5 (Ds) crossing over – too bad. America hates the pandering liberals need to survive.

            Republicans saved the black while southern democrats kept on brutalizing them; live with it! Republicans got the 1964 act passed OVER the racially brutal Democrat. Republicans got the ‘Jim Crow’ laws gone! Republicans have proposed answers; while Obamunist liberals provide snake-oil and null promises.

            Irrelevant articles from joke news sources only add to your own smallness – on your own slime blog. Live with it!

            Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 26, 2012, 5:17 pm
          • The first time it went thru congress:

            “Just eight Republicans joined Democrats to back the bill, while more than three dozen Democrats broke with their party to vote against it.”

            The second time it went thru congress:

            8 Dem voted against it, 12 Rep voted for it.

            What you should take away from this…

            Not everything is cut and dry as Red vs Blue. Both the McAffee and Heeman seem to think that one party is blocking the other, while the fact of the matter is that neither side has a firm stance.

            Posted by Anny Ommus | November 27, 2012, 11:57 am
          • Anny, I appreciate your tone and approach to the conversation. It is a more useful dialogue.

            Let me just put some thought to your comment. If 8 Dems voted against it, 12 Reps voted for it, that means 100s of Dems voted FOR IT and 100s of Reps voted against it. So that seems pretty cut and dry to me. Yes, there are some anomalies in both parties… we call them Blue Dogs or RINOs, usually from swing districts. But these votes make it clear which party is behind sensible immigration reform, and which party is content to maintain the brutal status quo. The GOP presidential primary was full of anti-immigrant rhetoric and that is because the base is anti-immigrant and xenophobic. They are afraid of losing their country… that’s why they keep talking about “taking their country back.”

            Posted by Justin McAffee | November 27, 2012, 12:26 pm
          • Well thank you.

            I think you are confusing the issue of immigration reform as some sort of moral issue. If you replaced immigration reform with abortion in your comment for example, one might think that you’re saying that the base of Dems hate babies and the base of Reps hate women.

            The issue isn’t a moral one, it is an economic one (as you can see on many of the congressmen’s websites). They are voting on whether or not they think the bill will help or hurt their constituents economically.

            Posted by Anny Ommus | November 27, 2012, 1:02 pm
    • Undocumented people are coming out of the shadows because they are tired of being afraid! They are human being regardless of their immigrant status. And yes, it matters, their voice matters. Many faculty members, including myself are in full support of undocumented students and the immigrant rights movement.

      Also, unless you are Native American, you or your ancestors have also came to this country without permission!

      Posted by Steve | November 27, 2012, 2:56 pm
      • Anywhere one goes on the planet, one has to ‘show papers’ or face consequences. Except, in the S/W border of the U.S., where a massive guilt game goes on applauded by one political party desperate for another voting block to pander to and try and absorb!

        The illegal alien and their liberal political enablers claim every PR stunt and language twist to guilt Americans they are righteous and have claims they really do not have – and never have had – under the law. This includes a POTUS who ignores federal law to pander when under re-election ‘heat’!

        You can ‘stand’ wherever you like – that stance does not make illegal aliens any more legal.

        Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 28, 2012, 7:52 am
      • You are 100% correct. Other than Native Americans, everyone’s ancestors came to this country without permission.

        However, just like everyone else in the western world we fought, killed, and died for the land. And we, just like any other country have a right to protect the land and its people the way we seem fit.

        We once deemed it necessary to enact immigration law to somehow protect citizens of America (most likely economically). Whether or not those laws are still relevant today or need to be reformed is up for debate.

        But please do not group illegal immigrants and foreign invaders together. It is not only detrimental to your cause but makes you look inept at discerning the difference between the two. Unless you believe that the illegal immigrants are going to rise up and attack America for its land.

        Posted by Anny Ommus | November 28, 2012, 9:58 am
  6. illegal: not according to or authorized by law

    alien: relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country or government

    Don’t see how either of those words don’t describe a person that has been born in anther country and did not go through proper legal means to obtain citizenship in the current country they are living in. However, you all do make a strong argument that the word “illegal” is degrading because it is not usually a word we associate with people.

    So here is a compromise, instead of “illegal alien” we all should instead use use the term “foreign criminal”. They both mean the exact same thing but in this instance both “foreign” and “criminal” are commonly associated directly with people.

    Side note: Describing a person with words that accurately define that person is not racism or an act of racism. It would be racism if you used that term to describe an entire race however. No were does it say in any comments or in the letter that anyone was using this term to describe a race.

    Side note 2: “Undocumented” should probably be grouped with “illegal” as terms that are dehumanizing don’t you think.

    Posted by Anny Ommus | November 21, 2012, 12:51 pm
    • Finally, a response with rationality and legal grounding!

      ‘Illegal ALIEN’ is certainly the correct and proper legal term for those who make a choice to not have legal status in America. The rest of the language bastardization is on the pandering liberal – dying to bow down lower than they are already to stick another voting block in their back pockets – while giving Latinos NOTHING meaningful in return.

      This letter reads, after reading it four or five times, like more propaganda that a cry for legitimacy. Jose needs not fear deportation after Obama – who did NOT provide ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ (CIR) “in (my) first year in office” as he ‘promised’ (get used to broken promises from this president, Latinos) == and IF this person threatened him with it = MAN UP, PUNK and defend yourself!

      Obama has done NOTHING meaningful for Latinos, while Republicans (who freed the slaves and got the 1964 CRA passed FOR LBJ among many other acts of equality) have advanced ‘guest worker programs, Bush43-era legitimate registrations of in-nation illegals to ‘put them on the books’ for future forward movement to help them and SO MANY other possibilities – only to be lied about and demonized for their benevolent actions.

      The basis of this kid’s letter and the lying responses from the pro-illegal migration crowd = is reverse racism. THEY and their Democrat-liar pimps are the racists, hiding behind their skin color to blame others for advantages not-due them BY THEIR OWN CHOICES.

      Anyway, the case for reverse racism BY the ‘pro-illegal alien’ crowd is so powerful that this kid should be embarrassed for himself and his weakness. This is NOT any case of ‘fairness’ by a genuinely aggrieved group by circumstance NOT of their own making. THIS is backlash against spineless illegal aliens who think they can shame and name-call and demonize America to bless THEIR crimes of being in America without proper and legal permission.

      In this case, I DO agree that children of illegal aliens should have a ‘break’ due to being here not of their choosing – but the blame is on their parents who placed their children in this position. Obama ignored federal law to executive action this status TEMPORARILY. That’s the ‘rub’ here. Obama – after hosing Latinos on “CIR” = felt the heat of a tough re-election campaign and had to pander – thus, Jose’s status.

      “Illegal Alien” is the correct and proper legal term for those who ‘hopped the fence’ and now think they have ‘rights’ in America for a path to citizenship. This is FALSE! One can not and should not benefit from a crime – as fence hopping illegals now try to do.

      Welcome to a re-adjustment of the bastardization of the language liberals employ to proffer rights to illegal aliens who now guilt and demonize and try to pry a path to citizenship they neither earn or deserve.

      Finally, those who cry racism here ARE the racists. Not having legal status and hiding behind YOUR skin color to shame benefits IS reverse racism and you should be ashamed of yourselves. The Democrat liberals plays on your status in a pandering way to ‘stick you in their back pockets’ as to votes. Obama has NO INTENTION of helping your situation as he could have rammed ‘CIR’ through ANY DAY HE WANTED in his first two years and DID NOTHING until he felt re-election heat and that Telemundo interview. Make no mistake, Democrat liberals intend to milk more political juice and get ‘you’ used to voting Democrat for some more election cycles BEFORE Latinos here illegally get ANYTHING of substance regarding ‘your’ situation.

      Republicans had offered many types of compromise and ways to advance ‘your’ situation through the decades. Ronald Reagan got ‘amnesty’ passed in his day and ‘we’ have tried help – only to be lied about and demonized by liberals who are desperate for another voting block due to their hollow and lying political existence in this time.

      Good luck, Jose.

      Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 22, 2012, 12:10 pm
    • I guess you haven’t read any of the other comments, as you haven’t once addressed any of the points made that explain why your argument is problematic.

      Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 26, 2012, 5:11 pm
      • Your usual response to getting whacked around = again. This kind of non-response appears after your being steamrolled = again.

        Aiding and abetting lawbreakers seems your latest political flail. Keep on a-flopping like a carp on the pier.

        Poor Mr. Garcia. Doesn’t know he’s being used as a liberal tool. But you do know, don’t you?

        Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 26, 2012, 5:20 pm
        • Mental illness is no laughing matter… I do feel bad for you sir. I would strongly urge you to get back on your meds, or get some if you don’t have any.

          Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 26, 2012, 5:25 pm
          • Are you reduced to sad, irrelevant snipes, McAffee? Unable to argue anymore in a thread you started? Being out-thought at every turn? Out of your depth and flailing after 2-3 interactions? Thought so!

            Obamunism really IS a mental-emotional disability. Thank you for reminding me of that! You keep mentioning ‘meds’ over and over. Maybe that is a freudian slip on your part. Maybe Obama has a pandering nanny-state program for that?

            Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 27, 2012, 8:15 am
          • I’ve already crushed your arguments. I’m just responding to your hyper-delusional claims of victory the only way one can talk to a troll like you. I could ignore you, but that wouldn’t be any fun.

            Posted by Justin McAffee | November 27, 2012, 9:50 am
          • LOL! “Crushed (my) arguments”?? WHERE? I guess the suggestion as to your freudian med use remarks were on the mark?

            Poor Jose Garcia, having champions like you, could do no worse.

            I guess it’s time for young master Garcia to learn the phrase “useful idiot” – and no better teacher than you, McAffee!

            Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 27, 2012, 11:44 am
    • Many documented citizens commit “illegal acts” and “crimes” like running a red light however there is not an entire movement dedicated to degrading people for these crimes. There is an entire movement however that have targeted and continue to criminalize undocumented immigrants without understanding the complexities of migration. Also your definitions of both “illegal” and “alien” are one of many. Alien is also defined by strange, dissimilar, not belonging, etc.

      Also, it is racism when specific racial groups of color are being targeted and connected to demeaning terms. The primary racial group who had been targeted by hateful, criminalizing and dehumanizing language have been Latinos. In Arizona, it is now legal to racially profile people for the way they look. If you look “illegal” or “suspicious” AKA brown or Latino you are a target for being stopped and questioned. Furthermore, race need not be mentioned to fully understand the racism at play, it can be seen between the lines, the impact proves it is racism.

      Lastly, If there is anything that our 2012 elections have taught us is that mr. heeman, anny and nicole’s way of thinking is slowly diminishing in this country. Hateful is hateful. Women, people of color, the LGBT community and both documented/undocumented immigrants are coming out of the shadows to make this country fully understand what equality means!

      Posted by Steve | November 27, 2012, 3:27 pm
      • Your whole post here is choked with the debunked arguments of illegal aliens and their enablers’ efforts to legalize the illegal.

        “There is an entire movement however that have targeted and continue to criminalize undocumented immigrants without understanding the complexities of migration.”

        Try moving to anywhere else on the planet without ‘papers’ and the legal permission of that nation to be there! ‘We’ perfectly understand the legalities liberals try to dilute and undermine with guilting and rhetorical corrosion.

        “Also your definitions of both “illegal” and “alien” are one of many. Alien is also defined by strange, dissimilar, not belonging, etc.”

        Another effort to dilute the discussion, properly rejected. Illegal ALIEN is the correct legal phrase for those who do not have whet they need. The terminology is perfectly clear to those not undermining the law.

        “Also, it is racism when specific racial groups of color are being targeted and connected to demeaning terms. The primary racial group who had been targeted by hateful, criminalizing and dehumanizing language have been Latinos.”

        Your whole paragraph on racism is garbage. The undocumented are here illegally BY THEIR CHOICES AND OWN ACTIONS, which have nothing to do with skin color in this issue. Bogus cries of racism are just that = distractions for guilting and demonizing those who demand legal immigration and proper documentation. Once Obama pandered to illegal aliens in order to get re-elected, we’ll see IF he brings it up again; as he never did after ‘promising’ to get ‘CIR’ done “in (my) first year” with a stacked Congress.

        “Lastly, If there is anything that our 2012 elections have taught us is that mr. heeman, anny and nicole’s way of thinking is slowly diminishing in this country. Hateful is hateful.”

        Lastly, if there is anything ‘Steve’, McAffee, Jose and such others’ way of thinking is that liberal guilting and language bastardization is slowly diminishing this nation; rotting it away from within for political pandering points. Illegal is illegal. What is it about illegal that liberals do not understand?

        Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 28, 2012, 8:08 am
        • Ha! Where have these arguments been “debunked”?

          Your last paragraph didn’t even make any grammatical sense:

          “Lastly, if there is anything ‘Steve’, McAffee, Jose and such others’ way of thinking is that liberal guilting and language”

          “If there is anything S, M, J and such others’ way of thinking is that…”? What? Babbling non-sense.

          Posted by Justin McAffee | November 28, 2012, 1:10 pm
          • Context, factual basis and relevance does look like nonsense to you, McAffee! My last paragraph was structured like the last of ‘Steve’s’ previously.

            Anyway, illegal is illegal and no bastardization of the language for (your side’s) liberal guilting, shaming and spinning will change that.

            You’re having reduced yourself to superficial and false retorts is exactly where you have driven yourself. I just followed, chasing you down your own hole.

            I’m still waiting for all those points you have “crushed” (11/27 @ 9:50am) = LOL!! One by one = go ahead!

            Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 28, 2012, 3:39 pm
          • You have a tightly welded medal orb surrounding your brain so that new information cannot come in. You are totally incapable of seeing things from other people’s perspective. You don’t care if your words are offensive because you are a bigot. Only your view matters to you. You are a typical white male Republican racist. Good day.

            Posted by Justin McAffee | November 28, 2012, 3:55 pm
        • I expected such a delusional response to exposing the truth of the pandering toward illegal aliens and the desperate requirement to absorb these aliens into the Obamunist’s electoral ‘back pocket’.

          Your sad flailing to put together any kind of argument after the second or third engagement is amusing as it displays your rotten political core.

          Where are all of my arguments you have ‘crushed’?? Nowhere, that’s where.

          I realize ridicule and displaying any kind of response to the other side as a tactic is, like, Alinsky’s Rule #5 or so; but what Alinsky doesn’t tell you is that simple lies and senseless response just to respond simply hollows out your political soul. Alinsky depends on ‘useful idiots’ like you to fight on, even after being thoroughly thrashed and crushed in debate.

          You’re a senseless, hollow and hypocritical liberal automaton. You’re an inspired and animated ‘useful idiot’ with some few HTML skills for whom “ask not what your country can do for you….” has become a zombie-like OBAMMA, OBBMMAAAA, OBAAAMMMAAA….

          Sieg Heil Obama!

          Posted by M.R. Heeman | November 28, 2012, 4:37 pm
      • Sorry I’m getting back to this so late (the way they do comments here is somewhat confusing to me).

        You are correct “alien” is defiantly crossing the line of neutrality being that a) it has other meanings b) the connotation with those other meanings is bad. So as you can see with some other posts I have changed to saying “illegal immigrants”. It’s bland, colorless, and accurately describes the people that are being discussed.

        Here is where you make a large jump. A word that can describe any person regardless of race is in fact not racist. For instance (as I have said before) “slave” does define or describe any race, thus no one sees the word “slave” as racist. It simply states a persons current position under the law. Which is in-fact what “illegal immigrate” does as a phrase. The only reason that you associate laws that are for or against “illegal immigrants” with being racist against Latinos is that they just happen to be one, if not the largest group that will be effect by these laws. But again, not the ONLY group effected.

        Most of the Arizonan laws were thrown out in the Supreme Court and of the one that made it through, the reasoning behind allowing it had nothing to do with race. In fact it had everything to do with state and fed powers. No were in the constitution or the immigration laws does it give the fed exclusive rights to investigate immigration status. Thus the Supreme Court justices unanimously decided that it was to be upheld. Also, it is interesting how you forgot to mention the part of the Supreme Court decision that allows the state to be sued if any racial profiling cases come up.

        “Reading between the lines” to find racism is like playing a song backwards and hearing the devil.

        And finally, I love that you read my comments and decided that since I don’t think “illegal immigrant” is a racist term that somehow I have chosen a stance on immigration reform. I am guessing you read between the lines on that one as well.

        Posted by Anny Ommus | December 3, 2012, 12:16 am
        • “Immigrants”, to put it simply, ‘come through the front door’. They CHOOSE to abide by out laws, go through the process and immigrate to America legally. “Aliens” ‘jump the fence’ and hide – sometimes in plain sight and today, try and ‘jump to the front of the line’ by guilting, shaming and yelling “racism” when America – by large margins – expect them to come in compliance with law.

          “Illegal alien”, as an exact term of law, is not meant to be ‘neutral’ at all, but exactly describe status of those who CHOOSE to act outside law. “Immigrant” is a false and phony word to associate those who made choices on their own to be in America illegally.
          xxxx
          “The only reason that you associate laws that are for or against “illegal immigrants” with being racist against Latinos is that they just happen to be one, if not the largest group that will be effect by these laws. But again, not the ONLY group effected.”

          The only and salient reason this issue is not racist is that illegal aliens, by and large, are here ignoring our law BY THEIR OWN CHOICE. Their status has nothing to do with skin color or national origin – but by their own CHOICE. Their CHOICE dictates the situation. Screaming ‘racism’ here is senseless and ignorant. No one forced this CHOICE on them – the only exception I can think of being kids like young master Garcia, where their parents brought them here as small children. As I have stated before, these children deserve some small consideration, but not a free ride to citizenship, for instance. Also, wait until the Obama exception runs out of time.

          Anyway, it seems Garcia took the political muckraking path in this situation – aided, abetted and given a megaphone by McAffee. See the LV Sun story above. Their immaturity and intentional avoidance of more mature paths to address this situation made it intentionally much worse. IF there are any racists here, it is them!

          Posted by M.R. Heeman | December 3, 2012, 8:33 am
          • Well, after looking back I see some problems with my argument for “aliens” as an acceptable term.

            1) Multiple Meanings
            2) Bad Connotations (space aliens and such)

            But the biggest point is:

            3) “Aliens” doesn’t include every immigrant

            You are right the reason the illegal immigrants are in the US is because they choose to be (whether or not that choice was forced on them is another matter). “Aliens” however is defined “In law, one who resides in a country without becoming naturalized, retaining instead the citizenship of another country.” which implies choice.

            “Without becoming naturalized” for instance implies that the person had a choice to become naturalized and simply didn’t and that they are choosing to retain “instead the citizenship of another country”. People like Garcia here apply to neither of these definitions. He didn’t choose to be here (and thus never had the choice to become naturalized), nor does he want citizenship in another country since most Latin citizenship are lost if a person serves in a foreign government (which would include the school government he is running for).

            Thus by using the term “alien” you are effectively cutting out a percentage of people (like Garcia) that will be effected by immigration reform.

            On the flip side, where “alien” leaves out people, “undocumented” includes too many people. “Illegal Immigrants” however most accurately describes the people we are talking about.

            Posted by Anny Ommus | December 3, 2012, 1:49 pm
  7. Jose,

    Keep your head up brother. I know it may be hard but know that there are many out here like you living in the same situation and support you in speaking up. Don’t let people silence you and don’t conform for anything less than you deserve.

    Posted by Manuel Macias | November 21, 2012, 10:04 am
  8. No one is an “illegal” or “illegal alien”!

    The terms “illegal” and “illegal alien” are inaccurate, misleading, dehumanizing and racist.

    1. Just because the US government uses these terms does not mean it is justifiable or okay. Let’s not forget how the US government has also justified slavery/racism, no voting rights for women/sexism, etc, the list goes on. Being critical of the language the government imposes on minority is a must, especially with a country like the United States, which has a long history of hatred and discrimination against minorities.

    2. The terms imply that immigrants are not humans and “don’t belong here.” We need to understand migration as a natural process. Migration is a natural part of life, around the world, people have been migrating for many reasons, often for survival and a better life.

    3. Many documented people commit so-called “illegal” acts like running a red light but we do not go around calling those people “illegals.” Immigrants have traditionally been targeted and scapegoated in the US and other countries for a variety of reasons.

    4. The terms are racist because they target people of color and open the doors to racial profiling. They also perpetuate racist ideas that people of color are of lesser value, criminals and outsiders.

    5.They are inaccurate because they often do not reflect the person immigrant status.Depending on the situation, they may be violating only civil, not criminal law or their status might be in limbo. Other terms people use to define a person undocumented status are “unauthorized,” “aspiring citizen” and “entered without inspection.”

    6. Using these terms demonizes immigrants for migrating and ignores how countries like the US have played a critical part in displacing immigrants from their countries through war and free trade. The implementation of NAFTA and CAFTA, negatively impacted Mexican and Central American peoples/economies through allowance of unequal and unfair subsidizations and the exploitation of labor.

    When speaking about immigration, we need to center the discussions in dignity and love! Acknowledging the naturalness of migrating!

    Posted by Manuel Santillana | November 20, 2012, 6:31 pm
    • Yeah no one is an “illegal alien”, just like no one was a “slave” before the 1800′s. Oh, no wait this history book says that there were “slaves” before the 1800′s.

      Why on earth would they call other people “slaves”?
      Oh wait this history book goes on to explain that the reason they were called “slaves” is because that word accurately described their current situation.

      But isn’t “slave” racist?
      Huh, this history book says that many races were “slaves” throughout history.

      So why don’t we use the term “slave” today?
      Oh, the history book says that almost all major nations have changed their laws so that very few people can be accurately be described that way today.

      So then wouldn’t “illegal alien” be acceptable term for people that come from a different nation but don’t obtain legal citizenship?
      Why yes, yes it does.

      But isn’t “illegal alien” still a racist term?
      If you use it to only describe a race of people then yes. Otherwise no.

      So why do we call people “illegal aliens”?
      Because that term accurately describes those people current situation. When the law changes so will the need to use that term.

      Posted by Anny Ommus | November 21, 2012, 2:16 pm
      • I’m confused… who has ever said calling someone a slave was offensive? There isn’t a large segment of our society claiming that calling them a slave is offensive, and there never was even when there were slaves. So your entire argument here makes no sense.

        Posted by Justin J. McAffee | November 26, 2012, 5:13 pm
        • That’s my point, the same reason why “slave” isn’t offensive should be the same reason why “illegal alien” isn’t offensive. They are the same side of the coin. They both relate a persons legal situation.

          Posted by Anny Ommus | November 27, 2012, 2:35 pm
          • I think you are missing my point… “illegal” IS considered offensive to the group and to their legal and citizen counterparts in the Latino community. Slave was never considered offensive to anyone.

            Whether or not “illegal” should or shouldn’t be offensive is a rational question. But bottom line is that it is customary to honor the wishes of any group of people you are referring to by calling them by the words THEY prefer and are comfortable with.

            Oughtn’t we consider others’ wishes when referring to them? When one disregards how an entire group of people feel, that’s a sign of derision. That is why the term illegal is becoming more and more offensive the longer people use it against the wishes of its targeted group.

            Again, whether or not people SHOULD be offended by the term is a separate but reasonable question… and there are reasons why using ILLEGAL as an adjective to describe a human being is offensive. The way I see it, an act of crossing the border without documents and remaining here are both acts that are illegal, but the human being is NOT ILLEGAL.

            Continuing to use the term ILLEGAL also ignores the element of baggage of history of inhumane treatment of undocumented people. It’ much easier to treat a human inhumanely when you can dehumanize them by calling them ILLEGAL.

            I hope you can try to see this from other people’s perspective instead of insisting on a semantic/ grammatical fight.

            Church.

            Posted by Justin McAffee | November 27, 2012, 2:58 pm
          • See the problem with your argument is that YOU are the one assigning “illegal alien” to a certain group of people. I on the other hand see that many different people around the word can be and often are described as as “Illegal alien”. If I as an American immigrated to Canada illegally they would still call me an “Illegal alien”. Just like a slave would be called a slave anywhere in the world. It’s simply not offensive.

            Also how is “undocumented” any better than “illegal”?

            Posted by Anny Ommus | November 27, 2012, 3:14 pm
          • How can you say something “simply isn’t offensive” when it offends millions of people? You can arguably say it OUGHT NOT be offensive… but you can’t say it IS NOT offensive. Ought and Is are two different things.

            Calling a human “illegal” sets them up to be looked down upon and mistreated… as if they are common criminals. Undocumented doesn’t have the same effect.

            Posted by Justin McAffee | November 27, 2012, 3:29 pm
          • Well let me ask you this … if I were offended by the word “you” and only wanted to be refered to in all sentences as my proper name, would you consider the word “you” offensive? Would you stop using the word “you” when referring to anyone in a sentence because I think it’s offensive?

            It’s your connotation you put on the word “illegal” that makes you think it is offensive. It seems that you think that “undocumented” has a better connotation but ask a Jewish person what they think of the word and you might be surprised.

            Posted by Anny Ommus | November 27, 2012, 4:49 pm
          • If I was a respectful person, which I am, I would not refer to you as “you” against your wishes. As a matter of fact, I generally don’t say ‘hey you’ to people because you don’t usually get a pleasant response to that.

            If Jewish people are offended by undocumented, I would never call them that. It’s a case by case thing. As you said earlier, you have to look at facts in context.

            It isn’t really the connotation I put into the word illegal, it is the highly probable connotation that comes with the word. Considering the millions of people who also see that connotation in the word, I don’t feel I’m off base.

            Posted by Justin McAffee | November 27, 2012, 4:59 pm
          • You’re absolutely right, the words we use with people directly are case by case. For example you don’t go around asking if women are pregnant because of your assumptions. Similarly you wouldn’t go around to individuals and call them “illegal aliens” because you assume they are.

            But when you are trying to discuss the topic of immigration reform, the term “illegal immigrants” is the most concise (and neutral) phrase to use to describe the people that are directly affected, while “undocumented” people has multiple meanings. Just like if I were trying to abolish slavery I wouldn’t try to refer to slaves as “workers without pay” or “whipped people” because that doesn’t accurately describe the people I’m talking about.

            For instance, by trying to refer to people as “undocumented” instead of “illegal immigrant”, you have now included people that have been born in America but do not have the correct documents or never filed for them, or people that had their documents destroyed in fire and now are undocumented (more common then you think).

