Ron Saxton: Illegal means Illegal, right?

Yesterday, the Register-Guard reported on Ron Saxton's cherry farm, er, vineyard.

Today, the Oregonian reports on a simple question they asked Saxton: Is he certain that all the migrant laborers employed at his farm were here legally?

Ron's answer? Um, no.

[Saxton] acknowledges that he used migrant workers on his farm and that he can't say for sure whether some of them were undocumented. In a September interview with The Oregonian, Saxton responded, "I don't know," when asked whether illegal immigrants worked on the farm. Illegal immigration wasn't such a big issue in the 1990s, he said.

"You know, it wasn't anything we talked about 10 years ago," he said. "There was no discussion back then about those issues."

Of course, illegal immigrants were just as illegal ten years ago as they are today. But since it wasn't polling as an issue, he didn't think it mattered.

To Ron Saxton, it seems that "illegal" doesn't really mean "illegal".


  • Jerry Allen (unverified)

    Kulongoski has no problem knowingly giving illegals public tax dollars via state services.
    When does illegal mean illegal? At least Saxton states he will try to clean up the system concerning illegals. Where's Ted?

  • Zak J. (unverified)

    BRILLIANT! Let's christen this phenomenon:

    Saxton's Law - One rule for the rich; another rule for the rest.

  • RayCeeYa (unverified)

    He better hurry and get his workers checked out thats the kind of thing that can ruid a campaign overnight.

  • (Show?)

    This is [email protected]#$%:

    "You know, it wasn't anything we talked about 10 years ago," he said. "There was no discussion back then about those issues."

    Yes, we talked about them. It was called verifying documents. It's a federal law now and it was a federal law then. Duh.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    "In 1993, (President Clintons) choice for attorney general, Aetna general counsel Zoe Baird, withdrew after a furor over her failure to pay Social Security taxes for a nanny and chauffeur who lacked work papers." Washington Post

    That is over 10 years ago and talked about a lot in Republican circles.

    Republicans talk about "illegal" immigrants to avoid talking about the criminal American employers, mostly Republicans, who employ people illegally. Its like blaming child labor on children. We ought to arrest that kid with a mower, doesn't he know its illegal for him to work?

  • Righty (unverified)

    Well, Saxton probably doesn't really care all that much about illegal immigration and has become tough on the issue as a result of the fact that most Oregonians want politicians that will only provide services to people that are here legally.

    It's sort of like Kulongoski and abortion. I bet he doesn't really care if women have the option to abort the unborn homo sapien growing inside of them. However, it is politically expedient for him to support this right.

  • MCT (unverified)

    I'm convinced a goodly number of illegal immigrants are enjoying food stamps and health care that working poor citizens need just as much, but do not qualify for. There are plenty of leg-up programs and perks available to hispanic residents, and I doubt that more than a few of the organizations funding them quibble over legal status. There is a part of me that resents this because where financial and/or educational needs are the deciding factors, giving extra to any separate group is just not equitable.

    I also do not believe it is true that hispanic and illegal workers do jobs none of "us" would want. Drive by any home construction site. Of course "we" would want to be paid more than "they" are probably making.

    On the other hand, I know it is wrong to subject any workers to substandard pay and working conditions fully knowing most migrant workers are not in a position to complain, even when it comes to being poisoned.

    I live in east Multnomah county amongst small acreage home sites and rolling fields of nursery stock. I recently had to complain to a neighboring tree farm owner about the chemical spraying of a field next to my little corner of the world. I could taste it before I located the source: a few Mexicans and a spray tanker truck. After 2 hours the owner showed up, dressed like he was on the way to a MAC club meeting, tossed some dirt into the if that would duplicated the overspray of a liquid chemical. He admitted he wouldn't want his family breathing it in, and threatened that I wouldn't like what would go into that field if he ever stops growing trees. He said the state mandates he spray for pine beetles once a year. And here I am trying to grow an organic garden.

    The workers were laboring with no protection at all from the chemicals they were using.

    My point is, I see a lot of "farmers" living very very well from growing crops on relatively small areas of land, next to populated areas, using the cheapest labor, confident they will not have to deal with any union regs, or irritating labor laws. I don't detect any crises of conscience on their part. Yet we are aiming our venom at the illegals themselves rather than the system that created and perpetuated this situation for so many years. The illegals are chasing the same dream our forefathers did....and remember there was once a time when "Irish & Italians Need Not Apply". I think any candidate who has ever "worked the land" for a living, bears some culpability for whatever illegal alien problems we have now. The laws have to be changed & enforced....but we cannot let it become ethnic bigotry.

