Sure, it’s a new policy. The kinks are being worked out. As with the end of prohibition it will take a few years to function more smoothly.

A few moral absolutists and po-po hawks want to keep the billions rolling in to private prisons, but society has realized that decriminalization makes much more sense over time.

“Given that cannabis has already been decriminalized in many jurisdictions it’s not much of an issue. It does go to show however, that conservative values eventually erode with time to harm reduction principles.”

Cannabis is still a huge issue, especially in California. The feds are closing many of the dispensaries, and many doctors are now afraid to recommend it.

“Since FAIR’s stated goal is to immediately halt all immigration, it is hard to see FAIR as anything other than an anti-immigrant organization.”

FAIR’s position, at it’s most extreme, is to temporarily halt immigration until the situation can be examined. You ought to read about things before offering your misinformed opinion, aadila. That way you can avoid some of the embarrassment you obviously encounter daily.

” When you get to “traitors, anti-whites” you are so deep in the mayonnaise that I have a hard time seeing your tinfoil hat.”

Actually, you have a hard time distinguishing mockery from plain discourse, aadila. As usual, all you people can do is resort to name calling, since you cannot argue rationally or logically. So, OK, I’ll stoop to your gutter level:You are pathetic, and I’m glad you are on the side of the illegals in this issue; You deserve each other.It would be nice if, along with the illegals, we could deport people like you…but then again, what country would have you?

Given that cannabis has already been decriminalized in many jurisdictions it’s not much of an issue. It does go to show however, that conservative values eventually erode with time to harm reduction principles.

Since FAIR’s stated goal is to immediately halt all immigration, it is hard to see FAIR as anything other than an anti-immigrant organization. When you get to “traitors, anti-whites” you are so deep in the mayonnaise that I have a hard time seeing your tinfoil hat.

>John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou, the immigrant-bashing >Los Angeles radio personalities who were suspended >earlier this year when they referred to Whitney Houston >as a “crack ho” and marveled that the late pop singer >“took this long” to die, are back on the air and up to their >old tricks.

J&K are shock jocks, using inflammatory remarks and hyperbole to generate interest and support (sound familiar, SPLC?). While they sometimes take conservative opinions on some issues, they also quite frequently take liberal stances on others, such as the legalization of cannabis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_and_Ken. Nelson quotes their inappropriate comments about Whitney Houston in the opening paragraph as an appeal to the emotions—to make her readers angry, and to imply that there is some connection between these DJ’s and FAIR. Do I really need to explain the fact that just because someone consents to be interviewed does not mean that they share all of the opinions of the interviewers? I guess so.

>In the August 3 edition of the “John & Ken Show,” the >duo took up for the Federation for American Immigration >Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant organization that the >Southern Poverty Law Center has called a hate group >since 2008 because of its virulent and false attacks on >non-white immigrants.

FAIR is not “anti-immigration”. FAIR simply seeks to reform our antiquated immigration laws, lax regulations and policies that have resulted in serious social problems. FAIR seeks to reduce immigration from all countries, not just “non-white” ones. Deliberately, the author of this article uses the fallacy of over generalization to make some of her readers angry. Obviously, Latinos get a great deal of attention from reform groups, since the vast majority of illegal aliens are Latinos.

>“The Federation for American Immigration Reform, I >think, has been defined by some of these think tank >organizations as a hate group,” Chiampou said.
>SPLC is the only group I know of that has done this. Of >course, anyone who disagrees with the decrees of SPLC >is a racist.
>“Really? The Federation for American Immigration >Reform, which just researches the facts concerning >America’s immigration policies, puts out reports >concerning the amount of dollars spent on illegal >immigrants, goes up and through that. But because >some of their stuff points out the truth, which the other >side doesn’t like, concerning how many illegals we have >in this country, how much it costs this country, our failing >policies, politicians who don’t stand up for our laws, who >don’t stand up for border patrol, how they are suddenly >labeled a hate group.”

