The Doggy Diaries... gone to the dogs!

L.A. Mayor-Elect Villagairosa Supports "Migrants" (a.k.a. Illegal Aliens)

NewsMax.com reports "Los Angeles Mayor-elect Antonio Villaraigosa said Wednesday that Mexico will play an important role in shaping his policies ... 'We are starting a new era. Instead of closing the borders, as stated by Schwarzenegger, we should look at our border as an opportunity,' Villaraigosa said."

As I redundantly stated in two previous posts (In Response and Note: Los Angeles is Still Part of the U.S. ), California is becoming increasingly subjected to businesses, elected officials, policy makers, et al. throwing their support to Mexico instead of supporting California and the United States by way of enforcing our nation's immigration laws.

Comments made by Mayor-Elect Villagairosa serve as further examples of the very brazen and reprehensible mindset and conduct of today's leaders that would support illegal aliens instead of supporting our federal immigration laws. Villagairosa directly addresses illegal aliens and his support of them through his statement that we should not close our border. Furthermore, he laments the passage of the RealID act aimed at preventing illegal aliens from obtaining drivers licenses and uses a tired line taken from the Democratic Party playbook (and the playbook of many Mexican activist groups and Hispanic lobby groups) that "Politicians in the United States need to understand that immigrants come here for the same reason that immigrants have always come: to work ... Instead of punishing and demonizing them, we should try to integrate them." Statements such as these deliberately blur the distinction between legal immigrants, which most Americans wholeheartedly support, and illegal aliens, which most Americans wholeheartedly oppose.

Reprehensible, I say. Utterly reprehensible.

Please read the actual article for yourself by vising NewsMax.com.

OpEd on the Real ID Act

Courtesy of the Billings Gazette (Billings, MT) comes the following opinion column authored by Congressman Denny Rehberg (R-MT).

Guest opinion: New law will help curb illegal immigration
By DENNY REHBERG
U.S. Representative

The good news is, since 9/11, federal officials have rightly beefed up security at our airports. The bad news is illegal immigrants continue to find an opportunity along our porous borders - so much so, that those entering the United States illegally this year will out-pace lawfully-entering immigrants three-to-one.

"No one knows how many illegals are living in the U.S., but estimates run as high as 15 million," Time Magazine recently reported, adding, "the number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million."

Affront to legal immigrants

Counting conservatively, that's more than triple the population of Montana. It's troubling when you consider that an estimated 250,000 of those who will wash in with this year's wave of illegal aliens will come from countries other than Mexico, including many from nations hostile to the United States. They slip in on foot, or in cars or trucks, over rural roads, in avoidance of airport terminals.

Why does this matter? To begin with, what they're doing is unlawful, an affront to those who come here legally. All the while, it's the honest residents of this country who must pay the tab rung up by illegals, who compete for wages while paying no income taxes. Or consider the counting of illegal immigrants by the Census Department, which produced inflated census figures in states like California, costing Montana billions of dollars in federal revenue. Illegals also strain local emergency services, putting a burden on rural hospitals that are strapped for funds, and crowding county jails.

A recent police raid in Washington state produced piles of cash, computer equipment, and special paper stock used to forge hundreds of birth certificates, driver's licenses, Social Security cards, and even work permits. How are small businessmen supposed to survive against competitors that employ illegal aliens? Should honest taxpayers be asked to continue subsidizing those who skip taxes at an annual cost to the U.S. treasury of more than $45 billion?

Montana-Canada border

The international border shared by Montana's 11 northernmost counties add up to nearly 500 miles of mostly wide-open territory, too large to patrol with conventional means. Montanans have a right to be concerned about the potential harm illegals bring to our communities, economy and national security.

It was out of that concern that Congress and President Bush convened an independent, bi-partisan "9/11 Commission" to study the security lapses leading up to 9/11. In its final report issued late last year, the panel stressed the need for the U.S. to control the movement of foreign nationals in and out of country. Their report added that "sources of identification are the last opportunity to ensure that people are who they say they are and to check whether they are terrorists."

