About the Moderators' recent efforts on the Illegal Alien threads: keep an open mind

January 7th, 2003 | Sabertooth

[Sabertooth]

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.

[Lead Moderator]

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

[BushCountry]

1. The total number of immigrants per year (including illegal and refugees) is somewhat less than it was in the peak years at the start of the 20th century, when the US population was less half as large its current population. The rate of immigration relative to the population is low rather than high. Immigration as a proportion of population is about a third of what is was in the peak years in the early part of the 20th century..
2. In the early part to of the 20th century (1910-1920) the major debate in politics was that immigrants form southern Europe were going to destroy this country.  Those sneaky "I"talians and the dirty Irishman would bring this country to ruination. It seems the hatred has shifted to immigrants from Mexico?
3. The U.S. government has forecast a shortage of 20 million workers by 2026 due to the aging baby boom and job growth.  Under the conditions that we now confront, we should be very carefully focused on the contribution which skilled people from abroad, (as well as) unskilled people from abroad, can contribute to this country, as they have for generation after generation.
4. By the year 2050 according to Census projections racial and ethnic minorities will outnumber non-Hispanic whites. In the next fifty years this demographic shift will transform politics and business.  If us conservatives  lose the Hispanic vote, then we lose the nation.
5. In the last decade hi tech professional immigrants have made extraordinary contributions to cutting edge US industries. It is estimated that almost one quarter of Silicon valley firms were established by immigrants. 
6. Businesses founded by immigrants are a source of substantial economic and fiscal gain for U.S. citizens. Ten high-tech firms founded by immigrants (Intel, Sun Microsystems, Computer Associates, Solectron Lam Research, LSI Logic, AST Computer, Wang Laboratories, Amtel, Gupta Technologies, and Cypress Semiconductor) generated $32 billion in revenues in 2002. These and other businesses started by immigrants add at least another $29 billion to the total amount of taxes paid by immigrants.
7. Immigrant entrepreneurs have revitalized neighborhood; from Dominicans in Manhattan's Washington Heights to Cubans in Miami's Little Havana, Hispanic immigrants have transformed their communities into thriving economically dynamic strongholds.  Of particular note is the resurgence of small business, which thirty years ago was in decay. Several researchers have suggested that immigration has encouraged the entrepreneurial drive of the total population, significantly contributing to this transformation.
8. The average education of new immigrants has been increasing with each successive generation. The proportion of adult immigrants with 8 or fewer years of education has been decreasing and the proportion of adult immigrants with 16 years or more has been increasing. The proportion of immigrants with bachelor 's or postgraduate degrees is much higher than the proportion of the native labor force.
9. Illegal aliens contribute about as much to the public coffers in taxes as they receive in benefits. New data suggests the undocumented pay about 46 percent as much in taxes as do natives, but use about 45 percent as much in services. A poll of the most respected economists found a consensus that both legal and illegal immigrants are beneficial economically.  However overall immigrants fare well in terms of income with adult, foreign-born, naturalized citizens actually have higher adjusted gross incomes (averaging $40,502) than families with U.S.-born citizens only ($35,249).  There goes the low wage myth.
10. Most immigrants arrive in the United States in the prime of their working years. More than 70 percent of immigrants are over the age of 18 when they arrive in the United States. That means there are roughly 17.5 million immigrants in the United States today whose education and upbringing were paid for by the citizens of the sending country, not American taxpayers. The windfall to the United States of obtaining this human capital at no expense to American taxpayers is roughly $1.43 trillion. This makes immigrants a fiscal bargain for our country.

[BushCountry]

The above information is to help alviate your ignorance in regards to both illegal and legal immigration. There is nothing pointless about the information, just your inability to accept.

[hchutch]

Well, Sabertooth, I have to wonder a bit.

First you post an evasive answer to a very simple question asking if a comment was within the bounds of civil discourse. A comment which should, in my opinion, get a poster banned from this forum.

Then when Poohbah confronts you about the evasive answer, your response is not to clarify, you instead accuse me of playing a "gotcha game" in Post 266 - a tactic reminiscent of Bill Clinton attacking his accusers.

If you will not condemn stuff that crosses the bounds, then I have no choice but to assume that you do not have a problem with it being part of the political dialogue and for it to be associated with conservatives and who are opposed to illegal immigration. I happen to have a problem with that attitude. That attitude is one of the primary reasons my views on immigration have evolved to strong support the Wall Street Journal's position on this issue from a pro-restriction posture.

You cannot have it both ways, Sabertooth. You cannot call for civility on this, and then try to sweep ugly comments under the rug, and I think you are trying to do that with regard to Sam Francis. Continued efforts to do so will force me to assume the worst, and that will be reflected in my posts.

So, I ask again, and ask for a yes or no answer, and you can feel free to elaborate as to why you give the answer you are giving:
Are the comments by Sam Francis at the May, 1994 conference of American Renaissance quoted by David Frum in National Review within the bounds of civility?

[Pelham]

"So, when did you stop beating your wife?"

