Thread: Commentary: Don't confuse immigrant victims with villains

By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN


SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- Last week, I wrote about what appears to be a ghastly hate crime in the small town of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania, where teenagers allegedly beat to death a 25-year-old illegal immigrant named Luis Ramirez after spewing racial slurs and telling him to go back to Mexico.
Ruben Navarrette sees no parallel between immigrant's death and triple killing in which immigrant is charged.

Ruben Navarrette sees no parallel between immigrant's death and triple killing in which immigrant is charged.

Hundreds of readers responded. The overwhelming majority condemned the attacks and expressed sympathy for the victim's family. A relative handful actually defended the teenagers and tastelessly insisted that Ramirez "got what he deserved" because he was in the country illegally.

Then there those who demanded to know why I hadn't written about another high-profile story involving yet another illegal immigrant -- this one looking less like a victim than a villain.

According to authorities in San Francisco, California, it was a case of mistaken identity that prompted 21-year-old Edwin Ramos to fire an AK-47 assault weapon on 49-year-old Anthony Bologna and his two sons, 20-year-old Michael and 16-year-old Matthew -- killing all three. Ramos is an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, and a reputed member of the vicious gang MS-13 who may have thought the Bolognas were part of a rival gang. Some are blaming the city's sanctuary policy which they say allowed Ramos to avoid deportation despite three prior arrests.

Do you see the connection between what occurred in Shenandoah and what happened in San Francisco? If so, would you mind clueing me in? The readers who brought up the Ramos case may have been looking for an assurance that I felt as much outrage over a case where the victims were white, and the alleged assailant Latino, as I did when that color scheme was reversed.

No problem. If Ramos were convicted of the charges, a swift and public execution would be too good for him. This fiend should have been deported long ago. Now, he should be kept in this country so he can face our system of justice.
Don't Miss

* Commentary: Killing a senseless, barbaric act
* Commentary: How to fix our broken immigration system

I'm the son of a retired police officer, a supporter of the death penalty, and a proponent of deporting illegal immigrants. And, frankly, I don't need lectures on crime and punishment. I especially don't need them from those who make excuses for employers who commit the crime of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. Nor do I need them from those who take the idea of punishment so lightly that they demand amnesty for disgraced ex-border patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, who were convicted of shooting an unarmed Mexican drug smuggler and then attempting to cover it up.

As for sanctuary cities, let's be careful with the term. It fits in San Francisco, where in 1989, the Board of Supervisors barred local officials, including police, from cooperating with federal authorities in the deportation of illegal immigrants. That policy is now under review.

But the term sanctuary doesn't apply in those cities where there's been no formal declaration but police, on their own initiative, simply refuse to act as surrogate immigration officers.

Some people want local police to enforce federal immigration law by trying to determine the legal status of anyone they come across in the course of their duties. That would destroy whatever trust exists between immigrant communities and local police and discourage immigrants from reporting crimes. In turn, that would make those communities vulnerable to scoundrels and predators and cause more crime.

There's a middle ground here. If police arrest someone for another crime and determine that he is in the country illegally, then they should contact immigration authorities. But, the point is, they shouldn't roam the streets impersonating them.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of the San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist. Read his column here.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/04/ ... topstories

Some people want local police to enforce federal immigration law by trying to determine the legal status of anyone they come across in the course of their duties. That would destroy whatever trust exists between immigrant communities and local police and discourage immigrants from reporting crimes. In turn, that would make those communities vulnerable to scoundrels and predators and cause more crime.

Ruben seems to have a difficult time placing the word illegal in front of the word immigrant. Further, the "scoundrels and predators" committing the crimes are often illegal themselves! Does Ruben seriously suggest we should protect illegals because they might be a potential witness to a crime committed by an illegal against another illegal?

I don't get it! This is one case where we should be throwing the baby out with the bath water...

This was a terrible tragedy. Whether or not it was race related, it could have been avoided. Too many young people die young due to drugs, gangs, and senseless acts of violence.

Today in Texas, a brutal murderer is scheduled to be executed. The national and international uproar, claiming he was denied his right to speak to a Mexican Consulate rep. is bringing tensions to the boiling point. The guy has been on death row for 15 years. No evidence has been presented to warrant spending more taxpayer money on a new trial. He would like a stay of execution until a law is passed that might spare his life. Sounds like the illegals who want enforcement actions to stop until immigration reform is passed. May it never be.

The fact remains that had these young people not entered illegally, lives would have been spared. I am not comparing the murderer to the murdered, other than to point out what they shared in common.

I do not like to get into the habit of "comparing" homicides and those who commit them, as each case is unique and needs to be evaluated on it's own merits. However for sake of argument, I will.

In one case, we had an illegal invader pull out an AK-47 and execute an entire family. That is what's called a homicide with malice aforethought. In other words, when you pull out an AK-47 and spray hundreds of rounds into a family, there can be little doubt of what your intentions were! You intended to produce the outcome which occured, which was the death of your victims!

The same may not be as clear cut involving the teenagers who were involved in that fight in which an illegal was killed. There is no direct evidence these teenagers intended to kill the victim. Further, the victim may have been an active participant in his own demise. That could be a mitigating factor here, I don't know.

Also, there have been conflicting reports based upon who's interest is at stake. We may never know what happened that night!
Further, i'm not sure what Ruben Navarrette had suggested happen to the boys involved in that fight in Shenandoah. I think Ruben has tried to suggest he undertstands the distinction here. But when he uses words such as it appears to be a "ghastly hate crime," well...I have my doubts.

The boys need to be held accountable for their actions. That will be up to a court of law to decide. Not Ruben Navarrette...