« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »

AVWatch: patriotism is the last refuge of Antonio Villaraigosa

Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles (Alta California), is swiftly backing away from the coming anti-illegal immigration backlash. As previously noted, he'll be out of town on Monday. And, while he supports the marches he wants students to stay in school. His latest pronouncements are that those foreign citizens who are marching in our streets should carry American flags and that the National Anthem should be sung in Spanish.

Just because those who are even more extreme than he will call him a "vendido" for those remarks, please don't be fooled. While he is for a large part simply an opportunistic empty suit, his actions from the 60s to just a week ago show his true radical nature.

UPDATE: Tony also says he might attend a rally in the afternoon; apparently his big meeting in Dallas will be rather short.

Posted to Los_Angeles at 10:00 PM | Comments (5)

Will Communists thank "conservatives" for helping them build a proletariat?

Here are pictures from an illegal immigration march in Lynwood (near Compton) earlier today.

Note the large number of placards from the Communist front group ANSWER LA. It's not just corporatists who profit or seek to profit off illegal immigration. Many on the far-left apparently see massive illegal immigration as a chance to build a proletariat and advance their ideologies. There are only so many native-born Americans who could help them build Communism; those groups would be rather foolish to turn down an imported proletariat. Note that ANSWER was involved in at least two near-riots involving illegal immigration: the Baldwin Park and Garden Grove incidents. And, note the play that "immigrants rights" is currently getting on their site (answerla.org), which also lists the organizers of this rally:

Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, Coalicion Latinoamericana, The Southeast Sun Newspaper, Consejo de Fedraciones Mexicanas, Club Ecuestre de Charros de Compton y Carson, Centro Azteca, Bert Corona Foudation, Camara Latinoamericana de Comercio de Lynwood, Frente Comunitario Sur, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Simon Bolivar Asociation and others.

Posted to Immigration at 09:00 PM | Comments (0)

Let's help Steve Lopez think

L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez - at that link being snowed by a Mexican consul - offers "For One Migrant, March Is a Luxury". It concerns a housekeeper he met:

I met Hernandez, 39, a while back at a birthday party for my nanny's son. She and the nanny grew up in the same Honduran plantation town, came north for work and ended up sharing a small apartment with other adults and children.

I'd imagine that a large part of the Los Angeles Times' support for illegal immigration is simple selfish greed: their top employees are part of the "Nanny Employing Class", and they see no problem with several people sharing a small apartment just so they don't have to buy a Roomba or pay a little more for lettuce. It just makes everything so much easier to have a ready supply of servants, no?

As it turns out, the housekeeper is here on a legal worker permit, even though she initially entered illegally. And, she sends money home, which, when you consider all the other Hondurans in the U.S., props up the government of Honduras, helps them avoid reforms, takes a good chunk of their workforce, and encourages them to send us more people. Of course, when you actually look at the big picture things get a bit messy, and that's probably too complicated for someone who prefers telling heartwarming tales.

Then, Lopez goes on to enumerate the housekeeper's health problems that she can't attend to, and says this:

In other words, she could be the queen of the rallies scheduled for tomorrow.

Exactly how so, Steve? The rallies are in support of illegal immigration, not the legal variety. Or, do the supporters want on-demand citizenship for everyone and an end to any sort of legal worker program such as that used by the housekeeper? And, how exactly would any change in status help Hernandez with her problems?

In fact, what Lopez, the Times, and the organizers want would make things far, far worse. Millions upon millions more illegal aliens would come here, and among those would be untold thousands of competitors for the housekeeper's job.

The queen of the rallies should be those who profit off cheap labor, not the laborers themselves.

Posted to Immigration at 04:00 PM | Comments (1)

The "Immigrant" Rights Movement

Did you know there's a growing "Immigrant" Rights Movement? Of course, most Americans will refer to that "movement" as "foreign citizens who are here illegally marching in our streets making a show of force and demanding rights to which they aren't entitled", but many news/propaganda organizations seem to prefer the first term. And, not just because it's shorter but - of course - because it's highly misleading.

There are currently hundreds of articles in Google News that use the titular phrase. While many of the sources are far-left - and equate the "movement" with basically a socialistic revolution - some of them are more mainstream.

The phrase appears to have been in use for a long time but, of course, until recently we've never had hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals marching in our streets and thus it's never been applied to that specific situation.

The timeline supplied by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights might indicate that the phrase has been used for decades, as does the bibliography here. And, Refuse & Resist prints a 2002 letter refering to the phrase.

Returning to the present:

Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times offers "Bush Enters Anthem Fight on Language": "...the new Spanish version of the national anthem that was released on Friday as part of the growing immigrants' rights movement."

"Documented Immigrants Demand Vote in New York City" has a quote from Ron Hayduk: "If the immigrants' rights movement is today's civil rights movement... then noncitizen voting is today's suffrage movement."

Richard Fausset/Los Angeles Times offers "A new 'rights movement' builds slowly in South" (aka "Nervously, Latinos Protest in the South"): "The immigrant rights "movement," such that it is, is in its infancy in the South."

Marilyn Bechtel/People's Weekly World provides "S.F. march fills Market Street": "We are immigrants, day laborers, youth, students, women and men, and we all demand — legalization now!" said hunger striker Renee Saucedo, who heads the city's Day Labor Program. "We are so joyous to be ending our fast here with you," Saucedo said. "Together we are a powerful movement, not only here but all over this country," she added, emphasizing that the immigrant rights movement "is just getting started."

Katie Wilson/McMinnville (OR) News Register offers "Latino outpouring hits close to home": "...[rallies] are being held as part of a national immigration rights movement born out of opposition to a stalled House bill that would make felons out of an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country without legal papers."

From the Socialist Worker Online editorial "Dawn of a new movement": "With the full Senate out to restrict rights in one form or another, it's all the more important for the new immigrant rights movement to put forward its own agenda."

Ed Morales/The Nation offers "The Media Is the Mensaje": "In Chicago, next door to anti-immigrant-bill sponsor James Sensenbrenner's home state of Wisconsin, the weekly La Raza has been central to a well-organized, vibrant immigrants' rights movement in a state that pioneered the use of Mexico's matricula consular as valid identification for the undocumented. A former La Raza reporter, Jorge Mujica, left the paper to become one of the main organizers of the movement there. The current editor in chief, Jorge Mederos, says the paper's front page has been devoted to the issue for several weeks." (See also "Links between the Democratic Party and the Mexican government" and "Senator Dick Durbin supports illegal aliens marching in our streets").

Joshua Hoyt, director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights quoted here: "We don't have a leader like Martin Luther King or Cesar Chavez, but this is now a national immigrant rights movement." (Note: he's linked to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.)

Wendy Suares/WLBT Jackson MS offers "Hundreds Rally For Justice For Immigrants": "Protests all across the country were held Monday in what's turning into a national Immigrants Rights movement. Mississippi's state capitol was no exception. Immigrants and their advocates gathered in Jackson in support of immigration reform and justice." (At least she's upfront about her biases.)

AP via KVOA offers "Strength of planned immigrant work boycott called into question" which, oddly enough, uses a somewhat accurate term: "a boycott would show the strength of the illegal-immigrant rights movement and could lead to favorable changes for illegal immigrants." Whether that was in the original AP article or they modified it is unknown.

Posted to Immigration at 08:41 AM | Comments (1)

Laura Wides-Munoz propaganda on frightened "immigrants"

Laura Wides-Munoz of the AP offers "Raid Rumors Fuel Fear Among Immigrants". The article isn't just heavily slanted in favor of illegal immigration. It goes even further and has the subtext that enforcing our immigration laws is not just cruel, but even similar to Nazism.

Thousands of illegal immigrants stayed home this week amid rumors of immigration roundups that federal officials say were unfounded, leaving some industries scrambling for workers.

Len Mills, executive vice president of Associated General Contractors of South Florida, estimated at least 50 percent of workers on construction jobs in the region had not shown up for work.

"This is costing millions of dollars a day, and I don't know who is going to pay for it," he said.

If Mills' members hired only legal workers and/or paid all the costs associated with their workers, then that wouldn't be an issue. Of course, what's actually happening is that Mills' members who are employing illegal labor are getting cheap labor and sticking everyone else with the bill.

Then, Godwin's Law is invoked:

"Everybody's edgy," said Chris Ruske, owner of a southern New Jersey nursery. "There's an awful lot of rhetoric, and you wonder what's true. You wonder if the immigration Gestapo are coming to get you."

Isn't it extraordinarily inflammatory to compare the ICE to the Gestapo? Should the AP print such quotes without providing any sort of commentary or analysis? Should we assume that the AP is trying to poison the debate with comparisons between United States government agencies and the Nazis? (Ruske is also a columnist for a small paper.)

The AP then provides the opinions of a serious of questionable groups and individuals, without providing and information on their backgrounds:

The National Immigration Law Center called on organizations nationwide to sign a petition urging ICE to assure the public it won't make any immigration arrests during the protests.

And:

"It is the ugliest of rumors because it has intimidated people who are already afraid. They are living in the shadows of society, wondering who is going to knock on the door," said the Rev. Allan Ramirez, pastor of the Brookville Dutch Reform Church in Long Island, N.Y.

When Suffolk County (NY) executive Steven Levy tried to close down houses with dozens of illegal aliens, Ramirez refered to it as "ethnic cleansing." And, as the link in the quote shows, Mexican consul Arturo Sarukhan refers to him as a "friend" and they appear to have at least met on that issue.

And:

Elias Bermudez, an activist and talk show host for a Spanish-language radio station in Phoenix, said many believe they are being punished for participating in recent protests in favor of legalizing the status of many illegal immigrants.

Bermudez tried to start a boycott by illegal aliens last year.

And, the article closes with the thoughts of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

Note also that according to the Society of Professional Journalists, "Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent." The AP's headline writers have ignored that countless times, including the current case.

Posted to Immigration at 03:22 PM | Comments (9)

AVWatch: Antonio Villaraigosa and the illegal immigration march/boycott

Or: "Yo no soy marinero, soy capitan!"

Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles' first Latino mayor in the modern era, will skip huge pro-immigration rallies planned for Monday to meet with pro football officials in Dallas, leaving organizers feeling like "a ship without a captain."

Oscar Sanchez, an organizer of the Great American Boycott in Los Angeles, said the mayor's office previously told the group he would speak at a downtown Los Angeles rally on Monday -- then backed out...

...A spokesman for Villaraigosa said the mayor had never promised to be present at Monday's immigration rallies -- part of a nationwide boycott and demonstration -- and that his Dallas trip had been in the works for a long time.

Villaraigosa, the son of a Mexican immigrant, has long championed immigrant rights. But he has urged restraint in the May Day event, asking protesters to be "lawful and respectful" and children to stay in school...

Of course, it goes without saying that Reuters' wording is misleading. It would be more accurate if they had said "has long championed rights for both legal and illegal immigrants, especially those of the same race as he is" instead.

See also "May Day illegal immigration march/boycott: the supporters". Mexican elected officials are sending a delegation to meet with AV. Is that for a day other than Monday, or is that an additional reason why he'll be out of town?

Posted to Immigration at 12:02 PM | Comments (5)

"Guantanamo Detainee Caught At The Border"

From this unverified entry:

In connection with a lawsuit brought by the Associated Press, the Pentagon released thousands of pages of documents transcribed during tribunal hearings for the hundreds of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is a lot of interesting information in those documents, including the allegations against one detainee who was caught while trying to sneak across the Mexican border.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 09:18 AM | Comments (7)

May Day illegal immigration march/boycott: the supporters

Who supports the May 1 illegal immigration boycott and/or the marches on that day? Let's keep track of them in this post.

The Democrats in the California state senate support both the march and the boycott.

UPDATES
--
5/2/06:

New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber attended and spoke at her local rally. She had attended a rally on April 23 as well. She's the first Hispanic to hold that post, but whether she's ethnically, ethically, or intellectually compromised is not known.

KTTV's Tony Valdez comes out in support of the reconquista. You can hear the interview by doing a find for his name in this listing.

Martin Sheen was at the MacArthur Park rally.

King County Executive Ron Sims lead the march in Seattle.

5/1/06:

Subcomandante Marcos has emerged from his place of concealment and marched in Mexico City in support of illegal aliens in the U.S. He and his entourage marched alongside union workers celebrating Labor Day, radicals waving banners showing Russian revolutionary heroes Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, middle-class families and some protesters dressed in clown costumes and banging drums. Thousands of them ended up in front of the U.S. consulate. One of the marchers has a message for you: "We remind the gringos that they are a country of immigrants. The work that gringos don't like to do is being done by Mexicans"

Mumia Abu-Jamal has thoughts: la.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/154845.php

Goya Foods suspended delivery everywhere except Florida, saying it wanted to express solidarity with immigrants who are its primary customers.

Here's a letter from the president of Ralph's Supermarkets. They support immigration "reform" and understand that some of their employees might want the day off. That major Southern California chain - where up until I saw that email I had spent hundreds of dollars - is owned by Kroger's. (If Kroger's doesn't support his email, they should fire him.) If you have a Ralph's card, Doug McIntyre is reportedly collecting them to be sent back.

Geraldo Rivera has reportedly reiterated his support for "his" people (almost all of whom aren't really of the same ethnicities as he is).

Barack Obama sides with the foreign citizens marching in our streets.

Smithfield Foods says "On May 1, A Day Without An Immigrant, we will be encouraging and assisting our employees to write their senators and representatives in Congress to ask them to pass just legislation that includes protections for legal immigrants and their employers, provides a path to citizenship for those who are willing to work, and does not separate family members. We believe this is the most effective action our employees can take to persuade Congress to make the right choices."

4/30/06: National Beef in Nebraska will close on Monday.

There's a long list of very minor players in the "Open Letter to White Communities" entitled "For May Day and Beyond: White People Step up for Immigrant Rights!" at binghamtonpmc.org/newswire/display/1992/index.php

There are socialistic flyers (no names) here: straycouches.com/mayday

The next five paragraphs were derived from this:

In each of New York City's five boroughs, thousands of workers are expected to take work breaks shortly after noon to link arms with shoppers, restaurant-goers and other supporters along city sidewalks for about 20 minutes. "This will symbolize the interdependence of all of us, not just immigrants, but all of society," said Chung-Wa Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.

Perdue Farms will close six of their 14 plants.

