The Boston Globe inflames an already tragic situation in Milford in today’s piece reporting the episode. The gratuitous pandering begins in the sub-head: “Illegal immigrant charged in death of Milford Man” ̵ complete with unflattering photo making sure we all understand what this shameful smear is really about.
The immigration status of Nicolas Guaman has nothing whatsoever to do with the awful crime that he apparently committed. NOTHING. He was allegedly drunk. He is accused of “vehicular homicide while under the influence, failure to stop for police, unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle, and reckless conduct creating risk to a child.”
This sort of blatant pandering to already-rampant prejudice against immigrants makes a bad situation worse. As a thought-experiment, consider substituting some other ethnic, religious, or racial associations:
“Uppity negro charged in death of Milford Man”
“Catholic charged in death of Milford Man”
“Jew charged in death of Milford Man”
“Muslim changed in death of Milford Man”
I am appalled by this flagrant appeal to ignorant prejudice. Surely toxic pieces like this only make our many challenges more difficult. Martine Powers, Maria Sachhetti, and their editors should be ashamed of themselves.
This description seems pretty neutral to me.
The immigration debate would not be served by ignoring the fact that this guy is not a citizen.
That’s my point. Even your own phrasing is prejudiced — do you really mean an “immigration debate” (are you claiming that we admit too many immigrants, for example) or did you mean to refer to an “illegal immigration debate”? I think Mr. Guaman is probably Catholic. Following your “logic”, we should be having a “Catholic debate”, shouldn’t we?
If you want to make a claim that illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes like this, then do so.
The drunk driving debate is not served by emphasizing irrelevant “facts”, including his immigration status.
We’re having an ongoing public discussion about the flow of immigrants to this country, and public policy therein. It’s an immigration debate.
Following your logic, we can’t discuss anything. You just want to proselytize. I aint playing if you’re going to call me prejudiced.
I agree that some of you are having an “ongoing public discussion about the flow of immigrants to this country”. At least you admit that it’s the fact that they are immigrants that seems disturb you, rather than any laws they may or may not break.
I’m tired of sitting by and listening to xenophobic nonsense dressed up as “debate”. If you don’t like being called “prejudiced” when you write such flagrantly prejudiced views, then I suggest you either rethink your attitudes or grow a thicker skin.
I have written, on this site, about expanding immigration and making it easier for new immigrants to become citizens (and Democratic voters).
I am neither xenophobic nor prejudiced. You are making things up, or are delusional, or both. I never said I am concerned about the number of immigrants, but it is a topic in our politics. If you think mentioning that means that I endorse Tom Tancredo, then I have no words.
This piece falsely conflates a terrible crime, apparently perpetrated by an individual, with the ongoing debate about illegal immigration. Pretending that pieces like this don’t contribute to the already intense xenophobia is like pretending that “reality” police shows, with their relentless flood of videos showing police capturing and cuffing scary perpetrators who are nearly all black, don’t contribute to racism.
The Globe piece contributes nothing to a discussion about “expanding immigration” and “making it easier for new immigrants to become citizens”. Instead, it gratuitously reinforces false and irrelevant stereotypes.
I think that when you defend pieces like this, you strengthen support for xenophobes like Tom Tancredo — whether or not that is your intent.
how much fire power to place on the Mexican border to protect us from the attack on our borders from dangerous illegal aliens.
Playing to peoples emotions to create an inappropriate fear is effective to override the rational facts that our economy is dependent on these immigrants.
been about legislating contemporary prejudice. In Lincoln’s day it was the Catholics.
Lincoln 1855
But even at that, I stand by what I said earlier. Hiding the fact that this guy is here illegally doesn’t help anyone. I thought the reporter did the job.
meaning its not adding to the debate, its creating a deceptive debate.
Jew Watch This Scholarly Library of Facts about Domestic & Worldwide Zionist Criminality does the same thing. Is it adding to the debate?
It may be irrelevant, but I can imagine a circumstance where the guy would want it known — maybe certain lawyers specialize in immigrant defendants. More information is usually better, and the information was respectfully presented.
