A Special Message to The Utah Patrick Henry Caucus

So I’m driving through the Aves, when I spied this sweaty Mexican gardener wearing a dirty a Patrick Henry Caucus t-shirt.  When I slammed on my brakes and backed up to check it out, he started to slunk away.  It took some time to explain to him why I wanted to take his picture.

You can tell be the look on his face, he had no idea why I thought his t-shirt was so special.  His English sucked.  But eventually, he figured out I was a friendly, and he kindly posed for this picture.

Patrick Henry Caucus T-Shirt

Patrick Henry Caucus T-Shirt

I asked him why he was here.  He said, “I just want to work.”  I asked him if he knew Carl Wimmer. That’s when he gave me the Patrick Henry Caucus salute.

I asked him where he got the shirt.  It looks pretty new. Finally, he said he found it in a trash can.  I figure somebody’s wife isn’t totally in line with the hubby.

Randall Amster: From the Heart of Arizona, We Still Have a Dream

, , ,

  1. #1 by James Farmer on July 28, 2010 - 10:04 pm

    Did you get contact info?

  2. #2 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on July 29, 2010 - 8:44 am

    Sweet monkey-doodles! An immigrant who doesn’t absolutely LOVE our fair-minded, huggable, caterpillar-lipped Carl Wimmer? I wonder why that might be. . .

  3. #3 by Larry Bergan on July 29, 2010 - 10:49 am

    Looks like a hard worker!

  4. #4 by cav on July 29, 2010 - 11:25 am

    Now, let’s not denigrate caterpillar lips, please.

  5. #5 by cav on July 29, 2010 - 11:26 am

    Cliff was prolly eggin’ ‘im on.

  6. #6 by Uncle Rico on July 29, 2010 - 12:19 pm

    Cliff was prolly eggin’ ‘im on.

    Ya think?

  7. #7 by brewski on July 29, 2010 - 2:20 pm

    when I spied this sweaty Mexican

    How did you know he was Mexican before you stopped? He could have been a true-blooded American for all you knew. What made you stop to ask him about his shirt? If you had seen some fairer complected person would you have also stopped and asked him/her? Or maybe he was Salvadoran, or Nicaraguan, or Guatemalan…… But you stopped and asked this man about his shirt based on his appearance?

    Now we know you are a true racist. Thanks for the admission.

  8. #8 by Uncle Rico on July 29, 2010 - 3:15 pm

    Does anyone know the meaning of the term “racist” anymore? Me thinks not.

  9. #9 by brewski on July 29, 2010 - 3:29 pm

    No, it’s just a word to throw at someone when you can’t think of anything else. Also a convenient conversation stopper.

  10. #10 by Larry Bergan on July 30, 2010 - 5:28 am

    Here’s what I remember.

    I came home from work one day and saw an unbelievable gathering of people who I assumed must be from some other state, but then I started to see buildings I recognized.

    If only WE, (white people), could have amassed these numbers in the run-up to war, we might have stopped it in Utah.

    What I’m saying is that: sometimes you have to jeopardize your stupid job to effect change.

    This guy did!

  11. #11 by Larry Bergan on July 30, 2010 - 5:30 am

    What did Carl Wimmer ever jeopardize?

  12. #12 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on July 30, 2010 - 10:39 am

    Brewski–

    Your not-so-subtle reference to racial profiling ignores two facts: Stopping to ask is different than stopping to accuse; assumptions are unavoidable in their harmless form, it’s the dangerous assumptions that we need to be cautious of.

    –Dwight

  13. #13 by Richard Warnick on July 30, 2010 - 10:43 am

    Last night on the local news they said Utah legislators are pressing ahead with their own version of the Arizona “papers please” law, despite opposition from law enforcement and the near certainty the legislation would be ruled unconstitutional. Governor Herbert ought to have his veto pen ready for this one.

  14. #14 by brewski on July 30, 2010 - 12:23 pm

    I know plenty of illegal aliens in Utah who are not Latino. Most of the ones I know came here legally on tourist visas or seasonal work visas and then never left. They are Australian, French, British, Austrian, South African, Philipino, etc.

    I also know a a few Latinos who trace their families back to the settlements of New Mexico and southern Colorado long before the US showed up.

    So this whole issue of equating illegal immigrants with Latino by the media and the open-border lobby is a distraction.

    It is also hypocritical that Mexicans (just as an example) call laws which would deport them as being racist, even though their home country (Mexico) has identical laws which deport illegal immigrants from Guatemala and other countries. I missed the coverage of the rallies by Mexicans calling for the opening of the border with their southern neighbors.

    Also, Dwight, I know you are well aware that under the proposed Arizona law, that police officers would not be allowed to stop people and ask for their ID. I know you know that they must first have a lawful contact, like stopping them for speeding. And only then would they be allowed to ask for ID if they had reasonable suspicion. Noteworthy is that the police would be asking for ID anyway as part of a traffic stop. So in fact at this point there is no difference in the police contact or questioning. Then if the subject provided something as simple as a drivers license then the presumption of legality is established. So on many levels there are numerous standards and protections built in as well as no-harm no-foul.

