When the "Truth" becomes a "Hate" crime.

OCRegister.com ^ | Oct 21, 2006 | Norberto Santana, Jr

[El Oviedo]

News media converged on Tan Nguyen's Garden Grove campaign office Friday expecting to hear from the Republican congressional candidate about a mailer sent out this week warning immigrants against voting in the November election.

Instead, the media horde got a front-row seat to a half-dozen agents from the state Attorney General's Office serving search warrants and combing through Nguyen's office.

Officers confiscated three computer hard drives, checked for fingerprints, leafed through files and interviewed Nguyen's attorney. Agents also searched Nguyen's Santa Ana home and a campaign worker's Anaheim home.

Despite burgeoning state and federal probes into the flier, Nguyen's attorney said Nguyen has no plans to withdraw as the Republican nominee for the 47th Congressional District race against incumbent Democrat Loretta Sanchez.

[goldstategop]

Both the Bushies and the Democrats want to encourage illegal aliens to vote... for their own cynical reasons of course.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

[Polybius]

"Nueve" .............. "Either in English or Spanish, it is extremely careles language" ....Polybius

I agree. It's too bad that whoever sent it didn't bother to dispense accurate information. ....... DumpsterDiver

Damn right! Almost as careless as my typing in both Spanish and English. ;-)

[DumpsterDiver]

Almost as careless as my typing in both Spanish and English. ;-)

I wish I had read your post a bit sooner. Instead of blaming it on careless typing I jumped to the wrong conclusion and reported you to the authorities.

Mea culpa and all that! ;^)

[Rurudyne]

Criticizing the use of language (in either language) is hardly the principal issue ... that is being a lawyer. Sufficiently precise text that would satisfy any lawyer would likely be turgid to the point of being unreadable to any average reader (whatever their language).

Might it be assumed that the specifics of voter eligibility among citizens is not the issue of the letter?

The issue of the letter is to remind non-citizens (some of which have recently been told they CAN vote or that they have a "moral right" to break our laws) that they do not have the right to vote no matter their legal status.

As for threatening citizens ... any naturalized citizen may be assumed to have a bit better grasp of the laws governing voting than the average native IF ONLY because they have had to demonstrate that knowledge before gaining citizenship––at least to some degree. I would contend that a naturalized citizen who is not plagued by the American Disease––Offensensitivity––would likely recognize the distinction that I pointed out ... the letter first addresses "citizens" and encourages them to vote.

To do so doesn't imply that all citizens CAN vote ... only that it is citizens that can vote in federal elections.

As for the law, you are right to point out that voting is a privilege and not an automatic right. While I'm not aware of every point of law (who could be?) and I am concerned that numerous "civil rights" have been enumerated under the abuse of the Commerce Clause: I fully recognize that the "privileges or immunities" clause of the 14th Amendment was designed to empower Congress to enumerate defined civil rights which the several States cannot disparage (and by extension those civil authorities under the States).

But the burden on a state, elected or civic official ACTING as such, and the burden on a Person are not one and the same. No aspect of the Constitution empowers Congress to enumerate civil rights which Persons cannot disparage––which was the subject of the landmark Civil Rights Act Cases decision.

Now, that decision was the right one; however, the opinion is lamentable and abominable.

Simply, Justice Bradley's opinion lacked the nuance to recognize that Persons ACTING as officials of a State (be they administrators, legislators, judges, or law enforcement) are in fact agents of the same and cannot disparage civil rights enumerated by Congress in their official capacity.

Had Justice Bradley's opinion had even that much nuance––rather than being an ideological bag-o-hammers––then the very worst of Segregation and Jim Crow––in matters of public accommodations like schools––would have ALWAYS been illegal since there IS a limited and yet important domain in which the Civil Rights Act of 1875 is––or should have always been––constitutional.

However, to say that federal law can restrict what an official may do––as in this case––and what a private Person can do is entirely two different things. It is just as unlawful for certain individuals to have encouraged illegal aliens TO VOTE as it would be for an official to discourage ("intimidate" to use your term) legal voters from exercising their right.

However, the same IS NOT true of private Persons PROVIDED they do nothing beyond spreading misinformation or the like. This is because a private Person encouraging someone who can't legally vote to vote is encouraging the commission of a crime while his counterpart is simply being a reprehensible JERK.

The Constitution essentially protects the right of private citizens to be jerks ... which is probably good news for many of us folks obsessed with politics. ^_^

[AmeriBrit]

This man was threatening U.S. citizens who were immigrants

---

What evidence do you have that he had anything to do with this? You're already declaring him guilty. Have you not heard of "Innocent until proven guilty?" It appears not.

[Polybius]

Criticizing the use of language (in either language) is hardly the principal issue ... that is being a lawyer.

Since we are a nation of the rule of law, falsifying what the law actually says and telling immigrants that their immigrant status makes voting a crime is indeed the principal issue. So much so that propagation of that information constitutes voter intimidation as defined by the Voting Rights Act.

It is the same as a Democrat dirty-trickster flooding U.S. Army bases with letters addressed to junior enlisted men fresh out of boot camp and telling them that voting absentee in the November elections in their home state is illegal and could get them jailed or dishonorably discharged.

Whether or not the junior enlisted men should know better than to fall for that is irrelevant to the fact that such conduct constitutes voter intimidation and is a crime.

Sufficiently precise text that would satisfy any lawyer would likely be turgid to the point of being unreadable to any average reader (whatever their language).

What part of "You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal, voting in a federal election is a crime" AND LEAVING IT AT THAT is "turgid"?

Once you add "OR are an immigrant" or "are black" or "are a serviceman no longer living in your own home state" or "are Jewish" or "are over 80 years of age" or "your grandfather was not born around these parts" you have crossed the line into voter intimidation and you have violated federal voting right laws.

Might it be assumed that the specifics of voter eligibility among citizens is not the issue of the letter?

Well, you know what happens when you ASS/U/ME.

Whatever the intended "specifics" were, the letter specifically told U.S. citizens that happened to be immigrants that, if they were immigrants and voted in a Federal election, they could be jailed and deported.

The issue of the letter is to remind non-citizens (some of which have recently been told they CAN vote or that they have a "moral right" to break our laws) that they do not have the right to vote no matter their legal status.

Yeah, too bad it went way beyond that and told U.S. citizens that happened to be immigrants that, if they were immigrants and voted in as Federal election, they could be jailed and deported.

As for threatening citizens ... any naturalized citizen may be assumed to have a bit better grasp of the laws governing voting than the average native IF ONLY because they have had to demonstrate that knowledge before gaining citizenship––at least to some degree.

Yeah and, in theory, blacks could freely vote in the Deep South in the 1950's and the local justice system was supposed to guarantee them that right.

In practice, however, it was made clear to blacks that, at least in that neck of the woods, what the law said and what local justice would do were two different things.

Try sending a letter to a black neighborhood stating that "You are advised that if you are a convicted felon or you are black, voting in a federal election is a crime."

Try telling the Judge that you just used "black' and "convicted felons" interchangeably as everybody knows that they mean the same thing.

Try telling the Judge that you "assumed" that every black recipient of that letter knew exactly what you meant and that he should not be criticizing your use of language and see how far you get.

[Polybius]

This man was threatening U.S. citizens who were immigrants

What evidence do you have that he had anything to do with this? You're already declaring him guilty. Have you not heard of "Innocent until proven guilty?" It appears not.

The title of this tread is "When the 'Truth' becomes a 'Hate' crime."

In fact, what was written was not the truth but was false and constituted voter intimidation":

"You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal OR YOU ARE AN IMMIGRANT, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported.........'

