For part of the day on Wednesday, July 25, The Aspen Times ran a very disturbing story on its online version: Violent crimes mar Glenwood’s weekend.
http://www.aspentimes.com/article/20070725/NEWS/70725005&SearchID=73288664160583
But in a stunning example of editorial irresponsibility, that story did not make the print version of the Times. The story reported on three instances of scary violence and intimidation: a mini riot, a stabbing, and a death threat (felony menacing). The Times reported that Glenwood Police Chief Terry Wilson said, “that ((the riot) was one of the most frightening situations he’s ever seen an officer go through in the time he’s been with the police department.”
Equally disturbing to the Times’ omission is the glaring complacency shown by the citizens of the Roaring Fork Valley, where the growing kinds and levels of violence is seeming of less concern to a somnambulant public than where to have lunch. Keep in mind these telling instances of violence were perped within the shadow of a recent murder, a stabbing and the shooting up (attempted murder) of the Basalt 7-Eleven.
At the time of this writing, no additional details were available on the arrested suspects in the riot. In the case of the stabbings, a spokesman for the Glenwood Police Department would not release the descriptions of the stabbers, saying the matter was “still being investigated.” In the felony menacing case, one of the two arrested was put on an immigration hold, and no information was available on the second suspect.
Of course, the Aspen Times might be expected to underexpose this recent serious of crimes. After all, in one of the most adjectival understatements in the history of publishing, the Times editorialize that spraying the customer-occupied 7-Eleven store with bullets was—gulp—“foolish.”
Chief Wilson was quoted in the Times story as saying, “The scary thing is how many of these things are truly incidents involving violent actions,” And he added, “We just have to recognize that this isn’t Mayberry anymore.”
Chief Wilson may just be getting his karmic comeuppance. As some of you may remember, in March of 2005 the chief handed over to representatives of the Mexican Consulate, without charge, the facilities of the Glenwood Community Center http://www.cairco.org/articles/art2005mar13.html so the Mexican government’s Fifth Columnists could issue their matricula consular card, http://www.cairco.org/matricula/matricula_toolkit.html , a bogus ID card outlawed by the state of Colorado as legitimate ID and used by illegal aliens to burrow their way in to quazi-legitimacy.
But while the Roaring Fork Valley sleepwalks, Grand Junction marches. In yet another instance of brazen violence, Late-night snack soured by racially motivated violence, http://www.gjsentinel.com/news/content/news/stories/2007/07/25/7_25_07_ethnic_intimidation.html the citizens of Grand Junction are demonstrating that they will have none of it: Group gathers to protest gangs in GJ http://www.gjsentinel.com/search/content/news/stories/2007/07/27/7_27_Los_Jilbertos_protest.html
Nationally recognized gang experts estimate there are 850,000 gang bangers insinuating themselves into cities and towns across America . Those gangs include the illegal alien-heavy MS-13, Surenos Trece, the 18th Street Gang, the Russian Mafia, etc., ad nauseam.
But never mind all this; where should we meet for lunch tomorrow?
Mr. McGarry,
I’m not sure what you mean about the “glaring complacency shown by the citizens of the Roaring Fork Valley.” You seem to be citing examples of complacency in local law enforcement. Perhaps you can elaborate. In my opinion, very few, if any, people deny there is a current problem with illegal immigration and criminal activity related thereto.
If I understand your position correctly, you advocate securing the U.S. borders and building a fence to accomplish that mission. To support your argument, you claim that micro-level examples of securing territory “work” (i.e. San Diego, Georgia); therefore, you conclude that a comprehensive security effort will be effective. I’m not sure that one proves the other. It stands to reason that implementing a crackdown in specific areas will lead the perpetrators to find an easier location to continue their behavior. It is an entirely different matter to claim that the entire U.S. border can be effectively controlled IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER against highly-motivated intruders.
You may be aware that I have commented on the site about incentive-based solutions to the immigration problem. I would be interested in hearing your views with respect to the underlying reasons for the problem. In other words, why are illegals so motivated to come here? How can we disincentivize that behavior?
You have proposed one solution that relies on monitoring, controlling, and physically preventing the movement of individuals–a solution that to me seems very resource-intensive. I would suggest that illegal entrants to our country are motivated to come here for strictly economic reasons. Why not level the economic playing field? If someone wants to immigrate legally to this country, become a U.S. citizen, and compete on a level playing field for jobs, what is the problem with that? In that circumstance, you have the type of people you want–tax-paying, law-abiding CITIZENS, and as the work force stabilizes, there is no viable economic incentive for an illegal to migrate temporarily to the U.S. Employers don’t need them and won’t hire them.
Similarly, the only reason drug cartels comprised of illegal aliens exist is a result of the criminalization of personal drug use. It is, in short, a manufactured industry by virtue of our law-enforcement structure. In that respect, I agree with your use of the term “organized crime”. There is really no difference between the drug cartels of today and the Al Capone of the Prohibition era. Although I understand the political difficulties associated with decriminalization of personal drug use, the broader point is that we should be focusing more of our efforts on determining the reasons illegals are motivated to take the actions they do and eliminate the economic frameworks that perpetuate those actions.
I do recognize that some aspects of the problem are more difficult than others–i.e., we can’t decriminalize sex slavery; nevertheless, it is clear that the primary problem is one of sheer numbers of people that desire to come to our country for basic economic reasons. We need to address that problem first. Right now, these people are not paying their share of social costs and do not demonstrate any commitment to become productive members of our society. Do you support increases in legal immigration as a means of enhancing our labor pool and displacing the demand for illegal workers? If not, why not? I’m interested in your thoughts.
Thank you.
Mr. McGarry,
I’m not sure what you mean about the “glaring complacency shown by the citizens of the Roaring Fork Valley.” You seem to be citing examples of complacency in local law enforcement. Perhaps you can elaborate. In my opinion, very few, if any, people deny there is a current problem with illegal immigration and criminal activity related thereto.
If I understand your position correctly, you advocate securing the U.S. borders and building a fence to accomplish that mission. To support your argument, you claim that micro-level examples of securing territory “work” (i.e. San Diego, Georgia); therefore, you conclude that a comprehensive security effort will be effective. I’m not sure that one proves the other. It stands to reason that implementing a crackdown in specific areas will lead the perpetrators to find an easier location to continue their behavior. It is an entirely different matter to claim that the entire U.S. border can be effectively controlled IN A COST-EFFECTIVE MANNER against highly-motivated intruders.
You may be aware that I have commented on the site about incentive-based solutions to the immigration problem. I would be interested in hearing your views with respect to the underlying reasons for the problem. In other words, why are illegals so motivated to come here? How can we disincentivize that behavior?
You have proposed one solution that relies on monitoring, controlling, and physically preventing the movement of individuals–a solution that to me seems very resource-intensive. I would suggest that illegal entrants to our country are motivated to come here for strictly economic reasons. Why not level the economic playing field? If someone wants to immigrate legally to this country, become a U.S. citizen, and compete on a level playing field for jobs, what is the problem with that? In that circumstance, you have the type of people you want–tax-paying, law-abiding CITIZENS, and as the work force stabilizes, there is no viable economic incentive for an illegal to migrate temporarily to the U.S. Employers don’t need them and won’t hire them.
Similarly, the only reason drug cartels comprised of illegal aliens exist is a result of the criminalization of personal drug use. It is, in short, a manufactured industry by virtue of our law-enforcement structure. In that respect, I agree with your use of the term “organized crime”. There is really no difference between the drug cartels of today and the Al Capone of the Prohibition era. Although I understand the political difficulties associated with decriminalization of personal drug use, the broader point is that we should be focusing more of our efforts on determining the reasons illegals are motivated to take the actions they do and eliminate the economic frameworks that perpetuate those actions.
I do recognize that some aspects of the problem are more difficult than others–i.e., we can’t decriminalize sex slavery; nevertheless, it is clear that the primary problem is one of sheer numbers of people that desire to come to our country for basic economic reasons. We need to address that problem first. Right now, these people are not paying their share of social costs and do not demonstrate any commitment to become productive members of our society. Do you support increases in legal immigration as a means of enhancing our labor pool and displacing the demand for illegal workers? If not, why not? I’m interested in your thoughts.
Thank you.