H 32°, L 7° | Tomorrow: 
H 17°, L 4°There are few things more nauseatingly transparent than some two-faced, posturing liberal who claims to sympathize with the oppressed, only to attack their means of resistance as irresponsible and misguided, doing the job of the bigoted right in the process. Such sentiment was poignantly expressed in Joey Labuz’s article in yesterday’s Herald (“Progressive Dane’s good intentions have poor execution”).
Labuz begins his piece by writing that, “Every once in a while you get the feeling an issue will be decided in a certain way.” He goes on to write, “But, somehow, in the end, everything turns out OK.” I confess that none of this makes a morsel of sense to me, even after reading the entirety of these sentences in their proper context several times over. But if the writer is trying to say that the County Board’s vote against the amendment to cut off new funding for the xenophobic Dane County Sheriff, Dave Mahoney, subverted a dangerous attempt to address the issue, he only succeeds in demonstrating his own misinformation and prejudice.
Labuz claims the supervisors and activists — principally the Immigrant Workers Union and Progressive Dane — should have dealt with the sheriff’s policy of voluntarily reporting undocumented immigrants to federal authorities in a different way. Cutting off new funding, according to Labuz, would have endangered the broader community because it would have decreased the number of deputies.
What he neglects to say — and likely doesn’t know himself — is that the amendment wasn’t intended to cut five positions from the sheriff’s budget, but to deny his request for five new deputies. Considering Madison just hired an unprecedented 30 new police officers this year, it’s hard to see why any more positions are necessary. In this context, Labuz’s only stated objection to the amendment and associated protest — the “general safety of the public” — is exposed for what it is: untrue.
It’s also worth pointing out, however, that Labuz’s notion of “public safety” only extends to those who have proper documentation. For Dane County’s mostly-Latino immigrant population, the largest threat to their well-being comes from the sheriff himself. Every day, undocumented workers drive to work with the fear of being pulled over, walk alone at night with the fear of being racially profiled and wait at home with the fear that their family members will not return — always with the thought of deportation lurking somewhere in their minds.
More deputies on the street likely brings no comfort to their community — indeed, quite the opposite is true.
Labuz’s ignorance continues unabated in the second half of his piece, where he finds it “difficult to fathom” why “alternative” options were not discussed. Apparently, he just started paying attention to this issue last month. The sheriff has been pressured from a variety of angles — through public hearings, media campaigns, etc. — over the last year, his treatment of immigrants remaining consistently abhorrent.
Labuz’s objections may have little to do with factual accuracy, but the techniques employed in his piece are worth pointing out given their prevalence in local discussions of the immigration issue. Rather than discussing the issue itself, Labuz and his ilk resort to attacking the tactics of PD and other groups, tip-toeing around the rather obvious fact that they really have no problem with the sheriff tearing apart families in the most despicable fashion. Rather than printing another article disingenuously condemning the strategy of the immigrant community (as embodied in the Immigrant Worker Union) and their PD allies, the editors of this paper should encourage their columnists to write honestly about their sympathy for the xenophobia of local law enforcement.
Even though the amendment ultimately failed — only the PD caucus and one liberal ally voted for it — its passage was never really the point. Had it been successful, the sheriff wouldn’t have been mandated to change his policy, anyway. The amendment was part of a broader strategy to pressure county supervisors to take a position on the sheriff’s policy, and in this sense, it was successful.
At the budget decision, Scott McDonell, the dean of the liberal caucus, was forced to take the awkward position of both criticizing the sheriff and speaking against the amendment. As a result, he is now on record as an opponent of local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, except in extreme cases. Community progressives intend to hold him to his word.
Now, a new ordinance, an updated and tightened version of the 2004 “sanctuary” resolution, is being crafted and will be introduced early next year. Its passage will be predicated on continued activism and maintaining the profile of the plight of the immigrant community. It also relies on a broader electoral strategy, one which assumes most people in this county do not support the demonization of society’s most vulnerable population. The nonsense printed in this paper aside, I’m confident such an assumption will prove true.
Kyle Szarzynski ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and philosophy.
IP hash: a242db77
ONLY STUDENT PROGRESSIVE DANE would make the claim we lost, but no no, we’re successful.
IP hash: 79b8d9d4
Well said, Kyle. Labuz is a tool for the…ummm…well, he’s just a tool.
IP hash: e3d15476
Illegal is illegal, folks. Be glad that we don’t treat our illegals as badly as Mexico treats its illegals.
IP hash: 920daa05
“There are few things more nauseatingly transparent than some two-faced, posturing liberal who claims to sympathize with the oppressed…”
Yeah, Kyle, sounds familiar. Now go clean your fish tank.
IP hash: 2b4d7140
I could write the same article, “Why Kyle Szarzynski must read even more.” You stand on the edge of a cliff denouncing the bedrock that keeps you from falling into the abyss. You, my friend, demonstrate the worst sort of arrogance: a blinding assumption that you are correct. Your relativism is appallingly grade-school, and it’s obvious to this observer that you have a woeful lack of what I’d call “experience.”
Something I learned that you need to as well: There is always someone bigger. This can be extrapolated to smarter, more well read, more experienced; the list goes on.
Please understand your own cognitive failings, biases, and foolishness prior to attacking another, and be sure, very sure, not to look like a horses behind by mirroring that which you criticize.
IP hash: 4fe5cde6
Bravo! Good Editorial! It is time that bigotry is addressed as what it is!
Student PDs and student organization are doing a great job!
It is sad that the only community appearance of the right wing is through the media and dress up with a very little convincing “sensible” cover.
The left in this county is uniting, and it is doing its part in the social justice struggle, the right cries out loud that, finally, the disfranchised immigrant community enjoys of allies that defend them.
We will win, and those that in the process critic us for the most absurd reasons, only with the purpose to help the bigotry, they will be judged by history.
In 1854 Wisconsinites had to make a Decision: return slaves to their masters or not; a debate that in many ways remain the same now days on immigration matter. Back in 1854, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declared the Fugitive Slave Act unconstitutional.
Today we have to make the case again if near 300.000 families in Wisconsin are just disposable human flesh, although ok to work for peanuts not good enough to be part of our community and enjoy protection from local enforcement; in Dane County we have to face a Sheriff that voluntarily, with no other gain that his own anti immigrant record, notifies ICE of any suspect non us citizen.
Common sense and heart it is not enough, we need teeth to overcome injustice! Kudos to all UW Students that are working hard on this issue.Kudos to SPD!
Keep up the good work!
IP hash: 27632b98
isn’t the risk of family members not coming home every night because they are undocumented, a risk they willingly entered into when they came into this country illegally?
and denying a city of 5 deputies is still a threat to safety if it was deemed the city needed or should have 5 more.
perhaps a more effective method of getting your point across would work on writing a really good counterargument based on facts and positions, instead of criticizing joey’s knowledge of the subject, just because he happens to disagree with you. you should know that as a philosophy major.
IP hash: d250575b
There’s still just something I don’t get in this whole argument. This is the way I’ve understood what’s going on: The local Dane County Board or the Madison City Council or something has declared that Dane County is a sanctuary city for illegal immigrants/undocumented immigrants, depending on which lingo you want to use. The sheriff of Dane County has decided not to follow that local directive, and instead to follow federal law and report these people to ICE.
Really, isn’t the whole thing a debate about illegal immigration? I mean, no matter how you frame it, as a battle between a sheriff and the city council, or between local law and federal law, or as “breaking up families”, isn’t this really just the extreme left of Madison wanting open borders?
The problem the extreme left is having is that, to anyone who has a brain, this talk of breaking up families and calling the immigrants “undocumented” instead of “illegal” is a clear attempt to hoodwink and hide the main issue. There isn’t a court in the nation that would find the sheriff did anything wrong for following federal law instead of a country directive (ever heard of the supremacy clause?). Instead of talking about a sheriff “legislating from the badge”, why don’t you discuss the real issue behind this: The debate on illegal immigration in this country.
Personally, I believe that illegal immigrants knowingly take a risk when they enter this country. There are many logical arguments for changing our immigration laws. But trying to tug at my heart strings because that risk didn’t pay off and their family got broken up as a result? Sorry, I just don’t feel bad about that.
IP hash: bda0b094
Great article, Kyle. Keep up the fight!
IP hash: 0b0c5071
I AM A REFRIGERATOR!!!! I AM VERY COLD!!! WOOOOOSH!!!!!!
IP hash: 4fe5cde6
To 10:42am post, Federal Law does not rule that local enforcement MUST report non documented immigrant to ICE.
Actually in the IIRIRA section 287 clearly states that local enforcement cannot enforce immigration law unless is in a special agreement with the US General Attorney or commonly called section 287 programs.
So, Sheriff Mahoney is very close to actually breaking the law. One thing is that he runs into the information about somebody’s immigrant status and other that he suspects that somebody is here without documents and therefore starts an investigation or in this case send an email to ICE.
It is a fine line; the law had been challenged for constitutional contradictions.
Although this is a bit unorthodox example, let�s say that Sheriff Mahoney start calling IRS for those who are booked in jail (even just waiting for court) and his criteria is that he suspects that if they are charged to commit a crime and look like they have money, “we better alert the IRS on them”. It would be a chaos, at to the point of ridiculous but actually he would be breaking the law, this is what preemption means: respecting the different scope of jurisdiction, low enforcement does not do what high enforcement does.
If somebody calls to the Sheriff accusing somebody to be the center of a million dollars tax fraud, likely Sheriff Mahoney should alert the IRS, two different approaches, two different answers.
What we are arguing here is that we should not ask an inmate about their legal status unless it is related with an ongoing investigation. Let ICE pick and choose those who by the law once sentenced for an aggravatory felony.
ICE has access to all this informaiton and does not need any notification; actually, what Mahoney does is not a standard policy across the country or even the state.
Plain simple, Sheriff Mahoney is stepping up as a massive ICE notifier, and we argue that this is not his role, both for what the law states and for what it concerns to community safety.
Thanks! Alex Gillis
IP hash: d6376374
Thank you Kyle. This was a great article and an absolutely necessary response. It certainly is disappointing to see the blatant bigotry in some of these comments made, but we can all be rest assured that they do not represent the majority of the views held on this campus. Keep up the good work! And keep exposing the bigotry!
IP hash: 51ae4d21
To 1:36 post,
“Actually in the IIRIRA section 287 clearly states that local enforcement cannot enforce immigration law unless is in a special agreement with the US General Attorney or commonly called section 287 programs.”
Where does it say he can’t notify other government organizations of an UNDOCUMENTED, ILLEGAL immigrant? I guess I missed how “Sheriff Mahoney is very close to actually breaking the law.”
He hasn’t broken the law. It’s absurd to imply that he has even come close.
IP hash: e9380a2e
“Actually in the IIRIRA section 287 clearly states that local enforcement cannot enforce immigration law unless is in a special agreement with the US General Attorney or commonly called section 287 programs.”
Really? I thought federal law took precedence over state and local law. All law enforcement officers are required to arrest and detain offenders regardless of the level of the offense.
IP hash: 9c771276
So now the illegal trespassers are morally the same as fugitive slaves? What a load of crap that idea is!
Brong the troops home from Germany, Japan and Korea! Put them on our own borders to protect our nation from the on-going invasion. Razor-wire is cheap compared to destroying our emergency medical system to care for criminals.
IP hash: 715d9c74
Hey guy,
I completely agree with your stance on the issue at hand, a xenophobic sheriff, and I think you did a nice job bringing up counterpoints to labuz’s arguement. That being said, I think the context in which you framed your argument, as an attack on a fellow writer, was extremely out of line. Mentioning his article and his argument is perfectly alright. Naming him in the title, and accusing him of bigotry and xenophobia is not right, or productive. Yes, Joey did need to do more research on the issue. You, on the other hand, would have done well to have more tact. This article is exactly the kind of piece that props up the ‘angry liberal’ image that has become quite an annoyance. So please try to remain cool headed and considerate. When you don’t you’re making your ideas, which from what I can tell are top notch, very unappealing.
Tommy
IP hash: 5cc83a0e
Hey 10:51, I don’t get it.
Zeno does not refer to lawbreakers or criminals.
IP hash: 36742834
Oh I’m sorry, I thought this was the ‘Opinions’ section, not just a place to try to one-up a writer who had a respectful take on the situation.
Had this kid actually provided a strong counter argument (as opposed to claiming that he is a great authority of the situation), I might respect it more. Did he actually go so far as to put the other writer’s name as the title to this article? Who is he writing to, exactly?
Maybe he could try for an English major, and learn how to write critical papers…
IP hash: 36742834
Nicely said, Tommy!
Kyle should consider how he tackles issues…is the article in the interest for the people this is ACTUALLY concerning, or in the interest of Kyle to bitch and promote himself indirectly?
It is an ‘Opinions’ section, after all, but this is too narrow-minded to want to take in. Goodnight on that note!
-Sarah
IP hash: fa8800b1
I completely agree with what Tommy said above. The beauty of being in a university setting and having a student paper such as the Herald is the opportunity to spark meaningful, intelligent debates. While you made your points clear and put together a solid argument, the pompousness with which you wrote this editorial was revolting.
It would be wonderful if we (as a campus) could have more arguments over important issues such as this, but editorials like the one you wrote only serve to smother any sort of opposition. It seems anytime a Republican opens their mouth here the campus turns into a gradeschool playground, liberals responding by yelling and name-calling until they can finally give themselves a self-satisfied pat on the back for tearing another person apart.
I guess all I’m trying to say is that next time you should defend your point of view instead of attacking others.
And for the record I’m extremely liberal.
IP hash: 35dc30b3
I love it when liberals think they have the moral high ground, while millions of American families can’t find work because of the illegals the liberals care so much about. I mean, conservatives have always been idiots, but when liberals become idiots, what’s a smart person to do…or vote for?
Hopefully, some third party will come with a decent roster of candidates so Americans will finally have an alternative to the two-party monopoly of jackasses we’ve been stuck with since 1854. Unless that happens, we can count on things to get worse.
IP hash: d64d9911
This headline and the column following it is a bad thing for the paper.