    It is also notable that the DOJ did not even try to challenge the AZ law on discrimination grounds AT ALL. The Feds only case was jurisdiction.

    So what the final result of the DOJ’s successful action was to ban sanctuary cities. Congratulations to the left.

  15. #15 by Dwight Sheldon Adams on July 30, 2010 - 12:56 pm

    I don’t know how what you’re saying has anything to do with what I said, Brew, so I don’t know why you’re directing your comment at me.

    –Dwight

  16. #16 by james farmer on July 30, 2010 - 1:35 pm

    So what the final result of the DOJ’s successful action was to ban sanctuary cities. Congratulations to the left.

    brew:

    Is this just another one of your many uninformed opinions, or is there some rational basis behind the statement. Before answering, please remember that you were wrong, wrong, wrong when you argued 1070 was constitutional.

  17. #17 by Richard Warnick on July 30, 2010 - 2:11 pm

    A big feature of the Arizona anti-immigrant law is that police will be required to hunt for undocumented immigrants. They are already allowed to determine the immigration status of people in custody and to turn them over to ICE. If you understand the difference, you can see why law enforcement officials are against having their limited resources tied up because of the right-wing political agenda.

  18. #18 by brewski on July 30, 2010 - 2:31 pm

    James,
    It is not my argument:
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703940904575395691425206132.html
    Mr. Cook, the former general counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, is a partner at DLA Piper in Washington, D.C.?

  19. #19 by james farmer on July 30, 2010 - 4:04 pm

    brew:

    I do not see Bolton’s opinion banning sanctuary cities. Laws in such cities merely prevent local law enforcement from inquiring into legal status – a job that is the function of the federal authorities. The unconstitutional portions of the AZ law, however, directed local law enforcement to inquire into legal status, thereby intruding into a purely federal function. Sanctuary cities do the opposite, meaning there is no intrusion into the federal role. Mr. Cook appears mistaken in his analysis.

  20. #20 by Uncle Rico on July 30, 2010 - 4:33 pm

    <a href="#comment-So what the final result of the DOJ’s successful action was to ban sanctuary cities. Congratulations to the left.

    Did you even read the decision brew? Did Mr. Cook? A ban on sanctuary cities (to the extent that is a supportable interpretation of SB 1070) did not result from the DOJ’s successful action because the DOJ did not even challenge those provisions of the statute (i.e., A.R.S. section 11-1051(A), A.R.S. section 11-1051 (C)-(F)). From page 2 of Judge Bolton’s opinion: “Other than seeking a preliminary injunction as to “S.B. 1070,” the United States has
    not made any argument to preliminarily enjoin and the Court therefore does not enjoin the
    following provisions of S.B. 1070:…A.R.S. section 11-1051(A)…A.R.S. section 11-1051(C)-(F)”

  21. #21 by Cliff on August 1, 2010 - 11:56 am

    Brewski,

    I’m not sure I understand your question. How did I know he was a Mexican before I stopped? I suppose he could have been from Guatemala…until he told me, proudly I might add that he was from Mexico.

    Are you asking how I knew he was illegal or not? Or are you asking if I am able to discern ethnicity from a moving car?

    Obviously, you are trying to construe me as a racist. I’m not sure you understand the subject.

  22. #22 by brewski on August 1, 2010 - 7:43 pm

    when I spied this sweaty Mexican

    The fact is that you stopped your car and got out and talked to this man based on his appearance and clothes.

    So you made a judgment about him based on simple visual cues. Isn’t this racial profiling? Isn’t this exactly the sort of thing you say is so wrong? For all you knew, he could have been a 10th general American of Sicilian decent. But you engaged in the same racist behavior and came to the same racist conclusions that you would deny of our professionally trained law enforcement officers. Or when you do it, it is just common sense. And when they do it, it is some kind of kristalnacht exercise?

    Then when you spoke to the gentleman, you say he proudly said he was Mexican. So does that mean he does not aspire to be an American? If not, then why is the open-border lobby so hell-bent on providing a “path to citenzenship” to someone who is happy with his current nationality?

    Yes you a racist and yes I understand the subject.

  23. #23 by Joni on August 9, 2010 - 8:09 pm

    I think Brew is spot on in this one. Calling him sweaty was the biggest insult. How did you know it was actually sweat. Or are you assuming he was sweating. And if he didn’t understand you how did you know he didn’t STEAL the shirt. You obviously think he is a sweaty, and illegal sort, maybe you could just assume he is a thief too? Honestly, is is no fun being called a racist on either side of the debate. None of us really are. We are people who are concerned at what overlooking the law of the land is going to cost all of us ultimately in losing the basic liberties of our country for the sake of trying to stop a tidal wave of immigration. We just need some laws that are enforced, some leaders who are truthful, and a lot of citizens who are kind to each other and give each other the benefit of the doubt, so there can be a REAL conversation about the REAL impact of this overwhelming national problem.

  24. #24 by Anonymous on February 13, 2012 - 7:17 am

    the first white man to do dat propes im still go rob yo ass do

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: