No snitchin’

June 21st, 2010 · 91 comments

“So, this note was left in my mailbox (along with those of our other neighbors, I assume) back in March,” says our submitter in Connecticut. Although this one starts with out with seems like run-of-the-mill suburban blahblahblah, the second paragraph throws out a hell of a curveball.

Dear Neighbor: A member of the Health Department knocked on my door today to report a complaint of stagnant water in the swimming pool in my backyard. It was reported to them that the pool has been idle for two years and has standing stagnant water in it. Let me assure you that when we decided not to open the pool (to swim in) last summer, we contacted the Health Department and had to go down there and sign for (there is a public record of this) mosquito larvae killer tablets. The pool was treated all spring, summer, and fall last year (2009). Sometime after we closed the pool last fall, we noticed this winter that all of the water had drained out of it. The recent rains have left water in there for now and the pool is being treated once again with the mosquito larvae killer tablets. We hope to have the leak in the pool repaired this summer and have it operational, but until that time it will be treated appropriately. In 30 days, I will request via the Freedom of Information Act who reported this Health Violation to the city without having the courtesy to even inquire of me what the status of the pool is. At that time, I will publish that person's name as it will be a matter of public record. Thank you for your time and concern. Your Neighbor

“To be honest, I’m surprised the notewriter hasn’t taken to the street with a megaphone, demanding that the cowards who called the Health Department show themselves,” our submitter says. No such luck, however. ”My wife and I are dying to know who the snitch was,” he says, “but we’ve been left hanging!”

He adds: “I’ve considered mailing the writer an anonymous note stating that, strictly speaking, leaving notes in our mailboxes without paying postage is a violation of federal law. You know,  just to throw some fuel on the fire.” (I’d say submitting the note to this note is probably good enough.)

related: Thanks for your concern, but you have no idea what you’re talking about.

FILED UNDER: Connecticut · MYOB · neighbors · not-so-veiled threats · Oops?

91 responses so far ↓

  • #1   Cnecomicz bang

    Those mosquito larvae killer tablets were fucking delicious.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 6:35 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #1.1   Cnecomicz bang

      Oh, and first… er second. Both!

      Jun 21, 2010 at 6:35 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #1.2   eslinger bang

      I would give you more thumbs if it were allowed. Proud to say I’m thumber #9, and grats on beating me to the punch! I do so love the “fucking delicious” comments. They’re pretty damn tasty.

      Jun 21, 2010 at 11:17 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #1.3   Canthz_B bang

      No accounting for taste, is there?

      Jun 21, 2010 at 11:32 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #1.4   JetJackson

      Yeah those fucking delicious comments take phenomenal creativity. It astounds me how note after note someone is still able to identify an edible or inedible object and work it into the phrase “That *insert object* was fucking delicious!”. It is the PAN equivalent of a fart joke.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 1:03 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #1.5   Canthz_B bang

      Jet, that fart was fucking del…NO!! I CAN’T BRING MYSELF TO SINK SO LOW!!!!! ARRRRGGGHHHH!!!!

      Jun 22, 2010 at 1:51 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #1.6   infanttyrone

      Mom and Dad went to a pool party down the block and got mosquito larvae killer tablet hors d’oeuvres…*

      *Feel encouraged to hover over the hors d’oeuvres

      Jun 22, 2010 at 12:41 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #1.7   Clumber

      …you attention hors.

      Jun 23, 2010 at 4:59 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #2   jfruh


    Jun 21, 2010 at 6:35 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #2.1   PTuna

      Tattletales burn in HELL!

      Jun 21, 2010 at 8:48 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #2.2   Mo® bang

      Snitchety schnoooo…

      Jun 22, 2010 at 8:50 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #2.3   Scribbles the Monkey bang

      I think this guy is gonna find out he has a neighbour named “Hugh G. Boner”. That’s the name I’d give if I were ever in mid-snitch.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 9:46 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #2.4   Mo® bang

      Myke Hawke told on you! Nyah nyah nyah!

      Jun 22, 2010 at 10:11 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #2.5   infanttyrone

      Myke used his own name ? He’s getting bolder.
      He usually hides behind Sue D. Nim.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 12:46 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #3   much to my chagrin

    Sounds like someone won’t be invited to next year’s pool party.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 6:39 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #3.1   FeRD bang

      …You mean other than the poor mosquitoes?

      Jun 24, 2010 at 12:42 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #4   shesajem

    wooo that politely written note would have had the culprit squirming in his pants!

    Jun 21, 2010 at 6:52 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #4.1   Flaboy2425


      Jun 21, 2010 at 9:05 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #5   Ashley in CT

    Oh, come on, don’t send *a* letter to them. Send several, using different fonts and formatting, and mail them on different dates. That way, they can be freaked out knowing that, even if only one person contacted the town, the whole street’s after them. Paranoid neighbors aren’t any fun unless you play with them.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 7:00 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #5.1   AmyLouise

      And do NOT forget cutesy clip art!

      Jun 22, 2010 at 8:27 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #5.2   Clumber

      and random. punctuation;

      Jun 23, 2010 at 5:00 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #6   Quite Contrary

    Sounds like Martha Stewart to me.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 7:04 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #7   Woman on the Verge bang

    I hope he rents a billboard to “publish” the culprit’s name… since it will be a matter of public record and all.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 7:07 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #7.1   Nack

      Yeah, reporters names aren’t public record, actually. So the poor dear is going to be up a creek. =)

      Jun 21, 2010 at 8:38 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #7.2   Woman on the Verge bang

      It will likely be a mosquito-infested creek.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 5:47 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #8   Resident Grammarian esq bang

    And of course, if his house were on fire I wouldn’t dream of snitching either

    Jun 21, 2010 at 7:34 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #9   libiblio

    SNITCHES IN DITCHES (ditches with standing water and mosquito larvae)

    Jun 21, 2010 at 8:19 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #10   G bang

    Whatever will he do, if the complaint was made anonymously?

    Jun 21, 2010 at 8:23 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #11   rex

    Also, technically speaking, FOIA doesn’t apply to local or state governments–only the feds. So good luck with that.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 8:46 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #11.1   hannaho

      incorrect, many states (including Connecticut) have adopted their own FOIA

      Jun 21, 2010 at 9:53 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #12   Rillion

    Submitter in Connecticut sounds like a dick for wanting to add “fuel to the fire,” as does the original neighbor who thought it was his/her business to report someone for what was going on in their own backyard pool.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 9:19 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.1   Canthz_B bang

      I would agree with you, if the potential mosquitoes could be kept in the offender’s own backyard as well…but they probably couldn’t be, and since West Nile Virus is a real issue in the area, I’d err on the side of reporting and being wrong, rather than saying nothing and maybe getting West Nile Virus.

      I’d also save them the trouble of a FOIA request. Who gives a shit if anyone knows I called the Health Department? Let those nepotism ninnies get off their asses and do some field work once in a while.

      Jun 21, 2010 at 10:42 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.2   Canthz_B bang

      What would be really cool is if the asshole would:

      1) Properly drain his pool, and
      2) Invest in a pool cover

      But that’s too much like doing the right thing.

      Jun 21, 2010 at 11:14 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.3   jadefirefly

      Obviously Connecticut is not Arizona, but issues with mosquitos and standing water and West Nile are so bad in AZ that some officials actually proposed using helicopters to spot un-cared-for pools in the area.

      (The idea was shot down as a horrible breach of privacy, but hey.)

      When you’ve got your own special mosquito breeding ground, it’s not just your business anymore. It’s the whole damn neighborhoods.

      Jun 21, 2010 at 11:20 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.4   Sue Do Nim bang

      Isn’t that how AZ is going to get rid of the illegal immigrants? That wouldn’t breach anyone’s privacy.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 12:02 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.5   Canthz_B bang

      Using mosquito larva poison on illegal immigrants might be unconstitutional, but what the hey! Let’s give’er a try!!

      Then maybe everyone will get off our backs for just wanting to ask to see proof of legal residency (not citizenship as has been erroneously reported all too often).
      Maybe they’ll even compare AZ’s law to Mexico’s immigration law and wonder why people who accept such a harsh law in their own land have a problem doing much less than is required of foreigners in their country of origin for much less freedom in return.


      I mean, I don’t see reports of anyone marching in the streets in Mexico asking for more liberal immigration policies there…maybe because their policy greatly favors Mexicans over immigrants and they kinda like that, the hypocrites. Arizona only asks to verify that people are here legally, it’s against the law in the US to discriminate based upon ethnicity or legal immigration status (race, creed, sex or color, ♫ and all that jazz ♫)…not so in Mexico. In fact, there it’s the law to actively do so.

