The question is this: Is Lou Barletta a hero for fighting against illegal immigration, or is he a zero for latching onto a "cause celeb" with hardcore conservatives just to win votes and raise money?
Here's my two cents: Mayor Barletta is not a stupid man. In fact, he's smart enough to know that, after loosing to Congressman Kanjorski in the last go-around, he needed an issue to distinguish himself on a regional and national level. Now what's one issue that riles hardcore (money contributing) conservatives? Why Abortion. Too bad though that most politicians in NEPA are pro-life, so he had to go to Plan B: the great invading brown-skinned horde, with their strange language, customs and ways. Never mind that only the Federal Government can enforce immigration law...this was never a matter of law enforcement for Barletta. In fact, during the Hazelton case heard in Federal Middle District of PA court, Barletta admitted that he could not provide statistics that proved illegal immigrants were responsible for the majority of Hazelton's crime.
So what was it about? Money and recognition. It's hard to distinguish yourself on a regional and national level if you are "just" the mayor of Hazelton, PA. It's also about winning. Not winning in the courtroom, because Barletta and the City of Hazelton actually lost there, but rather winning the the court of social conservative ideology. This is where that 20% of Americans who still think George W. Bush is doing a good job as President reside.
So I guess it's fairly clear that I am not a fan of Lou Barletta then, huh? Well that would be correct. I think he's nothing more than an opportunist of the worst type, playing off of border-line racist fears. Too bad he's running against someone like Congressman Paul Kanjorski, a man with more than a few closet-dwelling skeletons. I guess I'll have to bring the closepin into the voting booth come November so that I can hold my nose and operate the machine.
One final point: my understanding is that the City of Hazelton is responsible for court costs associated with their Illegal-Immigration Act loss in court. Barletta claims that insurance will cover the tab...my understanding is that the insurnace carrier in question begs to differ. So much for being a fiscal conservative.
-- Edited by Agamemnon at 23:29, 2008-07-21
__________________
"Hope at least gives you the option of living" - Harry Nilsson
I think his heart was in the right place. His thing started out with "illegal" immigrants. I don't think the man's a racist, I just think he (and the residents of Hazleton) have had enough of the crime that skyrocketed with the influx of illegal immigrants settling in and around Hazleton.
As far as the term used above "brown-skinned horde with their strange language, customs and ways" is an unfair term to use. You make it sound as if the police hand-picked the faces to flash across my television screen.
There are illegal immigrants from all over the world, it just so happens that when a crime is committed and they catch the person who committed the crime, nine times out of ten the smiling or snarling face on the television is one of color. And five times out of those same ten, the individuals are here in the U.S. illegally. I am sure there are people from Africa, South America, Europe and Asia who are here working hard, paying taxes and sending their kids to school, who think it is a blessing their children can learn to speak English. These are the faces you don't see flashed across your tv screen - because they are the ones who came to the U.S. to truly make a better life for themselves and their families. And in the long run, it is these few families who are suffering because of the illegal criminal element flowing into the United States unchecked.
I have no problem with someone coming to the United States and settling here as they look for a better life for their families. My ancestors did it and so did yours - but they came through Ellis Island with child and baggage in hand, gave their names and worked their asses off so that three generations later, I could live the good life that I am living.
But when they sneak across a border or come here under the guise of a vacation or work visa and plant their roots under the radar, I think it's wrong.
No, I don't think Lou Barletta is a hero, but I certainly don't think he's a loser either. He put political correctness aside and said what many of us were afraid to.
I agree that Lou Barletta isn't a racist; however, you can't ignore the skinheads and other assorted low-lifes who have attended his rallies. No, he does not want their support, but clearly the anti-illegal immigrant message resonates with groups who can use it to further a hate agenda. By that measure Barletta is being used.
Anyway, as for the "brown skinned horde" comment, I meant it within the context of someone playing on the irrational fears of a minority of the population. My point is that Barletta picked the illegal immigration issue precisely because it played on the fears of some. I have no proof that police in Hazelton have profiled against hispanics....and I didn't accuse them of that; in fact I have nothing but the highest level of respect for the police. My point was that Barletta was using the fear of different looking people for his own gain.
I agree that the Federal Governement should be doing much more to stem illegal immigration. If someone is not legally here, they should not be here, period. Protecting our borders is at the core of what the government in Washington DC should be doing. Someone like Lou Barletta taking matters in his own hands doesn't help though; in fact, I think it hurts because it clouds the issue of who ultimately is responsible for tackeling this issue in the first place. My point is that Lou Barletta has used this issue for his own gain, knowing full well that Hazelton (or any city) has no business creating or enforcing illegal-immigration laws. He's a smart guy...he knows this...but yet he still used the issued and it did nothing other than award money to lawyers.
Now as a voter I'm faced with a horrible choice in November:
Vote for Lou Barletta, knowing (at least in my own opinion) that he's an opportunist who wasted his city's money and made a bunch of skinheads happy (a skinhead was quoted as saying that "Lou Barletta made hate cool again" in a Scranton Times article).
or
Vote for Paul Kanjorski, knowing that he's shamefully poured public money into family endeavors and is at the heart of the fiscal irresponsibility that gives Congress such a bad name.
Maybe I can vote for "other".
__________________
"Hope at least gives you the option of living" - Harry Nilsson
Ag, I see your point. You or I could not have gotten up in front of an entire city, put all political correctness aside and stated the facts as Lou Barletta did. But his actions have you and I discussing this matter, albeit on an anonymous message board. If we're talking about it - so are countless others. It's a given that those words and actions of someone political (even if it is a small town like Hazleton, PA) will get the attention of the upper political echelon and possibly do something about the illegal aliens settling here and in the rest of the U.S. If they truly want to be in the United States, let them follow legal channels - no matter which country they're coming from.
As far as the elections go, I think I might cast a vote for Barletta, simply because he isn't Kanjorski. It breaks my heart when we have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Thursday, I agree...at least he got people talking about the issue and I'll add this: he didn't run from or dodge it, and he was never affraid to talk to the press about it. While I don't agree with him on this, I give him credit for being a stand-up guy about it.
As for who I will vote for, I'm still not sure...I guess I'll just have to bring that clothespin with me.
__________________
"Hope at least gives you the option of living" - Harry Nilsson
As it stands now, my family is voting for Lou Barletta, even though we reserve the right to change our opinion. Paul Kanjorski had 26 years to offer some substance but has nothing to show for it. Social Security reform? No. Immigration reform? No. Simpler tax code? No. Nine milion dollars to his family's bankrupt company? Check.
I see them both as self-serving, which is why it's a tough vote to cast.
In terms of sheer raw quantity of self-servingness (if that's even a word), I'd say Paul Kanjorski has the bigger cross to bear. Steering federal money to a family endeavor is wrong, plain and simple. However you can look at Lou Barletta and ask, outside of attempting to create his own version if INS in Hazelton, what has he accomplished in his tenure in office? In fact, I think the immigrants are about the only "new" thing that's happened in Hazelton over the past 20 years.
__________________
"Hope at least gives you the option of living" - Harry Nilsson
Every politician's got to start somewhere, and Barletta picked a pip of a cause to get the ball rolling on his campaign for a higher office.
I am sure there are a number of people who think along the lines of Barletta, but no one had the brass or the honesty to open their mouths and say what they know alot of people are thinking. I give the guy credit; his stance took some gumption and it also took some balls to stick with it.
Props go out to Lou Barletta for running a solid campaign so far; he's doing well, I think, because he's been more than "that guy who hates Mexicans from Hazelton", by talking about issues and being fairly accessible. He even did an intervew in the Union News.
As far as Kanjorski is concerned, I think he's just now realizing that he is up for re-election. But pulling a Jimmy Carter "I will not leave Washington until the crisis is over" is a really bad idea when your competitor paints you as an out-of-touch politician who spends too much time in DC. What's more, I don't know that Kanjorski has done enough to endear himself to voters north of Wilkes-Barre.
This one is becomming interesting.
-- Edited by Agamemnon at 09:26, 2008-09-21
__________________
"Hope at least gives you the option of living" - Harry Nilsson
I've heard people talking about Barletta and 'knowing' they are voting for him because of his stance on illegal immigration. Anyone I hear speaking of Kanjorski is voting for him because either a.) he is not Barletta or b.) they voted for him last time and don't want to rock any boats.
I'm back to "undecided" on this race. Kanjorski showed a tiny bit of moxie yesterday with his vote on the...ahem...bailout. Carney simply pandered. Barletta was nowhere to be found, because there are no illegal immigrants in Congress.