Gallo Wines is giving its 150 employees the day off

Greg Schirf, owner of Wasatch Beers in Utah, said that when some of his Latino employees sheepishly asked if they could take off Monday, he responded: "How about this? We'll just take a company holiday. We'll call it 'Latino Appreciation Day.'" (The last two would be very easy boycott targets for the American side. There are a large number of wineries and breweries to choose from.)

Mahonrry Hidalgo, head of the immigration committee of New Jersey's Latino Leadership Alliance: "The marches are a tool, but they are being overused," said . Like civil rights boycotts of decades past, he said, "this could finally be the spark for our people to advance."

Different LULAC chapters seem to have slightly different opinions. New Mexico: LULAC officials in Las Cruces say even though they support the effort, they are asking students to stay in class and that workers who fear they may lose their job stay at work. From Oklahoma: [Ray] Madrid said LULAC [of Oklahoma] is not promoting a work stoppage, although some workers plan to stay home and boycott retailers. From Texas: ...Leading U.S. migrant advocacy groups are taking a diplomatic approach over the touchy boycott issue. Local representatives of the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund asked participants to do what they think is best, but to consider the ramifications... The message is quite different for youngsters: They're being asked to not skip school or lead walkouts... "They can join the rally after school," said Henry Rodríguez, Texas civil rights director for LULAC. The Odessa TX chapter isn't supporting the boycott. That in NoCal is: "If it's being done to put the fear of God in people, it's working," said Jerry Oquendo, Bay Area chapter president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC. "We're going to tell our people not to be intimidated and to come out and rally (May 1). We'll do everything in our power to protect them." From a bit to the south: The local LULAC chapter is supporting the May 1 boycott - for workers - but has no plans to organize a local demonstration, according to San Benito County LULAC President Mickie Luna. From California comes this slightly not credible report: The call for the boycott has reached every corner of America and is expected to create an economic impact, according to a Los Angeles Coalition working along with the National Immigrant Solidarity Network, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and other grass-roots organizations throughout the country.

Regarding the last link from the racist Pacific News Service, the article is from Milwaukee's conquistadornews.com, which was founded by the Goodson also mentioned in the article: Nelson Goodson and Ernesto Nava, both members of the March 23 Coalition, "A Day Without Latinos Peaceful March"... voted in consensus to proceed with the one day boycott nationwide... A strong message has been circulated by supporters of the boycott not to buy any products, gas, and other items from major stores and companies not related to or supporting the Hispanic community.

4/29/06: There's a long list of mostly low-level, fringe, and/or Usual Suspect supporters here: actionla.org/features/view.php?id=472 There are three groups with "Communist" and five with "Socialis". However, perhaps the most ironic are two groups from Quebec. And - of course - Ramsey Clark's International Action Center has signed on, as has the Revolutionary Communist Party-linked World Can't Wait. And, in a blast from the past, so has the Students for a Democratic Society. The two groups closest to the mainstream are the United People of Color Caucus of the National Lawyers Guild (if the whole NLG doesn't support what that Caucus supports, they shouldn't be using the NLG's name) and the Green Party USA. Regarding the latter, see "Greens Endorse May 1 Strike for Immigrant Rights".

4/28/06: All the political parties in Mexico's lower house have issued a similar declaration to that issued by their counterparts in Alta California. They're sending a delegation to Los Angeles to meet with mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. All of those who supported him should never be allowed to forget that they supported him. (The exact day when they're coming here is unknown, but Villaraigosa now says he'll be out of town on Monday.)

From this (copy here, also here): Joining illegal immigrants in their march on May 1: radical Islamic front groups the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)

From ever further to the left: maydayinthebay.dyndns.org. They want "Full, unconditional and immediate "amnesty" for all immigrants", "Free movement for all people", and more. There's no word on who's behind the group, but they subscribe to the 'Peoples' Global Action' ethos: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples'_Global_Action

And, from this: the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists, Methodists Associated to Represent the Cause of Hispanic Americans (MARCHA, get it?), Mark Nakagawa, pastor of Centenary United Methodist Church in Los Angeles, support the boycott.

--

And, from the provided sources:

(source: Reuters, 'May 1 protest aims to "close" cities')

Jorge Rodriguez, union organizer: "There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno... We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)... That is the message that is going to be played out across the country on May 1." (While that's a common name, based on "Immigration fights don't take recess" he appears to be a Sacramento organizer with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, which "is affiliated with the AFL-CIO through AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees". Link.)

Chicago Catholic priests: "have helped organize protests, sending information to all 375 parishes in the archdiocese."

Cargill Inc., Tyson Foods Inc and Seaboard Corp "said they will close plants due to the planned rallies."

Cardinal Roger Mahony supports the march, but not the boycott: "Go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterword."

Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa... has said he expects protesters to be "lawful and respectful" and children to stay in school.

Juan Jose Gutierrez, director of the Latino Movement USA: "This is going to be really big. We're going to have millions of people... We are not concerned at all [about a backlash]. We believe it's possible for Congress to get the message that the time to act is now." And, the next link has this quote: "Americans respect those who struggle, those who don't cow down... We can't (only) continue marching to make ourselves heard."

(AFP, Latin Hollywood actors back immigrant boycott

Edward James Olmos (who hugged your blogger - in a very manly fashion - while we were sweeping up after the L.A. riots and whose hug your blogger hereby renounces): "The protest will be very important, because it will teach a lesson to politicians and the rest of the United States."

Selma Hayek: Before departing on a European promotional tour, Hayek was considering how she could support the May 1 boycott, a source close to the actress said.

Gustavo Santaolalla ("Brokeback Mountain" composer from Argentina): "We have to demand respect and dignity, because we are all workers and because we are already part of the DNA of this country."

John Leguizamo (actor from Colombia) is "proud of the protests" and says "It is insulting that the law would call an immigrant a criminal... It's horrible."

National Council of La Raza ("National Council of The Race") does not oppose the May 1 action, but suggested that instead of taking the day off, marches take place after school or work.

Eva Longoria ("Desperate Housewives") has also spoken out for the cause, but is careful to see both sides of the benefits of immigration, as well as the need to secure the US border.

(source: Spanish 'Star-Spangled Banner' Draws Ire by Laura Wides-Munoz)

Adam Kidron (British music producer from Urban Box Office; U.S. resident for 16 years): Pro-immigration [sic] protests are planned around the country for Monday, and the record label is urging Hispanic radio stations nationwide to play the cut at 7 p.m. EDT Friday in a sign of solidarity.

Wyclef Jean, hip-hop star Pitbull and Puerto Rican singers Carlos Ponce and Olga Tanon (featured on the song)

Posted to Immigration at 05:10 AM | Comments (15)

55 percent of Mexican-Americans consider themselves Mexicans first

I don't have an original link for this, but according to "The menace of multiculturalism":

A poll for the Pew Hispanic Center finds that 55 percent of Americans of Mexican descent consider themselves Mexicans first. A similar study of Muslim immigrants in Los Angeles finds that only 10 percent think of themselves as Americans rather than citizens of the countries they abandoned for new lives here.

Posted to Immigration at 01:06 AM | Comments (3)

Fat suit + Empire State Building = fun!

From this:

...Though he is thin, athletic and bald, [Jeb Ray Corliss IV of Malibu] was dressed in a so-called "fat suit," like that used by actors, and a one-piece wig and mask.

...Crammed into one of the Art Deco building's elevators with tourists, Corliss rode to the 86th floor and there slipped into the bathroom, police said.

He tossed the fat suit, police said, and secured his black parachute, knee pads and helmet -- equipped with a digital recorder and a wide-angle lens.

Then, he headed straight for the observation deck, 1,050 feet above the street.

Yes, that's right, he was trying to BASE jump off the ESB.

Posted to WackyHumor at 12:17 AM | Comments (4)

California State Senate supports foreign citizens marching in our streets

In a shocking - but not surprising - move, the California State Senate has endorsed the May 1 illegal immigration boycott and march: SCR113. This isn't suprising considering that many California legislators frequently act more like their Mexican counterparts. It's only shocking that they would be so bold and that the resolution would be so utterly dishonest.

The full text of SCR 113 is included in the extended entry, and it conflates illegal aliens making a show of force with the civil rights movement, Arnold Schwarzenegger being elected governor, (presumably) legal immigrants who work and own businesses in Silicon Valley, and legal immigration in general.

Hopefully someone else will weigh in on what possible recourse there is in this matter. If a state senate stops representing that state and begins in effect supporting the agenda of a foreign government, could the federal government declare the state senate invalid in some way?

Note also that it passed 24-13 along party lines. Since Democrats voted for this, every Democratic Party leader should be asked whether they support the actions of their members.

And, even though they weren't going to be in session on Monday, the Assembly Democrats still wanted to collect their per-diem.

"California Senate votes to support immigration boycott" has quotes:

Sen. Gloria Romero says the boycott "is to educate people in California and across the United States about the tremendous contribution immigrants make on a daily basis to our society and economy... I ask us to simply recognize the existence of new Americans." And, from the next link: "It's one day ... for immigrants to tell the country peacefully, 'We matter ... (we're) not invisible'".

Sen. Martha Escutia: "Perhaps we ought to recognize the great American secret. We all rely on the labor of someone who is here illegally, and in essence we all become co-conspirators."

There are more quotes in the AP's "State Senate Supports Immigrant Walkout On Monday":

Sen. Gil Cedillo: likened the debate over immigrant rights to the fights over slavery, women's suffrage, the internment of Japanese during World War II, and the Vietnam War.

Sen. Richard Alarcon says: America wouldn't have been created without illegal action... "They dumped a bunch of tea in Boston harbor, illegally. God bless them."

Sen. Nell Soto: recalled watching as a child as immigration police swept up brown-skinned farmworkers, "not even asking if they were legal or illegal."

See also "California's Racial Iceberg" for more on California's problem with "American" politicians.

Authored by:
Gloria Romero
Gil Cedillo
Nell Soto
Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Joe Coto
Coauthor: Sen. Liz Figueroa
Coauthors: Assembly Members Rudy Bermudez, Ronald S. Calderon, Jenny Oropeza, Lori Saldana, Alberto Torrico

WHEREAS, May 1, 2006, is declared "The Great American Boycott 2006"
; and
WHEREAS, The United States has a tradition of historic boycotts,
including the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott that galvanized the
African-American community and resulted in the landmark 1956 United
States Supreme Court ruling against segregation; and
WHEREAS, The Great American Boycott 2006 observes that tradition
and is intended to draw attention to the contributions of immigrants
to the nation's economy, including $4.5 billion in state taxes in
California each year, and more than $30 billion in federal taxes; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants and their children comprise nearly half of the
population in this state and live in virtually all 58 counties in
California. More than one-quarter of all California residents are
foreign born, a rate higher than any other state in the country; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants participate in the workforce at rates higher
than the national average. Ninety percent of Latino and Asian male
immigrants are employed; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants comprise approximately one-third of the labor
force in California and figure prominently in key economic sectors in
California, including agriculture, manufacturing, and services; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants provide leadership and labor for the expansion
of California's growing economic sectors, from agriculture,
telecommunications, and information technology to health services and
housing construction; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants are among California's most productive
entrepreneurs and have created jobs for tens of thousands of
Californians. In San Jose alone, immigrant owners of technology
companies created more than 58,000 jobs and generated more than $17
billion in sales during the late 1990s; and
WHEREAS, The average immigrant-headed household in California
contributes over $2,600 annually to federal Social Security, $539
more than the national average; and
WHEREAS, Nearly 40 percent of California's foreign-born residents
are United States citizens; and
WHEREAS, There are currently 2.7 million immigrants in this state
who are eligible for naturalization, 3.3 million are legal permanent
residents, and millions more will soon be eligible for
naturalization; and
WHEREAS, California elected an immigrant to the highest post in
the State of California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the most
recent gubernatorial election; and
WHEREAS, The Senate of the State of California recognizes that The
Great American Boycott 2006 is to educate people in California and
across the United States about the tremendous contribution immigrants
make on a daily basis to our society and economy; now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly
thereof concurring, That May 1, 2006, be recognized as The Great
American Boycott 2006; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this
resolution to the author for distribution.

Posted to California at 10:33 PM | Comments (2)

ADL's (latest) smear job on Minuteman Project

My sentiments exactly:

ADL Engages In McCarthyism

What else can you their report entitled "Extremists Declare 'Open Season' on Immigrants: Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence"? It goes on about Nazi and Klan violence and racist rhetoric – and having set the bait, pull a big switch and tar non-racist, non-violent opponents of illegal immigration as "extremists" and "vigilantes".

Note that for some reason Drudge was linking to this smear job from the ADL. The Anti-Defamation League was discussed last year in relation to a similar, shorter smear job, and also in this post about CSM reporter Brad Knickerbocker. And, they even tried something similar in November 2002: Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis. Should anyone with any ability to reason and to understand logical fallacies believe anything they say?

Posted to Immigration at 08:38 PM | Comments (1)

Loretta Nall: Bama Boobs and the Pot Party Party

Loretta Nall is a party gal with the party party, the United States Marijuana Party and she's running for governor of Alabama. Her BlogAd says, "the media covers her boobs and activist history, but what she really needs is your support to get on the ballot." I don't know if other articles rip holes in her stories at the first link, but it's an interesting scan nonetheless.

Posted to WarOnDrugs at 08:29 PM | Comments (1)

Majority of Americans want a viable third party

The Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says that 53 percent of Americans want a third major political party. It was at 50 percent last June.

While the two major parties appear to have a stranglehold on our political system, things can change and maybe even in time for 2008.

UPDATE: Rasmussen just released the results of their latest robo-poll:

...The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if "a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority."

With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.

This result probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party. Historically, issues that drive third party candidates get co-opted by one of the major parties as they demonstrate popular appeal. Most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing law prior to other reforms.

With the immigration issue candidate as an option, 36% of conservative voters opt for the Republican candidate while 35% take the third party option. Among political moderates, 34% pick the Democrat while 32% prefer the third party option.

While this is a very serious subject, if you'd like a laugh here are no less than two people who think this could be an opportunity for a libertarian candidate. Add a third person and they'd have as many as attended last year's LP convention.

Posted to Politics at 01:55 PM | Comments (5)

The People's Democratic Republic of Chicago declares open borders

From this:

Calling federal immigration raids a "scare tactic" designed to intimidate "the new civil rights movement," the [Chicago] City Council on Wednesday demanded a moratorium on sweeps while Congress debates a new immigration policy.

This Sun-Times shows which side it's on in the following two paragraphs:

Twenty-six immigrants employed by IFCO Systems in McKinley Park were arrested last week and taken to an INS office in Broadview. The Chicago workers were among 1,100 people arrested nationwide.

They were released on their own recognizance after terrified family members and church leaders came to their rescue.

Instead of "immigrants", the correct term would be either "illegal aliens" or "alleged illegal aliens". The use of the word "workers" could be seen as either a legitimate attempt not to keep using the same words over and over, or as a subliminal way to convey that "they're just here to work". And, of course, the INS no longer exists and is now BICE. They make the same mistake later in the article, so one wonders at their knowledge of this issue. Then, of course, there are the emotionally-laden words in the last paragraph.

"I see this heartbreak every day. I see folks [who] have children born in America and have the possibility of being deported back to the country where their grandparents" were born, [Rules Committee Chairman Richard Mell (33rd)] said.

There are only two ways to end the "heartbreak": either declare completely open borders and give citizenship away to anyone who asks, or enforce our immigration laws. What the alderman want will just lead to millions more illegal aliens and more "heartbreak".

Please contact the author of this piece at fspielman *at* suntimes.com

Posted to Immigration at 09:41 AM | Comments (6)

Bush favors a massive illegal alien amnesty. Should he switch parties?

Bush recently held a meeting of pro-illegal immigration Senators ("Bush, senators agree on alien citizenship, shut out critics"). According to Mel Martinez (R-FL):

"There was a pretty good consensus that what we have put into the Hagel-Martinez proposal here is the right way to go... I think he was very clear [on] pathway to citizenship, so long as it goes to the back of the line, and he even opened the door here for something we've haggled back and forth on, that you can shrink the time for people to become citizens by simply enlarging the number of green cards."

According to Sam Brownback (R-KS):

"[Bush] endorsed the concept of an earned citizenship."

However:

That would represent a substantial change on the part of the Bush administration, which just last year said it opposed a path to citizenship for those currently here illegally. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October the administration didn't support "a path through which they can get their permanent residence or citizenship," and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao echoed that: "We feel that a pathway to citizenship would reward those who have violated our laws."

The WaPo's article "Privately, Bush Says He Favors Citizenship" has a similar sad tale to tell:

President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.

Since Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin all see basically eye-to-eye on this issue, here's a dramatic solution to Bush's popularity woes: he should switch parties.

[1] Those at the meeting included:
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Harry Reid (D-MX/NV)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel(R-NE)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Barack Obama (D-IL)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Those who weren't invited were Cornyn and Kyl.

Posted to Immigration at 10:59 PM | Comments (4)

Jeb Bush: take college discounts from citizens, give them to illegal aliens

Florida governor Jeb Bush supports taking discounted college educations from American citizens and giving them to citizens of other countries who are here illegally. He also supports the associated devaluation of U.S. citizenship.

Details on what he wants in "Bush Wants In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants' Kids". Justification for what that represents provided here.

As their actions indicate, the Bush family seems to be more interested in a country of consumers than a country of citizens. Note this extra anti-American quote from Jeb that attempts to redefine what it means to be an American citizen:

"My point of view is: if you've been in this state for many years, you're valedictorian of your high school, that, and your parents have paid taxes and you maybe have been working and paid taxes, you're an in-state resident"

Posted to Immigration at 02:56 AM | Comments (7)

Senator Dick Durbin supports illegal aliens marching in our streets

In an interview with the Chicago site "La Raza" (not the NCLR), Senator Dick Durbin refered to the recent pro-illegal immigration marches:

These demonstrations are important, but they have to be peaceful and positive and continue reaching out and bringing in more people. As long as the face of this effort is the face of the family wanting to stay together and to make America a better place, we can win.

That should be considered an extremely scandalous if not traitorous comment. While many of those marching were citizens or legal immigrants, many or most were citizens of other countries. And, they were all marching in support of illegal immigration. Not only that, but he is siding with those foreign interests when he uses the word "we". Is he on the side of the vast majority of American citizens, or is he on the side of foreign citizens who made shows of force in our streets?

The interview is here: laraza.com/news.php?nid=32062&pag=1 A copy is here.

Please give his office a call and ask them to clarify whether he knows who he's supposed to represent:

durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm

Posted to Immigration at 11:13 PM | Comments (1)

Bush laughs about his failure to stop illegal immigration

Earlier today president Bush spoke in Irvine and issued his stock spiel about immigration "reform". A transcript is here, including this:

But if you catch somebody from Central America coming back, you just can't send them back for a while, so there needs to be a place to detain them. We didn't have enough bed space. And so we had catch-and-release. We're asking people to go down there and do their job, and they find somebody from Central America sneaking in and they say, check back in with us in 45 days, come and see your immigration guy down there. (Laughter.) And they weren't checking back in after 45 days. (Laughter.) They were coming to work, see. They wanted to put food on the table for their families, and they weren't interested in checking back in.

I heard this excerpt and it's not just the audience that was laughing, Bush was saying the statements above expecting laughter to follow. While Congress plays a large role in not providing funds for detention space, so does the Bush administration. Despite recent calls to end "catch and release", their past actions make it clear that they more or less think it's all a big joke. Bush obviously cares more about those who want to employ those who are desperate enough to cross the border rather than what American citizens want and the rule of law.

Among other statements, Bush said this:

Now, my attitude is this: I think that people ought to be, obviously, here to work on a temporary basis. The definition of temporary will be decided in the halls of Congress.

As pointed out many times, "temporary" workers will be here forever. Quite a re-definition is apparently planned.

Note also that attendance was by invitation-only; if it had been otherwise he might have been asked a very embarrassing question or five instead of the puffball questions that they audience provided (or was provided with).

There were protesters outside (pictures here):

"Bush is a traitor to this country," [Barbara Coe, founder and chairwoman of the group California Coalition for Immigration Reform] said. "I am terrified for the future of my country and my children. It is our hope that this treacherous amnesty bill will be defeated and our further hope that our borders will be secured and the lives of our people protected."

"Traitor" is such a strong word, and, while I personally think it applies in the general sense I've been hesitant to use it because it's also very strictly defined in the legal sense. However, I have no such qualms about stating that Bush has broken his oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Posted to Immigration at 02:49 PM | Comments (6)

Senator Bill Frist plans to sneak illegal alien amnesty through

From this:

Republicans are planning to make end runs around opposition to a border security bill with the expected Senate approval of billions of dollars in immediate spending and with the Bush administration announcing an increase in workplace enforcement.

Party leaders hope the moves will satisfy voters concerned about illegal immigration and pave the way for more comprehensive reforms, such as a guest-worker program and a path to U.S. citizenship.

...Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to include even more money in Mr. Gregg's proposal, aides said.

"Frist wants to make clear to conservatives that security isn't forgotten as the Senate handles broad-based immigration reform," a leadership aide said. "Spending money now helps Republicans with the base this fall."

Mr. Frist then will work for passage of a proposal by Sens. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican, and Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have been in the country for more than two years.

Mr. McClellan yesterday called the Hagel-Martinez plan "a good agreement."

Please contact as many Senators as possible and let them know you're opposed to any kind of amnesty, no matter how they try to hide it and no matter what they try to call it.

The main Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or (888) 355-3588. A complete list of numbers is here. You can also send free FAXes here.

Posted to Immigration at 01:34 PM | Comments (3)

The UN's "Borderless" World

From this:

[The United Nations'] bureaucrats envision a "borderless" world where immigration is treated as an international human rights issue and used as a global development tool to encourage free movement of the developing countries' poor to developed nations. This philosophy underlies their preparations for the United Nations High Level Dialogue concerning international migration and development, scheduled to take place in conjunction with the fall 2006 General Assembly session...

The UN bureaucrats' aggressive push into the immigration debate fits in with their dogmatic belief that international treaties should trump national sovereignty prerogatives – in this case, a UN treaty that codifies the internationalization of immigration policy called the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families...

...The United Nations wants to change all that by seeking to position the right to freely migrate from poor to richer lands as a fundamental human right deserving of universal recognition. Indeed, they view internationally managed migration as an effective means to socially engineer the end of wealth disparities existing between the world's most developed countries and the world's developing countries. "Migration must become an integral part of global development strategies", said a report prepared last fall by the Global Commission on International Migration set up with Kofi Annan's assistance to help prepare the way for this fall's United Nations High Level Dialogue. Using the euphemism 'irregular migration' to refer to illegal aliens, the Commission warned that restrictive national policies are "neither desirable nor feasible, and may jeopardize the rights of migrants and refugees..."

Posted to Politics at 12:24 PM | Comments (1)

Illegal immigration marches vs. our sovereignty

On the 17th came Heather MacDonald's "Postmodern 'Rights' en Los Estados Unidos":

With last month's mass demonstrations of illegal aliens, the United States has entered the era of postmodern rights. The protesters looked like conventional rights demonstrators, with their raised fists, chants, and banners. But unlike political protesters of the past, the illegal-alien marchers invoked no legal basis for their claims. Their argument boils down to: "We are here, therefore we have a right to the immigration status we desire." Like the postmodern signifier, this legal claim refers to nothing outside of itself; it is, in the jargon of deconstruction, a presence based on an absence.

The consequences of this novel argument are not insignificant: the demise of nation-states and of the rule of law. Remember: The only basis for the illegals' demands is: "I am here." The "I am here" argument could be made by anyone anywhere — a Moroccan sneaking into Sweden could make the same demand for legal status. In one stroke, the border-breaking lobby has nullified the entire edifice of American immigration law and with it, sovereignty itself. None of the distinctions in that law matter, the advocates say. The conditions for legal entry? Null and void. The democratically chosen priorities for who may enter the country and who not? Give me a break! In other words, the United States has no right to decide who may come across its borders and what legal status an alien may obtain upon arrival. Those decisions remain solely the prerogative of the alien himself. The border no longer exists...

Posted to Immigration at 06:48 AM | Comments (1)

Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post offer "infomercials" for illegal immigration

From this:

When you read the local news sections of the Rocky Mountain News or The Denver Post these days, it's sometimes like reading an infomercial for illegal immigration.

I analyzed the staff-written news stories about illegal immigration which appeared in the Denver dailies from April 8 through April 15. I counted the number of paragraphs presenting the "pro" side for illegal aliens, and the number of paragraphs which presented the other side.

In the News, the ratio of pro-con paragraphs was about 4- to-1; in the Post it was 3-to-1...

Posted to Immigration at 04:17 AM | Comments (1)

Venezuela has mobile consulates

As discussed many times, Mexico has mobile consulates that they set up in small towns in order to provide Matricula Consular cards and other services to their citizens, many or most of whom are here illegally.

Now, Daniel Connolly of the AP offers a nary-a-dissenting-word article with the news that Venezuela had a mobile consulate in Little Rock, Arkansas. No word is provided on that country's position on illegal immigration, but Honduras made their position clear:

"We always tell them, it doesn't matter if you are legal or illegal in this country, you have to have your Honduran passport," said Fabio Murillo, a chancellor with the consulate of Honduras in Chicago.

Posted to Immigration_consul at 02:09 AM | Comments (1)

Los Angeles' Rube Goldbergian, inadvertent way to reduce illegal immigration

The article "How L.A. kept out a million migrants" informs us that a million or so illegal aliens who would have come to Los Angeles actually went elsewhere.

This is not because we took the straightforward tack of enforcing our immigration laws. Rather, it's because of:

* too few low-wage jobs, word of which made it back to sending countries (who knew?), resulting in fewer coming.
* the minimum wage rose, driving low-wage employers into other states. * while our immigration laws weren't enforced (the horror!), our industrial laws were enforced, resulting in sweatshops shutting down.
* attempts to shut down tenement buildings
* lack of affordable housing due to NIMBYs

Now, think of where we'd be if in addition to the above we'd also helped enforce our immigration laws rather than serving as a sanctuary city.

Posted to Immigration at 11:58 PM | Comments (0)

CFR/NAF: End illegal immigration by ending U.S.

Steven Hill of the CFR-linked "New America Foundation" offers "Time for a Tex-Mex Marshall Plan". In brief, he proposes ending illegal immigration by ending the U.S.: creating an "American-Mexican union" out of the two previously independent, sovereign countries with borders and things like that. (Fear not, un-Canadian hosers: Canada would be jealous and "not wishing to be left out, would ask for inclusion").

Of course, we'll need to give Mexico "massive subsidies" in order to get them to reform (of course, most of that would go to corrupt officials and criminals, but whatever). However, the upside is that "[f]ewer Mexicans would then want to emigrate north. Instead, they'd stay home, becoming consumers of U.S. products."

If all of this sounds like an un-American joke, unfortunately, it isn't. After all, he was able to get it printed in the Washington Post. And, here's the board for the Foundation:

newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=boardof&DeptID=12

See also Crack Based Editorials and note that one of NAF's fellows is Gregory Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Times.

Treason is so specifically-defined, so it's unclear whether those who attempt to make Hill's dream a reality would be traitors or not. But, should anyone who proposes such ideas really be considered an American at all? They aren't proposing, for instance, adding a new state to the union. What they're proposing would replace the U.S. with some other entity, with a new set of laws and reporting at least partially to Mexican and Canadian officials. Shouldn't they be considered akin to those who wanted to establish Communism in the U.S.?

Posted to Immigration at 07:55 PM | Comments (3)

Mexican village artisans plead with U.S.: enforce your laws

From this page from an artisans group in Mexico:

Please: Close the United States Border to Illegal Migration. Help us to Keep Our Husbands Home with our Families

Dear friends in the United States....

We are Mexican women from villages in the southern Mexico state of Guerrero.

Our brothers and husbands have left us for work in the US.

We strongly support closing the US-Mexico border to illegal entry.

We did not want our men to leave and we want them to return to us...

I didn't look into whether this is an attempt to sell their wares, a hoax, or whether it's genuine. But, I suspect the latter.

(Via this)

Posted to Immigration at 12:21 PM | Comments (1)

Dianne Solis, Alfredo Corchado, Dallas Morning News downplay Mexican meddling

Those reporters offer "Latino leaders to discuss 'Great American Boycott' in Mexico City" which contains this wildly inaccurate paragraph:

In March, as student walkouts and protests spread across the United States, the Mexican government ordered its 46 consulates to stay away from the marches, fearing a backlash among anti-immigrant groups. With a tragic history of foreign interventions in Mexico, the Mexican government long ago adopted a strict policy of non-interference in policy debates of the United States, in the hopes that the United States would do the same.