Incredibly, the 19 terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 had accumulated a total of 63 driver's licenses, which also allowed the terrorists to open bank accounts, obtain other official documents, and board airplanes.

Turns out 11 states issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Shouldn't states be compelled to require proof of citizenship before issuing a driver's license, registering voters, and handing out welfare checks?

I sure think so; and so did the 9/11 Commission, which recommended the government "set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver's licenses."

Fortunately, Congress recently approved legislation to fix some of the problems, requiring state governments to bolster standards for the security and integrity of driver's licenses, reforming the asylum process, and providing for the deployment of 1,500 new border patrol agents.

However, let me just add that I will never support any scheme that would create a new national identification card. Preserving the individual liberties of our own lawful citizens must come first.

Yet, it is with those liberties in mind that I intend to work with my colleagues, over the next several months, on additional common-sense legislation to fortify our borders and crack down on illegal immigration. We simply cannot rest or do enough until our borders are secure and the tide of illegals is turned back. Americans, and those who immigrate here legally, deserve nothing less.

Denny Rehberg of Billings is Montana's sole representative in the House.

In Response

UPDATE: When I originally posted this entry, I left out a few comments that I later realized I should have included. Those missing comments have been written in bold-face font as you see in this paragraph. My apologies for any confusion or inconvenience my forgetfulness may have caused.

Because my first reply to the comments made in response to my previous post was somehow deleted or just not accepted by my Movable Type installation (probably due to the length of the comment), I’m going to post my response here as a new blog post. I’m also hoping to shorten my response because I am rewriting it again from scratch, and darn I hate repeating myself. Yeah, yeah, you don’t know I’m repeating myself, but I sure do! ;) And no, I unfortunately did not save a copy of yesterday's comments; would if I had because that would save me a lot of time writing this one! Anyway, please consider this the abridged version of my response from yesterday that somehow disappeared from my blog. The post at the center of this discussion is "Note: Los Angeles is Still Part of the U.S." ( http://www.doggydiaries.pudgypuppy.com/archives/2005/04/note-los-angeles-is-still-part-of-the-us.php ). To fully understand the commentary I will bring up in this post, I would suggest you read that post as well as all the comments. This commentary is in response to one of those comments.

Before I begin, I want to thank MBLanier for assisting me by providing more accurate details as to some of the comments in this post. I appreciate the reference URLs as I did not have time to look any deeper into the matter when I wrote the original post.

On to the response –

Dan, I appreciate the time you spent to write your comments and the thought you put into them, but I respectfully disagree with you.

Your Statement:
“Just remember you started it.“
My Interpretation:
You feel that I am completely responsible for the comments you are about to post and have brought your reaction upon myself. You might feel that I am provoking you into opening a debate. You feel that you are not responsible for what you are about to say and are therefore not personally accountable because had I not written what I did, you would not feel compelled to make the comments you are about to write. Therefore, had I just kept my mouth shut, this debate would be nonexistent.
My Response:
Your statement seems to be a bit of the pot calling the kettle black, don’t you think? This is my own personal blog where I feel free to express my First Amendment right of the freedom of speech. You chose to read one of my posts and comment even though absolutely no commentary is required on your part. In fact, the beauty of a blog is that readers have the choice, but not the obligation, to participate by adding comments. If you were offended or “Irished-up” by something I wrote, then there is nothing I can do. The way you interpreted what I wrote and your subsequent response and emotions as a result of that interpretation are completely out of my control. As we all learn in Psych 101, we can only control our own behavior; we have absolutely no control over another person’s behavior or how they think in response to something they read. So if anyone started anything, it most certainly was not me. This blog is my home on the web, and I was doing what I feel comfortable doing in my own home, namely, freely expressing my frustrations at what I see as a growing problem in this country and in California, in particular. You chose to interpret my writing in a way that you disliked and followed up by adding comments that appear to be meant to insult me, e.g.,
o “Are you blinded by race hatred ¹…,”
o “… to witness this type of reactionary nonsense…,”
o “… I don’t see how you could possibly say ‘…’ with a straight face,” and
o “Obviously I’m being hyperbolic here, but it seems to be in good company with ridiculous phrases like ‘…blatant attempt to manipulate the public into acceptance of Los Angeles belonging to Mexico.’”
So if anyone has started something here, I would say it was you because you chose to pick on me and make a big deal out of something based on your fallacious interpretation of my writing. You chose to add your two cents even though your comments were not required (comments are always welcome, but not required). You chose to think that I am “blinded by race hatred” and that I use “ridiculous phrases” in fits of “reactionary nonsense” without thinking that perhaps your brother has better taste in women than to marry a prejudiced bigot. Furthermore, you chose to add those rather personally insulting comments to my blog, perhaps in an attempt to get a rise out of me.
Dan, I know you did not purposefully set out to insult me with a few of your comments. I know that you have no idea of my political stance on many topics as we have never had a political discussion before. Please know that like yourself, I have no hard feelings, and I feel we are having nothing more than a spirited debate. You are my only brother which makes you a very special person. I love my new family dearly and am in no way attempting to cause discontent or stir up problems. Yes, I realize we are having a debate here and are not personally attacking each other's opinions. I hope you will take my comments that follow as such. :)

