Arizona Capitol Times Your Inside Source for Arizona Government, Politics and Business
In this May 3, 2018, file photo State Sen. Sylvia Allen keeps warm during a late-night session as the Arizona Legislature prepared to adjourn for the year in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Bob Christie, File)
A veteran Arizona legislator is apologizing while defending herself from criticism for comments she made on immigration and birth rates.
The Phoenix New Times posted audio of a July 15 speech during which state Sen. Sylvia Allen said a flood of immigration and low birth rates among whites amid a lack of cultural assimilation mean “we’re going to look like South American countries very quickly.”
The Republican from Snowflake, Arizona, who is white, also said the U.S. has to regulate immigration so the country can provide jobs, education, health care and other needs.
“We can’t provide that if people are just flooding us and flooding us and flooding us and overwhelming us,” she said.
Wendy Rogers, a Republican running for the state Senate seat now held by Allen, issued a statement Saturday denouncing Allen’s comments as “very racist” and said Allen should retire from the Legislature.
Democratic state Sen. Martin Quezada told the Arizona Republic that the “tone and perspective” of Allen’s remarks on migrants were “insulting, to say the least.”
The Arizona Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee in a statement compared the comments to those of former Arizona Rep. David Stringer. In June 2018, the Prescott Republican said there “there aren’t enough white kids to go around” in the United States and called immigration “an existential threat.”
Allen in Facebook posts Friday and Saturday apologized “to anyone who has been hurt by her words.” But she said her comments on immigration and birth rates were largely based on research by a respected demographer.
“Sadly, immigration has become a most contentious issue in our country,” she said in one of the posts, mentioning that she supports legal immigration and that her extended family sponsored a Laotian family “and helped them to assimilate into our country.”
Later, in a comment on her Facebook post Saturday, she thanked people who spoke in support and added, “Verbal Lynching is the political tool used today to silence debate on critical issues.”
This article illustrates the concept of “We don’t know what we don’t know.”
What we do know today is that we live in a world where the media controls what we see and hear and social media censors what we write and discuss when certain subjects are deleted from the public discussion because they unilaterally find them unacceptable. Note how the messenger is attacked. That in itself is a clue the media thought controllers don’t want this discussed.
What Senator Allen is describing is what she is seeing from the perspective of what she knows and sees of some things that we possibly don’t know or see and is sharing the information to alert us.
Our view at NAFBPO is that the vast influx of illegal aliens is asymmetrical warfare against the American Way of life and it is clear that creeping Communism in America is creeping no more.
What Senator Allen is aware of is the process by which communism is winning and the reasoning as to what the result of massive illegal immigration will likely be.
A clue to the reader that the article is slamming Senator Allen because of her view hinges on two points visible in the news clip, first the tone and meter of the writing and most telling is they do not allow reader comments. In other words, the news agency wants their view heard and not ours and it is probably because they don’t want you to know what you don’t know and most certainly don’t want your voice heard. Which raises the question, does the writer know Senator Allen is right and wants that set of facts stuffed back in Pandora’s Box?
Thank you Senator Allen for highlighting what is intentionally being excluded from the public conversation. It appears that your attackers know you are on the right track and want that information suppressed.
Zack Taylor, ABOVE, is wrong. He engages in a Trumpian attack of the media instead of examining the content and meaning of Sylvia Allen’s comments. The media is not to blame but to be congratulated for offering the response to Allen’s diatribe. If it were not for publishing the comments of Rogers and Quezada, any reader would think Allen speaks unopposed.
Taylor’s editorial is based on what he thinks is “right”, the “American Way”, instead of centering around the fallacy of Allen’s speculation and the racism she uses to create fear. The “American Way” should not include favoring any specific race (as Allen does) and Taylor’s criticism of the media not including reader’s comments is also bullshit as evidenced by your now reading a comment from this reader. Taylor, too, tries to gin up fear against “Communism” which was not even mentioned by Allen.
I don’t know what could be worse . . . Sylvia Allen trying to create fear or a reader like Zack Taylor creating even MORE fear out of Allen’s comments by criticizing the pushback Allen received.
I think it should also be noted that it costs the US Taxpayer $775 a day per imprisoned asylum seeker and that’s something Allen doesn’t mention but can be quantified. Multiply that number by the number of imprisoned per day and you will see that Allen and Taylor have no problem bankrupting this country based on their fears.