Someone interested in immigration issues sent this notice out.  It looks like it should be very interesting.  How about a “homework” assignment 🙂    We all watch and share our thoughts afterwards!  No one will be graded on their remarks, promise!

 

PROJECT IMMIGRATION: MELTING POT MELTDOWN
An In-Depth Look at All Sides of the Immigration Debate

On Sunday, June 8th at 7:00 PM, ABC 7/WJLA-TV News Anchor Leon Harris and Special Projects Reporter Andrea McCarren will host a one-hour special on immigration and its profound impact on the Washington area. The show provides a rare look at the personal stories of illegal immigrants and those who oppose them. “This special reflects WJLA’s ongoing commitment to covering the contentious topic of Immigration,” said Bill Lord, WJLA-TV’s VP of News. “It has become one of the most difficult and divisive issues facing our local governments today.”

Harris, McCarren and Photographer Dave Webb recently traveled to Central America to show viewers where the pursuit of the American dream often begins. The team also documents the pipeline of money earned in the U.S. and sent to countries like El Salvador. Additionally, the ABC 7 news team reports on how immigration affects our schools, healthcare facilities and law enforcement. Beth Mausteller is the Executive Producer of the special. Michael Wright is the editor.

“The United States is being invaded,” the executive director of the Maryland Minutemen tells ABC 7. “And if we don’t do something about it, we’re going to lose our country.” In contrast, a day laborer who came to this country illegally told our crew, “We come to the United States looking for a dignified job… and I think that is not a crime.”

87 thoughts on “Watch Immigration Special, Channel 7, Sunday Evening, June 8th!

  1. Michael

    KG, What “standard” are you using to claim that “you” deserve more pay than some “man”? Your gender?

  2. “KG, what LAW prevents you from achieving any salary you want today?”

    It’s not the law that prevents it. It’s employers who eschew things like equal opportunity knowing there’s nothing we can do about it.

  3. Red Dawn

    Michael and KG,

    To touch on what you are discussing, I caught a glimpse of news coverage during Hilary’s speech to back Oboma and a question was raised about if he is elected it could possibly change affirmative action or minority right……SOMETHING to that effect and I don’t know if I have the wording right but it raised my eye brow…

  4. “KG, What “standard” are you using to claim that “you” deserve more pay than some “man”? Your gender?”

    Michael, who is saying anyone is owed MORE money based on gender? I’m talking equality, not better, worse, more, less. Where are you getting that?

  5. Red, what was his answer?

  6. Michael

    You fight for your legal rights by ensuring the “law” for men and the “law” women is the same. Let’s put the shoe on the other foot, where gender discrimmination is blatent and socialluy accepted but still “illegal” Is the “law” for men in a divorce court regarding child custody the same? Does it depend only on gender? Or does it depend on “numbers” or does it depend on “abilities, skills, performance and genderless attributes, other than MONEY” Does child support discrimminate by gender? Are these laws not advocated for by “women’s” rights advocacy groups that demanded preferential treatment and legal laws that “favor” women? Or are they fair and just laws applied equally regardless of gender?

  7. Michael

    KG, define “equality” in terms other than “numerical” superiority or advantage?

  8. Red Dawn

    K,

    He didn’t answer. It was news coverage after the speech and the reporters raising the possibilities that caught my eye/ear and I had to go….I think it would be interesting to find out.

  9. Red Dawn

    K,
    I just reread my first comment, I said “during” the coverage of the speech but it was commentary afterward 🙂

  10. Michael

    KG, employers are people, they hire people based on their “hiring” standards. If they do not do this based only on performance, ability, IQ, aptitude or “equal opportunity” concepts thay are breaking the law and you can sue them. If they hire based on gender preference, racial preference, religious preference, or ethnic group preference, or based on “numerical” balancing quotas, to ensure equal numerical outcomes, they are discrimminating and breaking the law. If you see this, you protect your “rights” by an “individual” lawsuit. If anyone ever hires someone to meet a preferential racial balancing or “diversity” concept quota of “one of each” rather than my skill, ability, IQ, apttitude or performance I will sue them and I will win.

  11. Michael

    Red Dawn, I too think Obama, based on what he has said in the past and his affiliations with racial groups, and racially based political groups will look at racial “privilege” issues and attempt to “re-enact” racial numerical balancing, therefore discriminating against any gender, race, religion or ethnic group that constitutes a “majority”.

  12. Red Dawn

    Michael,

    I would have to agree with your projection and would like to know more about it. I did NOT get to see what they were discussing but I was like, hey… yeah, I bet that would change…ok, I had to throw the ditz in…interesting 🙂 I would like to hear more of that possibility.

