Too bad they don't have grammar check for Gustavo. How very mature to include all the references to Glenn Spencer's physical appearance. Gustavo reminds me of a schoolyard bully with nothing more substanitive to say than to hurl personal insults at his target because he lacks rational arguments. Sad.

Where are my grammatical mistakes, McGuffey? Trying to switch between the past-present tense is a bit tough when Spencer insists on being interviewed by his own website, a decision more baffling than his choice of associates. And poke holes in my argument, por favor. As for the bully remark, you must not know your American Patrol, the Nelson to everyone else's Bart.

"none more louder" is the most glaring error. Does your perception that anti illegal immigrant groups are bullies justify your own bad behavior? Perhaps both sides have allowed the discussion to become childlike. If you think Spencer is such an evil person maybe you should be the better person and keep the argument at a more mature level.

Gustavo, you said: Uranga is one the most measured reporter I know who covers immigration,

Make that "one OF the most measured reporterS I know..."

Played hooky from ESL classes, did you?

Oddly enough, Uranga seems to have omitted from her report the fact that the SPLC has an indirect link to the MexicanGovernment, as does the organization formerly led by one of her quote sources. And, not all of the groups may be opposed to the "immigrants" themselves, so her terminology needs work.

GA also left off the link to an interview with her:

chipsquinn.org/voices/oneonone/oneonone.aspx?id=629

It's clear she's much more of an ethnic advocate than a reporter.

Gotta agree with jerry on this one. And throwing in a gratuitous "in a Nixonian tone" just to portray your contempt for the substance of the comment, adds to your rather unreporterly bias here, Gustavo. You do, as jerry says, depict your nemesis Spencer as an oafish hick in appearance, then seem to object to his posting Uranga's photo (sans comments about her appearance, apparently) on his website.

Why is Uranga calling Spencer "anti illegal -immigant" instead of "anti-immigrant" your idea of "PC spinning?" Because you attribute every criticism of illegals to be racism, it makes YOU the "spinner" revealing your pro-illegal bias.

Then, your gratuitously accusing Spencer of mentally calling you a "reconquista" for using some Spanish words against him, is just plain childish. (Reconquistas are those like Arellano and her supporters, and Calderon in his outraged speech this week, opposing the U. S.'s right to actually begin enforcing INS laws: "Wherever there is a Mexican, there is a Mexico!" Whatever, Felipe. When in political trouble, pander to your left by sending us 400,000 of your poorest annually and then bashing America for having the nerve to send these lawbreakers home instead of giving them sainthood.)

Those of you who support the Arellanos who are here illegally after being deported several times, stealing SS #'s, and then demanding to be made fully equal "citizens" and -- in L. A. and S. F.-- are allowed to drive without a license or insurance, stay here even after committing crimes under SP40's refusal to enforce U S immigration laws -- are among the numerous reasons that the Spencers are attracting more of a mainstream following. Chill, step back and look at the facts.

Spencer is someone who had only fringe support until recently, but the insistence of people like you that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a racist, "Nixonian," finds reconquistas behind every use of Spanish, and is overall a red-neck paranoid worthy only of contempt, pushes people like him more toward the middle.

By the way, the Daily News is an interesting paper because although it's overall conservative, it has some left-leaning reporters when it comes to this illegal issue, like Mariel Garza. Generally the paper makes points the MSM has been afraid to because of "defenses" like yours. Le's have a more honest debate on the issues.

ex-Angeleno: Sí: my education was English immersion, sucker!

Lone Wacko: one updated post coming up!

Maggie: I never claimed to be unbiased on this issue like Spencer--hence, the disclaimer at the bottom of my initial post. Beyond bias, however, I've yet to see any challenges to my reporting. I've been following Spencer for years, and the guy isn't merely anti-illegal immigrant, he's a classic xenophobe. We can have an honest debate about the costs of illegal immigration, but when folks like Spencer inject culture into the argument, their true colors show and become no better than the Dillingham Commission. And, if you don't believe me, just click through Spencer's website

Is there really nothing else going on in Orange County?

I would have no difficulty poking holes in your argument. Unfortunately, my arguments would seem perfectly rational to me, but I'm certain you would consider them to be racist and xenophobic. I believe it is imperative that our immigration laws be enforced and I think anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong, and I think many of the problems our country is now facing are a direct result of uncontrolled (illegal) immigration. California's schools are among the country's worst, our healthcare system is bankrupt, our streets and highways are gridlocked, our Social Security system is nearing bankruptcy, the recent heat wave shows we don't have the electrical infrastructure to support the present population, and on and on. Everything we hear tells us we don't have the resources to supply our current population with fuel, water, electricity, and emergency services, yet pro illegal immigration groups and the politicians who support them seem to think we can open the borders and take all comers and everything will be fine. I disagree. There is also the issue of the 12 - 20 million illegal aliens from many countries that are already living in the USA. I believe this has to be resolved and I don't believe Bush's "comprehensive immigration reform" is in any way the answer and I don't believe that any form of amnesty is the answer. The employment and social welfare laws must be enforced and employers should pay a heavy price for hiring those in the country illegally. If the jobs aren't here and welfare is unavailable many illegal aliens will return to their countries and hopefully be as vocal and forceful with their lawmakers as they are with ours. Nobody other than incarcerated criminals are being held prisoner in the United States and are free to return to their own countries and can certainly take their families if they wish. In the case of Mexico I think it is a scandal that the government refuses to provide for their citizens. Mexico has everything it needs to be a prosperous country - everything except an honest government motivated to create a system that cares for its citizens rather than sending them out of the country to earn the money they can't earn in Mexico. Does the United States need foreign workers? Yes. Years ago the Bracero program was ended because of corruption by American farmers. We now have H2-A visas for seasonal agricultural workers. The Bracero program could have been successful with proper oversight and if there are problems with the H2-A visas there also needs to be proper oversight. There is no reason Mexican workers need to bring their families to this country in order to work and everybody should enter this country legally. Hundreds of thousands of people enter this country legally every year. Why should there be a different set of rules for Mexican citizens?

I don't find anything racist about your argument--perhaps a bit xenophobic in insisting the problems you cited are a "direct result" of illegal immigrants (last I checked, congestion has been a problem in Southern California since the Jetsons). We can argue about illegal immigrants and its costs until the vacas come home--for the purposes of this post, stick to Spencer and my post, por favor, and send all other stuff to ¡Ask a Mexican!

Gustavo,

I agree with you, but running the spellcheck function never hurts a polemic. To that end, note the "Strangley" at the end, missing an "e," and the Spanish you cite as an example of the Reconquista is wrong (even Spanglish has to obey linguistic rules). It should be "the bigots que son ustedes." Also, there's a typo on the update, "erros" instead of "errors." There's no need to post my comment; just please fix the errors. Thanks.

That's what happens when I type directly into the blog instead of Word! Alas, the "erros" is an attempt at humore.

I love Arellano's sassy invectives, but from the pictures I've seen, he shouldn't be throwing stones at anybody's appearance.

xochi: If good looks was the requirement for journalists to go after assholes, this country would've been called Morgan-Carnegie-Rockefellerlandia a century ago.

I think he's cute.