I would have to disagree with J&K on this one. SPLC is the only group I know of labeling FAIR as a hate group, while most others see it as a legitimate way for concerned citizens to protect themselves from the radical left, and the armies of needy foreigners. Who else has condemned FAIR?

>OK, Ken, we’ll bite.
>First, a quick factual correction. FAIR doesn’t “just” >research “the facts” about immigration policy. It is a >lobbying organization. This is no secret. On its own >website, under “Our Objectives,” FAIR said it seeks “to >influence public policy directly by lobbying (to the extent >permitted by our tax status) and by protecting the >citizens’ rights in the courts.” Its “mission,” in part, is to >“advocate immigration policies that will best serve >American environmental, societal, and economic >interests today and into the future.”

>So there’s that.

Huh? How does participating in the political process make the group a racist one? And let’s not forget, SPLC’s mission is an even more aggressive agenda, seeking to destroy any other entity that disagrees with them, by causing financial loss and considerable legal trouble. Even when confronted by facts, SPLC stubbornly refuses to recant its slanderous allegations, showing that they are unfair and biased.

>And then there’s the “facts” FAIR puts out there, the >alleged “truth” that, you say, is so disliked by the “other >side.”
>Sometimes FAIR’s “facts” are true. More often, they’re >debatable, culled as they are from dubious sources like >FAIR’s sister organization, the Center for Immigration >Studies.

As far as I know, FAIR uses statistics from the Census Bureau, news reports, and other government information. It is interesting that while SPLC often questions the data used by FAIR, it has never mentioned specific examples, deliberately thwarting any debate, I suspect. What data are you referring to, Nelson?

>The bottom line is, FAIR doesn’t peddle facts; it peddles >hate. Its lobbying and legal efforts – such as the >campaign that led to Arizona’s SB 1070 and Alabama’s >HB 56 – are based on fomenting fear, on exploiting >racial tensions and economic anxieties to convince >people that they had better not let any more “aliens” into >their country.

No, that’s not the bottom line. It is an attempt by the author to define the causes behind the reform movement in their paranoid, self-serving, racist terms. Notice how Nelson doesn’t even acknowledge other key aspects of the issue, such as environmental degradation, over-population, etc.? according to Nelson, it’s just about race.

>FAIR founder John Tanton, a man with a lengthy record of >friendly correspondence with Holocaust deniers, a former >Klan lawyer and leading white nationalist thinkers, has >repeatedly suggested that racial conflict will be the >outcome of immigration. In 1998, he told a reporter that >whites would inevitably develop a racial consciousness >because “most people don’t want to disappear into the >dustbin of history,” and added that once whites did >become racially conscious, the result would be “the war >of each against all.”

All of these comments were taken out of context. For example, the ACLU has been “Klan lawyers” on several different occasions, and just because someone corresponds with another doesn’t mean that they share each other’s opinions. And who determines if the tone of the alleged letters were friendly? This is a subjective opinion put forth by an author who seems to be extremely biased, and misinformed.

>Dan Stein, FAIR’s president, is no better. “Immigrants >don’t come all church-loving, freedom-loving, >God-fearing,” he said in 1997. “Many of them hate >America, hate everything that the United States stands >for. Talk to some of these Central Americans.”

Once again, this is taken out of context. And besides, in certain circumstances, it is true. Stein was simply making the point that we need to do a better job of selecting who is allowed to become a citizen of this country. Leah, do you think it would be a good idea to let someone who is opposed to America, perhaps even violently, to become a citizen? Do you think that we should have absolutely no standards at all? (This is a rhetorical question, Leah, we already know what your answer will be).

>Need more examples? Former Colorado Gov. Richard >Lamm, a longtime member of FAIR’s board of advisors, >once said that “new cultures” in America were “diluting >what we are and who we are.” And Joseph Turner, FAIR’s >former Western field >representative, once accused >Mexican immigrants of turning California into a “third >world cesspool.”

Nelson has broken the cardinal rule in argumentative essay writing, in that she or he consistently fails to cite sources, making verification nearly impossible. However, given that he/she has distorted the truth several times previously, taken quotes out of context to suit he/his purpose, and seems to favor an emotional, not logical appeal, we can only assume she/he has done so in this paragraph as well. Even if these quotes are true, they were likely issued in connection with some broader concept, and cannot therefore be considered representative of the entire idea being put forth.

>Not to mention FAIR’s “suggested reading” on >immigration, which includes white nationalist Peter >Brimelow’s Alien Nation, a book whose central thesis is >that America should remain a country dominated by >whites.
>FAIR also recommends Pat Buchanan’s State of >Emergency: The Third World Invasion and Conquest of >America, which argues that America’s shift away from >being white->dominated is “one of the greatest tragedies >in human history.”

I have read “Alien Nation” (Which, incidentally, was written by an immigrant in defense of reform) and found nothing objectionable about it. The central thesis of the book is that we need to reduce legal immigration, and stop illegal immigration into the USA. Interesting how Nelson turns this simple idea into “white domination”, a prime example of Nelson’s distorting the truth. I haven’t read Buchanan’s book, but I seriously doubt that he claims that “white dominance” is a good thing. Instead, I suspect that Nelson has, as proven so many times this article, used her/her incorrect and misleading interpretations of these sources, and then has claimed them to be the opinions of the authors.

>So yes, John and Ken, FAIR is a hate group. Not >because it promulgates “facts” and “truths” its opponents >would rather ignore but because it promotes hatred of >immigrants, especially non-white ones.

Nelson hasn’t proven a thing in this essay, except that she/he needs to take a few classes on critical thinking. Nelson offers no evidence to contradict the facts used by FAIR, takes quotes out of context, fails to cite sources, and uses emotion to try and give her/his opinions some degree of credence. If Nelson were given printed instruction on how to install a toilet, he or she would likely claim that it was a publication written to promote “white dominance”.

>By defending racism, encouraging xenophobia and >nativism, and giving its all to efforts >to keep America >white, FAIR has more than earned its place in the >pantheon of hate >groups. That is where it belongs, and >that is where it will stay.

By defending anti-white racism, encouraging traitors and criminals, and giving its all to subverting efforts to keep Americans safe, prosperous, and fair to it’s own citizens, SPLC has earned its place in the pantheon of anti-American, anti-white hate groups. That is where it belongs, and that is where it will stay.

( By the way, Leah, if you are reading this, thank you. Not for the content, but for letting me know about Pat Buchanan’s book. I’m going to rush out and buy a copy!)

If you consider that the bulk of jobs occupied by immigrant laborers are low paying and have few virtues to them, it sheds more light on the issue.

All the more so when you consider that the economic productivity made possible from immigant labor makes it possible for other companies that offer jobs to function. So, the citizen who works at Home Depot for example would lose her job if we instantly sent 11 million laborers packing. There is a huge chain of economic activity that depends on immigrant laborers, and not just in the example I cited.

Everything is connected Roy. It is very simplistic to argue the 1 for 1 job swap would occur if immigrant laborers were repatriated. The opposite would likely occur: although there might be some low paying jobs that go to jobless citizens, most would stay unemployed. Then as the economy ground to a halt because we lost our productive base, we would lose more skilled and semi skilled jobs to a ruined economy.

Wages would not go up, we would just lose the wheels of the truck to bad politics and our economy would grind to a halt. Have you tried picking onions lately, Roy? Every single country that has available cheap labor of any kind, citizen or non citizen, has been shown to be at an economic advantage through history.

And actually businesses really aren’t interested in “open borders”, because that would mean legal immigration. The truth is that America is not as easy as people think to get into and to work legally. As long as you’re illegal and can be deported, you can’t organize or fight for your rights.

Thanks for your reply. It really doesn’t have anything to do with my comment.

But since you brought it up, people can oppose illegal immigration for all sorts of perfectly valid reasons.

For example, one reason I oppose illegal immigration is that this country is currently suffering from a glut of labor, as shown by the very high unemployment rate.