There are dozens of immigration control organizations. Sam Francis doesn't run one. I haven't seen anyone here who is concerned with controlling immigration using him as a source. The people who have been citing him are those who have long hurled accusations of racist, xenophobe, nativist, and other such epithets at anyone who calls for immigration reform.

The Brown Berets and other groups of communist thugs routinely support open borders and amnesty proposals.

http://www.fightbacknews.org/2003winter/brownberets.htm

Should the pro-pseudo-amnesty supporters be held responsible for everything their fellow travellers say? Or does Guilt By Association only flow to the right?

[Sabertooth]

Post a Sam Francis thread, and fulfill your fixation. Ping me if you like.

[hchutch]

Stop ducking the question.

Are his remarks acceptable?

[Poohbah]

After a while, refusing to answer IS an answer.

[Pelham]

The technique is to keep baiting Sabertooth with the Francis quote, in order to give the impression that he supports it. Sabertooth posted that he doesn't read Francis, so you can see that they aren't interested in debating Sabertooth's own arguments. It's a rhetorical device to get him to debate Francis' writing instead of his own. You can tell they are far more comfortable arguing against Francis than they are in debating Sabertooth.

If it turns out that there isn't much to gnaw on with Sam Francis then they'll just move on to some other writer, demanding that Sabertooth explain some other position he's never taken. It will all be wrapped up in indignant moralizing.

[Sabertooth]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post_article?forum=news

[Sabertooth]

After a while, refusing to answer IS an answer.

What an unsurprising bit of fallacious reasoning...

A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 1, Introduction and the Argument From Ignorance)
			Posted by general_re On 12/19/2003 5:46:41 AM PST with 61 comments Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen FALLACIES . . . arguments, like men, are often pretenders. — Plato It would, be a very good thing if every trick could receive some short and obviously appropriate name, so that when anyone used this or that particular trick, he could at once be reproved for it. — Arthur Schopenhauer WHAT IS A FALLACY? An argument, whatever its subject or sphere, is generally constructed in such a way as to prove that its conclusion is true. But any argument can fail to fulfill this purpose in either of two ways. One way it can fail is by assuming a...

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Go post a Sam Francis thread, and make your case against him. Flag me, I'll be there.

Until then, your posts on this subject are rhetorical healsnapping.

[Publius6961]

It's not inability, it's a conscious choice on my part.
You insist on lumping illegal immigration in the figures, I'll continue to consider the figures, and the argument, pointless.

Have a nice day.

[hchutch]

Again, why do you duck the question?

You keep tossing stuff out about fallacies and stuff in an effort to distract people from your failure to answer this question.

Are you afraid to take a stand on these comments? Why would that be?

Your evasiveness raises more questions than it answers.

[DaughterOfAnIwoJimaVet]

Are you afraid to take a stand on these comments? Why would that be?

I'm curious about that too, Saber. Please respond.

[mrustow]

These tactics recall communist agitators of yore breaking up their opponents' meetings. These guys are utterly incapable of debating anyone on anything. They have to lie and use the other methods I listed a ways back.

To tie in to something Sabertooth said, as much as I hate any limits on discussion, it seems that there is something even worse than straightforward censorship, and that is the censoring of certain writers, whom however one party is nevertheless permitted to use to intimidate and beat over the head their opponents.

[Lead Moderator]

I am not really here (I just occasionally am checking my pager) but I will give a fast answer to that.

Let's stipulate for a hypothetical that I support open borders and some form of amnesty (both of which are not true, but for the hypothetical, let's pretend). And let's say that someone says "that puts you in the same camp as the Brown Berets". A response that I think could and should end it would be to say "I breathe air. Osama Bin Laden breathes air. That does not mean that we are allies or that I am Al Qaeda. If the Brown Berets and I agree on a particular issue, I am sure it is for very different philosophical reasons, because on almost all of their other views, such as their love of communism, they are completely out to lunch."

And if the person I was debating would later come back and say "you are just like the Brown Berets, why don't you repudiate them", then I would say "I already have, and you are now just playing gotcha games" and I would have a legitimate gripe that they are not trying to establish anything of any merit but just trying to bait and smear me.

I'm not saying this is the way everyone has to do it, but it just seems to me to be one way to handle a line of inquiry that isn't particularly difficult to parry.

[TLI]

Unfortunately, the Stryker Brigade will not be that wildly successful. TheAbrams will be around until they wear out.

Perhaps when you got to the "wildly sucssful" part you might have recognised the comedy horn blairing in the distance . . .

I will include tags next time.

[adam_az]

[Luis Gonzalez]

"Bush is a neocon of the likes Ronald Regan would have spit from his mouth."

That's the funniest thing of all.

Reagan was the prototype neocon.

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I have no doubt that Reagan might be appalled at some of the spending that's going on."

Why would he?

Reagan's spending as a percentage of GDP was significantly higher than Bush's.

[WOSG]

Why is VDARE verboten? A lot whackier stuff on FR than their views on immigration. JMHO.