Your Statement:
“ … there is absolutely nothing anywhere near approaching an "anti-American" sentiment here.”
My Interpretation:
The billboard is not anti-American. It is all in my head.
My Response:
I most wholeheartedly disagree. Do you believe that Clear Channel and/or Liberman Broadcasting were trying to be patriotic with that display? Actually, let me rephrase. Do you believe that Clear Channel and/or Liberman Broadcasting were trying to be patriotic to the United States or to Mexico? It seems painfully obvious to me that the intent of the billboard is to stir feelings of patriotism to Mexico. The marketers chose to take a well-loved monument of Mexico City (an icon, as you put it) and place it front and center on the billboard. In addition, the statue is highlighted and illuminated in such a way as to stand out from the background of the city behind it; it does not go unnoticed and does not merely fade into the background. What’s more, the very obvious fact that “CA” was crossed out and “MEXICO” written in bold, red letters cannot be dismissed simply because you consider the billboard to be “badly photoshopped.”
The fact that this billboard is anti-American is about as obvious as can be in my opinion. The marketers chose to reinforce the country of Mexico over and above the State of California, a part of the United States. They inserted a well-loved Mexican statue within the confines of the second largest city in the United States. The only thing it seems they could have done to further drive the point home was to drape the billboard with a Mexican flag. It is an outright insult and slap in the face to America. I therefore consider it to be incredibly anti-American.
In mathematics, rules of number and set theory are often proven/validated by approaching the proof from the other side. The opposing argument is then presented and proven false; therefore, the original rule stands verified. Let’s do the same here. What if the reverse had been true? What if the Kasey Traeger Broadcasting Company decided to put up a billboard in Mexico City written entirely in English containing the words “Mexico City, Mexico”? What then if the word “Mexico” were stricken and replaced with “United States” written in large, red, bold-faced capitalized letters? What if the Kasey Traeger Broadcasting Company also decided to take a photograph of the Mexico City skyline and in front of it insert a photograph of the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, Mount Rushmore, the Liberty Bell, or any other well-known and well-loved American monument? Do you think the people of Mexico would go quietly shake their heads and just dismiss it as “Oh, those silly Americans have gone off their rockers again,” or would they instead be righteously indignant, incensed and whipped into what you call a fit of “reactionary nonsense?” Would they consider the billboard to be insulting and anti-Mexican? I believe the answer to these questions to be Q.E.P. The citizens of Mexico would, at a minimum, be incredibly unhappy. More than likely, though, they would be incensed, angered, and insulted that such a Mexico-bashing advertisement was erected within their city and their country. No matter where you go, patriotic people of all countries will behave the same way when they feel their country is being defamed. It is no different here in the United States.

Your Statement:
“Considering California elected an Austrian immigrant as its governor, I would expect a little more tolerance from its populace.”
My Interpretation:
The people of California need to become more tolerant and culturally sensitive to the needs of immigrants, of people from different cultures, of people who are of different races, etc., etc., etc.
My Response:
This may be a news flash to you, but cultural sensitivity, multicultural diversity and tolerance are the politically correct catchphrases in California. Actually, they are more than catchphrases; they are almost a mandated way of life here. They are drilled into you from your first day of kindergarten. It’s as close to indoctrination as anything I can think of. Every weekend it seems that there is a “Celebrate Such-and-Such Cultural Day” or a “Such-and-Such Heritage Festival” going on somewhere. On July 4, one of our local cities flies the flags of a couple dozen different countries because there are people from all of those countries living in the city. Excuse me? July 4 is the American Independence Day, and yet in the name of cultural diversity and ethnic sensitivity, they fly the flags of all these other countries. Talk about crazy. It’s as if it’s not good enough to celebrate only American Independence. Apparently, it would be wrong to be so insensitive as to devote one entire day to celebrating America’s independence without regard to any other countries. Instead, this city’s directorial staff wants to be culturally sensitive and celebrate the other countries represented by its inhabitants.
When I was a teacher, we had “Multi-Cultural Days” at school. As a class we had to study another culture for one quarter. At the end of the quarter, the Multi-Cultural Fair was held, and your class had to get up in front of the rest of the school and talk about the people and the culture they had just studied for three months. Talk about tolerance, diversity and sensitivity.
So if you were thinking that I, or any other people living in California, are not sensitive to diversity, racial/ethnic/religious tolerance or multiculturalism, you can disregard those thoughts. I could probably teach a class in multiculturalism and “ethnic sensitivity” to people in other parts of the country that have never experienced what it means to live around so many people, all of whom are from different countries with different cultural mores, none of whom understand any of the other cultures, but all of whom expect you to respect their culture/language/differences.
As an aside, I find it incredibly ironic that while I am expected to have such sensitivity and understanding towards “minorities,” they are not required to have sensitivity or respect towards my culture, my race, or my ethnic heritage simply because I am white. When Caucasians try to encourage respect towards their race and/or culture, their attempts to do so are shot down and said to be racially divisive. When Black people shout “Black Power!” they are seen as celebrating their heritage; but if a Caucasian were to shout “White Power!” he/she would be seen as a racist of the same ilk as skinheads, neo-Nazis and members of the KKK. Case in point – nearly all high schools and colleges up and down the state have a MeCha Club, a La Raza Club, a Black Student Union, the Asian Club, and so on. These clubs are all based on race and learning about the ethnic heritage of that race of people. While the clubs are generally open to anyone of any race, most students gravitate towards the club that represents their ancestry. But what of the white people? Do you think there are any “white clubs” or “Caucasian clubs” on high school or college campuses? Don’t hold your breath on that one. In fact, one young lady at an East Bay high school tried to start such a club, and she was not only admonished/warned by her administrators that it would be a bad thing to do, but when interviewed on a local radio show, she said she had also received personal threats from other students and was afraid for her safety. ²
It doesn’t take very long to figure out that this incredible double-standard that exists; its presence is palpable and can be felt wherever you go. So if you want to talk about someone being culturally sensitive, why not ask the “minorities” of California why they are not more sensitive to the Caucasians?
It sounds as if you lament that me and the other people in California, and Los Angeles in particular, are not just rolling over on our backs and taking the insult of this billboard like it is nothing more than a dose of nasty medicine. Excuse me if this is a bit terse, rude and brusque, but if that is truly what you are thinking, then I think you are being incredibly short-sighted and expecting a little too much “sensitivity” from people who love their country and do not want to see it defiled. I may not have served my country by spending four years in the armed services, but the fact that I did not serve does not mean that I am not patriotic and that I do not love my country. I will stand by my country and do not wish to see her mocked, ridiculed or attacked on her own soil.