With illegals gone, unemployment would likely go down and wages and benefits would go up. Reducing the supply of labor is one of the best ways to improve conditions of workers, especially workers at the lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum. In fact, this is why big business in this country has been in favor of open borders – it not only provides cheap labor, but it has the ripple effect of lowering wages and benefits for native-born citizens as well. All you have to do is look at the depressingly high rates of unemployment among native born hispanic and black kids in LA County, for example, to see this effect.

Most of the urban legends about illegal immigration are factually incorrect.

Here are the facts: (1) immigrants commit fewer serious crimes per capita than citizens and legal residents, (2) illegal immigration has either close to no effect on the overall economy or is slightly positive, (3) about 40% of illegal immigrants today came in with a valid visa and overstayed or changed status (from student to worker, for example), so in fact we DO know who millions of them are and DID check their backgrounds, (4) most immigrants speak at least some English, (5) illegal immigrants cannot receive welfare or foodstamps, (6) illegal immigrants pay sales tax, property taxes (even when renting), fuel taxes and other forms of public revenue just like everyone else, and (7) illegal immigrants are no less likely to assimilate than any of the prior waves of immigration into the country, it just takes a generation or two for this to be seen.

Many of the groups opposed to illegal immigration are opposed on the basis of misperceptions. Even the old “the law is the law” mantra falls apart because if the law is the law, then rights are rights. You can’t have one without the other.

From what I can tell, its founding members come from the same community, the same cast of characters as those behind FAIR. I think they routinely cite Center for Immigration Studies. So if we’re going by associations, then it seems like NumbersUSA has many of the same ones as FAIR. Why no hate group designation?

Also, while we’re at it, could the SPLC recommend any anti-illegal immigration groups that are “clean” in their opinion.

What gives you the right to come onto a website and shout your mouth off half-cocked while being a complete idiot without doing any research on the subject? The First Amendment, that’s what. Exact same thing that gives the SPLC the right to take on and LABEL other groups. You have freedom of speech, not freedom from criticism, or looking like a complete d-bag.

“Illegal aliens have always been a problem in the United States. Ask any Indian.” -Robert Orben

This is so well put it gave me chills! Very well put Leah.

This is exactly the idiocy that pervades the very aura of the factions I am speaking of, it appears that they have some sort of ignorant fear far and deep reaching throughout their lives that they would waste their life and time on creating acts of hate.

The growing cesspool in America is the hate that has spawned from absolute ignorance.

America needs to be dominated by Americans. And last when I looked all Americans were no where near being “all white”.

How does one see a radio show? This is not the only strange paradox you bring up, judging by your supremely ignorant comment about MALDEF and NCLR being hate groups.

MALDEF is a civil rights organization involved with advocacy, communications, community education, and litigation in the areas of education, employment, immigrant rights, and political access.

NCLR is a non-profit, non-partisan organization that does research, policy analysis, and advocacy, with a Latino perspective as well as advancing opportunities for individuals and families.

The activities of both of these groups are perfectly transparent, so could you please back up your absurd claim with evidence or shut up?

Regarding your grievance with the U.N., I presume you are referring to the various resolutions in Alabama, Tennessee and Kansas against Agenda 21? In addition to being completely useless laws that waste taxpayer’s time and money, these initiatives do nothing more than make Americans look stupid.

Would you mind explaining how promoting bicycle trails as an alternative to fuel consumption is somehow a precursor to world government? Oh Lard, provide this man an education.

of course, you go through the same rounds you always do, using mccarthyism as the only way to justify your accusations, instead of, you know, using REAL documented instances of racism/xenophobia/hate. of course, you sure don’t hold MALDEF and NCLR (your buddies) to the same standard!

anyways, keep up your crusade of painting any organized effort to oppose illegal immigration as racist or anti-immigrant. i’ll be here, dissecting it and laughing.

oh, and don’t forget to keep an eye out on those awful southern politicians passing laws against the united nations, because that’s clearly a recipe for hate!

I can supply the rope and the mirror. Who’s got the bed?

Well, it’s probably a demon.