I did not identify who wrote that but whoever did write and mail that was guilty of voter intimidation. It is no different than mailing a letter to a black person stating "If you are black and you vote in the next election, you will be thrown in jail."

The letter did not write itself and mail itself so SOMEBODY is guilty of the act of voter intimidation.

The only question is who that person is.

If you like, I can change the sexist "this man" to the gender neutral "this person".

[AmeriBrit]

Here is the English translation of the letter sent to foreign-born registered voters.

Greetings,

You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting.

You are advised that if your residence in this country is illegal or you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported for voting without having the right to do so.

At the same time, you are advised that the U.S. government is installing a new computer system to verify the names of all new registered voters that vote in the October and November elections. Anti-immigration organizations can ask for information from this new computer system.

Unlike Mexico, there is no incentive to vote here. There is not a voter-registration card in the United States. Therefore, it is useless and dangerous to vote in any election if you are not a U.S. citizen.

Do not listen to any politician that tells you the opposite. They are only looking out for their own interests. They only want to win elections without regard to what happens to you.

Sincerely,

Sergio Ramirez

Your insinuating that naturalized citizens are idiots

[Polybius]

Here is the English translation of the letter sent to foreign-born registered voters.

Thanks, but I have already read the letter in both English and in the original Spanish and I do not need a translator in either language.

See my Post 39.

*******

Original Spanish text of the letter:

“Se le avisa que si su residencia en este pais es ilegal o si es emigrado, votar en una elección federal es un delito que podra resultar en encarcelamiento, y sera deportado por votar sin tener derecho a ello.”

According to “Nuevo Pequeño Larousse Ilustrado, Diccionario Enciclopedico”, adapatacion española de Miguel de Torro y Gisbert, Doctor en Letras Correspondiente de la Academia española:

“ EMIGRADO: emigrante.”

“EMIGRANTE: Individuo que emigra.”

“EMIGRAR: Salir de su pais para establecerse en otro”

So, in effect:

“Se le avisa que si {ha salio de su pais para establecerse en los EEUU}, votar en una elección federal es un delito que podra resultar en encarcelamiento, y sera deportado por votar sin tener derecho a ello.”

Either in English or Spanish, it is extremely careless language that states that, if you were born in another country and immigrated to the U.S., voting in a Federal election is a crime that could result in your imprisonment and would result in your deportation.

If you send out letters to a black neighborhood telling people that, if they are convicted felons it is a crime to vote, you can get away with it.

If you send out letters to a black neighborhood telling people that, if they are convicted felons OR if they are black, it is a crime to vote, you will have the FBI dragging you away in handcuffs.

39 posted on 10/21/2006 10:46:11 AM PDT by Polybius

*******

Your insinuating that naturalized citizens are idiots

Voter intimidation does not depend or whether or not an individual believes that you have the legal right to carry out your extralegal threats. Voter intimidation only requires that you to make an extralegal threat.

"If we see you voting in November, some of my friends in blue uniforms will be paying you a visit and you will be entertaining a 300 pound boyfriend for several nights at the local jail. Capiche?"

[Halgr]

Does anyone have the email address for the California State Attorney General????

I'd love to give lickyear a piece of my mind....I couldn't find one on his website.

This is a political move.....not legal....at all.

[TankerKC]

When they changed the definition of "immigrant" in the dictionary.

When it became convenient during the defense of a Republican.

[savedbygrace]

It looks like a typo, but it is definitely incorrect to say that an immigrant may not vote.

Then he should be allowed to make a Reid Technical Correction.

[AmeriBrit]

Try using both eyes when reading it and you might just see how the letter starts out.

"If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting."

Of course if you're a supporter of, or work for Loretta Sanchez, you'd conveniently miss that part.

[Polybius]

Try using both eyes when reading it and you might just see how the letter starts out. "If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting."

You mean as, for example, a letter that states:

"You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting.

You are advised that if you are a convicted felon or you are black, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported to Africa."

Signed,
Your friendly, local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan

That is exactly the same excuse given by another poster and which, as I pointed out in Post 26, is totally irrelevant as being a U.S. citizen does not automatically give you the right to vote and the letter then proceeds in the very next sentence to specifically state that it is illegal for immigrants to vote and that doing so can result in their imprisonment and deportation.

Being a "citizen" and being an "immigrant" are not mutually exclusive and "immigrant" and "illegal alien" are not synonyms.

No matter what Arnold Scwartzenager otherwise is in regards to citizenship or political party, he will always be an "immigrant" according to Webster's Dictionary and U.S. law which is why the U.S. Constitution specifically disqualifies him from ever being President of the United States.

So, which sentence does the individual who is both a citizen and an immigrant (who maybe has less than a high school education and who comes from a country where local politicians decided what rights you had under the law in their own little fiefdom) pay attention to?

Should he pay attention to Sentence Number One where the letter states that he is cordially invited to vote or should he pay attention to Sentence Number Two where he is told that "You are advised that if ........ you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported" ?

***********

POST 26:

A Strawman argument! The distinction about citizens is made before any mention of immigration status (as you, yourself note in what you quote). "If you are a citizen of the United States," preempts any further considerations in the letter.

Your argument is a non sequitur.

The legal fact of the matter is that simply being a U.S. citizen does not automatically give you the right to vote in a Federal election and being an immigrant and being a citizen are two separate issues under the law.

A convicted felon that is a U.S. citizen does not have the right to vote.

A 17 year old U.S. Marine that is a U.S. citizen does not have the right to vote.

If you advise that 17 year old U.S. Marine that, "If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting" you are advising the 17 year old U.S. Marine to commit a crime.

An immigrant can become a U.S. citizen but the fact that he is an immigrant rather than native born is a point of law that even the Constitution addresses in Article II, Section 1 as a disqualification for ever being President of the United States.

Under U.S. law, the rights of native-born U.S. citizens and immigrant U.S. citizens differ precisely because you can be both an immigrant and a citizen.

"U.S. citizen" and "individual entitled to vote" are not legally synonymous phrases.

In addition, "citizen" and "immigrant" are not legal antonyms.

This man was threatening U.S. citizens who were immigrants about "jail time" and "deportation" if they voted in a Federal election in violation of the intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Act.

If you ever try to intimidate a U.S. citizen from exercising a civil right guaranteed under law by threatening "jail time" or "deportation" or whatever other threat you want to throw in, you had better ensure that your legal wording and your legal logic is impeccable and that you can carry out that threat in a court of law EXACTLY as you phrased it.

If your threats can be excused only by having your attorney explain to the Judge, "what my client actually meant to say", you have a good chance of ending up with jail time yourself.

26 posted on 10/21/2006 8:49:54 AM PDT by Polybius

***********

[Polybius]

Of course if you're a supporter of, or work for Loretta Sanchez, you'd conveniently miss that part.

Nope. I'm just a "Rule of Law" type of guy.

When words have no meaning, the law has no meaning and you have people in power thumbing their nose at the law and then excusing their behavior by arguing that the meaning of the law "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is".

I don't tolerate it when some liberals use the time honored word "immigrant" as a synonym for "illegal aliens" to try to tell the American public that illegal aliens have legal rights reserved for legal immigrants and I don't tolerate it when some conservatives use the time honored word "immigrant" as a synonym for "illegal aliens" to try to tell naturalized U.S. citizens that "if ...... you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported."

I don't tolerate making a mockery of the "Rule of Law" by either my political opponents or by my political allies.

Isn't the respect for the "Rule of Law" the greatest legacy that Britain left to America?

[AmeriBrit]

You mean as, for example, a letter that states: "You are being sent this letter because you were recently registered to vote. If you are a citizen of the United States, we ask that you participate in the democratic process of voting. You are advised that if you are a convicted felon or you are black, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported to Africa." Signed, Your friendly, local chapter of the Ku Klux Klan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anyone that can read the above into the letter that was sent is insane and should commit themselves ASAP.
FYI: I am a naturalized citizen and read the letter exactly the way it was intended, so enough of your BS.

[calcowgirl]

And image of the spanish version was posted by the OC Register:

http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2006/10/20document.pdf

Saludos [redacted]

Se le envía esta carta debido a que recientemente ud. fue registrado para votar. Si ud. es ciudadano de los Estados Unidos, se le ruega a que participe en el proceso democrático de la votación.

Se le avisa que si su residencia en este país es ilegal o si es emigrado, votar en una eleción federal es un delito que podrá resultar en encarcelamiento, y sí será deportado por votar sin tener derecho a ello.

De la misma manera, se le avisa que el gobierno de los Estados Unidos está instalando un nuevo sistema computarizado para verificar los nombres de todos los nuevos registrados que voten en las elecciones de octubre y noviembre. Organizaciones en contra de la emigración podrán pedir información de este nuevo sistema computarizado.

No cómo en México, aquí no se aporta ningún incentivo para votar. En los Estados Unidos no hay tarjeta de registro para votar. Por lo tanto, es inútil y peligroso votar en cualquier elección si ud. No es ciudadano de los Estados Unidos.

No le haga caso a ningún político que le diga lo contrario. Éstos sólo velan por sus propios intereses. Sólo quieren ganar las elecciónes, sin importarles en lo más mínimo qué le pase a ud.

Atte.

Sergio Ramirez

[Polybius]

Anyone that can read the above into the letter that was sent is insane and should commit themselves ASAP.

Why?

Except for the facetious KKK signature, my slightly altered text is a verbatim copy of the original text except that "convicted felon" was substituted for "your residence in this country is illegal" and "black" was substituted for "immigrant" and "Africa" was added as the specific place of the threatened deportation.

FYI: I am a naturalized citizen and read the letter exactly the way it was intended, so enough of your BS.

I am a naturalized citizen too and I read, in plain English:

"You are advised that if ........you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported for voting without having a right to do so."

Has the English language changed so much in Britain since 1776 that the words "if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime" do not mean "if you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime"?

Pray tell, how do you know, "exactly", how the letter was intended?

There is no denying that the second sentence is a declarative sentence that states in plain English that, if you are an immigrant, it is a crime to vote in a Federal election and that such voting can land you in jail and can get you deported.

I hate to break your rose-colored glasses but politics, both Democrat politics and Republican politics, is swarming with slimy creatures.

"Duke" Cunningham was a true American hero (the highest scoring American fighter ace in the Vietnam War) until politics totally corrupted him.

How on Earth do you know, exactly, that a slimy political operative who just happens to work for the Republicans did not willfully substitute the word "immigrant" for the words "resident aliens" in a deliberate attempt to sow fearful confusion in the minds of potential Democrat voters?

If caught, he has people such as yourself ready to make excuses for him and even willing to claim that they know "exactly" what the intent of the letter was.

The sentence "You are advised that if ........you are an immigrant, voting in a federal election is a crime that could result in jail time, and you will be deported for voting without having a right to do so" speaks for itself in plain English.

Legally, it is voter intimidation and, legally, the man who wrote it and sent it to voters through the U.S. Postal Service will have to answer in a court of law for it.

You may be willing to look aside when political dirty tricks are done by our side.

I hold both sides to the same ethical and legal standards.

Assuming that the no dirty tricks were willfully intended, the man will learn the extremely valuable lesson that the law takes a very dim view of the massacre of language when the legal rights of other citizens are potentially affected by it.

[ichabod1]

I don't understand how this can be considered a crime. What law does it break? This is insane. Poetic justice would be for dude to get elected.

[ichabod1]

Hillary's past accomplishments---

Etiquette (goon) Squads.