Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind
January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

Posted on 01/07/2004 7:22:57 AM PST by Sabertooth

Edited on 01/07/2004 10:46:05 AM PST by Lead Moderator. [history]

You may have observed the recent effort in the forum by the Lead Moderator to scrutinize and regulate the Illegal Alien threads, which started over here.

I’ve mixed it up a lot on these threads in the two-plus year I’ve been at FR, as I have some strong feelings about the subject of Illegal Aliens. While I like to think I’ve generally kept my cool, there have certainly been occasions when I haven’t.

That said, there have been plenty of occasions where I’ve attempted to engage sincere posters who did not share my opinions, only to have them jumped on by angry posters who did. In the past I’ve made posts on threads and requests by Freepmail requesting that the more aggressive posters cool their jets… to mixed results.

I’ve also seen posts suggesting that the borders be mined, which I think is stupid, hyperbolic spleen, or posts referring to the President as “Jorge Arbusto,” which stopped being funny years ago, and is now just antagonistic. It doesn’t matter that Vicente Fox once called him that in a friendly fashion, no one on the fence regarding Illegals is going to be persuaded by ad hominem rhetoric.

On the other hand, I’ve also observed a shifting coalition of posters who are less than sincere on the other side of the debate; who are prone to using Democrat talking points to smear posters who are concerned about Illegals as anti-immigrant and closet racists. When reading their posts, one half-wonders if they aren’t moles for the L.A. Times.

Their perceptions of “bigots, bigots everywhere” and posts in that vein have also been toxic to the Illegal Alien threads, and such was often the purpose of their baiting. Success was measured in flame wars, bannings, suspensions, and getting threads nuked or moved to the backroom.

It’s been my contention, and I’ve made the point to the Moderators on a number of occasions, that moving threads to the backroom only rewarded those who don’t want Illegals discussed in this forum, and encouraged their trolling behavior.

I’ll stipulate again that my own hands haven’t always been clean in picking fights and thread jumping. I’ll also reveal that about a year or so ago I attempted to organize a call, via Freepmail, for some self-restraint on these threads. Toward that end, I contacted eight fairly high-profile posters, not all of whom were regulars on the Illegal threads, and whose opinions varied widely on the issue, with the idea of some sort of joint letter. The response was uniformly positive, but the details proved to be unwieldy, however, and the effort died on the vine.

Since then I would come and go from the Illegal Alien threads, and observe the ebbs and flows of all of the behavior I saw above.

A few months ago, I took a different tack, and got into a running conversation over my concerns with the Lead Moderator, through Freepmail.

Last week an Illegal Alien thread was moved to the Backroom, in another episode of the process I described above. This irked me a little more than usual, given the imminence of President Bush’s announcement of a new direction in immigration policy, and I ranted a little more than usual to the Lead Mod.

He was receptive to some of my criticisms, and decided to try the new approach that is now the matter at hand. He posted his account last night (emphasis added)…


To: All
I just got a Freepmail. Without posting it or who it was from, the gist of it was as follows:

1) That the timing of this effort was suspicious.

2) That this person feels the actions taken have shifted the emphasis of the forum from conservative oriented to party oriented.

I wanted to share with you my response:

I am being evenhanded on the matter. There have been those on one side of the issue have been warned about personal attacks and baiting. There have been those on the other side who have been warned about the same.

There has been one suspension, of someone who decided he was going to repost things which had been pulled. He has no one to blame but himself.

There has been one banning, of a person who said that there was no way he was going to abide by the way things are going to be. Once again, it was his choice and if he changes his mind he can mail Jim and his account will be restored.

The timing, you can have whatever suspicions you want. The fact is that for months, someone who is mostly on your side of the issue tried to get me to do more on these threads, hating how they get pulled when they turn into flame wars and how they get backroomed when they turn into flame wars. He would point to examples of baiting. He would point to personal attacks. Sometimes I would point out the things going the other way. Finally, he convinced me and I decided to give this approach a try.

To be honest, I think it is hilarious that some think I had some idea that some policy was coming out of the White House. It is good to be thought of as that well connected, I guess, but it sadly has no basis in reality.

