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:

[Rebelbase]

Yeah, I got spanked on that one. Everyting is relative though.

[4.1O dana super trac pak]

Good job.

[Pelham]

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.

Well, of course that's the tactic that Sabertooth has been dealing with on this thread. I was wondering if the little game would be broken up once the bad faith of his accusers became evident. It appears to be a new technique for disrupting immigration threads.

[Pelham]

(which is perfectly permissible).

Lol. I didn't think this was possible.
Good job!

[Sidebar Moderator]

Here's some more material from Steve Sailer's web site (which is perfectly permissible).

Wrong.

[mrustow]

See #407 for the correction.

[Pelham]

Yeah, well that was brief. The content of those essays doesn't seem controversial, so your guess is as good as mine as to what the real issue is. I'm not certain but I think Sailor and JimRob may have some sort of personal animosity going.

[FBD]

From Laura Ingraham:

"...President Bush charges across the landscape to rescue us from our “unfair” and “broken” immigration system by rewarding people who came here illegally with the promise of legal status. This proposal essentially mirrors the immigration legislation sponsored by—you got it—Sen. McCain. Under the Bush/McCain plan, anyone outside the U.S. who wants to come into the country would only need to show proof of a “job offer” in order to get an initial three-year work permit that would be renewable for an unspecified period. Such temporary workers could also bring family members here. What prevents these people from staying on beyond their time premitted for "temporary" work? As it stands now, there seems to be no limit on the immigration —temporary or permanent— allowed under this plan. And as for the claim that this would be a big boon to the American economy? Illegal immigration costs taxpayers $20 billion each year, in extra education, healthcare, welfare, and prison costs. Today thirty-four percent of Mexicans legally in the U.S., and 25 percent of Mexicans illegally here are on welfare.

How are those costs diminished under the Bush plan?

Most bewildering is the Administration idea that this plan is necessary for homeland security reasons. On the contrary, it would not be surprising if some would-be terrorists are among the millions of illegals who will become “documented” under the Bush plan. As Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) charged, "Guest worker programs and gradual amnesty provide cover for terrorists."

It’s easy to understand why Vicente Fox, McCain, big business, and La Raza are happy this week—but what’s in this new proposal for working class American families? How about those immigrants who a lot of time and money to comply with our immigration laws?

The real answer is absolutely nothing. The only reasonable prediction is that wages for a wide range of jobs will be kept artificially depressed by outside workers—now with “legal status” will work for peanuts. “I have worked construction for 30 years as a truck driver (18-wheeler),” wrote one of my listeners, “And every year my pay has gone down because Mexicans are flooding the trucking industry…."

When Bill Clinton says we live in an “increasingly borderless world,” we’re not surprised. It’s the usual globaloney blather. But when a Republican president advocates a policy that will make our borders effectively meaningless, we should be outraged.

With his approval numbers high, President Bush has made a devil’s bargain with business and Hispanic groups. Elites from both parties are ignoring the view of a strong majority of Americans that we need to stop illegal immigration, not high-five it.

Another listener wonders: “What happened to the ‘party of principle’? More like the party of pandering. Considering the massive numbers involved, this amnesty being floated really is Pandora's Box, once opened cannot be closed.”

President Bush has now done the equivalent of posting a sign at the border: “Help Wanted for $5.15/hour.”

Conservatives are right to be disappointed in President Bush. We are right to ignore the Administration’s promise that this time, non-amnesty amnesty will be good for the American people. Our citizenship and legal residence should be reserved for people who love this country enough that breaking her laws—whether at the border or on the street—is out of the question. The next time I hear from his Administration that it is doing all it can to protect our homeland, secure our borders, and increase our standard of living, I will laugh.

Now I know the definition of “compassionate conservative:” a person who campaigns as a conservative, then sells out key conservative principles."

[TomasUSMC]

yep.
Any limits should be objective and equal for all in debate. If you want to limit worthless debate, limit the amount each individual can write. If the rule says only x amount of characters per day then hey, efficient use of that amount will squeeze out the less important things said. That be what I say. Let the rough and tumble roll, just make em 3minute rounds.

[chicagolady]

Thank you well said!
Most Bush "Loyalist" believe that if you disagre with the President you are one of the above. That is why we love America, We can disagree with the President. That does not take away from working to get him elected in 2000.

It Scares me when folks take on the idea that you cannot disagree and be a Bush Supporter at the same time.

[usurper]

Thanks for posting Lara makes some strong points and as always she’s a babe.

When Bill Clinton says we live in an “increasingly borderless world,” we’re not surprised.

Actually this was probably the only true statement ever uttered from his lips. The current reality is that our businesses must compete in a world market and to be remotely competitive we do need to keep wages down is some industries. Unless one wants to go down the protectionist road, I sadly don’t see any alternative. However markets aside national security must always come first.

I have been deeply involved with these issues for 18 years now, its complex and dynamic and extensively woven into the fabric of our country. I don’t have the magic answer yet which is why I appreciate FR.

At a glance the administration’s proposal does not appear to improve the situation, however I believe it prudent to reserve judgment until the entire bill can be assessed.

If nothing else, I appreciate the administration’s cajonies in even raising the issue in the first place. For the last 15 years this issue has festered and there has been a sticking lack of leadership at the national level. DC would not even acknowledge the problem let a lone take a stand on how it could be fixed.

We desperately need to debate the immigration issue and the administration has at a minimum finally put the issue on the national stage.

[hchutch]

Why don't YOU tell me what you think of Mr. Francis's quotes?

I find it interesting. First I'm playing a "gotcha game" according to Sabertooth at Post 266, now I'm accused by you of trying to "disrupt" innigration threads... all because I am asking a simple question that can be answered with a simple yes or no.

Why so much evasiveness? What sort of "gotcha game" are you so scared of? The simple fact I'm asking you to take a stand about comments at a conference that got Mr. Francis fired from the Washington Times, which is no bastion of political correctness?

I'd like to know, and I am sure others would as well.

[FBD]

Good post on a very emotional subject, it's difficult to stay objective.
Immigration...is it the 'third rail of politics?'

[Sabertooth]

Why don't YOU tell me what you think of Mr. Francis's quotes?

I find it interesting. First I'm playing a "gotcha game" according to Sabertooth at Post 266, now I'm accused by you of trying to "disrupt" innigration threads... all because I am asking a simple question that can be answered with a simple yes or no.

This is a hoot, coming from a character who finds it necessary to be cagey about his own pro-Amnesty views that fall well outside the mainstream of American opinion.

You seem to think it's clever to endlessly and disingenuously self-gratify your Sam Francis fixation, as though your irrelevant litmus test had any bearing on posters who have nothing to do with him or his writings.

At various times over the pas couple of years, you've tried your "disprove hchutch's guilt-by-association" gambit with David Duke, Pat Buchanan, Robert Byrd, and probably some others I'm missing. It's one of your fallacies of preference.

Yeah, it's a gotcha game, and yeah, it's an effort to disrupt threads, and yeah, it's a ploy you use because your own arguments are weak and in disfavor. Unable or unwilling to debate your actual words, and other posters' actual words, you attempt to bait posters into endlessly disavowing writers and personalities they've never avowed.

You've been invited a half dozen times to post a stand-alone Sam Francis thread, where you can expand and pontificate your list of particulars against him. Go for it.

Why so much evasiveness? What sort of "gotcha game" are you so scared of?

Indeed, what's the reason for your evasiveness in posting your thread?

What are you afraid of?

The Sam Francis fixation is yours, where is the courage of your convictions? I've told you that I'd be more than willing to look at what you post about Sam Francis on its own thread, in this or any other forum. Post it and flag me. Why is that such a burden for you?

The reason is because this is all a dodge for you; you don't generally care to be forthright about your desire to grant massive Amnesty to Illegal Aliens. I've only seen you mention it when I confront you.

What's the reason for your evasiveness in answering my questions to you about your definition of "immigration restrictionists," and the open-borders ramifications thereof? Why haven't you had the intellectual honesty to address my follow up questions to you at #244?

What, hchutch, are you afraid of?

[hchutch]

If you REALLY believe I am disrupting the threads with a simple question, hit the abuse button and report it. Otherwise, you're spinning like a top to avoid dealing with the problem. The silence about comments like those Sam Francis made - comments he was FIRED from the Washington Times for - leads me to believe you have no objections to them, or you lack the courage to call them out on it.

You have no room to question my intellectual honesty. You have no room to accuse ME of disrupting this forum. And quite frankly, unless you are willing to file the abuse reports and state that FOR THE RECORD to the Moderators, I can only conclude that you are trying to silence the messenger, because WHEN that expose is posted, it will not just be Sam Francis whose comments get revealed for all to see and judge for themselves. It will not stop at just the contemptible comments, either. I will also reveal those who, like you, have either not noticed this stuff, or who have turned a blind eye to it.

Is that what you really want? Because that is what you will get.

[Sabertooth]

If you REALLY believe I am disrupting the threads with a simple question, hit the abuse button and report it.

I said you're trying, I didn't say you were any good at it.

Why are you so hesitant to post a stand-alone Sam Francis thread?

You have no room to question my intellectual honesty. You have no room to accuse ME of disrupting this forum. And quite frankly, unless you are willing to file the abuse reports and state that FOR THE RECORD to the Moderators, I can only conclude that you are trying to silence the messenger, because WHEN that expose is posted, it will not just be Sam Francis whose comments get revealed for all to see and judge for themselves.

How is not filing an abuse report an attempt to silence you?

How is an invitation to post a thread on which I'll appear to address whatever case you choose to make an attempt to silence you?

These two notions are so plainly silly that I'm quite content to repost them in context with your protestations of intellectual honesty.

It will not stop at just the contemptible comments, either. I will also reveal those who, like you, have either not noticed this stuff, or who have turned a blind eye to it.

Is that what you really want? Because that is what you will get.

I've lost count of how many times I've expressed my desire for you to post whatever thread you want about Sam Francis, and that I would be more than willing to look at and address your post.

Why would you doubt me? Go to town, hchutch. Flag me, when you do.

If you think I'm bluffing, bookmark this post and this thread, and see if that's the case.

Now, do you want to address my follow up questions to your own, actual comments regarding "immigration restrictionists on this thread, at #246?
(I said #244 earlier, that was a typo)

I'll repost them for you...

hchutch: In addition, if one seeks to LOWER the current quotas, is that not advocating restriction? Isn't "restrictionist" an appropriate adjective for those who advocate that position? Why do you object to that term if it is accurate?

Sabertooth: Well, let's carry your logic a little further... aren't the current immigration levels retrictive? In a sense, aren't any immigration laws at all, "restrictionist?"

If we have no restrictions at all on immigration, don't we have open borders?

So, is everyone who's not for open borders an "immigration restrictionist," in your lexicon?

[hchutch]

Does anyone who opposes YOUR position on immigration favor "Open Borders"?

[gatorbait]

Sabertooth, thanks.I think you and the the Mods have performed a real service here, It is a very tough subject.It raises a hell of a lot of passion and that can be tough to handle.

Thanks again.