Your Statement:
“Showing a badly photoshopped blending of Mexican and American iconic architecture is in no way ‘divisive’.”
My Interpretation:
The billboard was intended to help us all accept one another and live together in harmony. The billboard is supposed to bring us together. The content of the billboard is not divisive.
My Response:
That has to be one of the funniest statements you’ve made so far. It seems to me that divisiveness IS the intent of the billboard. Based on my arguments given earlier, the marketers seem to be deliberately attempting to stir up feelings of patriotism and warm feelings towards Mexico. They are doing this inside the United States of America. Put two and two together and what do you get? Divisiveness. You end up with people who are loyal to the United States living in the same city and in the same neighborhoods with those people who came from Mexico and now live in the United States but who have no loyalty or patriotism towards the U.S. Note that I am not saying that all people from Mexico are this way; but I do believe many are. Instead, it appears these people are encouraged to only maintain their connections with Mexico without being encouraged to form any connections to Los Angeles, California, or the United States.

Your Statement:
“Anyone with a clear perspective on this can see that homogeneity and acceptance were clearly the intent here.”
My Interpretation:
The billboard is meant to encourage acceptance of the Mexican culture and cultural blending/homogenizing.
My Response:
Homogenize means “to make uniform” or “to become of similar nature or kind.” How exactly does one become homogenized if they are encouraged to hold on to that which makes them different? I am not saying that I expect immigrants to give up their culture and language. Far from it. Rather, I expect that immigrants will come to this country with a desire to become American and take part in the American experience and opportunities that are available to them once they are citizens or legal residents of this country. I also expect that immigrants to this country will learn to speak the language of this country – English. That most certainly does not mean that they are required to give up their language and their culture. Quite the contrary. They are free to do whatever they want in their own homes. But I certainly expect that in the world outside their homes, they will learn and use at least some basic English. To put the burden on me and expect me to learn Spanish so I can have a conversation with the men that my landlord hires to keep up the landscaping around our house is, in my opinion, ridiculous. (By the way, those men have been maintaining our landscaping since we moved here, and they speak English no better now than they did when we moved here 1½ years ago. I consider this a big problem.)
Perhaps what you meant by homogenize is that the onus of homogenizing should be placed on the Americans; we should become more like the Mexicans. We should take it upon ourselves to learn their language, understand and/or appreciate their culture, and in general, start to give up our language, our culture and our heritage to adopt theirs; in essence, we should become strangers in our own land. After all, to be homogenized means that I can be no different than the person next to me. So if we’re different now, and you think that it is bad to ask the first person (the Mexican) to change and adapt to their new home, then by simple deduction, it seems that you expect the second person (the American) to change. I simply cannot imagine that’s what you meant. It just sounds completely backwards to me that you would expect someone in their own home country to adopt the ways of another country. Why should I have to learn another language to get along in my own country? Why should I have to be quiet and respectful when I see my country being walked upon in order to engender warm feelings and patriotism to another country?
In addition, I have a few more questions for you. Why do you label me “blinded by race hatred” when I am expressing anger at what I feel to be an anti-American display? I said nothing derogatory about the Mexican culture and/or people. How do you twist what I said into signs or evidence of race hatred? Do all residents of the United States have First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression? Yes. Do I also have those same rights? Yes. And yet you consider me to be prejudiced because I exercised my First Amendment right and expressed myself by saying that I thought something was insulting and anti-American. Why is that? Why is it OK for Mexicans to love Mexico and hold on to their culture and language, but when I want to do the same with my country, I am considered a racist? Why is it OK for Mexicans to boo and throw things at American soccer players at soccer matches between Mexico and the United States as happened in Los Angeles a few years back? ³ I hear no talk from the media or anyone else, generally, that Mexicans are expressing “race hatred” against Americans or against white people when such things happen. Yet you, and many others, either directly or indirectly call me prejudiced ("blinded by race hatred," as you put it) and say that I hate Mexicans when I am angry at what I feel is America-bashing and Mexico-loving advertisements. I am sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense to me. I said nothing about hating Mexico or Mexicans. I said everything about being upset at the anti-American/pro-Mexican sentiment to the billboard.