I’m not going to address the other bit, other than saying I think it’s unfair to the Globe.
Or are you saying that if he’d been deported after his other arrest, some other person would have been drunk driving the truck that killed the motorcyclist, or he’d have died in some other crash?
If you want to argue that illegal aliens who commit serious crimes should be deported, I agree — and so does Barack Obama. Nevertheless, that policy and its ramifications have little or nothing to do with this story.
As I mentioned up-thread, there is a well-known and well-documented problem with people who lose their licenses for driving drunk and simply continue driving without a license. It happens all too often, and it doesn’t get headlines and photos in the Globe.
Would this story have been newsworthy if the suspect had been in possession of a valid green-card? Would we be blathering about the “immigration problem” if the suspect had been an attractive green-eyed red-headed Irish woman?
I’ll say again: if someone wants to make a claim that illegal aliens are over-represented in the population of serious traffic offenders, I invite them to make their case. I think we all know that isn’t what this “issue” is about.
This story is simply pandering to an anti-immigrant stereotype. No more and no less.
If even you agree that illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes should be deported, then you’ve answered the question as to why it’s relevant. This suspect has a record, which I believe the implied point is should have made him deportable before. Remember, part of the fourth estate’s job, at least in theory, is to point out shortcomings as to how the government works. I see this story as being at least as much about a government mistake as it is about the facts of the case.
is at lax government enforcement of immigration violations.
Here, from the Globe piece, is the “record” of the suspect (emphasis mine):
Please note that his criminal charges were continued without a finding. He has not been convicted of ANY serious changes.
Are you saying that we should deport illegal immigrants who are accused of serious crimes? Minor traffic violations?
This is a tragedy. The immigration of status of the offender appeals to our prejudices, and nothing more.
I think you’ve got a derangement syndrome of some kind, where you think that all immigration should be allowed, and there should be no immigration laws.
barred without cause. This country was founded on the principle that “all men are created equal.” That’s a principle that should be applied here.
There is such a thing as citizenship, and citizens being the subjects of a country, and a country protecting its territory and its subjects and keeping non-subjects out. Letting people through the gates is something countries do at their pleasure, and letting them stay or become citizens is also at their pleasure. Countries have no obligation to let people in, and indeed the expectation should be that no one is allowed to cross the border without permission, and they can’t stay very long. Some on this blog seem to be confused about that, they think people can live in whatever country they feel like, and countries should let everyone in and be citizens.
All men are created equal, as citizens of their (parent’s) country. People are not all created citizens of the USA.
No one said that illegal immigrants are more likely to be traffic offenders, and yet that is apparently the strawman you are arguing against, even as you “invite them to make their case.” If no one made that case, why are you arguing against it?
And ALL people who are not supposed to be in the country should be deported! The only relationship to arrests is that is when they are detected and in the grip of law enforcement, so that presents an opportunity to send them back home. It’s not that they violated some implied grace or amnesty where they are allowed to stay as long as they don’t commit crimes, they are committing a crime just by overstaying their visa or not having a visa.
If there is no association between immigration status and the likelihood of committing crimes like this, then deporting illegals will not affect the likelihood of tragedies like this.
Since you’re not making the claim that illegal immigrants are more likely to be traffic offenders, then what, besides xenophobia, IS the basis for your proposed discrimination?
We agree that you want to deport every illegal immigrant. I suggest that the rationale for that desire is xenophobic prejudice.
If that guy had been deported, that guy would still be alive. That is a pretty big effect, isn’t it? That guy wasn’t killed by a likelihood, he was killed by an actual person.
My desire to deport all illegal immigrants is partly to follow the immigration quotas which are carefully set and to show that the law needs to be followed, it isn’t just a formality, and it isn’t just so that you can commit crimes without worrying about being deported. Also I do think immigration should be hard to do, whether it is me immigrating to Canada or Hondurus or them immigrating here. I’m a local first kind of guy and I like local cultures to be real and distinct, not homogenized into a same-everywhere soup. And deporting all people who are not supposed to be in the country would put a real cramp in the underground exploitation economy and make ordinary Americans do our own dirty work that we currently think is supposed to be done by foreigners who have no choice (and then we think they owe us a debt of gratitude for letting them do it for us). I think we should give up some of our easy life and luxury which is built on the backs of exploitation of workers. And by sending them back home, their hard work efforts will go toward vitalizing their home country, their votes will count and their efforts will count, instead of abandoning their home to take advantage of our willingness to exploit them instead of doing our own work.
You obviously listen to too much Fox.
its a safety issue?
Then let’s document the immigrants and deport the drunk drivers.
n/t
…is it’s not his first offence and people are wondering why he was allowed to stay with a record. The Globe headline seems a bit sensational, but I heard the story on WCVB last night which reported it more like how jimc indicated above. Often we ask why a repeat offender’s license hasn’t been revoked, but in this case it apparently was, but he was driving anyway.
The only reason his immigration status might be newsworthy is if it is relevant to his offense.
We can use your example of driving on a revoked license. If you make a claim that illegal immigrants are more likely to drive on a revoked license then the rest those who do the same, then you should support that claim. We know that drunk drivers are, in fact, more likely to drive on revoked licenses. We know that Mr. Guaman is accused of driving while drunk, and that seems to be the newsworthy item.
I agree that we need to do a better job of keeping habitual drunk drivers off the road. I don’t think the immigration status of the accused individual has anything to do with solving that.
…relative to how often a drunk driver happens to also be here illegally. What I’m saying is this particular drunk driver has a previous record AND is here illegally. Both factors are equally relevant here because deportation is a valid consideration for a criminal offense by someone who technically shouldn’t be here. In my mind his immigration status would be a lot less relevant IF it were his first offense.
This particular drunk driver has NO convictions. He was accused, and the case was continued without a finding.
Yes, until this moment I was blissfully unaware of the important link between drunk driving and the immigration debate which is…..?
the arrest should be matched with immigration records and people who are not supposed to be in the country should be sent home. I guess we’ll have to put this guy in jail for a few years here first, then send him home. Is there a way we can have his own country put him in jail for this? Or is deporting him a good enough way to get him off the streets?
Being in the country illegally is not an “ethnic, religious, or racial assocaition,” is it? The focus of the article, to the extent it concerned immigration law, seemed to be on the fact that the defendant was in the country illegally, not that he was from Ecuador in particular.
between racism and the debate on illegal immigration, wink, wink.
I for one am discussing the merits and factors of THIS CASE and would make the exact same remarks about a repeat DUI offender from Canada who wasn’t here legally.
Our economy would collapse without them.
They produce more then they consume.
They are net job creators.
They work harder, for less, on jobs Americans turn down, they add new ideas and additional fabric to our culture.
So why isn’t the debate, “How do we get them all documented and encourage more to come?”
My own position is that any person not determined to be a threat to public health or safety should be allowed to come and that we should fast track the documentation process for people already here with no record. I also think that border security should focus on keeping out drugs and firearms rather than people. However, I also think that non-citizens are here by privelege rather than by right, so if one commits a crime deportation is an option unless to do so would put them in danger or would otherwise result in a human rights violation. I am commenting only about THIS CASE.
about you Christopher.
But I do believe that when a minority group is being trampled on it is the duty of freedom loving people to speak up for them and not pile on.
Maybe the defendant has a habit of spitting on sidewalks (also illegal). Would it be relevant to discuss his spitting habit?
I agree that the focus of the article was on his immigration status. That’s the problem: the focus is prejudiced on the face of it.
…which I’m pretty sure is a much lower class of crime and certainly not a danger to anyone the way drunk driving is. If people of a certain complexion were being targeted for by-the-book enforcement of laws against spitting for the purpose of checking immigration status I’d cry foul too, but that’s not what this is, so let’s not try to create equivalency where none exists.
I’ve seen no reports of prior arrests for drunk driving.
He was accused, but not convicted, of a serious crime. Surely you do not suggest that the mere accusation of a serious crime merits deportation.
I first heard the story on WCVB last night where I thought I heard that his driver’s license had been revoked. Maybe it was a bad assumption on my part that the revocation, if I heard that part correctly, was for previous DUIs. However, this article refers to a long and violent criminal record. Another article for the same site indicates that even his wife thinks he should be deported. Maybe the subheadline on the Globe article about his status wasn’t absolutely necessary, but within the article I think it was addressed at the appropriate level.
The piece you cited alleges a “long and violent” record — and offers not a single conviction. I don’t care what his wife thinks.
I stand by my characterization of this piece.
The police refered to a long and violent criminal record, so unless you have reason to think they are lying…
At very least, I provided the link to back up what I said, so I think I’ve fulfilled my responsibility here.
The article you posted offers no specifics. Most of the sources I found cite the same record that I posted earlier.
In response to your subject line, you can get a “record” for all kinds of things.
The point remains that the discussion of Mr. Guaman’s immigration status is irrelevant to his alleged crime. Unless you argue that even an accusation of a crime should merit deportation, or (as some here have said) that every illegal immigrant should be deported, then no valid purpose is served by pieces like this or the inevitable “debate” that follows.
you miss understand. It’s relevancy, not equivalency. There is not cause/effect between DUI and immigration status. Putting it in the subject line of the story creates a link that does not exist.
If the subheadline said “Milford man charged…” rather than “Illegal immigrant charged…” that wouldn’t suggest a link between Milford men and DUIs any more than illegal immigrants and DUIs, would it. Like it or not this is a topic of public discourse and sometimes a concrete story for better or worse frames the issue in people’s minds.
That would be similar to saying, “ordinary, everyday man charged…” or “man charged.”
As Tom pointed out, it the at risk minority groups who have a history of unfair vilification and/or victimization where un-neccesary linking of negative stereotypes is a problem.
Did the Globe include the religion of cheat Bernie Madoff, the religion of Kashif Parvaiz who murdered his wife or race of Kobe Bryant arrested for rape of a white woman, the sexual preference of….
These are groups that have fought and overcome prejudice. Immigrants are still struggling.
…because of the why was he still here question (see another comment for reference to a record) I really do think this time that his status is a bit more relevant than the examples you use.
I think you’re jumping to a conclusion that you’ve offered no facts to support. Yes, a newspaper report says he’s a bad guy. Is that the standard you now propose we apply? Shall we deport people because their spouse wants them deported?
As far as I can tell, he was still here because he hasn’t been convicted of any crimes.
All of this misses the point that the family of the victim is devastated, and they themselves have said that his immigration status doesn’t matter to them. Their child is dead — victim of vehicular homicide — and I think our focus should on prosecuting and convicting the perpetrator.
Your arguments are getting sillier in defense of someone who pretty clearly isn’t a saint to say the least. I am presenting my understanding of the facts. I’m not a prosecuter and in fact I’m generally more likely to play defense (for which you have also criticized me on other cases, BTW). All I’m saying is that his status is not as irrelevant as you make it sound to this situation.
cause more vehicular homicides on average than the population in general, it would seem the fact that this person is an illegal immigrant shouldn’t be a major factor in the story. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be mentioned, but I don’t think it should be played up in the headline. Of course, that’s probably just dreaming.
But I think somervilletom raises a good point. Many people will draw a false implication from this story that we need to crack down more on illegal immigration because they’re now committing vicious hit-and-run crimes.
How many breaking headlines include facts such as the victim’s race? E.g., “white teens kill black man.” Certainly, some of these stories turn out to be racially-motivated crime, but at the breaking news stage, that is often not clear. Yet the race of the suspected perp and victim are included. Under the arguments raised above, such a headline would indicate inherent racism.
As far as the comments saying we need to focus less on the driver’s immigration status and more on the prosecution of the case, I don’t see how a reporter’s headline takes away from the state’s resources or redirects the state’s actions.