  13. Michael

    KG, you are correct, “illegal” immigration is not about race or ethnic group. It is about enforcing a law meant to protect everyone “equally”, and one meant to give no one “numerical” advantage because of their gender, race, religion or ethnic group. It simply enforces an equal “immigration” standard. Those “individuals” who break that “standard” are deported, regardless of their race, gender, religion or ethnic group desire for a “job”.

  14. “If you see this, you protect your “rights” by an “individual” lawsuit.”

    But you are missing the point. Most people cannot “afford justice.” THAT is the problem.

  15. “KG, define “equality” in terms other than “numerical” superiority or advantage?”

    Equality for me means, “Don’t treat me worse or better just because my privates are different from yours.”

    : )

  16. Michael

    Any political figure who associates with a racial, gender, religious, or ethnic hate group, especially politically will try to pass laws that favor that gender, religion, race or ethnic group “numerically”, and will try to pass different laws based on gender, religious, racial or ethnic group association to achieve “numerical” and political advantage. They will apply different laws for different genders, races, religions and ethnic groups until this political goal is achieved, then they will change the law to maintain that numerical and political advantage against all other groups that do not belong to their political group.

    This is ethically wrong. All gender, racial, religious, and ethnic groups are now doing this (instead of just the white supremacy groups of the past) to oppress the other “groups” politically and numerically. They are not applying an equitable legal standard, but a preferrential treatment standard that benefits them. You can see this easily in Obama and Hillary speeches regarding racial and gender issues. It is not obvious to anyone but the people oppressed and discrimminated against by these gender, racial, religious, ethnic group preferential belief systems.

  17. Michael

    KG, good, then you do advocate that “equality” means “equal” law and not equal numbers or equal wages for equal numbers based only on your “privates”. That only leaves ability, performance, IQ, skills and apptitude doesn’t it?

  18. Yes, I do think that, Michael. Here’s another issue, though. Measures of ability, performance, etc. are subjective. Let’s say, for example, you are the only man in an office full of women. Let’s say these are mean, evil women who are sexist. Let’s say your boss writes up something like, “Michael has poor performance and is not meeting his job expectations.” If they really want to, they can say and document whatever they want to get rid of you if they want you gone. Now, let’s say you have no money. What are you going to do?

    This is what women and minorities go through ALL THE TIME! I’m not saying it doesn’t happen to “white men” as well, but historically and even now, this happens to more vulnerable groups. I’ve seen it happen to more than one minority and it creates more than just an imbalance of justice. It created serious hostility.

  19. Michael

    KG, so what should we do if you cannot “afford justice”, give all minority groups legal cash accounts, based on their gender, race, religion and ethnic group? Would that be “fair” to a “majority” group mamber who also cannot “afford justice”? What is your standard foe determining which “individuals” get legal help and assistance, only those that belong to a minority based gender, racial, religious, or ethnic political activist group? Shoul we create “majority” groups based on gender, racial, religious or ethnic political affiliation to demand equal cash to “afford justice”.

    Or is your standard the “poor” are the only ones discrimminated against? or your standard “help only the “poor” that belong to minority gender, religious, racial and ethnic groups?

    It is for this reason the “law” must be genderless, ethnicity free and religiously blind.

    Poverty does not discrimminate. Getting rich is not discriminatory, in fact a rich nation helps the poor more than a poor or “socialist” based nation.

  20. “All gender, racial, religious, and ethnic groups are now doing this (instead of just the white supremacy groups of the past) to oppress the other “groups” politically and numerically.”

    This is the see-saw, pendelum effect. “I hit you so you hit me back harder and so I hit you back even harder” etc. It’s the result of inequity. Once the pendulum starts to swing, it’s hard to ever get it centered again.

  21. “Getting rich is not discriminatory” No. But if only the rich can “afford justice” then the system is discriminatory.

    You are asking how to solve this, and I don’t have the answer. Places like “legal aid” that provide legal services to the poor can help as can mediation. But those are limited programs, band-aids for what is really wrong, and that is, discrimination really does and continue to exist. If the world were perfect like you suggest, yes, justice would indeed be available to all. But the fact is, we live in a flawed society and become victims of our own systems.

  22. Also note, if you are poor, it’s damn harder to get rich than if you start off upper-middle class. In some cases, it’s nearly impossible because the cards are stacked against you.

  23. Michael

    So KG, what standard should we apply to a performance write-up? Can we make that fair with racial quotas and numerical balancing? What if your boss is a member of a minority group, will he or she write a fair performance report? Will they hire based only on their own kind? Will they hire based only on their gender, racial, religious, ethnic group affiliation. Will this affiliation be any different if you are a minority group or a majority group, or will it be based only on what group you belong to, and not how you perform, what IQ you have, what performace you do, what aptitude you have?

    Will numerical balancing and “diversity” quotas fix that problem fairly for EVERYONE, or just for minority groups?

    You cannot do “numerical balancing” without some form of discrimmination based on what gender, racial, religious or ethnic group your boss or the company policy favors and “belongs” to.

    The law does not allow “diversity” quotas, or “one of each” quotas, or numerical balancing. Either of these concepts is illegal. It is illegal for majority groups, it is illegal for minority groups to do this.

    The law is the same for each and favors none over the other, it favors no individual over another individual.

    What other standard of “EQUALITY” do you advocate for other than this one? Numbers cannot be used.

  24. No, quotas aren’t the answers. PEOPLE are the answers. We need ethical and fair people–people who are not prejudiced, racist, sextist, etc.–doing the hiring and managing. Jerks come in every size, shape, color, and gender. So what this is really about is investing in people so they can become good leaders and employers who treat their people well.

    But as we see from the folks who use “illegals,” there is a shortage of people who want to treat others with dignity and respect. These employers don’t care whose laws or backs they are breaking when they hire vulnerable populations to do their dirty work. They use them, abuse them, then lose them.

  25. Michael

    KG, I think you will find in the numbers of successful “start-ups” the “richest” people started with nothing, and an “innovative” idea, regardless of their race, gender, religious or ethnic group. You might say “richness” discrimminates based on IQ or business “ability” only. Now section 8As illegally have a numerical and monetary (set aside) un-fair advantage based on gender, race, religion and ethnic group affiliation of the CEO. Is that fair and “EQUAL”? Does that not “discrimminate” against entreprenuers who do not meet 8A “qualification” even though they may be just as smart, have the same ability, and appitude? 8A is an illegal numerical balancing concept that has not been supreme court challenged yet. No law suit has yet made it to the supreme court based on “diversity” concepts yet, another form or numerical balancing quotas.

  26. Michael

    KG, correct, you build those ethically fair “individual” people using “equal” laws applied the same to ALL. Now you get it.

    Dignity and respect comes from following the law the SAME for everyone, not just treating “illegals” differently using different laws. Those same laws are not protecting people who are legal, or are affected by “illegals” while ignoring they are equally entitled to dignity and respect and equal application of the law, not numerical balancing and ethnic privilege or preference for a “job”.

  27. Michael

    KG, yes many employers do not care. That’s why the “law” must go after them as well. Both “groups” are breaking the law based on gender, racial, religious and ethnic group privilege and want “different laws” to apply to different gender, racial, religious and ethnic groups so they can PROFIT unfairly over members of other gender, racial, religious and ethnic group affiliations.

    They need to be stopped.

  28. “You might say “richness” discrimminates based on IQ or business “ability” only.” Well, I’m not sure about that. There are brilliant people out there who just don’t know how to market. There are brilliant people out there who have no commone sense. We have a very cut-throat economic society and because of that, out people-potential gets lost in the shuffle or run over by Wall-Street-Steam-Rollers.

  29. you wish

    If you are talking about private companies, then that is one issue. Aren’t you in education, KG? Isn’t there a standard pay scale that is based upon degrees and experience? And if your rights have been violated, you have every right to go to the HR department and file a compliant – free of charge. If there is a true EEO violation, then you usually don’t need a private lawyer.

    “Also note, if you are poor, it’s damn harder to get rich than if you start off upper-middle class. In some cases, it’s nearly impossible because the cards are stacked against you.”

    I disagree – history is full of individuals who came from poverty that were able to become rich. Are you speaking from experience or just assuming again?

    “If they really want to, they can say and document whatever they want to get rid of you if they want you gone. Now, let’s say you have no money. What are you going to do?

    This is what women and minorities go through ALL THE TIME! I’m not saying it doesn’t happen to “white men” as well, but historically and even now, this happens to more vulnerable groups. I’ve seen it happen to more than one minority and it creates more than just an imbalance of justice. It created serious hostility.”

    ALL THE TIME? If you are being discriminated against at work or you have been given an unfair evaluation, then you go through a dispute process, which is guaranteed to you.

    Michael has given a well balanced debate and you have given vague examples. If it “happens all the time”, then talk about it – and not in vague terms! Every time you are engaged in debate, you waffle back and forth and then change the topic. I’m not sure how these posts got switched over to gender equality – wait, it’s so KG can get on her soapbox and preach away!