Your Statement:
“Nobody ever throws a fit about the deluge of middle to upper class white people advertising that Clear Channel spews all over the United States' landscape.”
My Interpretation:
There is too much advertising geared towards white people, and it is nothing but “spewed” garbage on the landscape of our country.
My Response:
I find it interesting that you refer to advertisements geared towards white people (middle and upper class white people, to be exact) by using negatively charged words/phrases such as “throws a fit,” “deluge” and “spews.” Yet this billboard, which is clearly aimed at Spanish-speaking Mexicans, does not ire you or even elicit any sentiment from you save for neutral-to-supportive comments. I am reminded of that old song … Things that Make You Go Hmmmmmmm.

Your Statements:
“Considering the amount of advertising that comes from Clear Channel and Liberman Broadcasting I don’t see how you could possibly say, ‘I do not want to see any company disregard America in favor of Mexico…’ with a straight face.”
“Comparatively speaking, the United States gets way more attention from the Clear Channel marketing department than Mexico ever will.”
My Interpretation:
Because Clear Channel has spent a considerable amount of money on advertising in the U.S., they have carte blanche to place a billboard on public display that disregards America in favor of Mexico. The money they spend advertising everywhere else in the country also grants them permission to promote Mexico and defame Los Angeles, California, and the United States.
My Response:
You say the U.S. gets far more attention from Clear Channel than Mexico ever will. You know what? That is absolutely correct. I have no beef with that statement. But does the fact that Clear Channel markets primarily to America give it free license to then turn around and “spew” (to use your word) pro-Mexican/anti-American sentiment in an American market? Or, to use the counter argument, if I spend millions of dollars advertising in Mexico, am I then allowed, by virtue of sheer numbers, to make my next advertisement a pro-American/anti-Mexican billboard? Is that acceptable? I certainly do not think so.

Your Statement:
“ … where exactly in this billboard does it say anything about illegal immigration.”
My Interpretation:
I tried to present a case that the billboard said something about illegal immigration.
My Response:
Dan, I think you’d better take another good look at what I wrote. Nowhere in that post did I connect illegal immigration with the billboard. Why? Because the billboard has nothing to do with illegal immigration! In fact, the only time I even mentioned illegal aliens was in the statement “…you cannot deny the continued pressing by the media, activist groups and the like to cater to Latin American immigrants, in particular Mexican immigrants, a good many of which are illegal aliens, by offering services in Spanish, incorporating the Mexican culture into their marketing projects…” It is a known fact that many illegal aliens, approximately 3 out of every 5 illegal aliens, are from Mexico. In addition, according to the 2002 population survey, roughly 54% of all Mexican immigrants were illegal aliens. ⁴ So my statement that a good many Mexican immigrants are illegal aliens was a fact, not just some statement I made up to add oomph and strength to my argument. And nowhere did I ever say that the billboard promoted or was intended to promote illegal immigration. So while I appreciate the incredible creativity you put into writing about the illegal aliens and their adventure-filled escapades trying to sneak into the U.S. from Mexico, it really was not necessary.

Your Statement:
“The United States has always been a melting pot of cultural paradigms …”
My Interpretation:
The United States is a great cultural melting pot.
My Response:
While it is true that the United States was once the great cultural melting pot of the world, the times, they are a-changin’. In fact, the one thing we all share as Americans (with the notable exception of the American Indians, of which I proudly count myself a descendent) is that we are all either first generation immigrants or descendants of immigrants. Up until recently, the amazing thing about us was that no matter what our land of origin, we were all excited to become Americans. We didn't want to become Polish-American, Italian-American, Mexican-American, Irish-American, etc. We wanted to become AMERICAN. We understood that becoming American meant learning the culture and the language. Although many immigrants lived in enclaves and communities filled with other immigrants from their homelands, they made an honest, concerted effort to become a part of the American landscape. They soaked up English like a sponge and were ecstatic to take part in the American culture. The thought never entered their minds that once here they should continue speaking only their native language and never engage with the American people.
But the mindset and attitude of immigrants from times past stands in harsh contrast to many of today's immigrants. Today’s immigrants live, as most other immigrants before them, in communities filled with their brothers and sisters from their homeland. The disturbing aspect, however, is that after arriving they continue speaking their native language and make no attempt to learn English. They hold their own culture close to their hearts without even attempting to learn and become part of the American culture. In fact, to illustrate my point, let me give a little anecdotal story…
Travis and I used to live in the Asian population center of our city. One night, we decided to go out to dinner. We drove by a number of shopping centers, several of which had stores whose signage was in a completely foreign language to us. They were obviously Asian languages of some sort, but we did not understand them. We stopped at a restaurant that looked like it would have some good food. We could not read the restaurant’s name, but surely, we thought, they would have menus in English. Boy, were we wrong. We couldn’t read a single character on the menu!
The longer I live here, the more I learn that the restaurant I just described is not an isolated case. There are many, many business establishments here that cater only to one culture/race/language of people. In essence, today’s immigrants have done such a good job of recreating their homeland here in America that they can live out the rest of their lives in their own little neighborhoods, speaking only their native tongue, doing business with people of their own race/culture and never have to becoming meaningfully involved with the American people and the American way of life.
So what was once the great melting pot is more like a quilt now; you live on your square with your people, and I live on my square with my people. The billboard that is the center of this debate only serves to further segregate people and reinforce in the minds of Spanish-speaking Mexicans their connections to Mexico. That billboard does absolutely nothing to promote or further their assimilation and involvement in American life.

Your Statement:
“A good chunk of our family is Mexican American (and bi-lingual I might add) …”
My Interpretation:
Part of our family is Mexican-American.
My Response:
Yes, part of our family is Mexican-American. And your point is … ? I said nothing derogatory, defamatory, disparaging, insulting, negative or derisive about their Mexican ancestry or heritage. What I said, and continue to say in not so many words, is that I am incredibly upset and tired of the barrage of pro-Mexican/anti-American sentiment as displayed in our country; the billboard in question is one of the most flagrant examples of this sentiment I have seen in quite some time. It is insulting to me as an American to see my country mocked. It is divisive because it encourages Mexicans to continue thinking of themselves as “Mexicans” instead of thinking of themselves as “Americans.” The billboard fosters the notion of Mexican nationalism in the Mexicans living in the U.S. and in no way engenders or instills American patriotism in them.
You also say that our family is bilingual. Again, have I not been saying for several paragraphs now that I would like to see immigrants to our country learn English and become a part of our culture? Clearly, our family has done well in this country. They have learned English, have assimilated quite well into our American culture, and all in all, are a perfect example of the type of immigrants that most Americans welcome with open arms. We want immigrants who will take an active role in becoming part of our culture. We welcome immigrants who will assimilate, learn our culture, learn our language, and become a part of the fabric of American life. I believe you would agree with me that what I have just written describes our family to a tee.

Now that I’ve wrapped up my commentary, I can see that it is probably no shorter than the comment I tried to add yesterday. Gee, no wonder my comments weren’t saved. I think I just wrote the equivalent of a short story!

Footnotes:
1 – I have added the italicized emphasis to indicate the portion of the statement that I find offensive and insulting.
2 – You can read more about this story here ( http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34716 ) or here ( http://www.contracostatimes.com/mld/cctimes/news/6791356.htm ). Free registration is required to view the second story.
3 – I could not find the actual archived LA Times article discussing this game that took place on February 15, 1998, but I did find a URL that recounts both the game and the newspaper article ( http://library.flawlesslogic.com/la.htm ).
4 – Read more about immigration numbers here ( http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm?ID=208 ).