default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Logout|My Dashboard

Rich Hanner Was column on Lodi and immigration over the line?

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • Joshua Hutchison posted at 5:03 pm on Tue, Oct 12, 2010.

    Joshua Hutchison Posts: 57

    Shawn has referenced a common fallacy. This is not an issue of stronger fences. This is an issue of coherent and enforcable policy. The majority of the immigrants in this country enter legally. There is however no to force compliance in regards to residency when the Work Visa has expired. Student Visa's are often overstayed. Even visitors with only a travel Visa violate their terms and stay beyond their stated trip. These are not issues you can build a fence around.

  • shawn sanborn posted at 10:23 pm on Sat, Oct 9, 2010.

    shawn sanborn Posts: 15

    I red a few interesting things here. I have only a few short words to say. The illegal imagration problem starts at our borders. We can fly and supportfor years on end over one hundred thousand troops and wage war, but we cant control our own borders? The government must not want to for reasons that are not clear to me. Certainly they could if they wished to. After all the created a maglomaniac new agency in record time. Homeland security was up and running in no time at all. If the borders were monitored like the law says. Then the argument here would be different. Like the number of immagrents allowed based on available work for instance. Some countries treat illegal border crossingsas invaders and are shot on site. We dont need those drastic measures, we have the resources to control this fully, yet its not done. As a long time Lodi rsident I remember the border patrol being here on a daily basis, I dont think I have seen one in twenty years.

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:16 am on Tue, Oct 5, 2010.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    Upon review of my most recent post where I stated, "Of course I’m not [a bad guy], but my purpose here is necessarily to make others feel good about themselves."

    Unfortunately I left out one small, but very important word that I find necessary to correct at this time. The sentence should have read, "Of course I’m not, but my purpose here is **not** necessarily to make others feel good about themselves."

    I apologize for any confusion this error may have caused.

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:08 am on Tue, Oct 5, 2010.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    First Mr. Hutchison, please direct me to where I "...told [you] and another commenter in this forum that [I] think [you] should stop posting to this forum if [both of you] do not respond to [my] attacks." Either I've made an egregious error, or you are completely mistaken (perhaps taking my comments out of context). If you are referencing my remarks in the second and third paragraphs to you at 9:28 a.m. on Sunday, Oct 3, 2010, then you obviously need to study that message with better care. Your interpretation is way off the mark. As such, I believe I may have made like suggestions to at least one other on this forum who, like you, really thinks I’m a bad guy. Of course I’m not, but my purpose here is necessarily to make others feel good about themselves. I don’t “know” anyone here except for one that I know of. I enjoy a good argument, and yes I like to come away with the sense that I’ve scored more points through logic and reasonable discourse.

    Second, irony is you then demanding that I should "[s]top using [your] name in [my] posts." It seems to me that you're the one making unrealistic demands. If I feel it necessary and appropriate to use your name in response to you or when referencing what you may have written on this forum while conversing with others, I'll continue to do so. Once we post our thoughts here, we no longer "own" them.

    I don’t know why you’re “here,” but now you should know why I am. I rarely ever attack anyone personally – but I do assail dangerous ideas that I believe need to be discredited. In case you haven’t noticed, we’re a nation in deep trouble; and this is mostly because of ignorant people who for whatever reason want to remain that way. Oh, and I also cannot tolerate stupidity.

    As for the rest of your message posted at 5:05 a.m. today, I'll keep your ideas in mind. In the meantime, try to keep up and consider developing some thicker skin. Things often get rough in here.

    I'll be waiting for the answer to the question I asked in my first paragraph here. Thanks!

  • Joshua Hutchison posted at 5:05 pm on Mon, Oct 4, 2010.

    Joshua Hutchison Posts: 57

    Mr Kinderman,
    The reason that you are a cyber-bully is that you do not attack the ideas people propose in this forum, but make ad-hominum attacks. You have told me and another commenter in this forum that you think we should stop posting to this forum if we do not respond to your attacks. This is comically ironic in the context of having a discussion of whether or not Joe Guzzardi should continue to have his column published if he chooses to make prejudiced remarks about the poor and hispanics. You do not wish to have an open discussion. You wish to shut people up you disagree with. You attack people you disagree with ceaselessly until they walk away from your abuse and you declare victory.
    You didn't meaningfully respond to any of the issues I brought up in any of my comments. You do no not actually want to discuss these topics in an open forum.

    I have stated my case fully and will ignore you in the future. Stop using my name in your posts. If you would like to discuss the letter above, or the subject matter of my comment feel free. I can happily ignore you and allow you to speak your mind. If you continue to attack me directly. So please continue to ponder to genecide of all atheist and the extermination of Sweden. Go ahead and tell everyone in the forum they don't have a right to abridge you first ammendment by speaking their opinion. I will not be listening. You are a psycopathic egomaniac cyber-bully.

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 9:28 am on Sun, Oct 3, 2010.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    Mr. Hutchison asked, "Would the people that feel the need to respond to every post in here critically just please not reply to this post to me directly."

    While I respect you for the semi-courteous manner in which you asked us not to reply to you directly, I'm afraid that on a forum such as this it's an unreasonable request. As you claim “not [to] have time in [your] life to respond to everyone who wants to pick apart every statement made by someone they disagree with and build up an argument against it," I have two suggestions for you to consider:

    First, refrain from offering any comments whatsoever; or second, simply ignore those who do respond to you directly. Like mine here.

    It's my belief that since the primary purpose of this online comment system is to spur spirited debate it’s often necessary for those of us who do wish to take the time to discuss these matters to elicit clarification from others who make claims or ideas that interest us.

    Still, after reading your post, except for the final paragraph I found no reason to respond to you at all. Now isn’t that ironic?

    By the way, does your request apply to your post at 1:34 p.m. on October 2, 2010? It seems to me you wanted us to only ignore your 1:26 p.m. post. Now how can you possibly answer that question?!?

  • Joshua Hutchison posted at 1:34 pm on Sat, Oct 2, 2010.

    Joshua Hutchison Posts: 57

    Isn't it relevant to discuss that the agriculture in our area has been reliant on migrant labor from mexico for generations. Previously there have been guest worker programs. Now imigration become a funtion of National Security and these people are affected greatly by the difficulty crossing the border legally, but they are still regularly employed in our farms.
    So who do you blame for illegal workers?
    Legislators who have not created a system to manage the need for labor.
    Farmers who do not abide by the rules?
    Farm labor contractors that the farmers use to distance themselves from th legal issue?
    Illegal workers?

  • Joshua Hutchison posted at 1:26 pm on Sat, Oct 2, 2010.

    Joshua Hutchison Posts: 57

    I guess the questions I would ask are:

    Can you you call it illegal immigration when someone overstays their Visa, or their Work Permit is not approved for renewal?
    Most of the "illegal imigrants" in this country cross the border legally. I have heard this fact from Department of Homeland Security, and INS. In fact a coworker of mine in this country for 20 years was deported last year for not keeping up to date on his immigration paperwork.

    Is it prejudiced to have a perspective of illegal immigrants pushing strollers and being pregnant as being related to welfare and food stamps?

    Is it racist, or just insensitive to the poor to oppose welfare because it is made available to people with immigration issues?

    "The statement below employs conjecture and makes assumptions"****

    Maybe Guzzardi opposes welfare in General. (This is a perfectly acceptable position for a libertarian/conservative to have. However it is a strange position to be held by someone who worked in public service and is probably collecting a CAL-PERS pension.) After years in public service, providing a Public Education to the children of immigrants, perhaps he is bitter and intolerant to the "freeloaders" his system was required to treat as citizens just because of the 14th ammendment guaranteeing rights to all anchor-babies born in this country.

    Is it possible to not be a racist if you consistently make assumptions relating poverty and immigration status?

    If census data shows birth rates are down, and you perceive an increase in births and pregnancy during a short visit to a community, aren't you just seeing what your prejudices allow you to see?

    I understand that Opinion Editorial opens the playing field to many ideas. Some ideas are toxic to rational discourse and are still held in beleif by a minority. Would it be appropriate to discuss, in a series of op-ed columns, whether or not Barack Obama was born in the USA?
    (It worked for the fair and balanced folks of FOX)

    This brings into the discussion the idea of credibility and accountability. Recently a CNN reporter went on a tirade against Jewish journalists that was anti-semetic and conspiratorial. He was fired. Joe Guzzardi recently went on a rant about ilegal immigrants destroying Lodi. (I did not read the article and won't) He apparently unfairly sited many of the woes of our current economy which are the result of criminal banking practices which led to a banking crisis. (Currently these banks are being sued in many courts by governments and institutional investors)

    Would the people that feel the need to respond to every post in here critically just please not reply to this post to me directly. Please discuss it among yourselves, allow others to read it, and do not attack me directly. I do not have time in my life to respond to everyone who wants to pick apart every statement made by someone they disagree with and build up an argument against it. Speak your peace and move on.

  • Lou Covey posted at 8:20 pm on Sat, Sep 25, 2010.

    Lou Covey Posts: 1

    It's been many years since I lived in Lodi but I visit at least once a year, and the percentage of people one might identify as immigrants seems no higher than it was 30 years ago. I live in a town that has, historically been heavily hispanic and I know, for a fact, that the number of hispanics, illegals in particular has dropped by as much as 20 percent. That is also a fact for most of California. It's the nature of the economy. People come here because they have a chance to work. If there is no work, they won't come.
    Lodi has run-down area. It always has, but it is also significantly larger that it was when I live there. When you double your population in 30 years, you will also double the number of non-white residents.
    Illegal immigration is a significant problem in the US, but then it is a problem all over the world. "Mules" are bringing in Afghanis into Finland. Southeast Asians are floating into northern Australia. Turks are flooding into Germany. Even Jordan is having trouble handling the number of Palestinians crossing their borders.
    But blaming illegal immigrants for the poor economic conditions anywhere is really off the mark.

  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:45 am on Sat, Sep 25, 2010.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    1.Why would he assume those things?
    2.But is illegal immigration behind the foreclosure crisis? Was that fair to include?
    3.Has Lodi really declined so dramatically in two years, and has illegal immigration really driven that decline?

    When I read this "opinion", I thought in the above questions and other thoughts fair and interesting to ask. Because my wife is Mexican and I have ties to the Mexican community, I read Joe's article with interest and thought about it. I felt if he had these experiences and that is his reality, who am I to put him down for what he sees as truth. Can we not understand that each of us sees things differently based on our experience? If we cannot talk about what we perceive as reality, then I think our society is lost. I welcome Joe’s thoughts as it helps to examine what is truth, just as Rich is in examining this article.

    And speaking of truth, when I read the following:
    " I did, however, wince a little when I initially read the column. That's because we've published many letters in recent weeks from readers who are adamantly anti-immigration. So the Guzzardi column added to that chorus instead of helping to balance it.”

    This made me wince… I was surprised that Rich, in my opinion, sees no distinction and sees no difference between legal and illegal immigration… so much so that he chose an adjective “adamantly” to describe the “anti-immigration” perception he has of people participating in this discussion. I guess that means if I were to make any comment in the future in reference to concerns of this nature, that I would be classified as an anti immigration bigot. As I do not want my character tarnished, and since Rich has made clear to his readers how he defines this issue, I will not make any comment in the future about this issue. Ill take the “fifth”… since I assume Rich and others think me guilty of something.

  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 7:07 am on Sat, Sep 25, 2010.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2370

    Mr. Hanner, I'm a bit perplexed that you found it necessary to write this opinion. But since it's your newspaper, you can do whatever you want. But you should also be very careful about what YOU write as well. First, perhaps a primer on just what an Op/Ed page is for might be in order (without the example of anyone’s work, as you did here).

    Now back to your column. You wrote, "I did, however, wince a little when I initially read the column. That's because we've published many letters in recent weeks from readers who are adamantly anti-immigration."

    You either don't proof-read your work or you are completely out of touch with what is going on around you. Those of us who are disturbed with the current status of immigration are absolutely not "anti-immigration." We are however anti "ILLEGAL" immigration. There is a distinction as I am sure you are aware.

    But your missing that point addresses a broader problem with this nationwide. If this wasn't a mistake on your part (simply missing the "illegal" aspect of the problem), then you are indeed a part of the problem itself. You should understand that those who do want open borders or at the very least desire amnesty for those already here illegally, want and need those still undecided about the issue to believe that we are anti-immigration. That’s why we’re labeled racist, bigoted and lacking in compassion; things we clearly are not.

    As editor of a newspaper, you should know better. Unless of course this is what YOU believe us to be.


Recent Comments

Posted 18 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

So very much the truth Mr Adams - but you forgot to make the mention of the man who spend the millions and finally discover that the Mr Oba…


Posted 18 hours ago by Michael Fiske.

article: Letter: Suggestions for committee appoi…

Ed, everybody knows JoAnne hates Bob. If you don't know that than you don't know squat! Open your eyes. She campaigned against two candidat…


Posted 18 hours ago by Jien Kaur.

article: Letter: Our leaders need to be better r…

The Mr Kindseth wrote that 'America’s attitude toward Royal Emperor Obama changed when he went from “We the People” to “Screw the People”' …


Posted 19 hours ago by Thomas Heuer.

article: Steve Hansen: Funding, researcher bias …

Skepticism is a smart way of saying "I DON'T KNOW." No more no less. It is not a lofty intellectual endeavor. It is used by the …


Posted 19 hours ago by Mike Adams.

article: Letter: Ron Portal’s letters repeat the…

A correct assumption instead: Mr. Portal, like most conservatives, utilize information that is not true and when they do use the correct …



Popular Stories



Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists