Why Isn’t CNN Fact-Checking a Story Before Airing it?

LatinaLista — The fires in San Diego are dramatic enough without the horrendous side stories of arson and death.
Yet, all afternoon on CNN, in between live and taped footage of raging fires and neighborhoods burned to a crisp, anchor after anchor stops coverage long enough to “report” on a story about 6 illegal immigrants caught stealing supplies at the Qualcomm Stadium.
The only trouble with this story is determining the truth of it.


In addition to CNN’s assertion that six people were arrested for stealing, there are other stories about the incident that say 8 people were detained, 5 were released.
The stories say that eyewitnesses saw the illegal immigrants load up pick-up trucks with cots and other supplies. According to police, these people were reselling the items — in effect, price gouging.
Well, not entirely true.
Univision interviewed Manuel Santiago, the father of a young family (wife and three children with the oldest looking to be about 10), whom we can only assume, was part of the original 8 detained. The father explained that he understood, as told by a stadium worker, that the supplies were to be taken by the fire victims back to their homes because they don’t know what conditions they will find their homes in.
Yet, instead of approaching the family about why they were putting the supplies into their van, workers at the stadium called the police. The police came and found out it was a misunderstanding but then asked for proof of their citizenship status. That’s when it was discovered that the family was illegal.
Three cousins of the 5-member family were taken away by border officials who were called by the police. The family themselves were not taken away recognizing the fact that the father had returned all the items when told to and the obvious trauma the young children felt when they saw their cousins and parents being detained.
So, the crux of the story is not that items were being stolen but that these people were illegal immigrants who claim not to be stealing anything. Yet, it’s curious that their side of the story didn’t make it into the final English-language news accounts.

CNN, in repeating this story throughout the afternoon, don’t have footage of the people accused of stealing so they are using “generic” footage of Latinos sitting in the stadium. Each time, the footage of these San Diego brown-skinned Latino citizens are shown onscreen, the anchor is saying illegal immigrants.
You don’t have to be a psychologist to know that the impression being planted in people’s minds is that “illegal immigrant” equates with brown-skinned Latinos.
For a news organization striving to do a service to the public, it’s an example of the sloppiest piece of news reporting and broadcasting that is not doing any kind of service to a demographic that is experiencing more than its fair share of being victimized by hate rhetoric.
When broadcast news organizations fail to do the most basic elements of the profession — like getting a story accurate and illustrating it truthfully — then there’s no hope that the public will ever get the true story when it comes to undocumented immigrants and, more importantly, U.S. Latino citizens.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to stay informed and up to date with articles delivered to your feed reader. Invite a friend to read news on LatinaLista.

Related posts

40 Comments

  1. Frank said:

    A Univision interview of these people. Yep, thats a really unbiased source too, lol.
    Lets see what the final investigation comes up with before assuming anything, ok?

  2. miguel said:

    Facts would have to trump sensationalistic reporting. By the venom dispensed in the comments of the article, the tabloid mentality in reporting has done its part. Truth of original charge was ignored and all the hype directed to the ‘legal’ status.

  3. diana joe said:

    Nothing is new here…dark-skinned=dirty/-light-skinned= clean.
    The truth is not the truth and lies never looked this good…did the twin towers look like an IMPLOSION to y’all-or was I the only one that saw how perfectly they went down ,and how accurately they fell “into” place-PEACE TO THE HUMANS!
    No to WAR!
    No to GREED and PERSECUTION!
    - And peace to the victims of WAr CrImes.
    OH!-By the way-I am fascinated by magic…is anyone else?!
    There’s a chit load of camera tricks, and digital enhancements, and magicians freshly hired whom are hard at work-y’all be cool now!
    Oh-and undocumented people are the latest craze for entertainment-in fact it was prolly a minutemental-so bored ,and perhaps with nothing to do that set the fires in Cali–hmm REPORT that nit-wits!
    America your people are going INSANE make more FarMiSuitIcaLs-quick—-ahhhhhhhhh Hurry! Hurry-agh..*explodes.

  4. yave begnet said:

    Cable news has decided the way to get viewers and advertisers when covering immigration is to put it under the rubric of “scary brown fur’ners” coming to invade the country. Apparently they’ve decided this is what America wants to see and this is what will bring in the green. They’ve also decided that I need to know Paris Hilton’s dog’s daily feeding and pooping schedule. Luckily I’ve figured out how to circumvent their plan–I don’t watch! I think cable news is one step behind the print media–headed for extinction, or at least major transformation. As is usually the case with these things, it won’t be pretty.
    And I see 9/11 Truth has made an appearance in the thread … count me among the worried. I have inside knowledge that Paris Hilton’s dog was a co-conspirator.

  5. Horace said:

    Yes, Lou Dobbs runs CNN, and the LA Times and the San Diego newspapers and every other southern California newspaper that reoounted the theft exactly as did CNN. Lou Dobbs is to blame for all the bad reports on illegal aliens, not!

  6. miguel said:

    Horace said: Lou Dobbs is to blame for all the bad reports on illegal aliens, not!
    You defending Lou Dobbs speaks volumes for his credibility as an unbiased reporter.

  7. Frank said:

    The alleged theft of the emergency supplies would have made the news no matter who had done it. Here we go with the brown skinned victim mentality again.

  8. EYES OF TEXAS said:

    Diana Joe, I don’t know if you are just joking or really believe what you said about the twin towers. If you believe that was an implosion, then you would be the one with pharmaceutical problems. Did you not see the planes as did hundreds of people on the ground in N.Y.. All modern built skyscrapers are designed to collapse in the same way the towers did; straight down. With so many tall buildings in such a tight area it would not make sense to design them to fall over sideways. I don’t believe you are fascinated with magic, but surely with pharmaceuticals.
    One of the California fire arsons is an illegal Honduran and his undisclosed assistant will most likely be an illegal alien also. Do not be so hasty the place blame until the facts are known. I like all people, including those with dark skin, but I don’t like those entering my country illegally to start fires, rape, murder, drive drunk killing innocent citizens, dealing drugs and committing crimes against us all. American citizens do enough of these things, so we don’t need outsiders adding to the problems.
    Undocumented people, undocumented workers, undocumented immigrants and any other tag besides illegal aliens is a false and deceptive statement. Break out your Websters, look up illegal and alien and you will see the best description of who these poeple are. It is not a dirty word or a false statement. You can sugar coat a turd, but it’s still a turd.

  9. sick-freak said:

    Look out Diana Joe…the men in plain white coats are coming for you.
    Well done EYES….couldn’t have said it any better. Bravo!!!!

  10. yave begnet said:

    Undocumented people, undocumented workers, undocumented immigrants and any other tag besides illegal aliens is a false and deceptive statement. Break out your Websters, look up illegal and alien and you will see the best description of who these poeple are. It is not a dirty word or a false statement.
    Talk to an ICE attorney and they will correct your statement above. The term the government uses is “out of status,” since simple lack of papers doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is present in the U.S. unlawfully. For that reason, I try to avoid the term “undocumented,” since a person might have a social security card, passport, birth certificate, and work authorization card, and still not be present legally. So “undocumented” isn’t completely accurate either. Because of the difficulty of proving or disproving nationality and lawful status in many cases, a decision by an immigration judge in removal proceedings is the only way the government can decide that someone is unlawfully present or not. ICE often does what it can to circumvent the proceedings and expedite removal under provisions of the 1996 law, and CBP can keep people out at the border without going through removal proceedings, but otherwise an immigration court has to make that determination, not an ICE agent or a local cop. Occasionally someone in removal proceedings discovers that he derived citizenship from his parents and the government is about to deport a U.S. citizen. Preventing situations like that is why we have an established legal process to decide these things.
    The word “alien” is in the Constitution, so you’re on more solid ground with that alone (although it’s taken on a much different connotation than it originally had). But there is no immigration court or federal court that recognizes the term “illegal alien” as a legal term. That is what got the city of Hazleton tripped up–it tried to write a statute using a legally meaningless term, and the district judge struck it down partly for that reason.
    I understand that common usage doesn’t always mirror legal usage, but if you’re asserting that “illegal alien” is the official government term or the universally accepted term then I have to say that’s wrong on both counts.

  11. Frank said:

    I disagree and would like you to prove what you are saying. Every source I have ever read stated that the federal government’s term for those in this country currently without papers and that came into our country illegally, is an “illegal alien”.

  12. Marisa Treviño said:

    The following was sent by a like-minded colleague — Marisa
    Remy Bermudez (San Diego Latino leader) Wrote:
    Leslie Berenstein of the SD Union Tribune interviewed me on this incident. Please see article below:
    At about 11 am of Wednesday (October 24, 2007), I witnessed the incident with San Diego Police officers, INS/Border Patrol and a family whom had just been separated. I was on site when the 3 SD Police Dept Officers were at the curb on Gate D right outside the Q’s building.
    Five children and 2 adults were against the wall crying while the border patrol detention vans had people inside.
    I asked the PD officers if this was INS pick up point and and African American female officer said, “No”.
    I asked, “Then just what happened here?” As the media was approaching both Border Patrol vehicles dashed off quickly.
    She said that a crime had just been committed. I proceeded to ask her, “Let me see if I understand this correctly. An alleged crime was committed, you proceded to card them; you found out that they didn’ have documenation and then you turned them over to INS?”.
    The female African American Officer said , “Yes!”
    I said, “Do you know that that is unconstitutional?” She became perturbed. It is City policy that the SD Police Department are not to turn over suspected undocumented people unless a crime charge has been filed.
    We started arguing at the legality of such actions. A channel 8 reporter came in to tape, the male police officers, one of which is Officer (Rubio) and the other one whom I believe his name is Cesena placed a hand in front of the channel 8 camera and took the reporters microphone away.
    I stepped back with the female officers sort of pushing back with her presence while an altercation ensued with the male officers and the reporter. In the meantime, latino people were coming from my right side very concerned.
    I turned around to translate that it be best that things don’t escalate any further and they could cooperate by going inside for saftey.
    In the meantime, the female officer, still pressing me away with her body movement, told me, “You don’t understand, we are actually undercover.”
    I had to disregard such an ignorant statement. There they are 3 police officers dressed in blue uniform sporting police badges and she dares to tell me that they are undercover. (My after thought was undercover for what INS/Customs?!)
    Media coverage resumed; Channel 8 reporter was taking my statements as were L.A. radio stations and other media. Next thing I know and across from me (while the media is taping), Officer Rubio took out his cell phone and took my picture.
    I am sure to intimidate me as he made sure that we made eye contact before and after he snapped shot me.
    I finished the interviews. And the female cop is still on me walking in front of me as if walking me backward while speaking non-stop as I listened.
    She basically was giving me a lot of rhetoric that she had already stated. When I would try to speak, she would shut me up by yelling “STOP TALKING OVER ME!”.
    I could not get a word in. Finally I told her, “How can I speak over you if you are speaking non-stop!”
    Just then, I caught officer Rubio smirking at me from afar. I proceded to speak to him and walked away from the female officer.
    I said, “Officer Rubio, you took my picture with your cell phone. He said, “Yes, I did..” in a very defiant almost immature manner.
    “Why did you do that?” I asked. He laughed while looking at me. I said, ” Well then, may I take your picture?” I asked while taking out my cell phone.
    My thought was that I needed to record these various incidents. He said “Sure”. Then the female cop got in front of my camera and said, “You can’t do that!”
    I said, “Why not, he took my picture and he gave me permission”.
    The female cop said, I’ve called our supervisor, he will explain to you why we are here.
    Then Officer Rubio, realized that he probably made a major mistake and yelled from where he was at, “I didn’t take your picture, I was just kidding”. I tried to go to where he was and got close enough. The only barrier was that Female cop who persisted being in between me and Officer Rubio.
    I then told Officer Rubio to show me his cell phone and prove to me that he didn’t take my photo. He said that he didn’t have to show me anything. I insisted. He ignored me.
    Whether or not the supervisor came, I have no idea as no one came to speak with me. I decided at this time that it was better to ask the other latino people who were getting angry at all that happened that it was best for all of us to go inside and keep our distance from the scene.
    Quite frankly, I felt threatened by the police officers there. One taking my picture and their behaviour being erratic, immature, and physically offensive.
    The rest of Wednesday and Thursday, people of Latino descent were afraid to get food, water, toilet paper, toiletteries and so forth to the parking lot where many people were making do with make-shift housing made out of left overs from other evacuees who were more fortunate not to be easily identified as latinos.
    There is more to this. Suffice it to say that I approached a City Councilmember with the incident and the perceived inappropriateness and abuse of authority by the PD in that particluar incident.
    He said, “How can I help you?” and said that he was not in charge of the police department.
    I thanked him for his clarification and direction (?) It was a way of saving face for him and for me. As I was walking away, disappointed, indignant and humilliated, he said, “Remy, do you want to file a complaint?” I said, “Yes, I do.”. He called a PD sargeant to take my statement.
    As I was speaking to the Sargeant, he told me that he was sorry that he couldn’t pay attention to me because he was protecting Mayor Sanders and that he could not take my report. He then suggested I find a booth around the M entrance gate and file my complaint there and “look for the man with the 3 stripes on his sleeve.”
    He added, “That means he is a sargeant”. (Duh!) I never found the office. My complaints have not been officially taken to date. By the way, that particular sargeant who said he was protecting the Mayor, was not on duty as such.
    He was assigned to be at Qualcomm.
    Mycomplaints are:
    1) It is City policy that the SD Police Department are not to turn over suspected undocumented people unless a crime charge has been filed: At that point no crime had been filed and an extended family was separted because of the PD’s actions.
    I still wonder was the undercover mission: a mission to amass as many Latinos’ suspected of illegal entry to Border Patrol?
    I would like to see the Border Patrol report and see how many others were turned over to them by the SD Police.
    I would like to see a listing of all detainees to see if there were any other detainees other than Latinos.
    QualComm was like a mini world, full of numerouse ethnicities…It was a microsociety with the good and the bad, segregation, discrimination, benefactors, fortunate ones and the poor, unprotected fire victims, once more being victimize by trained professionals.
    I would like to see the SDPD report to see how many charges were officially filed and find a correlation with those turned over to the Border Patrol.
    2) SD Police Officers stopping the media from informing the public and assailing a Channel 8 reporter.
    3) SD Police officer Rubio taking my picture with what appeared to be a personal cell phone while I was translating and providing information to the news media.
    4) SD Police Sargeat claiming to be too busy from taking a report from me after a councilman told him to take my complaint.
    Please read below for the Union Tribune’s article.
    Remigia (Remy) Bermúdez
    By Leslie Berestein
    UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
    7:11 p.m. October 25, 2007
    The apprehension and removal to Mexico of two couples, one with three children, after they were accused of looting at Qualcomm Stadium Wednesday has created unease among some of the Latino evacuees staying there.
    Officers from the San Diego Police Department at the stadium called for Border Patrol agents Wednesday morning after three families they suspected of looting could not produce identification, department spokeswoman Monica Muñoz said.
    One family was released after producing proof of being in the country legally, Muñoz said; the other two couples, one of them with children ages 13, 8 and 2, were turned over to immigration authorities. All are extended family.
    Since then, some Latino evacuees say they feel they are being eyed with suspicion, even when they ask for supplies. Joana Miss, a 27-year-old native of Mexico City who was evacuated from her Ramona home, said that Wednesday evening she asked a volunteer for diapers for her 2-year-old son, who had diarrhea, and was handed three individual diapers. Then “when I was leaving, they gave an American woman a whole box,” she said.
    Andrea Guerrero, field and policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego, said about 25 families who were staying at the stadium left after the incident because they were undocumented, or of mixed legal status.
    R20;They were scared, so they left,R21; she said.
    Volunteers said those entering Qualcomm Stadium must provide some sort of identification and fill out a form to obtain a wristband, to make sure benefits are limited to victims. They said utility bills and other confirmations of address are being accepted as identification.
    Guerrero said the police department should not have called Border Patrol agents, some of whom are stationed at the stadium assisting other law enforcement officers, unless formal criminal charges were filed. Muñoz, however, said the department did not violate protocol and that the accused individuals admitted to stealing.
    Last night by phone from Tijuana, Silvia Herrera, 34, said she and her family did not steal anything, and that they only took items they had already been given as they prepared to return home to Scripps Ranch.
    R20;Puzzles and notebooks for the children to draw on, crayons,” said Herrera, who with her husband, children and other relatives had been at the stadium since Monday. “We took a cooler they had given us, some juice and Gatorade . . . only things we had already been given.”
    She said that her husband and his brother, who with his wife was also apprehended, had left earlier to pick up their car. When they returned, the families began to leave together, she said.
    R20;Then they stopped my brother-in-law and my children and told us we were taking things that were not ours. We asked what, but they never told us what it was that we were taking that we shouldn’t,R21; Herrera said.
    She said the third couple, also relatives, was also in the country illegally, but thinks perhaps they were spared because they have U.S. citizen children; only one of her children, a 2-year-old girl, was born in the United States
    Herrera’s family members, along with her brother-in-law and his wife, were planning to return to their native state of Oaxaca on Friday.
    News of the Wednesday incident had made its way around the stadium by Thursday afternoon, though some Latinos were less upset by it than others.
    R20;You are only going to get marked if you break the law,” said Juan Herrera, 32, a car-audio shop owner from Escondido who was there assisting his fiancee’s family, which was evacuated from Ramona.
    Still, said teacher and volunteer Remy Bermudez, the spirit of good will that initially pervaded the stadium isn’t as palpable any more.
    R20;This was beautiful when it started,” said Bermudez, a former candidate for San Diego City Council, who has been volunteering with the children of evacuees. “But today has been a very disappointing day.”

  13. Horace said:

    “I said, “Do you know that that is unconstitutional?” She became perturbed. It is City policy that the SD Police Department are not to turn over suspected undocumented people unless a crime charge has been filed.”
    It may be against San Diego PD policy not to contact ICE, but your friend Remy is absolutley incorrect in her assertion that what the police did was unconstitutional. Cities have been shirking their responsibilities to the people by ignoring violations of federal law, but they are not prevented by federal law from talking to the feds. As a matter of fact, it is against federal law for local governments to prevent local authorities from doing so.
    Under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) Congress barred local ordinances that prohibit employees from providing information on illegal aliens to federal officials.

  14. Horace said:

    One more thing, illegal aliens are also known as non-immigrant aliens. Under our immigration laws, they aren’t even given the dignity of being call immigrants.

  15. Deport Lou Dobbs said:

    frankie wrote with crayon:
    “A Univision interview of these people. Yep, thats a really unbiased source too, lol.”
    yep, just like your spews are not tinted with racist bias. Yeah, little frankie buy a vowel In fact buy a U and I will front you the F,C,and K.
    Get a job and a life. I hope you shower before you visit the free computers at the library.

  16. yave begnet said:

    Remy is absolutley incorrect in her assertion that what the police did was unconstitutional. Cities have been shirking their responsibilities to the people by ignoring violations of federal law, but they are not prevented by federal law from talking to the feds. As a matter of fact, it is against federal law for local governments to prevent local authorities from doing so.
    Federal statute does not rise to the level of constitutional law. So a violation of a federal law is not necessarily a violation of the Constitution.
    Hence your description of “sanctuary city” laws being unconstitutional is inaccurate.
    If the DOJ thought cities like NYC, LA, or San Francisco were violating IIRIRA, they would have brought actions to stop them. To my knowledge, they have not.

  17. yave begnet said:

    Yave, you and your ignorant immigration lawyer are wrong.
    I didn’t know there were two of us.
    I did a search of the on-line Code of Federal Regualations and found several references to the term illegal alien.
    I should have been more specific in my statement earlier about the term “illegal alien.” You are right that some federal statutes do use the term “illegal alien.” For instance, 8 USC 1365 defines an “illegal alien convicted of a felony” as:
    any alien who is any alien convicted of a felony who is in the United States unlawfully and—
    (1) whose most recent entry into the United States was without inspection, or
    (2) whose most recent admission to the United States was as a nonimmigrant and—
    (A) whose period of authorized stay as a nonimmigrant expired, or
    (B) whose unlawful status was known to the Government,
    before the date of the commission of the crime for which the alien is convicted.
    However, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) does not use or define the term “illegal alien” or the term “lawfully present.” The INA is the body of federal statutes that is used by the government to determine who is lawfully present in the U.S. and who qualifies for permanent residence or citizenship. The INA and its associated regulations, agency policies, and court rules, along with case law, constitute immigration law in the United States.
    The statutes you are referring to that use the term “illegal alien” do so for purposes ancillary to immigration law like determining whether state or federal authorities pay for detention of immigrants or whether certain immigrants qualify for welfare benefits. So I suppose a federal court deciding on one of these issues could use the term “illegal alien” in some type of litigation that lies outside of immigration law, and even determine somebody to be an “illegal alien” under, for instance, 8 USC 1365. Such a court, however, does not have the authority to order an alien to be removed from the country or determine whether that alien has lawful status in the country. Only an immigration judge presiding over removal proceedings applying the INA or associated case law can make those determinations.
    What you will not see is an immigration judge or an Article III federal judge applying the INA or immigration precedent case law using the legal term “illegal alien,” because no definition of the term exists under immigration law. So no foreign national who is found to be inadmissible to or removable from the U.S. is defined as an “illegal alien” under immigration law. I hope that clears up some confusion.

  18. yave begnet said:

    Remy Bermudez was probably right when she described the police officer’s actions as unconstitutional, but not for the reason that she gave. The officer’s action in reporting the immigrants to ICE when no crime had occurred may have violated local law, but that is not a constitutional issue. However, there may be grounds for suppression of evidence under the 4th and 5th Amendments if the arresting officer made an unreasonable search and seizure or deprived the individuals of liberty without due process of law. These constitutional provisions cover everyone present in the U.S. regardless of immigration status. Also, local police generally don’t have the authority to enforce federal immigration law unless the relevant municipality has entered into a memorandum of understanding with ICE to receive appropriate training under the INA.
    One more thing, illegal aliens are also known as non-immigrant aliens. Under our immigration laws, they aren’t even given the dignity of being call immigrants.
    No. Under the INA, aliens are divided into two categories: immigrant and nonimmigrant. An “immigrant” is a permanent resident. A “nonimmigrant alien” is somebody whose stay in the U.S. is intended to be temporary (see INA 101(a)(15)). It’s a question of intent: an immigrant intends to immigrate permanently to the U.S.; a nonimmigrant does not. Only a couple of limited categories, such as the H-1B visa, permit “dual intent” where someone in nonimmigrant status can also apply for a green card. Definitionally, a nonimmigrant alien has legal status in the U.S. What you call an “illegal alien” is somebody who has neither immigrant nor nonimmigrant status.

  19. Horace said:

    The fact is yave, illegal aliens do not have the sanction of the status of immigrant. Our government does not recognize them as immigrants. Only those given resident visas are immigrants. Regardless of your semantics arguments, non-immigrants living illegally in this country are deportable aliens. You seem to be a stickler on names, yave, yet you and other advocates are determined to use a non-legal term for them by calliing them undocumented immigrants. Put lipstick on a pig and it’s still a pig.

  20. Horace said:

    “Federal statute does not rise to the level of constitutional law. So a violation of a federal law is not necessarily a violation of the Constitution.
    Hence your description of “sanctuary city” laws being unconstitutional is inaccurate.”
    All of the Code of Federal Regulations regarding immigration and naturalization derive their legitimacy from power invested in the federal government by the Article 8, Section 8, Clause 4, the “Naturalization Clause” of the Constitution. Every law the federal government enacts is an implimenting law based (or supposed to be based) on powers granted to it by that document, so every law enacted by Congress is by extension, part of the Constitution of the U.S.
    If the DOJ thought cities like NYC, LA, or San Francisco were violating IIRIRA, they would have brought actions to stop them. To my knowledge, they have not.”
    Ever ask why Lou Dobbs and others have been railing against George Bush not enforcing our immigration laws? One of the reasons is that he hasn’t been going after these santuary cities. By prohibiting local authorities from working with ICE, sanctuary cities are violating federal law. By the way, the feds are currently suing the State of Illinois because it has an employment law that prohibits employers from attempting to verify residency status. Hopefully that’s only the beginning, with sanctuary cities being next.

  21. Frank said:

    Dobbs, still acting like a juvenile with your profanity? I haven’t said one damn thing that could be construed as racist. I am retired and use my computer at home, not at the library. I have worked for over 50 years so I earned my retirement. I still work part time at my age. Show some respect will you?
    The racist ones are those who advocate the illegal invasion of our country by their own ethnic kind. Does that fit your description?

  22. yave begnet said:

    You seem to be a stickler on names, yave, yet you and other advocates are determined to use a non-legal term for them by calliing them undocumented immigrants.
    What I said:
    The term the government uses is “out of status,” since simple lack of papers doesn’t necessarily mean that a person is present in the U.S. unlawfully. For that reason, I try to avoid the term “undocumented,” since a person might have a social security card, passport, birth certificate, and work authorization card, and still not be present legally. So “undocumented” isn’t completely accurate either.
    I’d add that it’s no less accurate than the term “illegal alien.”
    Every law the federal government enacts is an implimenting law based (or supposed to be based) on powers granted to it by that document, so every law enacted by Congress is by extension, part of the Constitution of the U.S.
    What you seem to be saying is any violation of federal law is a constitutional issue. That is not what is generally meant by constitutional law or a constitutional issue.

  23. Horace said:

    “What you seem to be saying is any violation of federal law is a constitutional issue. That is not what is generally meant by constitutional law or a constitutional issue.”
    Our immigration laws hold as much force as do those that protect our civil rights. It would be wrong to argue that our immigration laws aren’t due respect equal to our civil rights laws, regardless of your sentiments. No individual or ethnocentric advocacy group will be permitted to unilaterally declare our laws null and void and violate them with impunity.

  24. Daniel Maldonado said:

    “That’s when it was discovered that the family was illegal.”
    The family is not “illegal.”
    They dont have the docs that the euros invented as part of their genocide on our people.
    This family comes from ancestors that predate both London and Madrid.
    Illegal is the same as wetback.
    People listen to you. You can perpetuate it or you can help lead the demise of this word whose sole intent is to make people less human so that they, the euros, can continue with their genocide.

  25. Horace said:

    Moldonado, Latin Americans don’t need euros to commit genocide, they’re corrupt and incompetent governments seem to be doing the job. Millions of Latin Americans live in poverty that their governments, some democratic, like Mexico do nothing to remedy. Only Latin Americans who benefit from the democracy and economic conditions created by the so-called euros are prospering. Why are Hispanics living in monocultural societies, with Hispanic run governments in South America fairing so much worse than euros? Explain that.

  26. Liquidmicro said:

    Daniel Maldonado :
    “That’s when it was discovered that the family was illegal.”
    The family is not “illegal.”
    They dont have the docs that the euros invented as part of their genocide on our people.
    This family comes from ancestors that predate both London and Madrid.
    Taken right out of the Mexica Movement handbook.

  27. Frank said:

    You got that right, liquid.
    Maldonado is about as reconquista as they get.
    Genocide? It is every American citizen having genocide committed on them by mainly those south of our border by their illegal invasion of our country. And yes, they are illegal if they don’t come here with documents issued by the U.S. government that permits them too. It isn’t about questioning their humanity but their legal status in this country.
    Whatever happened in the past is past and has nothing to do with those of us alive today and born in this country.

  28. Daniel Maldonado said:

    Punk: “Whatever happened in the past is past and has nothing to do with those of us alive today and born in this country.”
    hahaha is that so? well, well, and the supposed jew holocaust? What about the Armenians?
    Frank, it’s obvious you have little feet. you must them tie your shoes in little nazis
    hahahah\
    hey horbutt, as a jew, arent jou offended?

  29. Frank said:

    Daniel, and what about those incidents? Those responsbible for those acts are all dead and gone now. What has that to do with us today?
    I don’t approve of Nazism are you saying that I do?

  30. Horace said:

    Maldonado, your talk is bold, but nothing you say or do will stop the inevitable self-deportation of illegal aliens. City after city, state after state will make their presence untenable, as they’re denied services, driver’s licenses, the ability to make a living, etc. One in four Hispanics will disappear from the landscape, to reappear in Mexico. Keep watching the news. Those who make their living by exploiting them, their employers will suffer and many, like you, will go under and may even wind up in a federal prison.

  31. diana joe said:

    “Look out Diana Joe…the men in plain white coats are coming for you?”
    Hey sick freak will the men in the WHITE coats be wearing the usual pointy white hoods-and if so, please let em’ know not to burn any crosses..it’s against the rule of law.

  32. diana joe said:

    “Look out Diana Joe…the men in plain white coats are coming for you?”
    Hey sick freak will the men in the WHITE coats be wearing the usual pointy white hoods-and if so, please let em’ know not to burn any crosses..it’s against the rule of law.

  33. diana joe said:

    Sick Freak=
    “Look out Diana Joe…the men in plain white coats are coming for you.”
    Hey there sick freak-should I be expecting the men in the WHITE coats to be wearing the pointy white hoods too?
    just wondering…and if you have a chance tell em’ to get a permit to burn the cross-and clean up for themselves after the ceremony…thanks for the heads up freako!

  34. diana joe said:

    Why you askin’ Frankfreako? You into 14 year olds?-You know the FBI investigates pedos -all I gotta do is press the panic button!
    you better watch your nasty little brain FRANKO yer soundin’ really funny now?!

  35. Frank said:

    I have a lovely and emotionally mature wife whom I have been happily married to for several years. Take your sick jokes somewhere else.
    You have the mind of a 14 year old. If you can’t see that, then I feel sad for you. Grow up!

Comments are closed.

Top