I am going to post my reply on the thread. I won't quote your mail or your name, although I will paraphrase it.

Regards, LM

That is all.
262 posted on 01/06/2004 6:03:37 PM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies | Report Abuse | link ]

So, if it’s not clear already, the Lead Moderator’s statements in this post are 100% accurate and legitimate. The timing of this effort was a direct result of my conversation with him, and was not the result of some conspiracy by Free Republic higher-ups, or Karl Rove, or Vicente Fox, or whatever current dark speculation is now popular.

Nor is there any overarching effort to censor a wide-ranging debate on Illegals, as far as I’ve seen. In the context of the current effort underway on the Illegal Alien threads, I haven’t received even the slightest hint that there are subjects that are off limits to me in this regard, nor have I been given the impression that there can’t be vigorous debate, and I’m hardly a party-liner in this.

Now, I’m certain that some will find it to be an abomination that I would cooperate with a Moderator, or he with me, but, as a friend of mine likes to say, there you have it.

As for the results, they’ve been a bit mixed so far, in my estimation. Not, however, because the Mods haven’t made an effort to be evenhanded. I’ve seen a few folks I warned to keep cool get swift warning when they didn’t, and I’ve seen some of the usual baiters get cease and desist orders. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that the effort to raise the tone of the debate on the Illegal Aliens isn’t sincere.

Are the Mods doing things exactly as I’d like? Nope, nor do I expect them to do so. I’ve got strong opinions and subjectivities here, so the standard of my assessment is the combined words and deeds of the Mods on these threads to correct all offenders. Things look promising thus far.

However, I do think that there are posters of diverse opinions who need to reconsider their ways, and take this effort to heart.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Free Republic; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: filipinochicksrock; immigrantlist; itsallaboutme; memememememememe; oneissuevoter; pleasebehisopus; saberbunny; saberisnotanative; snowtooth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 481-493 next last
To: Pest
Lansing has a few very good authentic Mexican restaurants.

El Azteco in East Lansing is the best in the state!

221 posted on 01/07/2004 11:04:02 AM PST by rintense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
So why haven't we shut down the borders and stationed troops or mined the borders...if we are truly a nation at war with international and internal terrorists...we aren't certainly aren't acting like it...

We catch 'em at the airports, don't you know? Yes sir, let any illegal Mexican or Central American try to buy a board an airplane in the U. S., France, or Britain and we'll get them! (Of course, that would be only if they had wires sticking out and kept striking matches, but that's beside the point.)

As for guarding U.S. borders, that is ridiculous to expect. We can guard the entire Syria-Iraq border half-way around the world, but not here with our Homeland Security and all those snazy new laws.

Of course when the world is one race one culture of one mind under one leader then there will finally be peace...that's the New World Odor's plan anyway...flooding the west with the third world is the one of the last steps on this journey accross the bridge to the future.

Yes, and the New World Odor will pull most Americans down - but for whose benefit? Cui Bono? Who profits? This is a one-way street and the traffic is all against us.

222 posted on 01/07/2004 11:04:19 AM PST by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
I don't think we are in any danger of getting to the point where all there are are "tepid, lukewarm groupthink responses". As a matter of fact, as things have been discussed on this thread here today, there have been plenty of contentious debates going on today on this issue, without people calling each other "wench", talking about "wetbacks", saying that poster A is a bigot for wanting the borders protected, saying that poster B is a socialist for not abandoning all support of President Bush over the issue. The things we are talking about taking out are the needless crap which get in the way of a good spirited debate, not the things which add to it.
223 posted on 01/07/2004 11:08:00 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: Sabertooth
Those on the opposite side of the Wall Street Journal. I consider FAIR, Americans for Better Immigration, and NumbersUSA to fall into that category.

Now, are you ready to deal with the questionable stuff you admit is present, or will you still try to spin it away? I provided one of the quotes that led me to make my comments about Sam Francis and VDARE.