            Also, you keep stating that the term “illegal immigrant” is targeting one specific people (the Latinos). Just because the majority of illegal immigrants in America are from Latin countries does not mean that the term only applies to them. In fact other countries use the term as well, just look at a European newspaper some time.

            For more information on this debate I strongly suggest you read these:

            http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/24/is-illegal-immigrant-the-right-description/

            http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/readers-wont-benefit-if-times-bans-the-term-illegal-immigrant/

            Posted by Anny Ommus | November 28, 2012, 9:31 am
  9. In other words, technically you are right. But technically black people are Negroes. Can you imagine if Mitt Romney would have gone around referring to black people as Negroes? Do you get it now?

    Posted by Justin McAffee | November 20, 2012, 1:19 pm
  10. Let’s see here.
    Bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance.

    Other words for bigot: chauvinist, diehard, doctrinaire, dogmatist, enthusiast, extremist, fanatic, fiend, maniac, monomaniac, opinionated person, partisan, persecutor, puritan, racist, sectarian, segregationist, sexist, stickler, superpatriot, zealot.

    … You Jordan are a bigot.

    When considering what to call a group of 12 million people, most people consider what the group prefers… unless of course you are a bigot, and then you don’t care what they prefer. For example, most people don’t refer to black people as Negroes anymore, do they?

    Posted by Justin McAffee | November 20, 2012, 1:15 pm
  11. Well, well, well. I see the Mark Ciavola axis of evil are at it again. I really should apologize to UNLV. We at Stonewall ran his self loathing Kapo butt out of the gay community when he showed up with his malice and right wing talking points. Evidently hetook his Joe Heck paid for clown act on the road and ended up at UNLV where he has directed his nee acolytes to help strip find from students and attack people who want a quality education and would benefit from the DREAM Act. Yup, just what everyone wants their college experience to be, full of hate and Ciavola. It’s like a day at the park, if the park sits on to of a toxic dump.

    Posted by Derek VegasstyleGuy Washington | November 20, 2012, 10:07 am
  12. While I don’t agree with them making the statements you claim they make I don’t understand your statement of “I am not illegal. I am undocumented—there’s a difference.”

    If you are not here legally, you are Illegal. Period.

    Use any other words you want but that is the bottom line.

    You explain the legal difference please.

    Posted by Lee | November 19, 2012, 9:03 pm
    • If I may… I think Jose explained it well:

      “To say otherwise strips away my very humanity and defames me as a mere object of scorn and subjugation rather than a loving son, driven student and dedicated member of our community.”,

      Yes, technically it is grammatically correct to say someone is an illegal immigrant. But bottom line it’s a statement of derision. It demeans someone as merely ILLEGAL as if they aren’t a person. The rule I think most people live by, if a large group of people prefer not to be called something, YOU DON’T CALL THEM THAT! Technically, black people are Negroes. But we generally don’t use that terminology anymore, do we?

      Posted by Justin McAffee | November 19, 2012, 9:09 pm
      • It is ultimately an act of racism and jealousy, from a group who clearly lacks for education and understanding of what a human being is worth. Shame on Mr. Lee, who may not know any better.

        Posted by Samuel Duarte | November 19, 2012, 9:25 pm
    • Negro i a description of a black person. So do you go around calling black people negroes, if so feel free continue to using the term illegal alien to describe me and many others.

      Posted by Manuel Macias | November 21, 2012, 10:09 am
      • Interesting how you took “Negro” (a word that refers to a person of specific appearance or geographical area) and linked it to “illegal alien” (a phrase that refers to a persons particular legal situation).

        Its as if you said back before 1800′s:

        Chink is a description of a Chinese person. So do you go around calling Chinese people chinks? If so, feel free to continue to use the term slave.

        “Slave” – just like “illegal alien” – isn’t a racist term. Many people of all different races have been or currently are slaves.

        Posted by Anny Ommus | November 23, 2012, 7:14 am

Post a Comment

Connect with Facebook


− 2 = four

SUBSCRIBE TO THE NEVADA VIEW