Mon 8 Oct 2007
ASU immigration conference wasn’t fair and balanced – only 1 conservative viewpoint represented out of 20+ speakers
Posted by Candie Dates under Border , Government , Illegal Aliens , Illegal Employment , Illegal Immigration , Media , Political Correctness[18] Comments
An interesting email from someone regarding ASU’s immigration conference last month -
Horizonte host Jose Cardenas interviewed Catherine Eden from ASU’s School of Public Affairs on the immigration conference ASU put on last month for local officials. Cardenas admired the conference for having a diverse group of viewpoints, nothing that Ira Mehlman from the Federation for Immigration Reform was one of the speakers. Eden agreed with him. What they both failed to point out was that Mehlman was the only speaker of over 20+ speakers at the entire 3-day conference representing the conservative perspective on illegal immigration. Embarrassing. Considering the American population is pretty evenly divided between the conservative and liberal perspectives on illegal immigration, and considering our local officials are fairly split on the best way to enforce illegal immigration laws (don’t think Sheriff Arpaio was invited), the conference wasn’t fair and balanced, but hostilely one-sided. The panel that featured Mehlman wasn’t much of a debate, more like four people ganging up on Mehlman. One of the panelists was Linda Chavez, the columnist whose nomination as Labor Secretary under Bush was withdrawn when it was discovered she had employed an illegal immigrant as her housekeeper. Ever since getting caught, Chavez has made the illegal immigrant issue her big cause, bucking the Republican Party on that one issue. Another disappointment was Rep. John Shadegg’s Chief of Staff, Sean Noble. Noble sounded even more pro-amnesty than most of the rest of the speakers, saying we should embrace the word amnesty and say we’re pro-amnesty. He said that Shadegg is not a border enforcement guy, and that those who care about border enforcement aren’t going to like Shadegg anymore once they find out where he really stands. That was a bit of a surprise, since Shadegg wants to run for U.S. Senate. He should at least pull a Kyl and talk tough until he’s safely elected.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
Good grief! Who sent you this email, Ted? I sounded more pro-amnesty than other speakers?!? I did make the point that those who promoted previous amnesties (Ronald Reagan) campaigned on amnesty and embraced amnesty. I even pointed out that Ed Meese said that those who champion legalizing those here illegally should call it what it is: amnesty. My point was that those who want to legalize illegal aliens and then try to avoid the word amnesty are kidding themselves because under most definitions, amnesty means doing something more lenient than current law (and current law says deportation and no re-entry for 3 or 10 years depending on the circumstances). Obviously, the person who emailed you doesn’t understand irony. I was the lone conservative on the panel pointing out that Democrat Leadership in the House does not want to solve the problem because they want a campaign issue in 2008.
And how anyone can write that I said Shadegg is not a border enforcement guy is beyond me. He helped kill the Senate bill, for crying out loud. He is an enforcement guy, who happens to believe that enforcement is easier with a secure guest worker program in place.
October 8th, 2007 at 8:49 pm
I am speechless by the “intel” Ted is blogging about. I was in attendance and there is no way those statements were made. I am finding the blogs are turning into a joke and a place for pot stirring. Sad part is I fear the ememy is within. By the way Sean Noble has been a consistant voice for reason and would never characterize his Congressman’s views in such a manner..
Tell the person who wrote you such an e-mail; to try a new source for the crack they were smoking when they sent you that e-mail
October 8th, 2007 at 10:21 pm
No doubt, I’ve heard Sean speak dozens of times about the issue and whoever gave you this information must have their facts skewed. The Congressman, like Sean said, helped kill the bill. Doesn’t anybody remember the op-ed in the Republic where he gave his reasons for being against the bill?
October 9th, 2007 at 12:04 am
Glad to have you with us Sean! I think you’re getting a raw deal on this one too.
That said, when is Rep. Shadegg going to get on the team with the State GOP and stop withholding his support? He might not need the State Party right now, but he will someday, and he’s not setting a very good example of how to play like a team! Sorry the chairman’s election didn’t go your way, but time to stop thumb-sucking and time to start doing your share!
October 9th, 2007 at 7:33 am
John- The chairman’s election went the way you wanted it to go and now you get what you got…
October 9th, 2007 at 9:42 am
I never quit on the party when I lost a chairman’s election and I never worked against the party because of it either. Shame on those who do!
October 9th, 2007 at 10:37 am
Why won’t you take down or correct the blatantly wrong original post?
October 9th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Sean,
Thanks for commenting. Can you explain to our readers why Congressman Shadegg is endorsing a RINO like Maria Baier? Thanks in advance for your response.
October 9th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Boy, that Sean Noble sure responds quickly. When he wants to. For now I imagine he’s too busy “doing the people’s work” to get back to us on our other questions. No matter, we’ll be patient and wait.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:17 pm
You guys are too much. First you brought up the state party situation and now the city council race? I thought that the original post was on immigration. I guess I must have mis-read.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:01 am
Is there no honor or desire for credibility left at this site? When I first read this malicious and unfounded post I was amazed that an unsubstantiated characterization would be posted as fact when it is in reality nothing more than harmful gossip. An email! No fact check, no attempt to get another eyewitness account, just shoot from the hip because you have a venue and with venom. Snopes.com does better than that.
There are enough posts on this site alone about the inconsistencies of the MSM to fill pages and pages if in print. Pejorative names are given to The Arizona Republic, The Tribune, and others are based on their biased and purposely slanted writing. Wrong is wrong, it doesn’t matter what side of the truth you think you are on.
As for the continued cries of foul because not everyone wants to play with those who do not play well with others; get used to it, this post is the illustration of why. You have played your hand and we have all seen it. The follow-up responses of folks who would use any means necessary to prop up a failing and faulty organization are nothing more than an attempt to distract the attention from the original idea in order to hide the blatant effort to discredit a fine and truthful public servant. Try as you might to twist every angle and reference to the past and lay blame where there is none, distort reality in the form of character assassinations and down right lies it will not be successful…the truth is, it is you who is hurt most as such actions prove we were right all along.
October 10th, 2007 at 7:05 am
AMEN SISTA- YOU Go GIRL !
October 10th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
When I first read this post, I was actually interested in talking about immigration. After the defeat of the Senate bill last spring, there were rumors that a second attempt at some Congressional action was going to be made before the O8 elections. Congressman Shadegg and Sean Noble have a deep appreciation for the complexity of this issue and some constructive dialog is needed. I’m ready to hear more than the stalemate positions of “They’re good people doing jobs American’s won’t do” vs. “What part of illegal don’t you understand.”
Congressional action on this issue is Plan A and there is no Plan B aside from piecemeal attempts by states in limited areas. We’re seeing the major effort of our state –Employer Sanctions–play out with lawsuits and delays to implementation. Why would concerned Republicans fail to see that they are picking a fight with the wrong person when they attack someone like Sean Noble who’s in a position to affect Congressional reform? We’re way overdue for some forward momentum on this issue.
October 10th, 2007 at 8:58 pm
I find it interesting how some of the commenters on this thread are so quick to defend Sean Noble, even though they were not at the conference and Noble has failed to respond to the question about endorsing Maria Baier. Has Noble provided a transcript demonstrating that he did *not* say those things? I’ve heard him and Shadegg speak before, and frankly, their speeches sound like they’re trying to have it both ways – pretend to sound tough on border security while appeasing those on the left. So I called up ASU and asked if they’ll be releasing the transcript from this conference, and they told me they plan to run it on PBS KAET channel 8. When they do, we can post the transcript on Sonoran Alliance and determine who is telling the truth on this, Noble or the person who watched him speak at the conference. Who do you trust, the politician or someone who sat through his conference and emailed their surprised reaction to a reputable blog? Until you rush to judgment on this one, Ann et al, why don’t you wait for the facts. I don’t see you trying to get the transcript for us. If Sonoran Alliance is posting something that is false, give them the courtesy of proving it’s false before automatically believing someone who actually *has* a reputation of trying to talk out of both sides of their mouth on illegal immigration. I wasn’t there, but that sounds like something Noble would have said. I eagerly look forward to obtaining the transcript and sending it to Sonoran Alliance to post. If Noble really did not say those things, then I’m sure the folks who run Sonoran Alliance will make a correction or delete it. My money is on Sonoran Alliance, not Noble. Somehow I feel the comments attacking the post are more ideologically driven than anything else. Just because you disagree with someone’s position on something, doesn’t make it right to attack them as lying. That is the most pathetic excuse in the book. Come on, you people who are soft on illegal immigration, provide real substantive arguments, don’t attack the character of other Republicans just because they disagree with you on illegal immigration.
October 11th, 2007 at 12:28 am
I’d like for you to tell me I’m soft on illegal immigration to my face buddy. I’ll leave it at that.
October 11th, 2007 at 1:14 am
OK, so I lied about leaving it at that. While I can’t speak for others who’ve posted on this site, the thought that because anybody defended the Congressman’s aide means that they are soft on immigration is entirely laughable. I’ll point it out again, the op-ed piece that the Congressman had in the Republic a few months back was a big reason that it died. Doesn’t anybody remember seeing him in just about every picture with the immigration hawks in the House?
Time and the video/transcript may prove that you are right (I won’t believe it until I see it however because it seems way out of character). If that is the case, I’ll be the first to give you a cyber pat on the back and say hey, I was wrong, but until then I’ll stick with the Congressman and Sean on this.
October 11th, 2007 at 8:25 am
TEEJ, hey bud, that is what they do. When you point out flaws or represent an opposing perspective they call you names and distort the truth in order to discount any credibility you might have. This particular case is obviously another weak and transparent attempt at maintaining, what they believe, is the moral high road and control of all thought conservative. Never mind that the writer did not produce a transcript or vet the email for support from others who were there, that he chose to ignore the past practices of Congressman Shadegg in regards to immigration, and by all means do not allow an opportunity to go by to cast aspersions on the members of our Congressional Delegation. This post had nothing to do with Sean Noble and his actual remarks; it is political hay aimed at payback.
When a transcript is presented, let the chips fall where they may. Until then, any legitimate expectation of truth is nothing more than personal conjecture. My money is on Sean.
October 11th, 2007 at 4:58 pm
[...] In response to a few comments made in another posting, Sean Noble of Congressman Shadegg’s office has asked us to post the following: Yes, Congressman Shadegg endorses Maria Baier for City Council District 3. She has been a strong supporter of his dating back to his 1994 primary against a tax-raising establishment candidate (Jim Bruner). They worked together in Bob Corbin’s AG’s office in the 80’s. Altmann may have flip flopped on the tax increases (ending up with the right position) but his support for bioscience spending and the downtown campus is troubling. You and I both agree that the city already has more money than it needs, but if it’s going to get more, I’d rather it go to Police funding than handouts for specific industries in the name of ”economic development.” Altmann also touts the endorsedment of Sam Coppersmith – many times the liberal than Phil Gordon or Paul Johnson. I guess, as is unfortunately the case in city elections, neither of us have a perfect choice. I don’ t know Altmann, but I have worked closely with Maria for many years, and while she isn’t as conservative as I’d prefer, she is substantially better than Bilsten. John Shadegg is a great Congressman and I am proud to say he represents me. Sean Noble represents him well as his chief of staff. However, we continue to urge voters in city council district 3 to support Jon Altmann. [...]