Racist Cartoon Draws a Stir

A cartoon published in the Davis Enterprise that seems to depict border guards in a flood of babies dressed as what would seem to be immigrants wearing sombreros has drawn complaints from Davis Enterprise readers.  Two comments in the Enterprise article call the cartoon racist.

Nathan Ellstrand, co-chair of the Davis Human Relations Commission, copies the Vanguard on a letter:

I cannot believe the audacity of a rather progressive newspaper like the Davis Enterprise to print a racist cartoon in its Forum section in its Tuesday, June 24th publication. The cartoon depicts tough-looking, white and tall Border Patrol officers in a sea of short, and what is presumed to be Mexican babies, who are shown streaming over the border and have pig-like noses and are wearing sombreros.

This cartoon was in incredibly bad taste, stereotypical and disrespectful to Mexicans and Latinos in general in this country, not to mention the Latino population that reside right here in Yolo County. We live in a region where Latinos comprise a significant part of our population and contribute significantly to the economy of the area.

I ask that you no longer use this artist or publish similar cartoons, and if you do, you will lose my subscription.

Nathan Ellstrand
Davis

Does the cartoon cross the line?  You decide:

cartoon-enterprise-rac

About The Author

David Greenwald is the founder, editor, and executive director of the Davis Vanguard. He founded the Vanguard in 2006. David Greenwald moved to Davis in 1996 to attend Graduate School at UC Davis in Political Science. He lives in South Davis with his wife Cecilia Escamilla Greenwald and three children.

Related posts

59 thoughts on “Racist Cartoon Draws a Stir”

  1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

    “The cartoon depicts tough-looking, white and tall Border Patrol officers in a sea of short, and what is presumed to be Mexican babies, who are shown streaming over the border and have pig-like noses and are wearing sombreros.”

    If you go around in life looking to be offended, then you will find things to offend you. It’s pretty much that way with unhappy people in general. They choose to be bummed out. So they look for things to justify their state of misery.

    This cartoon is harmless. It’s not racist. Their is no racial animus in it at all. Even Nathan Ellstrand’s ridiculous and over-the-top whining about it identifies no racial animus. I am also unclear on which “race” is supposed to have been aggrieved by Mr. Oliphant’s drawing, unless he is confusing an ethnic group with a race.

    All that said, there are some technical problems with the cartoon. For one, the children streaming over the U.S.-Mexico border recently are not Mexicans. They are Central Americans, largely from Honduras (where there is now a massive violent crime problem). Yet Pat Oliphant depicts the migrants in sombreros, and those hats are symbolic of Mexicans, not Central Americans.

    A second problem–alluded to by Mr. Ellstrand–is that the four border patrol agents shown appear to be stereotypical big white guys. The reality is that most U.S. Border Patrol on that border are American Latinos. The reason that group makes up most of our police force on the border is because, in order to do the job effectively, you have to be bilingual in Spanish and English. That is not to say there are no non-Latino whites or blacks in those jobs. But from my experience–I’ve crossed that border 1,000 times or more, mostly when I lived in San Diego–American Latinos are a substantial majority of our border patrol agents on the Mexican border. Also, the same is true of most of the deputy sheriffs and police officers from communities near the border (due to demographics of those communities). Very often, local police agencies work in tandem with U.S. Border Patrol.

    As to the pig-noses … I have no idea. A few seem to have turned up noses. Most have massive turned down schnozzes. My guess is that the cartoonist was simply trying to be funny. I don’t think babies of any ethnicity really look like those he depicts.

  2. Davis Progressive

    you’re just a little privileged white man in a bubble. i have talked to a lot of people very upset about that cartoon. it’s not harmless, it plays on stereotypes and bigotry. there is no place for it in this community.

    1. Rich RifkinWDE 73

      “It plays on stereotypes and bigotry.”

      Yes, I think it plays on stereotypes in the use of the sombrero as a symbol of Mexicans (and as noted above this rash of juvenile migrants is not full of Mexicans, but rather Central Americans). But so what? Are you suggesting that the Mexican sombrero is somehow bad? Are you anti-sombrero?

      I suspect that if you look up cartoons which depict Greeks, many will show them in togas. Cartoonists do that kind of stereotyping to convey in a picture that they are Greeks, without having to label them as Greeks. They do similar things with the French (berets) or Jews (Yarmulkes) or Germans (lederhosen). Sure these are all stereotypes and may not hold water, today. But, again, it’s completely harmless. Only miserable people like you are offended by them, because you have made it a point in your life to choose to be offended. Even worse, you seem to think that a Mexican national symbol is itself a bad thing, despite the fact it is one that Mexicans overwhelmingly love.

      As to bigotry in this cartoon, you are flat out wrong. I suggest you consider what bigotry really means before you accuse this cartoonist of engaging in it.

  3. davisite4

    It’s ugly. No need to split hairs about race vs ethnicity to see that a group that has been historically discriminated against in the U.S. is being caricatured in the worst way. It’s akin to a cartoon with black people eating watermelon and fried chicken.

    1. tribeUSA

      Whether or not they have been discriminated against; they do in fact continue to pour across the border. I’m not convinced they have historically been discriminated against more than other people who happen to be poor or not have a good command of English or are here illegally (i.e. perhaps much of any discrimination has more to do economic status, english literacy, and legal status; which occurs to people of many races and backgrounds).

  4. Frankly

    Riding my bike home from work yesterday I passed a woman walking with her kids wearing a burqa. That caused be to think about political correctness being quite dysfunctional. Country singer Brad Paisley got trashed by the media and the left for wearing a t-shirt on stage that included the union jack symbol. But, I assume that the PC code requires me and others to respect the rights of any woman to wear a burqa.

    The burqa is a current symbol of intolerance, slavery, violence… it bothered me significantly to see someone living in this country wearing it. The union jack symbolizes southern pride to many people and has nothing to do with the history of plantation slavery or the wearer’s views on black-white racial relations. Yet that is the thing we are supposed to be intolerant of and the burqa is something we are not supposed to challenge.

    Everything comes down to sensitivity of the impact to the most sensitive… or those that the elite left and media assign as a protected class… but this is not the way it should be, IMO. If we are going to demand that we cut out some symbolism that is offensive, then we need to cut out all of it. And since that is certainly not a way we want to live, maybe all of us need to stop being so damn hypersensitive and accept that symbolism is in the eye of the beholder… and as long as anyone is not materially harmed it is fine.

    I can’t wait until the movie “The Giver” comes out. Read the book.

    1. South of Davis

      Frankly wrote:

      > The union jack symbolizes southern pride to many people

      I’m sure that there are a few people in the south that think the “union jack* symbolizes southern pride” but it is probably less people than were offended by the cartoon.

      *The Union Jack,[note 1][1][2] also known as the Union Flag, is the national flag of the United Kingdom. The flag also has an official or semi-official status in some other Commonwealth realms; for example, it is known by law in Canada as the Royal Union Flag.[3] Further, it is used as an official flag in some of the smaller British overseas territories (from Wikipedia)

        1. South of Davis

          DP wrote:

          > so in your view, it’s the number of people offended that matters?

          Yes, I don’t think we need to change something if only one guy is “offended” (or the dozen or so people that want to change the name of the football team that plays in our nations capitol)…

    2. South of Davis

      Frankly wrote:

      > The burqa is a current symbol of intolerance, slavery, violence

      Sometimes I think Frankly just moved to Davis. I can’t believe that he has not learned by now that only the symbols of “white men” can be offensive and only Christian religious traditions can be offensive (in this town).

      If people of color want to rap about killing white people they are just “expressing their creativity”.
      If people of color want to lock women in a closet and make them dress like a beekeeper they are “expressing their freedom of religion”

      P.S. I heard the story below on the radio last week where a school is blocking the Vatican web side under their ban of hate speech but the kids can still log on to the “diverse” web sites promoting radical Islam and “death to America”…

      “Christian websites like the Vatican website were censored while Islamic websites were once again open.”

      http://www.inquisitr.com/1310895/connecticut-schools-censors-the-vatican-nra-republican-and-christian-websites-as-hate-speech/#stH2EEoWuwjJq1ww.99

    3. Tia Will

      Frankly

      “The burqa is a current symbol of intolerance, slavery, violence”

      That is what the burqa signifies to you. Since I was married to a Turk, I know on a very personal level, that the burqa signifies different things to different people. To some women I have known, the burqa is not a sign of her repression, but rather a garment that she chooses to wear as a statement of personal religious devotion just as many people wear a cross around their neck. Others choose to wear it because it provides them with much desired privacy when they are out in public. Others this is merely a matter of personal choice, just as I could choose to wear a string bikini top out to do my shopping on our over 100 F days here in Davis, but choose not to for personal and aesthetic reasons.

      Other women choose to wear a head scarf or a hijab as a symbol of their dedication to the principle of public modesty.

      Symbols mean many different things to different people. I am sorry that it a country that is supposed to uphold the concept of freedom of religion, you would choose to impose your interpretation of her religious symbolism on a woman doing nothing more than walking down the street in a garment that may be imposed upon her, or may be worn by her by her free choice. Unless you stopped and discussed her garb with her, you have no way of knowing.

      1. Frankly

        Symbols mean many different things to different people.

        You make my point for me here.

        Who should have the freedom and/or the power… the offended or the offender? Many fine young Americans and hundreds of thousands of others have been murdered by men demanding that their women be subjugated, oppressed, made into slaves without their own free will and the burqa is a symbol of that. If I find it offensive, then should I have the right to demand it is not worn?

        1. Tia Will

          Frankly

          Let me ask you this question. If peace loving and never violent Muslim male, raised to believe that a woman’s hair should be covered in public finds it offensive that I wear mine uncovered, should he have the right to demand that I wear a scarf because he believes as he was taught that American males, those associated with women with uncovered heads, have killed innumerable people abroad, does that then give him the right to demand that I cover my hair ? If you answer yes to one, logic would demand that you answer yes to the other.

          I would say no in both circumstances. I am a peaceful hair uncovered female.
          The burqa wearing female should not evoke any more emotional response in you than should my uncovered hair evoke in him.

          1. Frankly

            That is not a good comparison since your uncovered hair is not a symbol of oppression and slavery.

            I think you are working hard to skirt the obvious challenge you and others might have justifying your PC sensitivities and how they play out in our modern world that in many ways is anything but modern.

            Have you read the book “The Giver”?

            From Wikipedia:

            It is set in a society which is at first presented as a utopian society and gradually appears more and more dystopian. The novel follows a boy named Jonas through the twelfth year of his life. The society has eliminated pain and strife by converting to “Sameness,” a plan that has also eradicated emotional depth from their lives.

      2. Rich RifkinWDE 73

        “Since I was married to a Turk, I know on a very personal level, that the burqa signifies different things to different people.”

        I am not sure how your former marriage makes you an expert on this topic, unless you lived for some time in Turkey or in some other Muslim country.

        As you likely know, Turkey banned all women from wearing the veil (and by extension the burqa) in the 1920s*. AFAIK, that ban is still de jure in place. However, since the (right-wing Islamist) Justice and Development Party (AKP) came to power in 2002, the law is not enforced and a small percentage of Turkish women wear the veil in public. It is certainly not required, though customs there are for women to be modest and more covered up than you would find in Davis.

        *A relative of mine, a Turkish Jew, told me that the enforcement of the anti-veil law was historically uneven. He said that in rural areas and small towns, the Republican People’s Party (which historically ruled Turkey after WW1) strictly enforced the ban at times and at other times it was more lax. The difference often was based on whether local leaders went along with the plans of the central government or not. If they didn’t, all the modernization laws were enforced and those who broke them were jailed or worse.

    4. DavisBurns

      Boy howdy son, my family is southern and anybody who doesn’t think the confederate flag hanging on the walls in southern boy’s bedrooms means anything except “The South will rise again” has been fed a bunch of hooey along with their moonshine. I know nothing about Brad Paisley wearing a Union Jack but a Union Jack is NOT the same as a confederate flag! I have been gone a long time so maybe the Union Jack has risen in my absence.

      As far as the cartoon goes, I don’t see pig noses, I see cartoon baby noses. Why would they have pig noses? The white guards represent the causasian states of America. Don’t think it matters what color actual guards are, this is a cartoon. The sombreros represent Mexico because, I think, they are crossing the Mexican border because they are coming from,land to the south of us, doesn’t have to be just Mexico. Isn’t the point of the cartoon that even the boarder patrol isn’t comfortable putting young children into the immigration/detention system? Isn’t that what’s i. The news now? I read this as dismay even by the people who deal with immigration daily as ‘not what I signed up for’ Men, women, families but babies?

      1. Frankly

        I was corrected on the union jack mistake. I was referring to the confederate flag.

        And I think you are making my point. We accept that this is a bad symbol and that we should at least shame those that wear it, yet other symbols of terrible stuff are supposedly off limits and we would shame those that attempt to shame the ones wearing the symbols.

        The point is that political correctness is irrational and dysfunctional and worthy of scorn and resistance.

        I would welcome more thoughtful cartoons displaying symbols and imagery that inflames the senses of the hypertensive. Think of it as helping them work out to strengthen their skills for tolerance and understanding of a diverse world.

  5. South of Davis

    David wrote:

    > Racist Cartoon Draws a Stir

    A better headline would be “The small number of people in Davis that think that wearing a sombrero to a Cinco de Mayo party (but not a beret to a Bastille day party) is bad think a recent cartoon is racist”

    P.S. Whenever I see Rich in his Toyota or on his bike I think “there goes a little privileged white man in a bubble” (knowing that anyone working in print media must have so much money that between trips in their private plane it must be hard to find the time to comment on what is going on in Davis)…

    1. tribeUSA

      You certainly have the right to think anything you want; but I doubt many people share your condescending views. And you are stereotyping a white as privileged and living in a bubble; perhaps this may lead many readers (such as myself, and I’ve lived in mixed race/culture neighborhoods for most of my life) to wonder what kind of bubble or fortified enclave surrounds your headspace?

  6. Mark West

    Political cartoons are supposed to be provocative and to a point, offensive. This one is boring and unimaginative. While I might agree that we need a better class of political cartoons published in the local paper I don’t see that as an issue for the Davis Human Relations Commission.

    How many people in town would have seen the cartoon, let alone paid any attention to it, without the public posturing of the co-chair of the HRC?

    1. Davis Progressive

      “How many people in town would have seen the cartoon, let alone paid any attention to it, without the public posturing of the co-chair of the HRC?”

      so as long as it’s out of sight, no big deal?

      1. Mark West

        Did I say that? No. I just don’t see the need for someone to use their position as co-chair of the HRC to raise the public’s awareness of such a poor example of political cartooning.

    2. Tia Will

      Mark

      I would say that it is a function of the members of the HRC to call to the attention of the community items that may be racist. No one is forced to agree, but the fact that some saw it this way is a demonstration that this is certainly one way of interpreting the cartoon even if you or I do not agree.

      1. Mark West

        In this case Tia I think it says far more about the person screaming offense than it does about the alleged offensiveness of the cartoon. In my opinion, by getting his panties in a twist about a poorly done political cartoon he trivializes the very real acts of racism that are still present in our society.

        This is just another example of an artificial crisis that has become such a common part of Davis politics.

        1. Davis Progressive

          in my belief while you are correct that a poorly done political cartoon is a relatively minor issue, it perpetuates racial stereotypes that lead to conduct that is not minor in the least.

  7. Rich RifkinWDE 73

    “The union jack symbolizes southern pride to many people and has nothing to do with the history of plantation slavery or the wearer’s views on black-white racial relations.”

    Union jack?

    Frank Lee, I think you meant to refer to the Confederate Battle Flag, not the Union Jack. The Union Jack is the flag of Great Britain. It was made combining elements from the Irish, Scottish and English cross flags, symbolizing their union. As Wikipedia says, the Union Jack is “the Cross of Saint Andrew counterchanged with the Cross of Saint Patrick, over all the Cross of Saint George.”

    The Confederate Battle Flag borrows its cross symbol from the Irish and Scottish flags. It is technically known as the Second Confederate Navy Jack. That pennant is essentially the same as the flag that Robert E. Lee fought under, known as the the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia, though their shapes are slightly different.

    Oddly, the national flag of the South during the Civil War was a flag called the Stars and Bars. It looked very much like the U.S. flag, and for that reason it was not adopted by Southerners as a symbol after the war.

    Insofar as the Confederate Battle Flag is or is not an intentional representation of racism, I think one thing needs to be kept in mind: All three iterations of the Ku Klux Klan used it as their symbol, and those KKK groups never shied away from displaying it as a racist symbol. As a result, it’s not unreasonable for those who were harmed by the Klan or by those who were sympathetic to the Klan to believe those who display the Confederate Battle Flag do so for racist reasons, even if in many cases that conclusion is not correct.

    Another historically important element in the history of the Confederate Battle Flag: As the post-World War 2 Civil Rights movement gained steam in its effort to overturn Jim Crow segregation laws and customs, the anti-Civil Rights leaders of the South (many of whom were in the KKK or similar groups) changed their state flags by incorporating the CBF as a new part of their flag. No Southern state before the anti-Civil Rights movement of the 1950s had this as their state symbol. So for that reason again it is reasonable for those who oppose segregation laws and customs in the South to equate the CFB as a symbol of those who opposed Civil Rights, even if some who display the CFB do so for other reasons.

  8. Frankly

    Frank Lee, I think you meant to refer to the Confederate Battle Flag

    Rich – Thanks to you and SOD for the correction. Yes, I got my symbols wrong. Reading a book on the civil war right now, so you would think I would not be making that type of mistake.

  9. Clem Kadiddlehopper

    So are these the rules we should all live by???

    1. If you reference a group and their skin color is darker than yours, it’s offensive.
    2. The degree of offense is determined by how many shades darker their skin is than yours.
    3. No claim of offense is ever illegitimate. You are to never request proof that any real harm was done. That would be insensitive.
    4. Even if a minority says they hate all whites, they are never racist. If a woman hates all men she is never sexist. But everyone is equal.
    5. Even though an individual can hate themselves genuinely, a black person can never be accused of hating blacks. The n-word is perfectly ok for them no matter how it is used.
    6. Intent is never considered. Rather you will be judged according to a list of words. This way we discount your humanity and at the same time we know exactly how much to hate you.
    7. Individuality is to be ignored. Only group identity matters.
    8. The narrative that every non-white is a poor oppressed victim is never to be questioned. They are never to be held accountable when they make bad choices. Judging them by the same standard you would use to judge whites would be racist. Somehow.
    9. No one belonging to any minority group should ever be encouraged to think about just how insulting and patronizing all of this is. The message that they cannot make it on their own without lots of favoritism and special treatment is a statement of their equality. Somehow.
    10. No one, and I mean no one, who a) claims offense and b) is non-white should EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be told to grow up and get over it.
    11. If a woman is offended by anything a man says, the degree of the man’s guilt is inversely proportional to how attractive the woman is. If she’s a butt-ugly masculine bulldyke looking woman, that makes the man a real asshole.

    1. Frankly

      Nice list Clem. Shaking my head at the absurdity we have adopted.

      Who would have thought those kids feeling rejected on the playground would become so damn dangerous in their acquisition of retribution tools… co opting and leveraging the sad history of true racism and intolerance and constantly projecting and inflaming groupism tensions beyond their actual existence… in a twisted strategy to create a utopia they mistakenly think will make them feel more accepted… because in the end it really had nothing to do with their skin color, their gender, their culture or their sexual orientation… it had more to do with their behavior and personality… things that they could have learned to change for better outcomes…

      In the end, misery always loves company. So at least they get that.

  10. Barack Palin

    So what are some of our usual bunch of offended liberals bothered by now? it wouldn’t be the cartoon’s racist portrayal of the white border guards would it?

    Some people never pass at a chance to feel offended.

  11. Biddlin

    The last few times I’ve crossed the Southern border, almost all of the US Border Patrol and ICE folks are Hispanic..
    I don’t find the cartoon racist. I believe it refers to the crisis of anchor babies and expresses the frustration and confusion of many officials who have to deal with it on a daily basis.

  12. Rich RifkinWDE 73

    There is a cartoon in today’s Davis Enterprise which depicts two white people in a very unflattering way, both physically and in the sense that it says they do not care about anyone but themselves:

    http://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/cartoons/tom-meyer-cartoon-285/attachment/25meyerw-2/

    I won’t hold my breath waiting for the self-righteous members of the pointless Human Relations Commission to condemn this negative depiction of a racial group and I expect even less interest from the self-righteous people of Davis to exhale in disgust that they will no longer subscribe to The Enterprise because it published this “horribly offensive” depiction of whites.

    1. South of Davis

      Rich wrote:

      > I won’t hold my breath waiting for the self-righteous members of the
      > pointless Human Relations Commission to condemn this negative
      > depiction of a racial group

      Has the HRC “EVER” be outraged by the negative depiction of a rich white person?

      Any idea how many tax dollars (and/or city resources) the HRC uses per year?

    1. tribeUSA

      Don–good point should help with perspective. Oliphant is a brilliant cartoonist; though I often disagree with the thrust of his cartoons. I appreciate his drawings so much more than the recent trend towards computer-generated generic drawings for editorial cartoons; bring back the free-form artist/cartoonists!

  13. D.D.

    I live in Arizona and have been volunteering to assist the children and teen refugees from Central America. Many are alone, no parents with them. They’re dehydrated, tired, very hungry and anxious. We provide food, blankets, diapers, wipes, toys and books for them. This “cartoon” is extremely offensive but I’m not the least bit surprised: the Enterprise is the worst newspaper I’ve read. Shame on them. Their lazy editor probably won’t take any responsibility or apologize. She’ll make excuses, like she always does. Whatever your opinion re: immigration, these children need our support.

    1. Don Shor

      Can you give any sense for why so many are heading north unaccompanied? It’s incredibly risky and this seems like a recent dramatic increase. And by the way, thanks for what you’re doing to help them.

    2. Clem Kadiddlehopper

      Most Illegals come to the US for jobs and/or social services. Deny them that, and they will stop coming. This would be *far* less expensive, and more effective. That would take care of about 70% of the problem. We would still need to patrol for the real bad guys. No system is perfect, but this would make a lot of sense.

      1. Make e-verify mandatory.
      2. Have IDs that are very difficult, if not impossible, to forge. Our money is very difficult to counterfeit, why not do the same with IDs?
      3. No ETINs for illegals.
      4. No sweeping amnesty, ever. No rewards for breaking our law.
      5. As I understand it, in Mexico, you spend, at least, two years in prison for entering the country illegally. That is for the first offense. The US should adopt, and enforce, similar laws.
      6. No more anchor-baby loophole.
      7. Prison time for anybody who knowing hires an illegal.

      See how easy that is? Fixing the illegal immigration problem is not that hard. The problem is corrupt US politicians who do not want to fix the problem…

      1. Barack Palin

        And round up the children and bring them back to the countries they came from, that will be a Hell of a lot cheaper than supporting them for the next who knows how many years.

  14. D.D.

    Mr. Shor, the reasons are as varied as the folks coming. Many come for the same reason my Irish immigrant ancestors came: economic opportunity and freedom of speech. There are several wonderful interviews in the Arizona Daily Star you may read, to get a sense of their struggles.
    Shipping the children home, all alone on a bus, train or plane, is not an easy or cheap solution. Birth control would certainly help this problem, in my humble opinion. And a good amount of compassion.

  15. Barack Palin

    “Shipping the children home, all alone on a bus, train or plane, is not an easy or cheap solution.”

    It’s a lot cheaper than the US taxpayer having to support them for many years and in many cases the rest of their lives.

    1. D.D.

      Re: the misconception that low income folks want, and enjoy, a government handout:
      I thought with age comes wisdom, but I guess not. In my younger days, “Barack Palin”‘s comments wouldn’t get under my skin. I’d laugh them off as ignorant.
      However, as I get older, I have less, not more, tolerance of such hateful remarks. They continue to bother me, days after they were spewed by BP.
      BP, many of my adult years were spent serving California’s women, infants and children. They were families at or below 130% of CA’s poverty level.

      “BP” – these families want the dignity of a living wage job. They do not want to be sittng in a WIC office, waiting for food vouchers. They want to go to a grocery store without shame. Yes, the shame of handing the cashier food instruments or a plastic card for food stamps. They don’t want their kids in the back of the school’s food lunch line, either. They want their kid to have a nutritious brown bag lunch, bought with their living wage paycheck. Or they want to casually hand their kid a couple of bucks as they kiss them good bye in the morning, as I used to do as a single mom.
      So, BP, get a clue. Maybe the woman who cleans your home or serves you lunch at McDonald’s just wants what you have – dignity and respect.
      The refugees flooding Tucson’s greyhound station want that, too. I bet it would bug you to no end to know that these are the words I write on every care package I deliver to the bus station:
      BIENVENIDOS A AMERICA.
      Welcome to America, “BP”.

    2. D.D.

      B.P., one of your previous comments opined that some people”love to feel offended…”
      You cannot determine what other people are feeling, can you?
      I’ve probably incorrectly guessed that you, B.P., have led a privledged life & love to feel superior to someone else.
      And, unless you are 100% pure blood Native American Indian, it’s safe to guess your ancestors came to this wonderful country from another country. Perhaps they also were treated poorly, when they arrived here?
      I really have no idea what you are feeling. You really have no idea what others are feeling.

  16. D.D.

    “…the rest of their lives”
    I haven’t met any refugees who are asking for a govt. handout for the rest of their lives. Most people do want to work, get off assistance, and be independent and self supporting. Of course the children aren’t old enough to work. They just want to be safe, with a roof over their heads & something to eat.

    1. David Greenwald Post author

      I know quite a few undocumented workers that work two jobs, live very modest lives and sent much of the little they make to their families in Mexico.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for