  30. Moon-howler

    ARRRGGGHHHHHHHH

    That was a primal scream from reading a man trying to explain gender equality to a woman. Michael, every tone, every nuance of your words reeks, yes reeks of why women feel they need laws to level the playing field.

    I was never a big Hillary fan at first. I learned to like Hillary. Part of the affection I now have for her comes from the way she held her head high and allowed the obvious sexism to roll off her back. No male candidate would have been asked some of the questions she was asked. No male candidate would have been talked about in terms I heard people talking about her in. Several friends of mine openly stated that they couldn’t vote for her for president because she was female.

    What surprises me most of all in the year 2008 is that people still feel it is acceptable to say some of the things that I have heard. People who wouldn’t dream of making a racial comment think nothing of making some snide ‘broad’ remark.

    Do I think Hillary lost because of all the things I have stated? No. I think, though, she has paved the way for other women. Hopefully, after all is said and done, it will no longer be acceptable to talk about women the way she was talked about.

    This isn’t really about laws. When there really is equality then these discussions won’t have to take place.

  31. Elena

    Amen Moon-howler, to everything you said in your post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  32. Firedancer

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/09/AR2008060902238.html

    Timely editorial in today Washington Post about the Hillary bashers. What will they do now?

  33. I watched this with Mrs. Guapo. A few minutes before 7 pm I heard the Amy Winhouse music coming from downstairs, but a little after 7 the music stopped. I went down there, and she said, “Hey Einstein,” [that’s what she calls me] “this is a very interesting show about immigrants in our area.

    So we watched it together.

    What impressed me was that they actually interviewed and considered how immigration affects the immigrants themselves which is rare. They invested a lot to try to present an accurate portrayal of the issues, the people and various opinions.

  34. Michael

    Moon-howler, so you are saying it is ok for men now to legally organize into “male” advocacy groups to protect themselves from the injustices and “pro-woman laws” and protected class laws placed on them by women? What standard do you use to claim that you are now “unjustly” treated. What law has any male had passed or inflicted on you now that keeps you from being equal if you choose. What law favors men over you? What “numbers” do you continue to believe accurately represent that you have not been given every opportunity to achieve whatever you chose to do. What law created by any man prevents you from achieving your own personal wealth, security and general welfare. I think you anger is root entirely in the belief that your “numbers” do not match male “numbers, yet to can’t accurately define those “numerical” equalities without erroneous and selective data, based on erroneous and selective perception.

    Equality of Gender is based entirely on “equality” or “law”. If you think it is based on anything else you are severely prejudiced, discrimminatory and most likely a member of the very hate groups you so violent oppose when you can target as different “group” as the “evil ones”.

    Because of this perception of injustice, not the relaity of facts, you continue to believe you are still not compensated. What will make you happy? When you have everything of yours AND everything of mine and I have nothing for myself except total commitment to your right to determine what law should be applied to me, differently than to you?

  35. Michael

    I have said nothing about Hillary, other than she advocates significantly for just woman’s rights, and not gender rights the same for all. She makes a special appeal to the female vote, to divide the nation into female voters and male voters instead of just voters. That is immoral when you think these two classes or groups should be treated any differently or held to any other standard than a common law benefiting each equally. This is also the main reason I oppose the “league of women voters, who pushed for Hillary”. They do not represent all of us equally, but favor “pro-female” legislation. I think they belong in the same hate group category as any other gender, racial, religious, ethnic group aligned hate group.

  36. Michael

    I suppose women never ever say anything bad about men?

  37. Michael

    Here’s the issue. You are an individual. I am an individual. Do you think you deserve more than I do because of your gender? If you have less than I do, do you blame me for it because of my gender? All you can blame is the “law”, you cannot blame me for your individual problem. You can only blame the law and hold me legally accountable to the law. I can hold you legally accountable to the law. Our financial and personal success can only be based on the fairness of the law, and on my ability, talent, IQ, aptitude, skill, competing against your ability, talent, IQ, aptitude and skill. You use anything else like a female political advocacy group or “gender numericaly balancing” concept to “tip the balance” or “level the playing field”, in your favor is illegal, immoral, unfair and discriminatory against me. The “playing field” is us, just you and me, not the gender, racial, religious, ethnic group you belong to. If you don’t believe in that we will as a nation eventually go to war against one another because of the unfairness of the law applied as “female laws”, “male laws”, “ethnic group laws” and “religious group laws”.

    Our constitution prohibits this legal imbalance.

Comments are closed.