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:

[Poohbah]

Well, it's about as good an example of the stuff that prompted your effort on illegal immigration threads in the first place...

[hchutch]

Let me speak on this very bluntly. There are some very questionable associations among the immigration restricitonist crowd. In particular, I will cite Sam Francis, Jared Taylor (American Renaissance), and VDARE, the latter two of which are unwelcome on this forum. There is a columnist who is rather popular among the restrictionist crowd that has said nice things about VDARE despite its questionable associations with American Renaissance.

The past ugliness on the immigration threads was one of the major reason I support the Wall Street Journal's position on this issue. Another big reason was the questionable associations the restricitonist crowd has with American Renaissance. The third reason was the way those who oppose the restrictionist position (me, PRND21, and Luis Gonzalez in particular) have been unfairly attacked. On a thread about Robert Bartley, someone called him a mole for illegal aliens.

So, as it stands, I believe I have three good reasons to harbor a very strong distrust of the restrictionists - distrust that has spread to some other cultural issues of late. And it's going to take a LOT of convincing for me to reconsider the positions I have taken about it at this point. Unless there are is some housecleaning, though, I will be a VERY hard sell on the vast majority of the restrictionist agenda.

This is not to say I don't think some tough policies are in order. I think that cops should be able to tell the federal government if they have apprehended a violent criminal or drug dealer in this country illegally. I think we need more Border Patrol agents. But at the same time, I do not think it serves the interests of justice to deport someone who had no idea they were here illegally until they apply to college or for a summer job because they were brought over the border at a young age and thus lacked the INTENT to violate our immigration laws. I do not think it is right to deport people who are trying to flee barbaric policies like China's population-control laws. I think we need to reinstate the bracero program. I also hold the general position that otherwise law-abiding people caught up in a bad law or the misapplication of a law should be cut some slack.

The question is, are these disagreements with the restrictionist position worthy of attacking another conservative over? I don't think so. But there are apparently those who disagree, and who get ugly about it, and while I will try to remain civil, it is, I am sad to say, quite easy for me to suspect the worst. I hope that these suspicions can be proven to be unfounded, but I have to be honest and admit that at this time, I wouldn't bet much more than the price of a can of soda on it.

[woodyinscc]

You are right. Something has to be done and at least the President has taken the step of making recommendations and now it will be up to Congress to decide.

My sentiments exactly.

I have stated before, if the dims had their way, they would all be legal, driving with licenses, and voting. Tomorrow.

[Sabertooth]

Yes, I suppose there is room within these immigration threads for reason-based persuasion one-on-one. That has happened and will continue to happen. But as was also true regarding the campaign finance, Patriot Act, and Medicare prescription drugs debacles, you must also expect bald and loud cries of dismay and anguish. Is there any good that can come of these? I believe there is.

So do I, and I don't believe we're alone in that.

This isn't intended as an effort to neutralize passion on the issue of Illegals, it's an attempt to abate the gratuitous and insincere viciousness that occurs far too often, and make the debate accessible to more posters who aren't interested in wading through circle-jerk flame wars in the Smokey Backrrom.

I think there's plenty of latitude for vigorous debate on these threads.

Will mistakes be made? Probably.

Will I make mistakes? Almost certainly.

But it's time to make a sincere effort at doing things differently, to my eye.

[Neets]

I expect no less of AAA than something like that.

I am a regular long time Freeper so I come to expect that from him.

I resent however, the implication and reflection on FreeRepublic that the graphic leaves in the eyes/minds of newer members and people not familiar with this forum.

[Lead Moderator]

Violence posts are not allowed, and Freepers should hit abuse on them.

Regarding your contention about shooting down planes, I am not sure that is quite as cut and dried. If a plane has violated airspace restrictions and is not responding to attempts to communicate, then I think discussion of what to do in such a case is appropriate. For example, discussion of what should have been done had Todd Beamer and crew not caused that plane to go down in Pennsylvania seems to me to be reasonable, and I don't think I would necessarily feel that someone suggesting that it should have been shot down are advocating an unreasonable position. Similar hypothetical posts will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, in context. Thanks, LM

[Howlin]

Posts like yours are a big part of the problem. What you posted flies in the face of what Saber spent a lot of time and thought presenting to us.

[farmfriend]

I don't go on the immegration threads but I thought this was a good idea. Bump for your efforts.

[Howlin]

This is one of the fairest and most thought out posts I've seen in my almost five years at FR.

My hats off to you.

[Howlin]

er....hat's.

[rdb3]

The Posse Comitatus Act makes good policy into actual law.

Soldiers tend to make lousy cops.

True. Not every soldier is an MP.

Also, wanting troops on the border is a bit myopic. Since the border is federal, the CiC would be in charge of those troops. It would take nothing for a RAT president to simply remove them.

[Columbine]

Well that graphic is just exactly what we can see on MoveOn.org or DU.

Thank you for pulling it.

[B Knotts]

It doesn't appear to break any of the posting rules. I don't see what the big deal is about it. We ridicule democrats all the time...I thought this was a "conservative" forum, not a "Republican" forum.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Good post, and thanks for your efforts.

[dandelion]

I'm just glad you've kept me up on these threads - I don't post much but I always read when pinged. You're passionate (to say the least) but I've always felt free to comment when talking to you.

I'm one of those who will wait to see what happens before I pass judgement. I haven't always agreed with Bush on many issues, but there are some decisions (notably environmental issues) that were PR'd "liberal" but turned out to be stealthed "conservative". I'll wait a few months to see what happens next - the fingerprinting and biometrics at the border looks promising, and this may follow suit.

Don't stand up in your foxhole today!! The bullets are sure to be flying... I'll be standing by, with popcorn ready. Any online betting to see who gets banned today would be strictly for entertainment, of course...

[expatguy]

Im with you 100% ~ It makes absolutely no sense to fingerprint people at our airports and yet leave the borders unsealed while 10 million illegal aliens wander around.

There is really no reason for arguement on these threads as there is really one solution and that is :

Arrest and deport them ~ They broke the law.

I could care less how hard they work or how many of them there is. They broke the law and cut in line ahead of legal immigrants. There is a lot of them and it is a tough job, but it needs to be done.

This is all simple logic, what is there really to argue about?

[ohioWfan]

No worth? Explain, please.

[ken5050]

You know, there is a simple, yet very elegant solution to the whole problem. I'd go along with W's proposal, if he'd just add one more little ol' requirement...that they have to learn English in order to stay......think about it...

[Sabertooth]

Let me speak on this very bluntly. There are some very questionable associations among the immigration restricitonist crowd.

Define "immigration restrictionist."

In particular, I will cite Sam Francis, Jared Taylor (American Renaissance), and VDARE, the latter two of which are unwelcome on this forum. There is a columnist who is rather popular among the restrictionist crowd that has said nice things about VDARE despite its questionable associations with American Renaissance.

That would be Michelle Malkin, I believe. Are we to understand that she is some sort of Philippino white seperatist, in your view?

Or just an "immigration restrictionist," by some definition?

Interesting pose of yours, given that your own views on Illegals are so extreme and outside the American mainstream.

PRND21 is on the record as opposing Amnesty, btw, which you support. He also linked to VDARE yesterday, as you're aware.

On a thread about Robert Bartley, someone called him a mole for illegal aliens.

I did. It was a quip, and on the mark.

The Wall Street Journal has earned a misersable reputation for being lax on Illegals to the point of open borders. Bartley was a prime mover in that.

[Rebelbase]

Howlin, I don't see anything wrong with what Junta said, but I think I could be said in a more refined manner:

Outside of the War on Terror, Bush's actions to date have a serious socialist ring to them.

Patriot Act
CFR
Medicaid "reform"
Proposed Amnesty

Had any of these ideas been enacted under Clinton, we would have all had anyuresims gnashing our teeth at how despicable they were.

But a huge sect of repulicans don't worry about this kind of stuff. Why?

The only thing that I can think of is that after 8 years of stains, fouled sinks, lies and outright deciet we have conditioned ourselves to accept that as long as the President appears "honorable", clean cut and god fearing then there can be nothing wrong with what he does.

Yes Bush is a good man, but he is leading this country deeper into socialsim. That may be fine for you or you may disagree, but the proof is in the facts of his signed and proposed legislation.

I'll say it once again. Bush is a neocon of the likes Ronald Regan would have spit from his mouth.