Are comments like the one I posted accpetable, or not? And if they ARE unacceptable, are you willing to show those who would make such comments the door?
224 posted on 01/07/2004 11:08:13 AM PST by hchutch (Why did the Nazgul run from Arwen's flash flood? All they managed to do was to end up dying tired.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
A nationwide manhunt? Too extreme? I think it's called protecting your border. Do you guys live in a border state? While I'm not advocating flaming others, we (America), have got to figure this out FAST, or we are really in deep doo-doo.
225 posted on 01/07/2004 11:11:31 AM PST by sfRummygirl (Tancredo in '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
You just banned or suspended Joe Hadenuf?
226 posted on 01/07/2004 11:12:00 AM PST by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 210 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
It IS sad. I'm not going against the administration just to be an independent trouble maker. I WANT to like Bush with this. But this is killing us.
227 posted on 01/07/2004 11:13:12 AM PST by sfRummygirl (Tancredo in '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Rather, they come to read the tepid, lukewarm groupthink responses to the hot issues--because the hot reponses and their authors have been kicked out and denied entry.

There are ways to argue your point in a civilized manner, sans the personal attacks and flame bait, that was my point.

Many of the authors of the columns that get posted here, read the forum. They enjoy insightful commentary on their work not nasty flaming sarcasm and insults tossed at other posters here.

If you feel you or anyone else, can not make your point or your argument here with out losing self control, maybe there is elsewhere that would be more amenable to having their resources and bandwidth used for such purposes.

In case you think my comments were directed at you or stem from some particular position I hold on immigration I'll be clear: I am opposed to amnesty, I am in favor of securing our borders and I have no interest in subsidizing and propping up people that have broken the law to come here.

228 posted on 01/07/2004 11:13:52 AM PST by diotima (tithesthai ta phenomena)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 218 | View Replies]

To: woodyinscc
Yesterday, actually.
229 posted on 01/07/2004 11:16:03 AM PST by sfRummygirl (Tancredo in '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: sfRummygirl; dirtboy; hchutch
A nationwide manhunt? Too extreme?

Can you provide proof of US citizenship on demand?

Are you willing to do so every 50 miles or so on this nation's roads, or whenever a cop decides that he's had a rotten day and wants to share the wealth?

I think it's called protecting your border. Do you guys live in a border state?

Yes, I do.

What about the rest of what dirtboy and I chronicled?

Berlin-Wall construction? Minefields? Truly massive troop deployments? AC-130s blasting away at anyone crossing the Rio Grande? Yes, people have advocated all this.

230 posted on 01/07/2004 11:16:56 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

To: Lead Moderator
Violence posts are not allowed, and Freepers should hit abuse on them.

OK, I took you at your word and hit the abuse button on this post. Nothing was done.

Are you just guys and gals just busy, or are posts advocating "summarily shooting" illegal aliens acceptable on FR?

231 posted on 01/07/2004 11:17:29 AM PST by snopercod (Wishing y'all a prosperous, happy, and FREE new year!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
I agree it should have been, and it now has been. Thanks.
232 posted on 01/07/2004 11:19:27 AM PST by Lead Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
The Admin Mod removed the post before I looked. Whew, I thought you were talking about this post. Which I hardly find offensive. };O)


233 posted on 01/07/2004 11:23:11 AM PST by BushCountry (To the last, I will grapple with Democrats. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
If in WWII Japanese decided to send ships of unarmed to the shores of CA or HI what would Truman have done? It matters not what weapon they carry because they are invading and are not welcome and are in fact an enemy of the Constitution as they intend to do harm. There can be no "utility" argument used to excuse the fact they are indeed invaders and subject to destruction. If you do not understand the concept of a "utility" argument please respond and I will try to help you out.
234 posted on 01/07/2004 11:24:47 AM PST by Final Authority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 220 | View Replies]

To: Rebelbase
Let's give you your argument that President Bush is a "Neo-con" when it comes to domestic policy.

You posted that he was of 'no worth.'......those were your words.

Do you then feel that our success in the War on Terror is of 'no worth?' Do you feel that the revitalization and respect for the military are of 'no worth?' Do you feel that the tax cuts and rebounding economy are of 'no worth?' And do you honestly believe that the decency of the man is of 'no worth?'

You make no sense, Rebelbase, when you say that what was once of value is now of 'no worth,' and it is such extreme and drastic anti-Bush statements that diminish any civil discourse on the topics at hand.