      When you travel abroad, you carry your passport because you know that it is for your protection. Illegal immigrants are opposed to Arizona’s SB1070 because they know it is not for their protection…it’s for their detection… and what illegal wants to be detected?

      Hell, if I were a rapist, I’d be against DNA evidence. But since I’m no rapist, I’m all for using DNA evidence to convict rapists…and to exonerate the falsely accused.
      Excuse me for asking, but what’s the point in issuing papers if no one is allowed to ask to see them?

      “.{article 37} The authorities of the Republic, whether federal, local or municipal, as well as public notaries, are obliged to check if foreigners are legally in the country.”

      AZ SB1070?

      No. Mexican law.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 12:48 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.6   Sirius¤ bang

      But if you deport all the illegals, who is going to take care of my pool?

      Jun 22, 2010 at 9:58 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.7   Woman on the Verge bang

      Personally, I have a “Mo the Pool Boy” fantasy…

      Jun 22, 2010 at 10:09 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.8   Kate

      Canthz B – those of us who object to the AZ law do so not because it requires immigrants to have papers, but because it will also require anyone native who happens to be brown to show them on request, too.

      It *is* racial profiling, no matter what the governor might say, and it’s a violation of the Constitutional rights of *citizens* to be secure in their persons and their papers.

      After all, there were Hispanics in AZ long before it was a state, and long before there were white people there. The law punishes people who are just as, or more, “American” than the white people who now run the place.

      I have a passport – when I’m in the US, I certainly don’t carry it around with me. Even in foreign countries, it’s customary to leave it in the hotel for safe keeping. No one should have to show ID to law enforcement if they’re not doing anything illegal – that’s the rub.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 12:47 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.9   Mark bang

      In my opinion, the only way to properly enforce this law is to require EVERYONE to show papers, EVERY time ANY contact occurs. Everyone on the street. State senators, cops, the governor, soccer moms, Paco Sanchez, EVERYBODY. At all times.

      It seems like the quickest way to get rid of stupid laws is to enforce them completely, at all times, no exceptions whatsoever. And preferably, have the enforcers keep track of how much time (i.e. money) they are taking to enforce the law, and estimate how many other infractions they are probably missing as a result. See how long it takes till the legislature changes their mind or writes a better law.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 1:00 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.10   H for Toy bang

      I’m all for amending the law to say that if you’ve been in Arizona since before it became a state, you’re free to stay. I mean, if you’ve been there for nearly 100 years, you might as well stay at this point.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 2:20 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.11   LordOfThePants

      Maybe just get patches sewn onto our clothing in order to… um, never mind.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 4:03 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.12   Canthz_B bang

      Kate and Mark, we already ask any and everyone for ID. The first thing an officer of the law asks you for is identification.
      No one is requiring a briefcase full of legal documents. No one is being asked to carry every scrap of paper they received during the long process of applying to come into the US as a legal resident.
      Contrary to popular (ill-informed) opinion, we here in Arizona are not going to “round’em up, and ship’em out” on sight.

      First of all, no one can be stopped solely for being brown. The law gives authorities greater power to inquire about immigration status when investigating an unlawful act. No unlawful act, no grounds to initiate an investigation as to legal residency. Like some state’s seat-belt laws which state that you can’t be stopped for not wearing one, but if you’re stopped for something else and not wearing a seat-belt you can be ticketed for that as well.
      If you’re shopping, you cannot be hassled. If you’re caught shoplifting you can be hassled.

      If you’re driving and not breaking any laws, you’ll be fine. If you get pulled over for speeding, you may be asked immigration status.

      I don’t buy into the tortured “Mexicans were here first” argument, because it has no real bearing on the matter at hand. There was a little war, after which possession of this land passed from Mexico to the USA. Read the 14th Amendment to the Constitution if you’d care to know the legal status of those Mexican-Americans, and if you think that has anything to do with 21st century immigration issues, which it doesn’t.
      As far as Whites running the USA, so what. In Mexico the descendants of the Spanish are running things, not the descendants of the Aztecs. If we want to go with the “who was here first” argument, there will be a great number of nations which will need to be reshuffled.
      That red herring is all about making this a racial issue, when it clearly is not a racial issue.
      The issue is about illegal immigration. No one is against legal immigration. We encourage legal immigration and are a better nation for it.

      As for brown people being targeted, I’m a brown person…and I’m not at all worried about it. Whenever I’ve been asked for my license and registration, I’ve gladly offered them up.

      Face it, the only people who are upset by this are people who aren’t here legally and the people who employ them.
      Every legal immigrant, from all over the globe, already knows that Federal Law requires that they carry proof of legal residence with them at all times. We just want to be able to say “Show me.”

      I mean, heck, if you use a credit card or purchase merchandise with a personal check, you’ve probably been asked for ID before and never felt persecuted by it.

      Who thinks it’s a good idea to be out and about without proper identification…besides John and Jane Doe?

      Kate, it is NOT Racial Profiling. You misunderstand what that means in legal terms.
      Illegal racial profiling is when the criteria being used are invalid with respect to the issue one is attempting to address. In this case, ethnicity is a statistically valid factor to consider.
      Here are examples you may want to consider:

      If your aim is to stop illegal drug traffic and you concentrate only on Asians because you believe that mostly Asians are involved in illegal drugs, that’s racial profiling because you’re targeting Asians, not drug dealers…there being no evidence that Asians are more likely to be carrying drugs than anyone else. And there being many other factors which are much better indicators of who may be carrying illegal drugs (such as an abnormal amount of weight in the car as demonstrated by the tail end nearly dragging on the road, for example).
      If your aim is to do something about illegal immigration from south of the border, your likely suspects will be mostly Hispanic. I’m pretty sure there is evidence that Hispanics are the vast majority of those who cross into the country illegally from south of the border.
      Get real, if you’re looking for illegal immigrants from Haiti, you might want to consider skin color on your list of things that might make someone a possible suspect (not a lot of Whites or Asians coming in from Haiti, but Blacks speaking with French Creole accents would be likely suspects).
      If you’re targeting illegal immigration from Ireland, you probably want to look at White people with strong Irish accents, as there are few Hispanics, Blacks or Asians entering the US via Ireland. That’s not racial profiling, it’s common sense policing.

      As to the Fourth Amendment: : The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.:

      There is no unreasonable search or seizure of personal papers when one is asked to show documents that confirm the right to drive, proof of auto insurance, identity or legal residency status…otherwise it could not be Federal law that immigrants be required to carry and produce upon demand said papers. It is perfectly reasonable to ask someone for papers they were issued specifically to show exactly what the authority is questioning…in this case legal residency.

      “The law punishes people who are just as, or more, “American” than the white people who now run the place.”?
      No. the law only “punishes” those who would violate immigration law. Others may be inconvenienced by it, but not punished, and Mexicans of Spanish descent are no more “American” than what you call “White”…or is Spain no longer in Europe?
      You seem to forget, or perhaps are unaware, that Spain was once the most powerful colonial power on the planet.
      Just why do you suppose most of Central and South America (plus Mexico which is North America) speaks Spanish? Trans-Atlantic osmosis?
      Call the Vatican about Brazil, the Portuguese are still pissed about that line!!. ;-)

      Jun 22, 2010 at 10:43 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.13   Zar

      Face it: the only people who aren’t bothered by this law are racists.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 11:31 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.14   Canthz_B bang

      Cool, Zar. What a well thought out position to hold. Clearly an efficient person, you dismiss all of the legitimate concerns and arguments on each side of an issue and go straight to name-calling.

      Now run along and actually read the law rather than listening to erroneous reports about it.

      BTW, my fiance is one quarter Hispanic, one quarter Native American and half Black.

      Which part of her should I be racist against? Please, don’t make it any of the good parts! ;-)

      What about the legal immigrants who favor this law? Who are they racist against?

      Jun 22, 2010 at 11:44 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.15   mamason bang

      The only people opposed to this law haven’t read it fully, don’t live in Arizona and haven’t taken the time to compare it to the federal laws already in existence. Take some time out of your busy lives and do a bit of reading and then formulate your own opinions based on knowledge you’ve obtained through your own effort rather than having your opinions spoon fed to you by MSNBC.

      P.S. I think one of the biggest problems concerning illegal immigrants is that it allows for the abuse of immigrants themselves.

      Whew. It’s mighty hot today. I think I’ll go sit in the shade of that rape tree so thoughtfully provided by the Mexican coyote willing to exploit, abuse and kill his own people for a few bucks.

      Shoot! What was the note about…

      Jun 23, 2010 at 2:06 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.16   Kate

      Mamason, while I don’t live in AZ, I have read the law, and I am fully aware of the federal laws already in existence. If this law enforced current federal law by going after *employers* instead of aliens, then I’d be all for it. As it is, it’s just window dressing – “Look! We’re doing something about illegal immigration by making our cops play whack-a-mole! Vote for us!” Instead of doing something that might actually work.

      Canthz B, I’m neither an illegal nor an illegal employer, so you’re wrong about my objections to the law. You’re making the same mistake you lambast Zar for.

      I’m not sure what you’re getting at by the latter part of your post – yes, South and Central America were cconquered by the Spanish just as most of North America was conquered by the English and their descendants. That doesn’t make the descendents of the original inhabitants any less citizens, or their rights any less important. I’m of tri-racial descent myself (white, black and Native American). I’m not sure that should give my voice more weight, but I’m throwing it out there because you did.

      Yes, we all show our driver’s license at traffic stops, not because we need to be identified, though – it’s because driving a car is a special privilege that requires a license.

      Being brown doesn’t require a license, especially being brown in a state that has a large *legal* brown population. This is very much akin to the Jim Crow laws in the South – you bet I’m against it.

      Enforce the laws we already have, equally and fairly. That’s all I want.

      Jun 24, 2010 at 10:39 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.17   Canthz_B bang

      This is NOTHING like the Jim Crow laws of the South.
      Jim Crow laws were designed specifically to disenfranchise African-American citizens of their rights as citizens. Rights of citizenship they’d enjoyed under the 14th and 15th amendments prior to enactment of Jim Crow laws.

      We weren’t here illegally asking to not only be allowed to stay here illegally, but also asserting that the authorities have no right to determine if we are even here illegally.

      I didn’t throw in my ethnicity in a vacuum, Kate. You stated in 12.8 “…because it will also require anyone native who happens to be brown to show them on request, too.” I just said I’m “brown” and not worried about it. ;-)
      Besides, the persons being asked for ID don’t have to be brown. If during the course of a criminal investigation an officer has a reasonable suspicion someone may be an illegal immigrant, he/she will have a duty to investigate. That goes for say, Russians, Italians or Britons too. All manner of people over-stay their visas and are here illegally, though the vast majority of illegal immigrants in AZ are undoubtedly Hispanic…results may vary depending upon your location. :-P
      Again, UNLIKE Jim Crow laws for which there was no specific requirement to enforce let’s say a literacy test or grandfather clause at the polls, so authorities only applied the law to Blacks. SB1070 was carefully written to avoid such Constitutional challenges in court. Supposedly, it must be applied to all.

      Maybe you have in fact read the law, but not really understanding racial profiling or Jim Crow makes me wonder how well you understand it.

      As to employers, there are numerous laws already on the books to deal with hiring of illegal immigrants…I agree that they need to be enforced, but this law isn’t about employment or the employers…it’s about the illegal immigrants themselves being here in the first place.

      Really now. The “Talk about the employers” argument is just so much mud in the water. SB 1070 is mostly about the immigrants.
      It’s sort of like a child caught stealing cookies who says, “But Sally stole cookies too.” My Mom always countered that with, “But we’re not talking about Sally right now, we’re talking about you!”
      Anyway, it’s a bogus argument. Most immigrants don’t come here to “get a job”. Most aspire to work for themselves. As a certain infamous German once said of Britain, we are a nation of shopkeepers. People come here for greater personal opportunity for the most part, not to bust their humps for “the Man”.

      Residing in the USA is a special privilege (not a Right) just like driving is, as you note as to driving, but not as to residency (you clearly know the difference between rights and privileges). A privilege enjoyed by citizens and those whose residency has been approved by the federal government, not any Tom, Dick and Harry who decides he’d just like to me here. Residency as a foreign national requires valid documentation just like driving does.
      We have a RIGHT to determine who comes here. Sometimes that’s called National Sovereignty.
      What part of this is so hard to understand?
      If you don’t think you’re being identified when you hand over your drivers license, you’re wrong. They don’t just check to verify your driving privileges are current, they also run you for warrants. If you have outstanding warrants, you’ve been identified and will be arrested in accordance with them.
      Do you really think you can say that they can’t arrest you for an arrest warrant issued for petty theft , if they pulled you over for running a stop sign?

      Well, that’s sort of what illegal immigrants want to do. They want to say, “Sure, you stopped me for running a red light, but you have no right to find out that I’m in this country illegally. Otherwise, I could be deported.”

      I brought up the 14th to point out that the descendants of the original inhabitants are indeed not less citizens, but people who cross into our country illegally are NOT US citizens…now are they?
      The later part of my post was yet another attempt on my part to guide you away from trying to inject “race” into this issue so we could focus on illegal immigration…which is what the law attempts to address. The 14 amendment addresses citizenship by both birth and naturalization. That’s it for the they were here first and this used to be Mexico argument. We’re talking about current illegal immigrant populations (using current international borders), not people whose families have been here for generations.

      And you are right…I should have added many other groups of people who are against this law (though unlike Zar, I stuck to the real issue and included the employers of illegal immigrants and I haven’t stooped to silly name-calling)…but most of them don’t live down here on the front lines. Over 70% of Arizonans approve of this measure. That in a state with a huge legal brown population. Legal immigrants tend to be against illegal immigration. They played by the rules and expect others to do so as well.
      Many of those against 1070 can only relate to this situation on an academic level, but real life is not an academic exercise.
      There are real people dying in the desert who need to be discouraged from making the journey. There are real drug smugglers. There is a real dead rancher murdered on his own land (if you don’t care for ranchers, they also shot his dog). There is real environmental damage being done by tons of trash left by illegals and by the deep ruts being created in remote paths which causes soil erosion. There are damaged water lines and fences (repair costs to the ranchers into the millions of dollars), and break-ins of ranchers’ homes. There is kidnapping and murder in our major cities.

      Tell me, how many of these illegal immigrants that you’d have us ignore underwent a criminal background check before they entered our country? How many legal immigrants do?

      Short answers: None. All.

      This is not a problem specific to AZ, as many, if not most, of these illegal immigrants have no plans to stay in AZ. They plan to move on to other states…perhaps yours. Then you’ll all be blaming AZ, CA and TX for “letting them in”.

      Do I endorse every provision of SB1070? No, but overall I’m for it. The most ridiculous provisions will not pass muster in a court challenge, and eventually we will have a cleaner law, but we’re not going to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
      We’re sick and tired of having the authorities’ hands tied, and we’re sick and tired of “the illegal immigration lottery” we now have in place which pretty much says that if they can get here, they win and once here there’s nothing we can do about it.
      We’re tired of being laughed at behind our backs…in fact, they’re probably laughing at you, as you defend their “right” to violate international law and to scoff at the sanctity of your own nation’s borders.
      Why are they laughing at you? Because they know that immigration law in Mexico (or pretty much any other country you’d care to name) is so very much more harsh against those who would enter Mexico (or pretty much any other country you’d care to name) illegally than US law is against those who would enter the US illegally. They know that by comparison the US is a push-over.
      They’d like to keep us push-overs, and your ilk is aiding them in their cause.

      Jun 25, 2010 at 2:17 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.18   Canthz_B bang

      Also, Kate, you may remember that when authorities “raid” employers and arrest illegal immigrant employees and charge the employers, there is always the attendant wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth of the pro-open borders crowd about it.
      What about the families? They cry.
      What about the children afraid that their parents will be arrested at work? They cry.

      It’s all well and good to say “Crack down on the employers”, but you must accept that that also means cracking down on the illegal immigrant employees as well.
      You must accept that that isn’t any prettier than SB1070, even though you’d like to see that enforcement carried out. I assume you’d like to see the employers face jail time or hefty fines. Does that also mean that you favor deporting the illegal immigrant employees when they are caught in the same raids? The breaking up of families? Do we put those businesses out of business altogether? What impact does that have on their legal employees, both immigrant and citizen and their families?
      You cannot continue to characterize as law-abiding, hard workers those whose first action as their feet touched our soil was an illegal act. You cannot call them law-abiding hard workers when they use identity theft to obtain a job. You should not ignore the impact that has on those whose identities have been stolen.
      You must accept that that impacts their families and that it is they, not the authorities (or the law), who have put their families at risk. After all, they themselves understand the risk and have assumed the risk, hoped to avoid it, but knew all along what the risks, and possible consequences are.

      I’m glad you want existing law enforced, accept the consequences. Your preferred enforcement policy is not without “collateral damage”.

      There are no simple answers to complex problems.
      Often much trial and error is required…we’re trying. Making some errors, but at least we here in AZ are trying. What’s up with the rest of you?

      Jun 25, 2010 at 8:39 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #12.19   Canthz_B bang

      Kate, you say we should “do something that might actually work”.
      Tell me…what do you think might actually work? If you have nothing, that’s pretty much an empty statement to make. I submit that parts of SB1070 may actually work…that’s why there is so much opposition to its enactment.

      Any and all good ideas would be greatly appreciated.

      I do appreciate the civil discourse as well, by the way.
      It is a very interesting issue to delve into if you think about it.

      Jun 27, 2010 at 1:33 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #13   hannaho

    Rex — FOIA would apply here, many states have adopted their own versions of FOIA, including Connecticut, in which this incident took place.

    Jun 21, 2010 at 9:52 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #13.1   oi

      No it doesn’t.

      Jun 21, 2010 at 9:59 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #13.2   infanttyrone

      Is this the Argument Shop ?

      Jun 22, 2010 at 12:28 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #13.3   Mark bang

      Shut your festering gob, you tit! Your kind really makes me puke! You vacuous, toffee-nosed, malodorous PERVERT!

      Jun 22, 2010 at 12:53 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #14   Canthz_B bang

    Maybe it’s just me, but doesn’t reporting the name of a snitch expose one as both a snitch and a crybaby?

    He’s probably a damned Indian-giver with the Cooties too!

    Jun 21, 2010 at 10:51 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #14.1   Wolverine Girl

      Does that mean he gives you cooties then takes them back? I’m not entirely sure that’s a bad thing.

      Jun 21, 2010 at 11:35 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #14.2   Canthz_B bang

      It is. You’re still a Cooties-carrier! LOL

      Jun 21, 2010 at 11:41 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #15   We shall speak anon

    This sounds like something out of a John Cheever story. I bet the pool snitch was Neddy Merrill!

    Jun 21, 2010 at 11:23 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #16   Woman on the Verge bang

    It’s obvious why they reported this guy. Would you report a person who is clearly insane? Festering stagnant swamp water in the pool + intelligently written yet creepily threatening note = Psychopathic killer

    Jun 22, 2010 at 6:14 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #16.1   Mo® bang

      Psycho Killer, Qu’est-ce que c’est? Fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa fa Run run run run run run run away

      Jun 22, 2010 at 8:58 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #16.2   beanster

      ♥ timo: plus a million thumbs.


      Jun 22, 2010 at 9:30 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #16.3   wright1

      “Earworm away, Cap’n Mo! Closing on target… DIRECT HIT!!”

      (sound of targeted skull imploding)

      Jun 24, 2010 at 1:46 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #17   me

    Guess what?
    By him putting the note in the mailbox(s)— um, that’s a Federal offense. Seriously, it is.

    So, should someone report HIM? haha

    Jun 22, 2010 at 7:27 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #17.1   Canthz_B bang



      Who knew? I mean besides the submitter and anyone who read this site’s recent offerings? :-P

      Jun 22, 2010 at 8:03 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #18   Angela

    I would love it if the person who filed the complaint listed their name as Ben Dover. That would make for a great follow up note.

    Jun 22, 2010 at 8:14 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #19   Edwina the Defrocked Nun

    I’m glad we don’t have any real problems, like, IEDs, drones in civilian areas, and a thriving drug trade. Oh, wait, we do have a thriving drug trade. I’m glad we don’t have IEDs.

    (not to be confused with IUDs)

    Jun 22, 2010 at 8:16 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #19.1   H for Toy bang

      I’m glad IUDs don’t do what IEDs do. Really really glad.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 10:05 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #20   Julie

    “I’m going to file a FOIA Request” has become the new battle cry of the American Dumbshit.

    Jun 22, 2010 at 10:34 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #21   Jenni

    The best part is that no one may have ‘reported’ them. Above-ground pools are VERY common in our neighborhood, and mine is right in the middle of a row of 3 of them.
    Once they acquired those tablets last year, the agency knew about their pool, and they’ll probably be visited forever now!
    The Health Dept. came out a few years ago (right as West Nile was coming around) with the same story. Thing is – I actually answered the door in my suit and a towel! Once they confirmed we had a pool, they’ve been out every year, with the same ‘someone reported a unused pool in the area. . .” story and asked to see ours. Which has always been up and in use, along with all the neighbors visible from the second story balcony.

    Jun 22, 2010 at 2:12 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #21.1   Mark bang

      I bet you enjoy watching all the neighbors from your second story balcony. ;)

      Awwww yeahhhh!

      Jun 22, 2010 at 2:30 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #21.2   H for Toy bang

      What Mark meant to say was “Can I come over and watch the neighbors from your second story balcony?”

      Jun 22, 2010 at 3:04 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #21.3   Mo® bang

      This telescope? Ah yes I am a avid astronomy hobbyist. You could say I dabble in looking at heavenly bodies…


      Jun 22, 2010 at 3:17 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #21.4   Canthz_B bang

      Jenni, that’s recreational profiling!
      Pool owners in your area should file suit against this practice!!
      I, for one, intend to boycott your community until this injustice is ended!! :-P

      Jun 23, 2010 at 2:37 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #21.5   Jenni

      I wish I had hotter neighbors. . . . :p

      Jun 24, 2010 at 11:02 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #22   Postman Pat

    Why would you have to pay postage on a hand delivered note? Postage covers the cost of the postal service handling it, surely?

    Jun 22, 2010 at 5:24 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.1   Mark bang

      Hand delivering a note to a mailbox (assuming you’re not a postal carrier) is against federal law. See #17.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 5:40 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.2   oi bang

      no it’s not!

      Jun 22, 2010 at 5:55 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.3   Mark bang

      Look, this isn’t an argument, it’s just contradiction.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 6:30 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.4   Woman on the Verge bang

      no it’s not.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 6:41 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.5   Mark bang

      Yes it is!

      Jun 22, 2010 at 6:46 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.6   Woman on the Verge bang

      No, Mark. It’s not.

      Jun 22, 2010 at 6:59 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.7   Sirius¤ bang

      Look, an argument is a collective series of statements intended to establish a proposition. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes!

      Jun 23, 2010 at 11:17 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.8   oi bang

      No it’s not!
      Are you all riled up yet? :P

      Jun 23, 2010 at 11:22 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.9   mamason bang

      Don’t you kids make me turn this PAN around!

      Jun 23, 2010 at 2:12 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.10   Chinchillazilla

      No you won’t.

      Jun 23, 2010 at 11:13 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.11   Canthz_B bang

      On the contrary.

      Jun 23, 2010 at 11:57 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.12   mastertwisted

      Actually, that’s why you will find a lot of neighborhood ads ON your box. It’s only illegal if you put them IN the box.

      Jun 25, 2010 at 9:32 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

    • #22.13   Canthz_B bang

      No it’s not…

      June 16, 2010 PAN, from comment #9.4:

      “…the D041.2.3 form available on the USPS website states “no part of a mail receptacle may be used to deliver any matter not bearing postage, including items or matter placed upon, supported by, attached to, hung from, or inserted into a mail receptacle.”

      Jun 27, 2010 at 5:25 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #23   Amber Rae

    If he’s going to go through the trouble of filing the Freedom of Information Act for the name of the person, I don’t doubt he wouldn’t also hire some private investigator or call the cops to complain about harassment.

    Jun 22, 2010 at 9:02 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #24   courtney

    “I’ve considered mailing the writer an anonymous note stating that, strictly speaking, leaving notes in our mailboxes without paying postage is a violation of federal law. You know, just to throw some fuel on the fire.”

    Do it! And then submit the results. If nothing else, should be fun to watch.

    Jun 23, 2010 at 8:14 am   rating: 90  small thumbs up

  • #25   Procrastinateher

    I was going to comment on how petty American neighbours are, but then I remembered how we (in Oz) had to install a drain and pump system because our downhill neighbours get a soggy yard after it rains. Only because they complained, that is. But at least we don’t have any Home Owners Association?

    Jun 24, 2010 at 6:33 pm   rating: 90  small thumbs up


Comments are Closed