  • Kitty C (unverified)

    A thoughtful analysis MCT. I am convinced that employers that knowingly hire illegal aliens are at fault in this mess. Stong enforcement of existing laws and well publicized convictions of MANY law breaking employers should start to clean up the situation.

  • (Show?)

    Now this is funny stuff.

    I guess the difference is that those illegals had tax money deducted from their paychecks, so it makes it OK.

  • Zak J. (unverified)

    Shall we start setting examples with Ron Saxton, KittyC?

  • (Show?)

    Discounting Jerry Allen's bald-faced lie, I'm still curious why people are all up in arms about illegal aliens. We had them during the 1990s during the Clinton economy, and nobody said a thing. We were all too busy making money.

    So what's changed? Republican outsourcing of all the high-paying jobs, that's what.

    Face facts. Oregonians don't want minimum wage jobs cleaning toilets. They want their $20/hr manufacturing jobs in the high-tech industry back - the ones that Republicans destroyed by giving them tax breaks specifically to export overseas. Yes indeed, thanks to Republican-passed laws, a US corporation pays less taxes if it employs workers in China than it does if it employs workers in the U.S.

    No wonder they're spending millions of dollars trying to convince Americans that the U.S. is going downhill because of too many garbage/recyclable pickers, migrant farmhands, and lawn mowers.

  • je (unverified)

    Steve, you have a good point, I can only speak for myself and say that the tax code you point to is wrong, it should be changed. I haven't heard any Democrats make that an issue in this years elections, they are pointing to other issues.

    There are many Republicans who agree with you that the tax code should be structured to favor American workers and promote a better balance of trade, right now it's running $800 billion in the red.

    But I've seen other comments from you and they are almost uniformily partisan. You are a problem solver, so tell me where Democrats and Republicans can agree instead of just making excuses for the obvious open borders policy of the Democrat's leadership, at least Republicans are split at the leadership level.

    Illegal immigration and outsourcing are two sides of the same coin: drying up family wage jobs.

  • je (unverified)

    Steve, to be fair, I haven't heard Republicans raise this issue either. It seems our politics have been distracted by many other issues than the one you raise. But the American people haven't lost sight of what you write: polls show a large segment of Americans are dissatified with the state of the economy, yet they have a hard time putting their finger on what exactly is wrong and what can be done about the situation. I hope there is agreement about jobs (plentiful and community fostering), whether you call them family wage jobs (Republicans), or living wage jobs (Democrats). Where the disagreement sits is how we get there: government or the market. Where is the balance?

  • (Show?)

    While I plead no contest to being partisan, je, I hardly consider myself an extremist. Heck, there was a time where I felt Republicans were a very reasonable and necessary counterbalance to Democratic overenthusiasm - the accountants in the back of the room saying, 'how much will that interesting idea cost us, anyway?'.

    But those days are long gone, as has my previous respect. You can't trust Republicans on basic fiscal or moral responsibility. You can't trust them not to, in Reagan's immortal words, "Spend money like a drunken sailor". They can't even basic military strategy right, like don't fight two wars at the same time.

    Still, you ask a reasonable question, I might as well give you a real policy-oriented answer.

    The first question to ask is the simple one that no one ever does: what problem are we really attempting to solve by tightening down on illegal immigration? Or, as I've heard Libertarians put it, why have laws against economic migration at all?

    There are a number of answers to this, reasonable and unreasonable, said and carefully unsaid, to this answer. Few agree on the criteria, or the ordering, but these are the arguments I see on the table:

    1) Helps low skill native U.S. labor better its bargaining position. 2) Keeps brown people out of the country 3) Keeps non english speakers with dubious attachment to U.S. culture and moral codes out of the country 4) Illegal aliens cost more in taxpayer services than they provide (false - but often advanced) 5) Migrant workers being disproportionately poor, add disproportionately to the crime rate 6) Forces foreign governments to deal with the consequences of their own political & economic corruption, instead of foisting discontent workers onto us 7) Forces foreign cultures to deal with the consequences of poor environmental/family-planning (machismo related large families), instead of foisting their excess population onto us 8) Anti-immigrant hysteria as a useful distraction from our own culture's & ruling partys' (GOP) political, economic, environmental, and family planning failures.

    On the other side, the pro-legal-laze-faire arguments are euqally as profound - and silly:

    1) Many businesses simply cannot survive in international markets paying their labor so much more than their competitors do; force them to pay more than minimum wage, and there simply is no business case remaining - then nobody (but our international competitors) wins. 2) Hey! My girlfriend's brown! (and good in bed) 3) Catholic Latins bring good anti-Abortion morals. Go GOP! 4) Do we really need a War on Aliens to match our extremely expensive (and somewhat useless) War on Drugs? 5) A massive crackown on illegals would only be temporary; as soon as taxpayers get tired of throwing money down that hole, they'll come right back. 6) Immigrants, even poor immigrants, are often a nation's best and brightest. The US thrives on people willing to risk everything for a better life. 7) With ties to their homelands, immigrants can spread clean American values better than even the best of our Presidents (not even considering our worst)

    The diversity of the arguments above make for some very strange political bedfellows on both sides of the Red/Blue divide. That is the real reason why this issue is always dealt with so ineffectively - not the "obvious open borders policy of the Democrat's leadership" (ahem - you're calling me partisan?)

    I'm never going to assume we will ever really come to a national consensus on immigration. But assuming we do, there's only one sure way to stop it. Some Socio/Economic researchers made a study of a situation that strongly compares to ours: that of Germany and Italy. (Some brief background: despite the largely positive reputation Italy has in the U.S., Italy really is the "Mexico" of Europe; through the 50s and 60s, it had a disfunctional government, economy, and culture - especially in the Mafia dominated south.) What they found was that Italians sneaking into Germany to find work would stop, as soon as jobs were plentiful at 1/10th the average salary rate you could find in Germany.

    Apply that to Mexico, and you find that if jobs paying a yearly salary of $3,800 were plentiful in Mexico (about $2 an hour), the idea of dying crossing the Sonora desert to reach a land whose language you don't know, with uncertain legal position, and no sure job prospects, would be a large enough impediment to keep them from wanting to come here.

    Until then, get used to seeing illegals, cause they're going nowhere.

  • je (unverified)

    Steven, a thoughtful response, I appreciate your time and attention. Quite a laudry list, but necessary to fully spell out why it's such a complex issue and difficult for well meaning folks from divergent politcal perspectives to arrive at a solution.

    I like your Italy analogy. Maybe there is hope for Mexico yet, for I believe you are spot on to focus on the government of Mexico. I would add to that, the ruling economic elite behind the government of Mexico. I admit there are people here who seemingly want to replicate that structure here in America. I will do my part to prevent that occurance.

    But having such a dismal view of Republicans does not match the reality in my estimation. There are people of good will on both sides of the political spectrum. It doesn't leave any room for compromise and promotes slash and burn politics. A zero sum, winner takes all attitude is bred, and isn't that the attitude that helped create the Mexico you so rightly point out.

    Election season is admittedly not the best time to seek common ground, but the true statesmen remember after the election we ultimately are on the same team, as difficult as that is to remember three and a half weeks to election.

  • LT (unverified)

    Election season is admittedly not the best time to seek common ground, but the true statesmen remember after the election we ultimately are on the same team, as difficult as that is to remember three and a half weeks to election.

    Common ground requires the behavior of both politicians and citzens to be friendly and willing to discuss matters seriously. One reason there is such polarization in politics is that last session (more than most sessions) there were legislators of the "shut up, you bother me" variety.

    Recently on my computer I found an email saved from early 2005. I'd told my state rep. I didn't like what Speaker Minnis did to the job status of the Chief Clerk. The response was along the lines of "Thank you for expressing your concern about state government. What has been done has been done, and if you don't like my support of that action then really your only recourse is to vote for my opponent in 2006". Which is why I am actively supporting the challenger.

    There are people here who don't like me for saying this, but I had more conversations (of a friendly and substantial nature) with Ted Ferrioli last session than I had with most House members, my own state rep. included. Not that I agree with his politics, but we could use more legislators with his attitude about conversation with ordinary folks.

    Even if everyone here adopted an attitude of trusting everyone once the election is over, that is still a 2 way street. And if legislators adopt a "go away" attitude towards citizens after the election is over, our attitude alone won't change that.

    And nothing I have seen convinces me that Saxton understands that. If he is elected with that "my way or the highway" attitude, then anything he wants to do but doesn't have 31 state reps. and 16 Senators supporting is going to be an uphill battle for him. I don't think he realizes that.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    A zero sum, winner takes all attitude is bred, and isn't that the attitude that helped create the Mexico you so rightly point out.

    Let me suggest, that the current Republican party is philosophically dominated by people who take that attitude. They are the party of and for winners and frankly don't give a damn about the "losers" who are unproductive and not worth worrying about.

    And that brings us to the "problem" of illegal immigration. Because the problem, as defined by Republicans, is the "losers" who come here to work, not the "winners" who profit from them. So they focus on demonizing the "losers".

    The discussion of the use of the term "illegals" is a case in point. If the problem really is that these workers are here "illegally" the solution is obvious, make it legal for them to be here. Steve points out there are reasons people have for not wanting more immigrants to come into the country, especially poor, brown immigrants. But none of them have anything to do with whether they are "legal" or "illegal".

    Just to be clear, that is exactly the position we take with people who come to the United States from Cuba. We do everything possible to prevent them from getting here, but once here they are "legal". We don't tell them they can't work or that they will be deported if they go to the emregency room, send their kids to school or apply for food stamps. We don't tell them they if they have to drive, they will have to drive illegally, because we won't give them a driver's license.

    Of course, Cubans fleeing communism are "winners", not "losers" like Mexicans or Hatians.

    Of course if we make it legal to be here, we really do need to be able to stop people at the border. And if we did that where would the growers and meat packers, "winners" all, get their cheap "loser" labor.

  • je (unverified)

    Ross, Hmm? So amnesty is the answer? Open borders? You state problems, or inconsistentcies...Would you subscribe to "hypocrisy"? But as I read your comment, it seems to imply amnesty or open borders as your solution of choice. I easily could be wrong, so what is your solution? Ross, you quote me to frame your argument, fine, but answer me this: Do you dispute the idea that the government of Mexico and their ruling elite bear the burden of leaving Mexico's economy in a state which causes their citizens to flee north? Or do I dare say America is somehow at fault? I don't want to put words in your mouth, so again, what is your solution?

  • lin qiao (unverified)

    Ross WIlliams' winner/loser analysis is thought-provoking.

    The idea of the alien coming to take away American jobs is ancient. As one simple and obvious example, which you can research trivially on the web or in the library, it's what led to the Chinese Exclusion Act of the late 19th century.

    In the current so-called debate, I am struck by the way that the term "illegal", an adjective, has morphed into "illegals", a noun. Pretty obviously "illegals" is applied only to brown-skinned, usually Spanish speakers. Nobody is using "illegals" to refer to Chinese being smuggled into the country, say, let alone to refer to Caucasian illegal immigrants. "Illegals" is at best a term of generalized resentment and abuse, and at worst a bit of coded racism.

    Frankly, I take a pretty different and longer-term perspective, sort of an anthropological one, on the entire business of human MIGRATION. History tells us two important lessons: The first--the history of Homo sapiens--is that people are always on the move. The second--the history of the last century, more or less--is that the only way migration across borders (themselves a recent invention, right??) is ever radically reduced is by militarization. (Think the border between North Korea and China.) You, the reader, and I are here because of migration. I hope we can acknowledge that simple fact without it turning into a frenzy of either "liberal guilt" or a resentful, defensive assertion of "so what, WE'RE in charge now".

    I don't think the United States is going to radically militarize its borders. I do think that my children will see a prolonged cultural and linguistic transformation of this country. This is not intended as some sort of fuzzy-wuzzy, feel-good, "celebrate diversity" statement.

  • bill (unverified)

    I think anyone who supports amnesty should move to E.Los Angeles, just to confirm their hunch. Esp.if they are living in unpopulated, lily-white Oregon. Bec.the bill that nearly all the Dems voted for will allow 75 million "new" residents in the next 3 years- 15 million illegals gettheir green crads and then they can sponsor and bring their families here- gpa, gma, kids, wives, ex-wives and kids - 15 X 5 = 75 million.

    How anyone can be pro-environment and pro-amnesty is one of the oddest stances,anywhere. Excessive population growth is the main degrader of the environment- without illegal immigration- US pop. would remain at 300 million in the year 2050!!!- Look up the stats, they are out there.