235 posted on 01/07/2004 11:25:31 AM PST by ohioWfan (BUSH 2004 - Leadership, Integrity, Morality)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: xJones
I guess the mod just hadenuf. ....Hopefully it's just a supension.
236 posted on 01/07/2004 11:26:21 AM PST by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

To: hchutch
Those on the opposite side of the Wall Street Journal. I consider FAIR, Americans for Better Immigration, and NumbersUSA to fall into that category.

"That category" being your so-called "immigration restrictionists."

Like you, the Wall Street Journal favors Amnesty for Illegals, therefore, by your definition, anyone not favoring Amnesty is an "immigration restrictionist."

That's a nice, inaccurate, broadbrushed talking point you're bringing to the table.

Plenty of people who are opposed to Illegals and the legalization of them are perfectly comfortable with a generous legal immigration policy. We just prefer to welcome the foreigners who are willing to abide by our laws.

Guess who else falls into your so-called "immigration restrictionist" category?

Question ...

Do you approve of the plan to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with social security benefits?

Yes
118 votes - 8%

No
1,236 votes - 85%

Undecided
91 votes - 6%

1,445 votes total
FR poll link

Accordihng to FR's daily stats, there were 3,165 distinct posters on Monday and 3,445 distinct posters yesterday, for an average of about 3,300. You'd need to pick up about 75% of the remaining active Freepers for your pro-Amnesty position to prevail in this poll. Doesn't seem likely that you'll close with a 3 to 1 advantage after opening with a 9 to 1 deficit, does it?

So, you're even further from the mainstream of this forum on the Illegal Alien issue than you are from the nation at large, where opposition to Amnesty polls at 2 to 1.

In fact, you've came to this thread expecting others to prove their sincerity, while you simultaneously slurred most posters on this forum as "immigration restrictionists."

Pull the plank from your own eye.


237 posted on 01/07/2004 11:32:01 AM PST by Sabertooth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 224 | View Replies]

To: Final Authority
If in WWII Japanese decided to send ships of unarmed to the shores of CA or HI what would Truman have done?

Are we in a state of declared war with Mexico?

It matters not what weapon they carry because they are invading and are not welcome and are in fact an enemy of the Constitution as they intend to do harm.

"Invasion" has a specific meaning in law. Illegally crossing the border is not "invasion" in and of itself.

There can be no "utility" argument used to excuse the fact they are indeed invaders and subject to destruction.

Article VI of the US Constitution and a large number of treaties we have signed disagree with you. Opening fire on unarmed persons merely for crossing the border would make the soldiers who did so instant war criminals.

If you do not understand the concept of a "utility" argument please respond and I will try to help you out.

Please explain, by all means.

238 posted on 01/07/2004 11:32:43 AM PST by Poohbah ("Beware the fury of a patient man" -- John Dryden)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 234 | View Replies]

Comment #239 Removed by Moderator

To: expatguy
How is this type of arguement ever relevant?

A CRIMINAL OFFENSE has been commited.

My sister makes a wonderful pineapple upsidedown cake and is a decent hardworking person as well. But if she BREAKS the LAW then she has to PAY the PRICE!

If your sister is over 20 years old she has broken the law hundreds of times without paying the price (e.g. possibly underage drinking, speeding, turning on a red light, maybe experimenting with drugs, jaywalking, and a thousand other things teenagers do in the process of growing up). There are thousands upon thousands of laws, making it almost impossible to tow the line.

But that is not the point, deporting 11 million immigrants at gunpoint tomorrow will not solve much and would cause more problems than it would solve. Don't forget it is only an accident of birth, that you are here and not in a mass grave in Iraq, or an immigrant yourself.

In 1910, the typical debate in politics was how immigrants from southern europe were going to destroy this country! The immigrant population as a percentage has been greater in the first five decades of the 1900s than now. This is a very old debate. Since the debate is so old, it seems like I should see reasonable solutions to this problem discussed, instead of hyperbole. Provide me with a reasonable, thoughtful solution that would be both politically acceptable and humane and you will have a convert.

240 posted on 01/07/2004 11:41:18 AM PST by BushCountry (To the last, I will grapple with Democrats. For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at Liberals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 481-493 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson