Herald’s Bailey aims at wrong target

Is it possible that the Daily Herald’s Chris Bailey actually believes her own words?

Or, are they cover for an agenda that accepts and promotes prejudice?

On Sunday, an editorial appeared in the Daily Herald, that sought to capitalize on what I believe is a misrepresentation of President Sarto’s position by creating a false dichotomy.

Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from Sarto’s position. Either he believes Hispanics should be exempt from following the laws of society or he believes that we shouldn’t enforce laws that are being violated with impunity.

First, I don’t believe that Sarto is saying either one of those things. He’s never said that laws should be suspended for Hispanics. In fact, he’s been quite consistent in stating the our current laws should be properly enforced. So, it simply doesn’t follow that objecting to the expanding of an existing law that boasts of creating an additional revenue stream translates into giving law breakers a pass.

Then, I think Ms. Bailey should not be so naive as to think that those are even the only two options available. It is also quite possible that Sarto is working diligently to heal a community significantly wounded by the actions of some Board members who are insistent on ridding the town of Hispanics, under the auspice of an “illegal immigration” crackdown, which the Daily Herald seems to feed by editorials such as these. Had Trustees Sigwalt and Humpfer not made the comments they did about about their discomfort with Hispanics in their town (i.e. feeling the Hispanic bakery was not friendly, not being able to have a cup of coffee with Hispanic neighbors, and that stores in town “cater to only one culture”, etc. ), those other members of the Board would likely not have to consider suspect a proposal such as this.

Furthermore, it is no secret that establishing or expanding towing and impound ordinances in communities around the country are aimed directly at dealing with illegal immigrants, which, as I’ve shown above, is intended to target Hispanics. It doesn’t take much to connect-the-dots to see the undercurrent of prejudice running through these actions, so one should wonder why Bailey and some others haven’t taken the time to do so.

After all, these are the folks that say “it’s not about race. It’s about what’s legal”, but everything they say and do contradicts that.

Now, apparently we are supposed to believe this is merely about “safety”?

And what of Sarto’s comments? While perhaps ignorant, he is only verbalizing what Sigwalt appears to also believe by the actions she is taking.