  • lin qiao (unverified)

    One more thing about the "illegals" tag. I raised this issue with an acquaintance who is a diehard Republican who is always going on about "illegals". I mentioned that I have a foreign-born cousin who entered the US as a visitor, overstayed his visa, burrowed into the "underground" economy for years, and eventually hired a lawyer to navigate the waters of legalization. (This was of course before 9/11/01 when such things were still possible.) The cousin has subsequently completed graduate school and gone on to some sort of high-paid job. The GOP acquaintance had an interesting reaction to this story: he was completely untroubled by it. His rationale? The cousin had gone through the steps of becoming legalized, so obviously he was "motivated", wanted to "fit in", and such. The fact that my cousin had broken the law in the first place by overstaying his visa was, in my acquaintance's opinion, irrelevant.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    what is your solution?

    What is the problem? The solution to criminal employers in America who exploit foreign born labor? Throw them in jail.

    The idea of the alien coming to take away American jobs is ancient.

    Exactly - it has nothing to do with whether they are carrying the correct papers. Each group of Americans has wanted to shut the door behind them. But we have become a great country largely because they were never allowed to do so. Immigrants bring with them both the energy and will to thrive and the fear of competition to anyone who gets too comfortable here. They are by nature, risk takers.

    Excessive population growth is the main degrader of the environment

    No doubt, the world's environment would be helped with fewer people. But if you really want to save the environment move to Guatamala and try to live off the land that is now planted in coffee being exported to the United States. You will have shorter, more brutal, life which means you won't consume so many of the world's resources.

    I guess if your idea of environmentalism is everyone else should use less so that you can use more then, yes, immigration is a major environmental issue. But we used to call that greed.

  • Zak J. (unverified)

    Lin Qiao, "Illegals" is at best a term of generalized resentment and abuse, and at worst a bit of coded racism.

    Your writings show you're a thoughtful person, but the argument that people who want to control the borders, control who comes in (no criminals, e.g. MS13 & MS18), and control the supply of unskilled, easily-exploited labor are "racists" is tiresome and unproductive.

    Every society has a certain criminal element in it. I see no reason to give up the ability of excluding that element from coming here.

    On your point about the Chinese Exclusion Act, bear in mind that Chinese laborers were brought into this country--through collusion between U.S. & Chinese labor companies--to replace African slaves immediately after the Civil War. In addition to the railroads, they also performed agricultural field work. 1 in 10 who worked on the UP died during the construction. This shows exactly what their working conditions were & how little the corporate interests valued their lives. The country had just fought a war to end slavery, only to see the impulses toward enslaving turn to the Chinese as a substitute.

    The same principle applied to Europeans, too. In the classic book "How the Irish Became White" it is pointed out that in the pre-Civil War south, extremely dangerous jobs were not given to slaves, who represented a property loss if they were killed. The worst jobs were given to Irish day laborers on the assumption that there were plenty more where those came from! I would suggest the treatment of unskilled/illegal aliens in this country at present isn't much better. Read Fast Food Nation for a look at the meat-packing industry, largely staffed by Mexican immigrants. Keeping an open immigration policy will ensure that workers remain an expendable resource. Depending on how it is done, a "guest-worker" program could even make it worse--imagine if legal immigrants could be deported if they lost their jobs? I don't want to give that kind of power to employers.

    My point is those like me who favor restrictions on immigration are motivated by anti-racist motives and rhetoric to the contrary only serves the interests of those who exploit the poor and unskilled.

  • bill (unverified)

    Ross - no I am talking about overpop.right here in Oregon, everywhere will look like Beaverton if the amnesty bill passes - bye-bye forests, greenspace, farms, etc. Doesnt matter where the excessive growth comes from, what ethnicity,etc. As for me, I have no kids, so will consume far less than you over the next 100 yrs, including my progeny, theirs..etc. just in toilet tissue alone, haha, typical simple, unclear, off-topic, doltish response, BTW.

  • je (unverified)

    Ross, I agree employers should be punished for using illegal aliens, but really it's obvious for you that's just throw away line. The thrust of your answer makes clear what you want: Open borders and amnesty. You just don't have the guts to answer directly because you know "open borders and amnesty" are to consign you to political isolation, as 75% of the American people don't agree with you.

    Ross, we take in a million legal immigrants a year, so your "shut the door" statement is ignorant and false, don't forget hundreds of thousands come to work on visas every year.

    The Guatamala example is classic far-left blame America first and don't acknowlege the obvious: More people put more burden on the environment. It seems your attachment to open borders dogma trumps any environmental concerns you might have.

    Lin, sorry, the racist tag is more a sign of intellectual exhaustion on your part than anything else and Chinese illegal aliens are "illegals" too, so are Bulgarians for that matter, although Mexican illegal aliens are more of a problem because of their vast numbers.

    Ross, you would be more persuasive if, when asked a direct question, you gave a direct answer, not some indirect rambling, blame America first answer, that reveals the socialistic dogma that underlies your politics.

    I want blue collar workers getting paid as much as possible and not undercut by illegal aliens, too bad you don't give a damn about blue collar workers. And my knee jerk reaction is not to blame America first.

  • Ross Williams (unverified)

    he argument that people who want to control the borders, control who comes in (no criminals, e.g. MS13 & MS18), and control the supply of unskilled, easily-exploited labor are "racists" is tiresome and unproductive.

    And equally tiresome is the constant denials of the obvious truth that many of them are racists and that is part of what makes it an effective political issue.

    My point is those like me who favor restrictions on immigration

    And where are the people who oppose any restrictions on immigration? There is no on seriously arguing that we eliminate all immigration controls. And we are talking about people who are already here aren't we? How they will be treated?

    I agree employers should be punished for using illegal aliens,

    Good. What are you going to do to see that happens. Because it is already illegal but the law is not being enforced.

    As for the rest of that diatribe, its typical Republican propaganda directed at anyone who suggests a solution that doesn't involve their "winners" scoring on the "losers". Here is my take on you:

    The Guatemala example is classic far-left blame America first

    Coffee growing is now America's fault? One moment you are blaming Mexico, the next you are defending Guatemala. The next you are accusing me of blaming America. But lets not point fingers ...

    The fact is that the transfer of indigenous lands in Central America to cash crops that purchase goods in the international market is part of the reason they are fleeing Central America, mostly to Mexico. That is the nature of international trade. It increases competition. And it puts enormous pressure on artificial barriers, including those that limit where people can work. That's about as left as Adam Smith.

    I want blue collar workers getting paid as much as possible

    If you wanted blue collar workers to be getting paid more you would support a higher minimum wage, prevailing wage laws, and stronger protection from being fired for joining a union.

    If you were really worried about them losing their jobs to foreign born workers you would demand the federal government arrest all those Republican contractor/landlord friends of yours who hire people off the street corner, pay them less than they would have to pay a resident worker and then don't even pay any employment taxes for them. Its a win-win for the winners. The losers are legitimate businessmen and their blue collar workers.

    You apparently aren't interested in solutions, you want something that will win you votes. You are adopting the typical Republican "winner take all" approach that you started out so sanctimoniously criticizing.

    everywhere will look like Beaverton if the amnesty bill passes

    There aren't very many poor immigrants without greencards who can afford those new McMansions. The guys out at Intel, who can, all have greencards. The fact is that the problems with our environment aren't caused by poor immigrants but by the consumption of the rest of us.

  • Anahuac (unverified)

    All this talk of "illegal immigration" makes me laugh! Mexicans are ethnically, and linguistically related to the Paiute of the Oregon Warm Springs Reservation, yet they are considered "aliens", "foreigners", and "immigrants" in a land in which they are still related to the Indigenous population. Does anybody wonder WHY Mexicans are Brown? It's simple, they're "Indian", "Native American", "Indigenous", "Aboriginie", and First Nations People. Mexicans did not come over the Atlantic in 1492, nor did they land in Plymouth Rock, Mexicans were here already as a thriving culture. In fact, not all "Mexicans" are Mexican...there are over 100 different Indigenous ethnic groups in Mexico, and they are all related ethnically, historically, and linguistically to many "Indians" on the "American" side of the border, i.e., Yaqui's, Tohono O'odham, Kickapoo, Apache, Uto-Aztecan, etc, etc. SAXTON: Before you call somebody "illegal" in the land of their ancestors, you better check where yours came from, cuz it sure wasn't here. You, SAXTON, are an Immigrant racist from Europe, Mexicans are Indigenous to this land. Get it right!


in the news 2006

connect with blueoregon