Illegal alien head-hunters?? (crimes, gated, camping)

[PittNewbie]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Um, ok. Moving on....

Yeah brush it under the rug. The fact stands Arizona/ Sonora is native country. You have no history here.

Be humble as you are as native here as french poodles are in Scottsdale.

[Lakewooder]

PittNewbie sounds like you don't want certain people invading Arizona.

[PittNewbie]

Just the racist arrogance of these new transplants (most from the midwest) ticks me off. They themselves are alien to the Southwest.

One thing is border security ( I am 100% behind that), but hearing white european immigrants speak like entitled natives make me puke.

[Ritchie_az]

Yeah brush it under the rug. The fact stands Arizona/ Sonora is native country. You have no history here.

Not brushing anything under the rug. But, seriously, how long has anyone been anywhere? Even "native" people didn't originate from here. Some thousands of years ago they "migrated" too. And "white people" do have a history here. Folks from Spain began migrating to what is now Arizona in the late 1600s and others began migrating here in the early 1800s. Certainly that is some history.

Just the racist arrogance of these new transplants (most from the midwest) ticks me off. They themselves are alien to the Southwest.

The one who is coming across as a racist is you, PittNewbie. What is your problem with "white people" anyway?

[AZDesertBrat]

Originally Posted by PittNewbie

Yeah brush it under the rug. The fact stands Arizona/ Sonora is native country. You have no history here.

Be humble as you are as native here as french poodles are in Scottsdale.

So, does that mean that I can go to VA and tell all the 'white folks' there that they are 'invaders' and have no history there just because I am descended from the first 'red' natives there?? Heck, I wouldn't mind owning a state! I always say that my ancestors met my ancestors when the ship docked but I never thought that the 'newbies'...since the 1500s and 1600s...were exactly "illegal aliens". Oh, and then there are my ancestors who docked in New England in the 1500s as well. Gee, maybe I could own this country all the way from New England to VA!! Wowzer!! I'll have to look into that!!

[jimj]

Originally Posted by Gurbie

Ponderosa, how can you claim that Guardian article is "slanted"? All the Guardian did was fact-check Gov Brewer's claim in the Fox interview that "beheadings" is one of the "problems" that come with illegal immigration. The reporter checked with the coroner's offices from six border and surrounding counties, and COULDN'T FIND A SINGLE INSTANCE of a "beheading", illegal-immigrant or otherwise. Brewer is either making crap up, to heighten fear of Mexican immigrants, or, she's repeating "war stories" she's heard from guys like Arpaio.

So, who is really "stirring the pot" here, guys? Skeptics like me and like-minded posters, or Gov Brewer?

It's just hyperbol that both sides of any government issue engage in.

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by jimj

It's just hyperbol that both sides of any government issue engage in.

jimj, this statement is undoubtedly true, in a general sense. But it's too broad to be useful here.

In the case of Brewer VS The Guardian, all the available evidence suggests the Gov is indeed engaging in hyperbol.

But all the Guardian did was fact-check the Gov, and file a sober report on their findings. Do you want to accuse the Guardian of engaging in hyperbol, too? Not generally, but specifically in the case of this particular article?

If you want to make that assertion, you need to show evidence, not just make vague comments that tend to set up false equivalencies. Otherwise, all you are doing is blurring the issue. You are being intellectually lazy.

[Ritchie_az]

Gurbie,
doing a little research about The Arizona Guardian. It's interesting and eye-opening (not the "paper").
First, it's new and it's owned by five people: Patti Epler, Paul Giblin, Mary K. Reinhart, Dennis Welch and Bob Grossfeld. Grossfeld is a Democrat political strategist and self-proclaimed "Progressive". Epler, Giblin, Reinhart and Welsh were all (recently) unemployed political reporters. They are trying to make an Arizona version of Politico.com. They say: "[they] intend to offer a mix of breaking news and nonpartisan analysis that appeals to people who work in government and those who have to constantly work with government."
The word "analysis" jumps off the page to me. As some on the internet have questioned, is The Arizona Guardian an on-line "newspaper" or a blog? And is Mr.Grossfeld's far-left political views (remember, he's a Democrat strategist for a group called "The Media Guys") influencing what is "reported" and how it's "reported"? What are the political views of the other four (it's not publically known at this moment, but seeing as most reporters are Democrats, one could easily guess....)? (Note: http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla...UCLA-6664.aspx).

It's interesting, though, that you put a lot of faith in that Arizona Guardian article.

[PittNewbie]

Originally Posted by AZDesertBrat

So, does that mean that I can go to VA and tell all the 'white folks' there that they are 'invaders' and have no history there just because I am descended from the first 'red' natives there?? Heck, I wouldn't mind owning a state! I always say that my ancestors met my ancestors when the ship docked but I never thought that the 'newbies'...since the 1500s and 1600s...were exactly "illegal aliens". Oh, and then there are my ancestors who docked in New England in the 1500s as well. Gee, maybe I could own this country all the way from New England to VA!! Wowzer!! I'll have to look into that!!

No, just respect native people and be humble and recognize that there are people that are native to North America....where no line drawn arbritraily in the sand will divide them.

NO HUMAN BEING IS ILLEGAL. There are solutions to this problem. But not by creating demons out of hard working warm hearted people. (Who can teach you all a thing or two about happiness).

This demonizing witchhunt is a distraction from your real deep rooted social problems and the financial fiasco caused by wall street / gamblers and their greedy republican friends.

Address THEM maybe then your addiction to drugs wiill go away and the war on drugs will end.

[Gurbie]

Originally Posted by Ritchie_az

Gurbie,
doing a little research about The Arizona Guardian. It's interesting and eye-opening (not the "paper").
First, it's new and it's owned by five people: Patti Epler, Paul Giblin, Mary K. Reinhart, Dennis Welch and Bob Grossfeld. Grossfeld is a Democrat political strategist and self-proclaimed "Progressive". Epler, Giblin, Reinhart and Welsh were all (recently) unemployed political reporters. They are trying to make an Arizona version of Politico.com. They say: "[they] intend to offer a mix of breaking news and nonpartisan analysis that appeals to people who work in government and those who have to constantly work with government."
The word "analysis" jumps off the page to me. As some on the internet have questioned, is The Arizona Guardian an on-line "newspaper" or a blog? And is Mr.Grossfeld's far-left political views (remember, he's a Democrat strategist for a group called "The Media Guys") influencing what is "reported" and how it's "reported"? What are the political views of the other four (it's not publically known at this moment, but seeing as most reporters are Democrats, one could easily guess....)? (Note: Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom).

It's interesting, though, that you put a lot of faith in that Arizona Guardian article.

Now THAT'S more like it, Ritchie! I gave you a rep bump for this post!

Hmmmm, it is interesting that the Guardian is a new venture started by "progressives". Probably explains why they were quick to investigate Brewer's claims (probably found them as fishy-sounding as I did). Their stated goal of "offering a mix of breaking news and non-partisan analysis" is admirable, but we'll have to watch to see if bias creeps into their "straight" reporting.

But, apart from their possible motives for investigating in the first place, I can't see how bias would play a part in this case. It's not an opinion piece, it's an investigative article. The reporters either checked with all those ME and LE officials, and were told what they reported, or they didn't.

Like I said before, the info in the article SEEMS credible. If the Guardian is factually in error, it should be easy to prove it- all someone has to do is come up with examples of what Brewer was talking about, which the reporters missed.

If you want to claim the paper's report is biased, however, then the standard of proof is a little higher- you have to find evidence they found information (such as a series of beheadings), and deliberately ommitted this exculpatory information from their article.

Absent any counter-information to refute the Guardian, I'm sticking with my (relatively modest) position- that Brewer's remarks are (so far!) unsubstantiated.