That paragraph could have been written by Rob Allyn himself: the Mexican government continually attempts to insert itself into internal U.S. policy decisions, especially those related to their citizens who are in our country illegally. (Next to that, the use of "anti-immigrant" is just a minor matter).

Dozens of examples of Mexico meddling in our internal politics could be provided, but for a start see "Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats" by Heather MacDonald. See "The Big Show on the Border" for examples of their consular officials traveling the backroads of the U.S., passing out Matricula Consular cards to their citizens who are here illegally. Then, there's the cases of Richfield Minnesota, Napa California, St. Clair County Michigan, and countless others.

In the article, Solis and Corchado go on to state that the "Institute of Mexicans Abroad" is a "historical exception", of which there have been "some". Obviously, there have been many, many more than just "some".

Since I couldn't find their ombudsman, I think this might be the correct person to contact: Linda Leavell Senior Editor - News lleavell *at* dallasnews.com

Posted to Immigration at 11:14 AM | Comments (0)

Links between the Democratic Party and the Mexican government

Many Democratic politicians and pundits supported the recent illegal immigration marches, and some Democratic politicians appeared at some of the rallies or even helped organize some of them.

And, some other organizers of the rallies have various kinds of links to the government of Mexico.

While that's not enough to claim that the Democratic Party has direct links to the Mexican government, they are clearly part of the same network. And, that should be disturbing to the millions of more moderate members of that party.

Here are the current known links:

Chicago: One of the organizers of the Chicago immigration march "serves on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an advisory council to Mexican President Vicente Fox." Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley all appeared at the rally, and all are Democrats.

Georgia: An organizer of the Georgia boycott is a former consul general of Mexico. Another group involved in organizing that was the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, whose founders include Sam Zamarripa and Pedro Marin. Both are indeed elected officials and Democrats.

Los Angeles: One of the organizers of the L.A. rally - also involved on the national protests - allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government. Former member of the racial separatist group MEChA - and Democratic Mayor of Los Angeles - Antonio Villaraigosa supported both the marches and the later walkouts by students. Shortly after taking office he traveled to Mexico and supported illegal immigration; he also collaborated with Mexican president Zedillo to preven Proposition 187 from being enacted.

Unfortunately, because the news media is as corrupt as many politicians we may never find out whether there was any sort of direct collaboration between the Mexican government and any Democratic politicians. So, if the reader attends any appearances featuring those politicians or other Democratic leaders, please ask them to clarify where they stand.

More links as they're discovered...

Posted to Immigration at 05:01 AM | Comments (4)

DNC radio ad lies about HR4437

From this:

A Democratic National Committee (DNC) radio ad claims Republicans would "criminalize...churches just for giving communion" to illegal aliens. The claim is nonsense. The House bill to which the ad refers [HR4437] doesn't say that. Both the Republican sponsors of the bill and the Bush administration have made clear that's not the bill's intent...

Posted to Immigration at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)

Chicago protests against ICE's show immigration raid

Supporters of illegal immigration hastily convened a protest in front of DHS's office in Chicago to speak out against yesterday's once-in-a-blue-moon enforcement action.

The report from CBS 2's Sylvia Gomez is here, and that from ABC 7's John Garcia is here. The former reported on the big Chicago march of 3/10, and she appears to have let her ethnicity interfere with whatever journalistic presumptions she might have. Garcia wasn't featured in that previous post, but he makes up for lost mentions here with his report.

In Gomez' report (video at the link) comes this:

"What he is doing is intimidating all the working class immigrants of the United States," said one activist.

Oddly, you need to watch the video to get the speaker's name: Omar Lopez. There's more information on him in a SunTimes article about the big Chicago protest ("Chicago 'Giant' put rest of country on notice"):

[The first meeting of March 10 organizers] was called by Arreola, 41, a high school custodian, official in an umbrella group of Michoacan clubs and an organizer in the Service Employees International Union Local 73. The other convener was Omar Lopez, 61, who runs a group that combats AIDS in the Latino community and serves on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an advisory council to Mexican President Vicente Fox.

Well, that's certainly an interesting link, no?

Let's say an American who's protesting immigration laws in France is on some advisory council reporting to president Bush. Wouldn't the French suspect he might be a proxy of the U.S. government?

Why didn't Gomez ask him about that in her report? Isn't it safe to assume that either she or her station have some sort of a conflict of some kind? Should anyone trust anything from her or that station?

Continuing:

But illegal immigrant advocates are calling this action and crackdown immoral and they are outraged. They are asking immigration officials to halt action until Congress comes up with its new laws because it might allow some immigrants to remain in the U.S.

Assuming America loses and those new laws are passed, what happens when millions of new illegal aliens come to the U.S. in an attempt to take part in future amnesties? Won't those same groups that protested these raids simply protest future raids? Shouldn't they just be honest and admit that they want open borders?

In addition to a member of an advisory council to the president of a foreign country, another group involved was the union "Unite Here!". (In an unrelated incident, someone wearing a t-shirt from that group reached down from the stage and grabbed the hat of the lady who was attacked by union thugs at an anti-Schwarzenegger rally in October.)

Posted to Immigration at 04:10 AM | Comments (6)

Gas hits $3.00; Bush approval at 33%

One of the cheaper gas stations in central Hollywood is at $3.05; one of the perennially cheapest gas stations in the general area, the Arco at Riverside and Fletcher, is at $3.01. In far-away Beverly Hills, br'er Drudge is currently featuring a shot of gas at over $4.00.

Meanwhile, and probably somewhat related to that as well as to immigration-related matters, Our Leader's popularity is at 33% according to a Fox poll.

Posted to Los_Angeles at 10:57 PM | Comments (2)

Deepa Ranganathan/Sacramento Bee pro-illegal immigration propaganda

Searching through blogs, I ran across a new-to-me site, which says:

This Sacramento Bee article really made me start to think about my position on illegal immigration. I'm a strong opponent of general amnesty and extending government services to illegal aliens... That being said, when I read this article, I really felt for the two students whose stories appear in the article...

I am currently swearing on a stack of Bibles that I did not look at the article before leaving this comment:

I didn't even bother reading the article because I've seen dozens like it, as a glance at my pro-illegal immigration propaganda category will show.

Without reading the article, I'm going to bet it starts with a sentence like, "Esmeralda is a high school honors student with a keen interest in becoming a lawyer." Then, we're informed that she's "undocumented".

Then, like a golden ray of bat pee, the solution shines forth: the DREAM Act or similar.

Please bear this in mind: every discounted college education given to an illegal alien is one less given to a U.S. citizen. A discount is taken from a U.S. citizen and given to a citizen of another country. As a side effect, that lowers the worth of U.S. citizenship.

If you care about "Esmeralda" or whatever the poster child they feature in such propaganda, start a private fund.

Only after leaving that did I look at the article, and... I was right! According to "reporter" Deepa Ranganathan:

Beto's rage is nearly palpable.

The 22-year-old once dreamed of becoming a firefighter or a police officer. He wanted an assignment in a tough neighborhood, like the block in south Sacramento where he grew up.

Beto's family smuggled him over the Mexican border illegally when he was 5...

...Two bills recently introduced in Congress seek radically different outcomes for undocumented U.S. residents...

To all the "Daves" of the world: this is propaganda. They're playing with your emotions in order to get you to support amnesty for illegal aliens.

Note also that this 'tale of two immigration bills' is very similar to the tack taken by Tyche Hendricks in another propaganda piece.

Please write publiceditor *at* sacbee.com with your thoughts.

Posted to Immigration_piipps at 09:43 PM | Comments (3)

Illegal immigration supporters split over May 1 boycott

Rachel Swarns of the New York Times informs us in "Immigrant Groups Plan Campaign to Bring Legal Changes" that:

1. There's a split among illegal immigration supporters. Some groups continue to support the "Great American Boycott of 2006", while others, including those in the "National Capital Immigration Coalition", oppose the boycott.

2. The illegal immigration-supporting groups plan to "transform the immigrant community into a powerful, organized political force" and plan to encourage voting by "immigrants".

Regarding the second, "immigrants" can't vote. Only native-born or naturalized citizens can vote. In fact, the whole report from Rachel Swarns is so full of the use of inaccurate or imprecise terms that it's little more than an attempt to mislead their readers.

Consider, for instance, this paragraph:

The debate over how to harness the emerging immigrant activism comes as politicians, church leaders and advocacy groups continue to marvel at the large numbers of immigrants, most of them Hispanic, who have turned out in recent weeks to demonstrate against a House bill, which was passed in December, that would criminalize illegal immigrants and those who help them.

Almost all - not "most" - of those marching were Hispanic, and most of those were Mexican citizens or Mexican-Americans. And, the assertion that HR4437 would "criminalize... those who help [illegal immigrants]" is not entirely accurate: that help would need to be provided knowingly or recklessly.

The WaPo offers a similar report in "Fearing Backlash, Some Immigration Activists Aren't Backing Boycott" by Darryl Fears.

Those apparently in the National Capital Immigration Coalition include:

* Casa de Maryland, which was recently involved in a bit of a kerfluffle. According to Gustavo Torres: "We are going to target [the Minuteman Project members] in a specific way... [by taking their own pictures]... Then we are going to picket their houses, and the schools of their kids, and go to their work

* The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, which allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government.

* The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which was also apparently involved in a smear against Jim Oberweis.

Needless to say, neither the NYT nor the WaPo provide any background on the groups that they feature.

We're also informed that CHIRLA - alleged at the link above to have collaborated with the Mexican government - is going to try to get illegal aliens to perform community service as a way of softening you up:

"It is critical for us, that we really, as we move forward, take actions that are embraced by the American public, that touch the hearts and minds of the American public, that they get to know us, that they understand who we are," [Anjelica Salas, executive director of CHIRLA] said at a news conference here.

If the NYT or the WaPo ever decide to tell the truth about immigration matters, most Americans might indeed understand exactly who all those groups are.

Posted to Immigration at 09:39 AM | Comments (5)

"Mexicans migrate to 'their land'" (reconquista)

From this:

Native Utahn David Timmins makes it clear up front that he has no personal issue with Mexico or the Mexican people. During a well-traveled career as a U.S. foreign service officer, he lived for a time in Mexico and says he enjoyed his posting there immensely.

But in light of the current consternation over immigration, the Harvard-educated diplomat thinks it's applicable to the debate to bring up something he learned while he lived south of the border.

"Mexicans see the Western U.S. as part of Mexico that was stolen from them 150 years ago," he says. "They believe this with all their heart."

It's his view that the thousands flooding across the border every month don't see themselves illegally immigrating into a foreign land.

They see themselves coming home.

And we're the illegals....

Related from 2002:

Zogby's poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Only 28 percent disagree, and 14 percent are unsure.

8/22/07 UPDATE: From this Aug. 18, 2005 report:

The surveys of Mexican citizens by the Pew Hispanic Center also found that increased education and an improved standard of living won't dampen the stampede of illegals coming across the border.

The two surveys conducted in Mexico asked: "If at this moment you had the means and opportunity to go to live in the USA, would you go?" Almost half - 46 percent - said yes.

When asked if they would be inclined to work and live in the USA "without authorization," meaning illegally, 21 percent said they would.

Showing that interest in emigrating isn't confined to the poor, more than one-third of Mexican college graduates said they would move to the U.S. if they could, and more than one in eight said they'd be willing to migrate even if they had to enter the country illegally.

Posted to Immigration at 03:14 AM | Comments (4)

Show immigration raid conducted; "1600 down, 14,998,400 more too go"

The allegedly pregnant head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Julie Myers informs us of the following alleged fact:

"ICE has no tolerance for corporate officers who harbor illegal aliens for their work force. Today's nationwide enforcement actions show how we will use all our investigative tools to bring these individuals to justice, no matter how large or small their company."

The raid was of IFCO Systems, a pallet manufacturer. Seven executives were arrested as well as hundreds of workers.

Not only is this just a drop in the bucket after five years of the Bush administration strongly encouraging illegal immigration, it is most likely just "boob bait for Bubba". As an example of the latter, here's a Bubba who buys it or is trying to sell it.

I also half expect some politician - most likely a Democrat - to come out in opposition to the raids, most likely out of "humanitarian" grounds. Past example: Nancy Pelosi's comment on the WalMart raid, which was 2.5 years ago.

(Last half of title via comment at the PP thread from this guy)

Posted to Immigration at 11:02 PM | Comments (1)

May 1 Immigration March and Boycott flyer

Here's a flyer for the upcoming May 1 illegal immigration march and boycott:

Yes, it's a fake. But, it's pretty accurate too. Feel free to email the link to the photo or repost it elsewhere.

The large size is here.

Posted to Immigration at 09:53 PM | Comments (112)

AZ Daily Star regrets hate speech headline

The Arizona Daily Star's ombudsman is contrite:

"Republicans Hate Latinos" read the headline on Friday's front-page in red, all-capital letters. No attribution. Just stated as fact.

That quote has been in the news since labor activist Dolores Huerta used the phrase in an April 3 speech at Tucson High School. The statement appeared as a quotation above four photos, including one of Huerta.

Yet in the Star's presentation, the quote was not attributed, instead presented as fact and in eye-catching red...

For the details on the hate speechathon, see "High School Students Forced To Listen To Pro-Illegal Immigration Propaganda" (Dolores Huerta)

(Via this)

Posted to Immigration at 07:58 PM | Comments (2)

"High School Students Forced To Listen To Pro-Illegal Immigration Propaganda" (Dolores Huerta)

From this:

Americans better start waking up and doing something about the madness that's occurring in our nation's high schools and elementary schools. Youngsters are being subjected to left-wing propaganda, and when teachers and principals are caught, they start two-stepping around the issue.

For instance, a Tucson high school student is scheduled to appear before Arizona lawmakers to tell how she was forced by school officials to listen to a pro-immigrant speech by a speaker spewing left-wing propaganda to students without rebuttal.

In addition, lawmakers are investigating why Tucson school buses were used to provide transportation for student protesters at a pro-illegal immigration rally. The mother of a Buena High School student, in Sierra Vista, Arizona said her son's baseball team was supposed to play a Tucson high school but the game was cancelled. The Buena students learned that the game was cancelled because the Tucson high school bus was being used to take students to an anti-Sensenbrenner bill rally. Rep. Sensenbrenner is one of the sponsors of a tough illegal immigration and border security bill.

Senior Mon-yee Fung, 17, sat in a school assembly where the co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union, Dolores Huerta, spoke. But she could not leave after Huerta began making remarks such as "Republicans hate Latinos."

"I wanted to listen to what they had to say, but all they had to say was hate speak," Fung, head of the school's Teenage Republicans Club, told The Tucson Citizen.

Posted to Immigration at 11:46 AM | Comments (4)

Elite vs. popular opinion on legal immigration: not so complicated

From this:

Here's a puzzle: All nonadvocacy surveys of public opinion show only tiny minorities - commonly about 10 to 20 percent - favoring increased legal immigration. Last month's national survey by the Pew Center for the People and the Press is typical, reporting only 17 percent in this camp.

Yet the two opposing bills that have been roiling the Senate both include little- scrutinized provisions that would greatly increase permanent legal immigration. These survived quietly, largely ignored by politicians and the press, while emotional debate and commentary focused on illegal immigrants and temporary workers...

The most recent [Chicago Council on Foreign Relations 'elites vs. popular opinion' poll], from 2004, shows that 33 percent of the "leaders" group wanted to increase legal immigration, vs. only 11 percent of the public opinion sample. Only 10 percent of the leaders group wanted to decrease the level of legal immigration, while fully 54 percent of the public opinion sample supported such decreases...

...Members of the US Senate - an elite among elites - do seem to be quite insulated from the views that pollsters routinely find among broad public opinion. On this issue senators may be even further disconnected from those who elect them as they are also surrounded by flocks of immigration lobbyists representing small but well-organized and heavily financed interest groups...

It's really not as complicated as it might seem. In fact, I've cleverly annotated the following paragraph from the article in order to help illustrate why Senators and many House members might support massive immigration:

The$e intere$t group$ are regional, economic, ethnic, and ideological. Prominent among them: agribu$ine$$ companie$ in California and the $outhwe$t; employer$ of mo$tly low-wage labor $uch a$ hotel$ and re$taurant$; a few union$ with large percentage$ of immigrant member$; $ome high-tech companie$; $ome ethnic and religiou$ lobby group$; $ome higher education group$; and ideological libertarian$ of both the right and the left.

Yes, that's a pretty ugly paragraph, but so is political corruption.

Related: "Who's responsible for illegal immigration?"

Posted to Immigration at 05:35 AM | Comments (0)

Would illegal immigration supporters favor slavery if they could?

If slavery weren't considered morally abhorrent, would those companies, media sources, and politicians that currently support illegal immigration instead support slavery? Well, probably not. And, frankly, probably the only reason they wouldn't support it is because "A Welfare State With Illegal Immigration Offers Companies a Better Deal Than Slavery".

Posted to Immigration at 02:17 AM | Comments (4)

Hugh Hewitt straw ballot excludes Tancredo

Insty directs our attention to Hugh Hewitt, who's conducting a straw poll for the 2008 presidential race.

The lucky choices are:

George Allen
Sam Brownback
Bill Frist
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Mitt Romney

Isn't the omission of Rep. Tom Tancredo rather curious? Well, not if you know how the BushBot mind works.

Posted to Bloggage at 08:30 PM | Comments (3)

Pulitzer Prize for Propaganda

The Pulitzer Prizes have been announced. If they wanted to be a bit closer to the past and present reality, they'd have a Propaganda category. What would that look like? Let's imagine:

Best Propaganda: This year's award goes to several newspapers: the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, USA Today, San Diego Union-Tribune, and many more for their reporting on illegal aliens taking Katrina jobs from American hurricane victims. Even though those papers probably weren't working together, their coverage seemed like it. They offered several stories on American citizens being warehoused in hotels outside New Orleans, while illegal aliens from Mexico and other countries were brought in to do work that those Americans should have been doing. The propaganda associated with this effort is some of the most un-American the Prize Board has ever seen, and we congratulate those sources for their efforts

Best Propaganda (Runner-up): Jeff Franks of Reuters for "Immigrants find opportunity in ruined New Orleans". That piece contains this odious anti-American bit: "The immigrant workers do not feel too threatened by competition from the local Americans. They point to the back of the parking lot where the only "gringos" in sight are sleeping on sheets of cardboard or sitting on wooden boxes, surrounded by empty beer cans and booze bottles." The Prize Board concludes that Jeff Franks writes like he could be working for one of America's enemies, and we wish him the best of luck in next year's competition.

Lifetime Achievement Award: This year's award goes to Nina Bernstein of the New York Times. She's actually been spreading propaganda even longer than last year's winner Bart Jones, and it's good to see her finally win it.

Posted to Miscellania at 08:01 PM | Comments (1)

Deep inside the mind of the other side

If you haven't been to an old-school carnival with the freaks and the fun house mirrors and all lately, take a trip to these two posts to enjoy the same effect:

* Bradford Plumer offers "Letting immigrants vote"

* "vegankid", writing from somewhere in NC, describes a recent immigration protest:

vegankid.solidaritydesign.net/2006/04/12/a-que-hora-soy-person

Stay away from the cotton candy.

Posted to Immigration at 04:11 PM | Comments (0)

What "liberals" who support illegal immigration support

The AP article "U.S. Firms Recruit Cheap Labor in Mexico" doesn't offer extensive coverage of its titular subject, but it does contain one way that various Chinese restaurants were able to make sure that "liberals" and others got cheap food:

...In one case, a single smuggler allegedly earned $900,000 over 15 months placing 6,000 migrants in jobs at Chinese restaurants across the upper Midwest.

Shan Wei Yu, a 51-year-old Chinese-American, was sentenced in December to nine years in federal prison on charges involving the transportation of 40 of those migrants. Investigations involving the others continue.

Rick Hilzendager, special agent for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Grand Forks, N.D., said Yu connected 6,000 migrants from Latin America with jobs in Chinese restaurants in Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.

...Yu allegedly charged a $150 finder's fee for each migrant while the drivers earned $300 per worker. Restaurant owners deducted the $450 from workers' first-month paychecks of $1,000.

...Nick Chase, assistant U.S. attorney in North Dakota, said Yu even offered to replace workers free of charge if one left within two weeks of starting.

"It was a 2-for-1 special — like a pizza," Chase said. "Everything about it was ugly."

The employees, housed in cramped apartments provided by employers, worked 14-hour days and had little outside contact. The case broke open in August 2004 after two Mexican migrants working at the Buffet House in Grand Forks fled poor conditions and were picked up along a highway by Border Patrol agents...

The only way to stop things like that is to enforce our immigration laws. Anyone who opposes enforcement of our immigration laws only encourages such abuse.

Posted to Immigration at 02:25 PM | Comments (1)

"Contractors Often Play a Key Role in the Hiring of Illegal Immigrants"

Anna Gorman offers this article which contains a highly misleading statement:

When federal authorities catch illegal immigrants on the job, some U.S. employers have a ready explanation for how they came to be hired: It wasn't us. It was a contractor.

...For now, work site raids and prosecution are infrequent, except where immigration authorities perceive a national security risk. But even as pressure builds in Congress to crack down on the hiring of undocumented workers, the involvement of contractors and subcontractors could make enforcement nearly impossible, labor experts, government officials and immigration policy critics say.

Under current federal law, companies face criminal or civil sanctions only if they knowingly employ undocumented workers.

"An easy defense … would be to say that they used this subcontractor who they assumed was checking the documents," said Jennifer Silliman, assistant special agent in charge with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego. "It gives a level of deniability."

So, you go after the contractor then. It's not like they have a special immunity. While many contractors will no doubt be fly-by-night, if enough of them are prosecuted many fewer will want to take the risk. That will encourage contractors to make sure they hire legal workers.

Posted to Immigration at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)

Cardinal Roger Mahony: no boycott. Is he agitating foreign citizens in our country?

From this:

Cardinal Roger Mahony, an outspoken supporter of congressional proposals to allow illegal immigrants to become citizens, is urging immigrants not to participate in a worker and student boycott planned for May 1.

The planned boycott, coming on the heels of massive nationwide protests, calls on students and workers to stay home in support of immigrant rights.

"I believe that we can make May 1st a win-win day here in Southern California: go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterward," Mahony said in a statement released late Sunday.

Mahony suggested employers and schools set aside an hour on May 1 to discuss immigration reform. He also suggested they encourage employees and students to write letters to Congress urging sweeping reform...

It's good that he's opposed to the boycott. However, isn't he encouraging foreign citizens to march in our streets? Isn't he agitating foreign nationals who are in our country illegally? Are there laws against such behavior, or would those only apply if he advocates violence or breaking the law concerning the protest itself?

Note, of course, that Mahoney is giving cover to those who want to propagandize this issue in schools. What chance is there of there being a fair debate on this issue among those schools that heed his call?

And, will those companies that commit various acts of abuse against illegal aliens in their employ conduct such sessions?

As usual, Catholic readers are strongly encouraged to discuss Mahoney's plans with their church leaders and point out all of the things Mahoney effectively supports, as detailed in Cardinal Roger Mahoney admits to exaggerating about HR4437.

Posted to Immigration at 10:15 AM | Comments (3)

Zogby: 52% oppose illegal alien amnesty

According to a Zogby poll taken between March 31 and April 3, 52% oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, with only 32% favoring it.

Posted to Immigration at 10:07 AM | Comments (1)

NYT: Many don't like illegal aliens marching in our streets

David D. Kirkpatrick offers "Demonstrations on Immigration Harden a Divide":

..."The size and magnitude of the demonstrations had some kind of backfire effect," said John McLaughlin, a Republican pollster who said he was working for 26 House members and seven senators seeking re-election. "The Republicans that are tough on immigration are doing well right now..."

Of course, the NYT has its own issues to deal with. Such as the idea that those who don't support strong efforts to reduce illegal immigration have a "moderate" position:

Mike Hellon, one of the more moderate candidates in the current primary [to replace "guest" worker advocate Jim Kolbe], said: "The marches have hardened positions on both sides. People who really want the border closed — who want to put troops down there — are more passionate than ever, and the other side is more sympathetic." He added, "It does escalate the risk factor for a moderate like me."

And, the NYT also has this:

But many Hispanics said opinions had changed dramatically in the past few weeks, partly because of the hostility they perceived in some proposals from Mr. Hayworth and other conservatives.

"When people are talking about shooting people who come across the border," said Harry Garewal, chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, "yeah, I think that causes some angst."

One way to read that - and perhaps the intended way - is that J.D. Hayworth has advocated shooting people crossing the border. Somehow I doubt that he has, and the only people who've done that are on the fringe of the fringe. How could the NYT let such a statement go unopposed? Well, because they're the NYT.

We learn that supposedly many Hispanics see HR4437 as anti-Hispanic and are thus engaging in shows of ethnic power by marching in the streets. Obviously, those who profit from such beliefs are the Democrats as well as those Republicans who support illegal immigration.

The article also includes a quote from proud former MEChA member Rep. Raul Grijalva in which he promises demographic retribution:

"You might be getting a momentary bump [from being opposed to massive illegal immigration] but in the long run you are going to lose."

Needless to say, the NYT doesn't disclose Grijalva's past membership in that racial separatist group, nor do they spend any time discussing the propriety of an argument based on demographic hegemony.

Please write public *at* nytimes.com and ask them to correct the many errors in their reporting.

Posted to Immigration at 09:56 AM | Comments (3)

"What Would Mexico Do with Protesting Illegals?"

Obviously, no other country (that wants to remain a country and not just a territory) would allow millions of foreign citizens to enter their country illegally and then march through their streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled.

Unfortunately, because of corrupt "liberals" and "conservatives", we are perhaps the only country in the history of the world that has allowed something like that to happen and then has done nothing to prevent it from happening again.

For the likely response of Mexico to illegal aliens from America marching in their streets, see this article from Heather MacDonald:

What would Mexico do? The answer is easy: deport them on the spot. In 2002, a dozen American college students, in Mexico legally, participated peacefully in an environmental protest against a planned airport outside of Mexico City. They swiftly found themselves deported as law-breakers for interfering in Mexico’s internal affairs...

You have to admire the Mexican elites. They have a clear-sighted understanding of their country's national interest - which lies above all in getting as many Mexican citizens as possible into the U.S. for their billions of dollars in remittances - and they're unapologetic about pursuing it. Mass demonstrations that include illegal residents demanding that Mexico override its laws to accommodate them wouldn't cow those elites for an instant. Too bad American officials can't summon the same commitment to the wishes of the American people, who overwhelmingly oppose the rewarding of law breaking. The U.S. government isn't about to deport the thousands of illegals who will be exploiting the American right to protest today, but it should at least not be swayed by their mass show of force.

Posted to Immigration at 06:00 AM | Comments (1)

Reconquista introduction, video

The WashTimes offers an overview in "Mexican aliens seek to retake 'stolen' land" that even Kevin Drum could understand:

La reconquista, a radical movement calling for Mexico to "reconquer" America's Southwest, has stepped out of the shadows at recent immigration-reform protests nationwide as marchers held signs saying, "Uncle Sam Stole Our Land!" and waved Mexico's flag.

Even as organizers urged marchers to display U.S. flags, the theme of reclaiming "stolen" land remained strong. One popular banner read: "If you think I'm illegal because I'm a Mexican, learn the true history because I'm in my homeland." ...A three-minute videotape made by the Immigration Watchdog Web site plays speeches by Hispanic professors and elected officials making references to Aztlan and the idea of a demographic takeover.

"We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population," Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, said on the videotape.

In an interview, Mr. Gutierrez said there was "no viable" reconquista movement. He blamed interest in the issue on closed-border groups and "right-wing blogs" such as American Patrol and L.A. Watchdog, but those Web sites are getting plenty of ammunition from groups like La Voz de Aztlan, a Whittier, Calif.-based news service that advocates a separatist state while criticizing Jews and "gringos."

Then there's the Mexica Movement, which wants to "reconstruct" the United States as an "indigenous" nation called Anahuac. Professor Charles Truxillo of the University of New Mexico envisions a sovereign Hispanic nation called the Republica del Norte that would encompass Northern Mexico, Baja California, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.

MEChA, an acronym for the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, has come under fire for revolutionary language in its "El Plan de Aztlan," a founding document that declares "the independence of our mestizo nation," decries the "brutal gringo invasion," and says that land "rightfully ours will be fought for and defended."

What's notable about MEChA is its otherwise mainstream image. Most Hispanic leaders, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, belonged to MEChA in high school or college. Former Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante came under fire from conservatives for refusing to renounce his membership during the 2003 gubernatorial race...

Unfortunately, Bustamecha is still Lt. Gov., although he's kept a low profile since his defeat.

Posted to Immigration at 02:47 AM | Comments (0)

Illegal immigration t-shirt

The t-shirt above is from Dallas radio personality Greg Knapp, and says:

"If I had known all this was going to happen, I would have mowed my own lawn."

Posted to Immigration at 09:26 PM | Comments (0)

[JOB] US-AZ-YUMA: Pick lettuce. $50 an hour.

** Job offered **

Job description: Picking lettuce

Rate: $50.00 per hour (must work for one year)

Contact: John McCain, Supervisor of Lettuce Operations, U.S. Senate

Employer's address:
241 Russell Senate Ofc. Bldg. United States Senate, Washington DC 20510 Phone: (202) 224-2235 Fax: (202) 228-2862

Employer's field offices:
Phoenix 5353 North 16th Street Suite 105 Phoenix, Arizona 85016 Phone: (602) 952-2410 Fax: (602) 952-8702

Tempe 4703 S. Lakeshore Drive Suite 1 Tempe, Arizona 85282 Phone: (480) 897-6289 Fax: (480) 897-8389

Tucson 407 W. Congress Street Suite 103 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Phone: (520) 670-6334 Fax: (520) 670-6637

IF INTERESTED IN THIS JOB, PLEASE CALL ASAP. EVEN IF YOU HAVE OTHER COMMITMENTS, EMPLOYER WANTS TO KNOW WHETHER YOU'D WORK FOR THAT RATE.

----
OK, fun's fun, but if you don't know what this is about, see "McCain's lettuce-picking remarks yield unwanted green":

As he steered his Straight Talk Express across the United States in recent weeks, Republican Sen. John McCain has tried to stay a-head of the immigration issue. But Friday the immigration issue delivered 36 or so heads to his Phoenix office — heads of lettuce, that is... McCain has been getting skewered in the media for comments earlier this month to a union group in Washington, D.C., that immigrants are taking jobs no one else wants, and offered them $50 an hour to pick lettuce in the Arizona sun for a summer, suggesting they couldn't do it... The senator didn't stick around long enough to process any applications, despite several offers to take him up on his offer from the audience... So Friday more than three dozen demonstrators showed up at his office, many carrying lettuce picker applications in one hand, and a head of lettuce in the other to show they could do the job...

8/27/08 UPDATE: Welcome DailyKos visitors, and thank you for taking an interest in this issue. Unfortunately, I need to point out that the leadership of the Democratic Party is as supportive of cheap labor and illegal immigration as John McCain.

Posted to Immigration at 08:55 PM | Comments (2)

AVWatch: 500-to-1 against Villaraigosa's support of illegal immigration marches

In an interview with the Los Angeles Times, former MEChA leader Antonio Villaraigosa informs us about the response to his recent involvement in the illegal immigration marches:

The letters and e-mails have been overwhelmingly negative, maybe 500 to 1, maybe a little more... But I think we're elected to do what's right, not necessarily what's popular.

Yes, but 500 to 1? Maybe - could it be true - AV is wrong?

The interview is one tiny little step more tough than interviews that might have been seen in past issues of Pravda, or, closer to home, Robert Hilburn interviewing Bruce Springsteen. Like this:

Q: Illegal immigrants place some burden on city services, whether it's fire or police or sewer or whatever. Is there any way to measure the cost that the city of Los Angeles pays to care for people who are here illegally, and is that a cost worth paying?

A: I don't know what the cost of providing services to the undocumented would be, but I do know this: The responsibility for those costs is the federal government's, and for more than a decade I have maintained that the federal government, which receives the Social Security and income taxes generated by these immigrants, should reimburse cities and counties for any expense incurred.

Needless to say, the LAT doesn't press that point. Civic leaders can't just pass the buck, especially when they make the situation even worse. Shortly after being elected alcalde, AV went to Mexico and implicitly promoted illegal immigration. He also came out against California border patrols.

He then avoids the LAT's question about the burden on the LAUSD, and then claims that he supports enforcement of our immigration laws:

A: For many years now, I have said that every country in the world has immigration laws, we have every right to have immigration laws, and, as a nation founded on the principle of the rule of law, it is our responsibility to enforce those laws and to have consequences when our laws are broken.

Finally, I've said that while we have every right to enforce our immigration laws, that in a great and good America founded on the backs of immigrants, we must enforce those laws in a humane and constitutional way.

His solution is not to enforce the current laws, but to change them to match the desires of those who support massive legal and illegal immigration by enacting something similar to Kennedy-McCain.

And, we already enforce our immigration laws in a "humane and constitutional" way. (Perhaps he's thinking of how he and Mexican president Zedillo helped block Prop. 187). Those who support illegal immigration - including Antonio Villaraigosa and the L.A. Times - are automatically supporting worker abuse, corruption, and all the other negatives that illegal immigration automatically includes.

Posted to Los_Angeles at 04:48 PM | Comments (1)

Activists protest Maxine Waters over illegal immigration; NAACP

According to KFI, a group of activists marched in front of Maxine Waters' office in South L.A. yesterday. The march concerned immigration.

But, since they were African-Americans and were opposed to her support for illegal immigration and they claim she's turned her back on her constituents, you probably won't read too much about that.

Related: "Hello NAACP! Is Anybody Home?"

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People has finally released a statement concerning the issue of illegal immigration. It is a rather anemic outline of certain principles the organization feels should guide immigration policy...

...But the NAACP's position is not nuanced. It lacks substance and doesn't nearly address the concerns of Black workers, who are impacted directly by the prevalence of black market labor...

...The four industries or sectors that rely most heavily on illegal labor are: construction, food preparation, cleaning and farming. The great lie of this debate is that illegals are doing jobs Americas will not. The obvious rejoinder is: Who filled jobs in these sectors before 11.5 million illegal immigrants crossed our borders? The answer is Americans -- specifically Black Americans. The rub, as Professor Swain points out, is that these American workers must now compete with an influx of labor that has the advantage of under-pricing their services. In Los Angeles during the 1980s for example, the percentage of Black janitors and hotel workers in the workforce plummeted as immigrant workers who accepted lower wages replaced them. Black America looks to the NAACP for leadership on this issue. Unfortunately, all the organization has to offer is a one-page outline filled with the odd notions that law enforcement officials should not enforce the law, people who break the law should not be detained and people who have disregarded our nations sovereignty should be protected and receive amnesty...

Posted to Immigration at 06:05 AM | Comments (2)

Anna Johnson/AP's pro-illegal immigration propaganda

Anna Johnson of the AP offers "Some Immigration Marchers Pay High Price". Let's see if we can spot errors as early as the first paragraph:

Six employees at a seafood restaurant in Houston were fired this week after skipping work to take part in a pro-immigration march. In Detroit, 21 immigrants lost their jobs as meat cutters after attending a similar protest last month.

Calling the marches "pro-immigration" is definitely on the border between misleading and an outright lie. The marches were only concerned with illegal immigration and the legislation they were protesting for or against only involves illegal immigration. And, while the 21 might be all or some "immigrants", there's a good possibility they were all or mostly illegal aliens. At the very least they were all supporting illegal immigration.

Then, she highlights the action of various far-left groups that presumably support illegal immigration. Of course, because her article is propaganda, they aren't identified as such:

Germonique Jones, a spokeswoman for the Washington-based Center for Community Change, an umbrella group behind the rallies... Jerry Gonzalez of the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, which helped organize Monday's march in Atlanta... ...Mexican-American Political Association, a central organizer of rallies in Southern California... Navito Lopez... ...Tim Bell of the Chicago Workers Collaborative...

As pointed out many times before, the Georgia march/boycott was also organized by a former Mexican Consul General. And, Nativo (nee "Larry") Lopez reportedly wants to make Spanish the official language of California.

The AP isn't even trying to hide its biases. Please write them with your thoughts: feedback *at* ap.org

Posted to Immigration at 04:53 AM | Comments (0)

Gil Cedillo's driver's licenses for illegal aliens: April 18, 2006

Gil Cedillo is the author of a series of failed bill designed to give California driver's licenses to illegal aliens: six attempts in the past seven years. Plus, he's also proposed similar bills giving illegal aliens - and only illegal aliens - a pass on towing charges.

This year's attempt to give benefits to illegal aliens from Mexico and other countries - Cedillo's core constituency - is scheduled for a hearing on April 18, 2006.

If you're a California resident (and a U.S. citizen), please contact the reps listed here and indicate your strong opposition to this latest attempt.

Posted to Immigration at 10:39 PM | Comments (1)

Think Progress, Ezra Klein, AP downplay organizers of illegal immigration marches

[See the update below]

Think Progress - a site associated with the Clinton-associated Center for American Progress - downplays the organizers of the recent illegal immigration marches in this one sentence post.

That links to this brief Ezra Klein post, which links to the AP article "Groups Help Organize Immigration Rallies" (link).

Since for some reason or another my attempts to comment on the TP post keep getting blocked - and since Ezra Klein for some reason is afraid to enable comments on his entries, herewith the comment I tried to leave:

Now, for what the AP, TAPPED, and this site aren't telling you, do a search for Armando Navarro, one of the organizers from the article. There's much more to him - and many more interesting affiliations - than the AP is telling you.

Then, search for Nativo Lopez. Another person Dems should feel an especial affinity for (except, of course, for those Hispanic members of the Santa Ana School Board who kicked him off the board because of his views).

In fact, he reportedly wants to make Spanish the official language of California.

The Georgia march was organized by a former Mexican Consul General. One of the groups involved in the previous L.A. march allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government. The recent protests were organized by ANSWER, WCW, and others.

I could go on, but see this article for many, many more.

And, last but not least: Cardinal Roger Mahoney admits to exaggerating about HR4437

We might have hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens marching in our streets, but at least we can look forward to those who support those marches losing a great deal of whatever credibility they might have once had.

UPDATE: See also this Armando Navarro profile. And, one of my new sites has more information on those involved in the immigration marches. Lots of very questionable connections, including to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties.

UPDATE 2: TAPPED changed their link structure, so I updated the link above. Klein's post was originally at prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/04/index.html#009809

Posted to Immigration at 07:40 PM | Comments (0)

Arizona libertarians collaborating with Mexican government official

From this:

The marchers in the Immigration Rally in Phoenix, Arizona, will get some unexpected information during their protest outside the state capitol on Monday. Along with the many leaflets and flyers promoting one agenda or another, many of them received little cards, introducing them to the concepts of libertarianism, free society and open borders, in a sort of "reverse reconquista" maneuver.

These "Philosophia de Libertad" (Philosophy of Liberty) cards will contain links to websites containing further information, including a flash presentation on the basic principles of free society. The cards are being handed out by local Libertarian activist Ernest Hancock and the Representante del Gobernador de Sonora, Ricardo Valenzuela, along with a number of their friends, family members, and fellow liberty-activists.

Hancock is a current candidate for Secretary of State of Arizona, as well as a contender for the Chairmanship of the national Libertarian Party. Valenzuela was appointed by the Governor of Sonora, Mexico, as his official Representative in Arizona...

He reportedly says his actions in this event have the support of Governor Bours...

Is it time to start putting the "u" back in collaborater yet?

On a lighter note, from Hancock's bio (warning: received prompt from Firefox about it trying to load strange files) this is his list of political experience:

Candidate, United States House of Representatives, 2000
Candidate, United States House, Arizona District 4, 1998
Candidate, Secretary of State, 1994
Candidate, Arizona House, District 18, 1990, 1992, and 1996
Plaintiff, Numerous Law Suits Against the Governemnt for Constitutional Violations, 1991-1998
Chair, Malicopa County Libertarian Party, 1994-1995, 1998.

Posted to Immigration at 09:24 AM | Comments (1)

Cardinal Roger Mahony admits to exaggerating about HR4437

In an interview with a Catholic newspaper Cardinal Roger Mahony as much as admitted that he's been misrepresenting HR 4437:

[interviewer:] Giving a sandwich to a hungry man could theoretically be a criminal act.

[Mahoney:] Absolutely. Let me just give a couple of examples that are so absurd, people just say, "What?" The one I used was, since we have undocumented people who come to our churches, do we now ask to see documentation before we give them the body and blood of Christ? People got that as an absurd implication. The other side yells, "That's not what we mean." Well, that's not what they intended, but if you tease it out to its extreme, this is what it amounts to, this kind of nonsense.

If he knows that they didn't intend it to be enforced in the manner that Mahoney has been representing it, hasn't he admitted that he's been misleading his flock? Why didn't he simply urge them to clarify that provision in the bill?

Has Mahoney been arguing in good faith (so to speak), or has he been behaving dishonorably? Hasn't he been simply dishonestly demagoguing this issue?

Later on, he says:

What I'm trying to do is to encourage Catholic legislators to understand the issues and to come up with a just, humane policy that works for the good of the people and the country.

If that's truly what he wants, then he should completely oppose illegal immigration instead of supporting it. His position is clearly immoral because of what it leads to:

* increased corruption in the U.S. as companies that profit from illegal immigration donate to politicians who look the other way

* increased numbers of low-wage workers coming into a high cost of living country (resulting in people living in garages or even tents in backyards)

* lowered wages for our own low-wage workers, many of whom have simply stopped looking for work

* increased chance of worker abuse and workplace injuries and deaths (much higher for illegal aliens)

* entrenching the corrupt Mexican government rather than forcing them to reform

* assisting the government of Mexico meddling in our internal politics

* assisting attempts to weaken U.S. citizenship and sovereignty

Either Mahoney doesn't understand this issue, or he doesn't care about the above.

Posted to Immigration at 05:30 AM | Comments (3)

First person account of Dallas illegal immigration march

This blogger says he was at the big Dallas protest for illegal immigration... on the American side:

I was part of a pro-USA rally in Dallas on Saturday. It was excellent and really uplifted my belief in this country.

I also went as part of a counter protest on Sunday in downtown Dallas. (Yes, that “big” rally). I am disappointed in how it was reported. Dallas Police and the media reported no violence. Untrue. We were attacked on a couple of occasions. We had things thrown at us. We were threatened by hispanic gangs. We had to be escorted around by police in riot gear...

What really pissed me off was that they glorified the amount of American flags and the lack of Mexican flags. First, the only reason they were had American flags was because they were handed out to them at the start of the rally. Also, there were plenty of Mexican flags in the crowd, and also many of the American flags were being desecrated and they were being worn and flown upside down.

There were plenty of gang colors and even the Black Panthers showed up to incite...

Posted to Immigration at 03:10 AM | Comments (1)

What is "comprehensive immigration reform"?

John Derbyshire provides this handy-dandy cut-out-and-clip glossary to terms used in the immigration "debate":

"legalization" ----- amnesty

"guest worker plan" ----- amnesty

"temporary worker plan" ----- amnesty

"path to citizenship" ----- amnesty

"out of the shadows" ----- amnesty

"comprehensive reform" ----- amnesty

Posted to Immigration at 10:49 PM | Comments (1)

"Immigration marches": what the MSM sees and doesn't see

There are other pictures from the L.A. rally here, including one of Antonio Villaraigosa. Here's a flyer from one march.

(Swiped and reformatted from the comment here)

Posted to Immigration at 10:07 AM | Comments (2)

SacBee on flags and "dual loyalties"

The SacBee's "Unity's theme at Capitol as more U.S. flags flutter" has more on the propaganda push by illegal immigration supporters and their use of U.S. flags. Obviously, those mainstream sources that support illegal immigration have been highlighting their use of the American flag, and others have been buying it.

Responding to such criticism, protest organizers have encouraged their people to defuse the issue by displaying more U.S. flags.

That strategy was apparent Monday in Sacramento's marches - though many participants emphasized their dual loyalty by displaying both national emblems.

At the Capitol, thousands of protesters wore white T-shirts emblazoned with Mexican and American flags. Underneath was the word "Unidos" - united.

That's followed by "Jay Mechling, a professor of American studies at UC Davis" offering the standard talking point that puts waving Irish flags in St. Patrick's Day parades on the same level as raising the Mexican flag over an upside-down U.S. flag.

Some Sacramento protesters were determined to get pictures of their American flags broadcast on television. As TV news crews interviewed a demonstrator, others stood behind, holding up the U.S. flag as a backdrop.

While some of them might mean it, as the past marches show for many of them that's all it is: a backdrop.

"Aquí estamos y no nos vamos," [a marcher] said. "We're here and we're not leaving."

..."I'm proud to be Mexicana. I'm proud of my race," [a marcher] shouted...

So, illegal aliens have entered our country and are telling us they refuse to leave? What is that normally called? And, exactly how unhealthy for this country is the racial solidarity subtext of these marches? Isn't there a worry that those who say such things will always put the demands of their race ahead of the country they want to join?

Posted to Immigration at 06:44 AM | Comments (3)

The Walter Duranty Award for Immigration Coverage goes to...

The New York Times, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and just about every other newspaper or media outlet that's tried their best to spin foreign nationals marching in our streets and making demands as "immigration marches".

I previously linked to Networks Champion Cause of "Americans" Marching for "Immigration Reform", but since that shows just how much the network news tried to lie about this issue I might as well link again.

Now comes "CNN's Dobbs Scolds Papers for Distorting Agenda of Protests by Illegal Aliens", which involves the New York Times, the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal. It also contains this:

"One newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal, however, was somewhat more straightforward. It made this astute comment in an editorial today saying, quote [text on screen]: 'Organizers wanted the marches to be more about people and less about policy. Most television stations swallowed the bait and delivered news reports soft enough to follow Sesame Street on PBS. The reason for such an attest is obvious. If marchers made the demands the centerpiece for protests, the outcry from American taxpayers already fed up with immigration would overwhelm the previously full mailboxes of every member of Congress."

(See also this older editorial from Vin Suprynowicz about a meeting with pro-illegal immigration activists: "I don't know what an illegal alien is").

There are signs the NYT et al didn't show you here and here. There's a photo gallery here.

And, Powerline has their video reports linked to from this post. Note also the striking pro-enforcement results from their poll. I saw at least one leftwing blog linking to it, so even with that only an extremely small percentage of votes (not necessarily of voters) support amnesty.

And, for those wondering why Brian Becker of ANSWER wasn't at the big illegal aliens march in DC, he was in NYC.

Posted to Immigration at 04:35 AM | Comments (3)

$10 lettuce! $50 strawberries! Two artichokes for a benjamin!

Believe it or don't, some supporters of illegal immigration are still trying to scare grocery shoppers with fantastic tales of overpriced veggies should illegal immigration ever stop.

Shoppers are encouraged to support corruption or be forced to spend $10 for a head of lettuce or be required to fork over $100 for a pair of artichokes. Soon, according to these illegal immigration supporters, a bushel of corn would cost more than a bushel of gold.

But, isn't there the possibility that grocery prices might even go down if there were many fewer illegal aliens? Wouldn't we increase imports of labor-intensive crops like strawberries, and wouldn't those crops come from countries with much lower costs of living than the U.S.?

Since many of the supporters of illegal immigration also extol the wonders of globalism, perhaps you could encourage them to think globally: instead of importing workers, let's just import strawberries.

Posted to Immigration at 10:04 PM | Comments (4)

Matt Stoller doesn't want you to see this

Earlier today I posted the following comment on the thread "Immigrants Stand Up Against Right-wing Racism" by Matt Stoller. It was deleted either by Matt Stoller himself or by one of the other administrators there.

There's nothing in the comment that would seem to violate their rules. And, of course, whenever someone does something like this it's a virtual admission that they have no real argument. While you should double-check everything you read, in the case of MyDD I'd suggest a quadruple-check.

Here's the comment:

Of course, there are millions of illegal aliens who are not similar.

And, should this site really be supporting those who want to enter this country illegally?

As long as there are illegal aliens, those illegal aliens will be much more likely to suffer not just worker abuse but workplace deaths.

There are only two solutions to that: make anyone who comes here a citizen, or enforce our immigration laws.

The same goes for the border deaths. It's not those who want to enforce our immigration laws that are responsible on our side for those deaths, it's those who oppose our immigration laws. Millions of people know that they can come here and live as illegal aliens, and they'll receive protection from "liberals" and corrupt businesses. That encourages them to come, and some die trying.

If our immigration laws were enforced, fewer would try to come, and there would be fewer border deaths, fewer cases of worker abuse, and fewer cases of workplace deaths or injuries.

Please, think this whole subject through.

Posted to Immigration at 09:57 PM | Comments (0)

Today's foreign citizens marching in our streets roundup, Part 2

Like me, a blogger wonders whether the infamous poster is really from the Democratic Party. (Wouldn't they say "vote Democratic"? Or, is the flyer's terminology correct?)

I don't think I've ever linked to the BushBots at Powerline before, but they say they'll have footage from today's illegal alien marches tomorrow.

According to KFI, former MEChA member and current alcalde de Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, spoke before a relatively small march and never once made a distinction between the legal and illegal kinds of immigration.

That lack of a distinction appears to be a very successful attempt to basically lie about what these marches are really about.

For examples of that propaganda, see "Networks Champion Cause of 'Americans' Marching for 'Immigration Reform'". On their nightly news shows, all three networks lied to the American public about these rallies.

There are many more links in the posts starting here and working back. Also see this and this. (warning: sidebar takes forever to load)

There was violence directed against Americans at at least three marches: "Assault underscores tension as Congress weighs immigration reform", "Scuffle breaks out at immigration rally (Arizona)", and a blogger's camera was smashed.

See also "Immigration Rallies Live Thread Day 2", pictures from the Santa Ana protest (now featuring Nativo Lopez, nee "Larry") pictures from the Rochester protest proudly featuring the International Socialist Organization (which was also involved in the near-riot in Baldwin Park), and this perhaps-real poster featuring "HONKIES, why don't you take your ASSES back to Europe", featuring the famous drawing of the half-Irish, half-Spanish Che Guevara.

Posted to Immigration at 11:27 PM | Comments (6)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein: U.S. can no longer afford to be the "welfare system" for Mexico's poor

From a UPI article:

...Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., also is warning about the danger of too many illegal immigrants. She said the United States can no longer afford to be the ''welfare system'' for Mexico's poor...

Unfortunately, the UPI article is from August 26, 1993.

Posted to Immigration at 07:39 PM | Comments (4)

Today's foreign citizens marching in our streets roundup, Part 1

First, this needs much more attention: Dallas illegal aliens march: George P. Bush was scheduled

And, from Neal Boortz:

Rights? What rights? Tell me, please, just what rights these demonstrators are marching for today? The right to cross our borders illegally? The right to remain in this country illegally? The right to work here illegally? The right to stay here illegally? They have the right to none of these things, though you wouldn't know it from the chanting you'll hear today.

Hatrios has some pictures and is encouraging his readers to join with the foreign citizens who are marching in our streets demanding that we capitulate.

Pictures from yesterday's St. Louis rally. Pictures from the Dallas rally here and here.

While I've called PoliPundit and his fellow contributors "BushBots" in the past, that has to change at least in his case. He's now calling George W Bush a Mexican agent. He also puts others in the same category: Jeb Bush, John McCain, Bill Frist, Sam Brownback, Chuck Hagel, Mike DeWine, Lindsey Graham, Arlen Specter, Pete Domenici, and Mel Martinez.

Are they indeed "agents of Mexico" or "traitors"? Probably not, since those have legal definitions. So, perhaps he should consider hedging a bit: "George Bush acts like an agent of Mexico", "Sam Brownback may not have committed treason, but he acts like a traitor", "many Americans will consider Pete Domenici no better than a Quisling", and so forth.

Needless to say, party hacks call him on his change of heart. But, at least in that one post he's willing to put country ahead of party.

I previously linked to photos from the Dallas march, and this post highlights one supposedly from the Democrats. It just might be a real flyer from some Democratic Party organization, although I'd caution that there's the possibility it could be fake.

And, here's a list of "New regulations for immigrants?"

Posted to Immigration at 11:21 AM | Comments (0)

Barbara Boxer: put National Guard troops on the border! (From 1994)

Back in 1994, Barbara Boxer wanted to put National Guard troops on the border. From an August 1994 L.A. Times article:

Ten months after Sen. Barbara Boxer secured federal funds to deploy National Guard troops to hinder illegal immigration, the program has not been implemented anywhere in the country and the Department of Defense has no plans to do so.

Last year, the first-term California senator hailed her so-called "Boxer National Guard Plan" as an innovative solution to the state's illegal immigration problem. Supplementing federal Border Patrol agents with "well-trained, well-equipped" military personnel, Boxer said at the time, "could prove the most cost-effective way to bolster enforcement at the California border."

Soon after Congress passed the legislation, however, the Defense Department ruled that the plan lacked any legal authority and decided not to carry it out...

...Like many politicians in California, Boxer succeeded in attracting favorable attention for her efforts to crack down on the tide of immigrants who enter the country illegally. The senator's staff pointed to a Times poll last fall that found that 73% of Californians supported using the National Guard to halt illegal border crossings...

...The prospect of armed forces in military uniforms assisting in immigration patrols at the nation's borders for the first time in history drew protests from civil rights groups and criticism even from Republican hard-liners on the issue such as Gov. Pete Wilson. He called the plan "not helpful" and a violation of an international treaty that bans armed troops on the border.

Posted to Immigration at 11:18 AM | Comments (2)

More hidden bombs in immigration "compromise" bill

The entry "Which Senator tried to scuttle our entire immigration system?" already discussed one hidden feature in the possibly late and not lamented immigration "compromise" bill. That loophole would have stocked our immigration courts with judges drawn from the ranks of immigration lawyers. In other words, the foxes would be put in full charge of the henhouse.

Believe it or don't, Sen. Jeff Sessions discovered several more major loopholes, and his long discussion of them is here. It's too long to excerpt, but read it if you think anything about this attempt at immigration "reform" is anything but an attempt to make things far, far worse.

Posted to Immigration at 06:41 AM | Comments (0)

Harry Reid strongly opposed illegal immigration. In 1993.

There's a very long statement from Harry Reid here. It's from 1993, back when he was even more of a border hawk than Rep. Tom Tancredo. Since that time he claims he realized the error of his ways, which explains his current immigration policy which - oddly enough - meshes quite nicely with Mexico's current emigration policy.

If you have a chance to attend any appearance by Harry Reid, I'd suggest printing up copies and passing them out or even asking him about it in the unlikely event that you get the chance. Here's just a small snippet of his thoughts of the time:

...And these are not racist people who are raising this issue...

...I wish the statements I have been making were some kind of a nightmare or dream, an aberration. But they are true. But they do not stop. Not only do we admit more than these 100,000 people each year without knowing who they are or why they came, we actually give them all the documents they need to simply disappear into our society.

I live in a suburb of Washington. It is near the CIA. There, if you drive down Dolley Madison Boulevard, people have placed there a little memorial for the people who were gunned down earlier this year by a man by the name of Mir Amil Kanzi, a Pakistani citizen. He entered the United States illegally, lived here for a year as an illegal alien, obtained a new passport from the government he claimed to fear, and yet he was still able to show up at an INS office in Virginia and file a claim of political asylum. Was this guy given a quick hearing and sent home? No. He got work authorization, a social security card, a driver's license, and the ability to obtain an AK-47 assault rifle and gun down CIA workers.

We hear from the American people when they appear in Town Hall meetings, [*S11998] or when students at universities and high schools all over this country write to us. They are not imagining things. They are not, as some apologists for the status quo contend, trying to blame immigrants for their problems. They are simply recognizing facts. America's immigration policies are in a shambles, and they should be fixed, and we can no longer ignore them.

Posted to Immigration at 03:06 AM | Comments (0)

Dallas illegal aliens march: George P. Bush was scheduled

Hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens are marching in our streets, making a show of force and demanding that we give in to their demands.

Normally, you'd expect the president of the United States to be opposed to illegal aliens marching in our streets, but George W Bush is a quite different kind of president.

George P. Bush - nephew of the president of the United States - was scheduled to speak, but didn't show up. Is there any possibility that he would schedule himself for something like that without first discussing it with higher-ups in the family? From the article "Activists sign up protesters to put them on road to polls":

...Many politicos attended Sunday's march to get important face time with voters or potential voters. Among them were state Rep. Royce West, and state Rep. Rafael Anchia, and much of the Dallas City Council, including Elba García, Angela Hill, Don Hill, Pauline Medrano, Ed Oakley and Steve Salazar.

Dallas lawyer George P. Bush, nephew of George W. Bush, was scheduled to speak but didn't show...

I think it's safe to assume that the Bush family is on the side of the illegal alien protesters and not on the side of the millions of American citizens who are shocked by the marches.

There are pictures from the rally here. (Via this)

Posted to Immigration at 09:05 PM | Comments (1)

Sam Brownback's false compassion

Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) supports illegal immigration and giving an amnesty to those illegal aliens currently here out of "humanitarian" grounds.

Let's take a look at just how much "compassion" there is in his support for illegal immigration. His "compassion" would lead to:

- more illegal immigration into the U.S.
- more of the associated worker abuse
- more border deaths
- entrenching the Mexican oligarchy and preventing reforms
- increased political power in the U.S. for the Mexican government
- lower wages for low-wage American citizens
- more corruption in the U.S. as politicians are paid off by those profiting off illegal activity

Obviously, there are many more that could be added. I understand how Brownback wants to show compassion. After thinking this through, he'll realize that the only way to do that is to simply enforce our laws.

Posted to Immigration at 12:13 PM | Comments (4)

Tyche Hendricks' pro-illegal immigration propaganda

San Francisco Chronicle reporter Tyche Hendricks offers a pro-illegal immigration puff piece in the article "Stakes High for Families". As you can see by looking at the other articles in that category, all these propaganda pieces start the same way. In the current instance:

When Anna Salazar was first dating her husband, Roberto, it didn't occur to her to ask his immigration status.

In this particular case, the intro is followed with a series of misleading statements:

Sensenbrenner's bill [HR4437] would build 700 miles of fencing along the border and have Anna Salazar, too, charged with an aggravated felony -- "harboring" her undocumented husband. She could face more than a year in prison, loss of her children to foster care during that time and forfeiture of her assets.

It sounds so ominous, doesn't it? Almost as if that evil Sensenbrenner person would come to their home and personally arrest her.

Of course, what Hendricks doesn't reveal is that there are already laws against harboring illegal aliens, and Salazar probably stands even less of a chance from being charged with anything should HR4437 pass than she has during all the decades when the current laws have been on the books.

As with other PIIPPs, suddenly a bright light shines forth, showing the way to true redemption:

By contrast, a bill pending in the Senate would create a path to legal residency for most of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States

And, it would also lead to many more similar cases, as millions upon millions of new illegal aliens came here to take advantage of their amnesty.

Unlike many other PIIPPs, this article does include the name of the person who might just have brought this case to the attention of the reporter:

"Roberto's case is an example of how some people luck in and some people luck out," said his pro bono attorney, Anita Sinha of the International Institute of the East Bay. "A lot of it has to do with arbitrary deadlines."

A google search of her name is like entering into a carnival maze of acronyms. She's identified here as a member of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC, site). Since that time she's joined the International Institute of the East Bay (IIEB,site). On this 2003 page she's identified as represented the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NIRP, site). And, in 2005 she was a candidate for the board of the SF chapter of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG).

In other words, she's pretty darn far-left.

And, even if this article has let slip where it came from, that still doesn't explain why all these PIIPPs look the same. Is there some kind of a Word template installed by default on reporters' computers?

(Hat tip: "eh" in comments)

Posted to Immigration_piipps at 07:46 AM | Comments (2)

"What Bush fails to see at the border"

From Ronald F. Maxwell:

Dear President Bush, Perhaps you know me from my work. I wrote and directed the movies "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals." ...As one of the very few directors of major motion pictures who sees you in a different light, I implore you to listen seriously to what I have to say...

...What is happening on the southern border is unprecedented. Not only in our own history, but in the history of the world. No country at any time anywhere has sustained the influx of tens of millions of foreigners across its borders...

...It may already be too late to avoid a future annexation of the Southwest by Mexico or the evolution of a Mexican-dominated satellite state. This is not to say Mexican people are better or worse than any of God's children. It is to say that millions of ethnically and culturally homogeneous people will seek self-determination in a land they will increasingly feel justified in claiming as their own. Especially when the natural weight of demographic change is accompanied by the soundtrack of radical demagoguery which seeks to legitimize and moralize this phenomenon as a "reconquista." Many pundits claim you will be remembered in history as the president who won (or lost) the war in Iraq. I see it differently. I believe you will come to be seen, in the years and decades to come, as the President who saved (or lost) the Southwest of the United States...

Posted to at 03:31 AM | Comments (1)

Cynthia Tucker to uncover corruption!

Without using the word "corrupt", Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution opines that our national politicians are corrupt:

If they really wanted to, your representatives in Washington could dry up illegal immigration almost before you could say, "Tom Tancredo is a tiresome demagogue." All they would have to do is require U.S. employers to check the legal status of all employees and impose stiff sanctions — including multimillion-dollar fines and prison time — on employers who flout the law...

...[Congress] doesn't want to solve the problem. Your political leaders like to rant about the broken immigration system, but they have no intention of fixing it.

Isn't such political corruption extremely dangerous to the future of this country? Shouldn't the AJC then begin reporting on that, shaming our leaders, and trying to force them to follow the law rather than to invent new laws that will be easier for them not to follow? I'm sure she'll get around to that any day now.

Previously: Brian Feagans of AJC reports on re-eduction of American worker

Posted to Immigration at 02:21 AM | Comments (3)

Martin Wolk's pro-illegal immigration propaganda

Martin Wolk is the chief economics correspondent for MSNBC, and he offers "How immigrants might actually boost wages". This site is not qualified to weigh in on the Battle of the Economists: is George Borjas correct in his findings that massive immigration drives down wages for low-wage Americans?

However, part of our job description is noticing propaganda when we read it:

...A new study goes even further and seeks to turn the Borjas view on its head, finding that immigration has probably reduced wages at the low end of the scale but raised average wages by 2 percent.

Co-author Giovanni Peri of the University of California, Davis, said his findings assume that the millions of immigrants who have entered the country over the past two decades have spurred capital investment that has expanded the economy...

Click his name for some very disturbing contrary evidence.

...The [Pew] study also found that 94 percent of undocumented foreign-born men ages 18 to 64 are in the work force, compared with 83 percent of native-born adult men.

That's a pretty huge difference isn't it? How many of those Americans who aren't working have simply given up due to competition from illegal aliens? How many members of the underclass are "pursuing other forms of business" but might be working without all that competition? It's good that Wolk slips that fact in, but it would have been better if he'd attempted to find out what it means.

The debate over immigration reform has created some strange political bedfellows, with some pragmatic Republicans including President Bush lined up on roughly the same side of the issue as many union leaders and liberal Democrats.

Given all of the lunatic statements Bush has made about immigration, I don't know whether the word "pragmatic" is the one I would use. Perhaps a politer version of "corrupt and crazy".

And, immediately following that comes the sentence where Wolk begins to sound like an infomercial:

They all recognize the growing political and economic clout of the nation's nearly 40 million Hispanics – a hint of which has been on display in recent weeks as hundreds of thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest a House bill that would crack down on illegal immigration...

A large number of those hundreds of thousands are actually citizens of other countries. Even those corrupt enough to only be concerned with the bottom line might want to consider what would happen to their bottom line if we refused to do what those foreign citizens want.

If you want to let MSNBC know what you think: letters *at* msnbc.com

Posted to Immigration at 03:50 AM | Comments (3)

George W Bush: "immigration helps restore our souls"

Lawrence Kudlow - host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company - got a special treat this morning:

A half dozen financial journalists met with President Bush this morning in the Oval Office, including yours truly. The president was upbeat on the economy and today's job numbers and emphasized low tax rates as the key to stimulating job creating investment. He said "we must not resort to isolationism and protectionist policies. We must keep taxes low and enable the economy to grow."

Bush was peeved at Congress for not completing the tax reconciliation bill to extend the tax cuts on cap gains and dividends. He also wants a comprehensive immigration bill that does not include a 700-mile wall. He told us "immigration helps restore our souls." Then, he wanted our opinion on his new plan to require all the Americans to change their underwear every hour. "I want the Americans to wear their underwear on the outside too. That's so we can check," he told me as I sat in Dick Cheney's chair. Dick Cheney's chair!

OK, I admit: I added everything after the bit in bold. It just seemed to all flow together, you know?

Just to make this clear, Bush really did say "immigration helps restore our souls." Does he think he's a minister of some kind? Does he think of himself as not just a public servant but some divine messenger designed to vastly change the world? Has anyone considered the possibility that Bush has simply gone a bit insane?

Posted to Immigration at 09:53 PM | Comments (5)

The "Reconquista" goes mainstream

And even Insty notices, linking to this by Kaus, which links to a swear-word-ridden rant by Alisa Valdes-Rodriguez is a "bestselling American author ... named one of the nation's 25 most influential Hispanics by Time magazine".

In less influential news, the falsely titled story "Immigration Rallies Take On More Civil, Deliberative Tone" reports on Monday's big march by and/or for illegal aliens and contains this:

"These student protests are also about rights, said Dr. Julio Cammarota, a professor of Mexican-American Studies [at the University of Arizona]. "It's about the right of people who have a historical political economic right to be in this land we call Aztlan."

Posted to Immigration at 12:14 PM | Comments (4)

Which Senator tried to scuttle our entire immigration system?

A strong charge indeed, but after reading "Hidden Bombs" I think it's highly justified:

...The Senate's Democratic and Republican leaders yesterday announced a compromise on an immigration bill - with some details still to be worked out. But details that may continue from the bill passed out of the Judiciary Committee should definitely be deal-breakers.

Like that surprise hidden on page 302 - which would replace the country's entire bench of experienced immigration judges with pro-immigration advocates.

With a few exceptions, today's immigration judges (who serve for life) are dedicated to enforcing the law, and they do a difficult job well. This bill forces all immigration judges to step down after serving seven years - and restricts replacements to attorneys with at least five years' experience practicing immigration law.

Virtually the only lawyers who'll meet that requirement are attorneys who represent aliens in the immigration courts - who tend to be some of the nation's most liberal lawyers, and who are certainly unlikely as a class to be fond of enforcing immigration laws.

It gets worse. Immigration judges are now appointed by the attorney general - whose job it is to see to it that laws are enforced. The Senate bill gives that power to a separate bureaucrat, albeit one directly appointed by the president, making immigration courts more susceptible to leftward polarization...

Someone really needs to find out exactly who put that language in there.

While I have no knowledge indicating that the American Immigration Lawyers Association was involved, note that in one prior case they not only donated to Chris Cannon's campaign, they helped him write legislation.

Posted to Immigration at 11:24 AM | Comments (2)

John Kerry, Harry Reid confused about whole "America" thing

A completely unverified comment here says:

John Kerry on IMUS this morning claimed poeple wanted to deport 12 million Americans.

If anyone has a tape that would be great.

And, KFI-AM Los Angeles played a snippet of Harry Reid saying that hundreds of thousands of Americans had taken to the streets to protest for immigration "reform". While some of those were Americans, many or most are actually citizens of other countries, and all of them were supporting giving rights to citizens of other countries to which they aren't entitled.

Obviously, both Kerry and Reid need to take a Remedial Civics course at their local community college.

Posted to Immigration at 11:05 AM | Comments (2)

Status of the Senate's sellout of America? Mexico welcomes bill; Bush/GOP ratings

Has the Senate's plan to sellout this country stalled? Or, will the Senate be able to get it together long enough to complete the sellout?

Putting aside party differences, Senate Republicans and Democrats coalesced Thursday around compromise legislation that holds out the hope of citizenship to many of the estimated 11 million immigrants living in the United States unlawfully.

...But delay soon set in as party leaders became embroiled in a procedural dispute that threatened prospects for passage by week's end, if not longer. Democrats blocked votes on Republican amendments, and Republicans responded by accusing Democrats of trying to scuttle a bill they had embraced earlier in the day...

The article "Bickering stalls immigration deal" makes similar points.

The exact status is unclear at this time. Maybe all of this was just a big political show. Or, maybe all those phone calls worked and the Senators finally saw a tiny sliver of light.

In related news, "Mexico welcomes US immigration legislation reform":

Mexico's Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Thursday, calling the proposal "a big step forward."

"It is an important step in the establishment of new mechanisms allowing legal, secure, orderly migration that respects human rights," the statement said.

It added that it was evident that the U.S. government was "fully convinced that by sharing responsibility it is possible to achieve better management of the migration phenomenon." In the same statement, the ministry called for the approval of a final bill that is "complete, just and humane."

In not-entirely-coincidental news, "Bush, GOP Approval Ratings Hit New Lows":

President Bush's approval ratings hit a series of new lows in an AP-Ipsos poll that also shows Republicans surrendering their advantage on national security - grim election-year news for a party struggling to stay in power.

Democratic leaders predicted they will seize control of one or both chambers of Congress in November. Republicans said they feared the worst unless the political landscape quickly changes.

"These numbers are scary. We've lost every advantage we've ever had," GOP pollster Tony Fabrizio said. "The good news is Democrats don't have much of a plan. The bad news is they may not need one."

Please keep calling as many Senators as you can. The main Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or (888) 355-3588. A complete list of numbers is here. You can also send free FAXes here.

When calling, make sure not to profusely congratulate them on behalf of Mexico for their foresight in dealing with the "migration phenomenon". Sarcasm doesn't work in such contexts, and they'd probably think you were being serious anyway.

Posted to Immigration at 04:28 AM | Comments (8)

Juan Jose Gutierrez + ANSWER = revolution!

A blogger went undercover at an ANSWER meeting and has a report. The meeting mostly concerned ANSWER's upcoming Monday April 10 rally for illegal aliens in Washington DC and their NYC rally on the 29th. A featured guest was Juan Jose Gutierrez (also featured here in "AVWatch: Villaraigosa's under-reported associations" and "The Trojan Horses of Sacramento").

At the meeting, National Coordinator of the A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition Brian Becker reportedly said the following:

"The Sensenbrenner bill is so odious, such a threat, so far reaching in its efforts to criminalize, make felons out of the 12 million people who are doing nothing except trying to feed their families, and make felons out of all those immigrant communities that assist those people, that the lash of the oppression, of that repression, of that counterrevolution, that it provoked the beginning of what could be a new revolutionary movement. Maybe it won't be the ultimate revolution, but certainly it has the ingredients and elementary factors that make up all revolutionary movements. If you think about it, this is the way that all great movements start, including the American Revolution."

Don't think they're so fringe; as the Villaraigosa link shows, the current mayor of L.A. spoke at one of Gutierrez' rallies. And, the Los Angeles Times refered to ANSWER's LA chapter as an "antiwar and anti-racism group".

Posted to ThePeaceMovement at 11:09 PM | Comments (7)

Rush Limbaugh on illegal immigration

I rarely listen to Rushbo, but a few weeks ago he seemed to be carrying Bush water on Dubai ports deal. Yesterday however, he appears to have verged off the Bush reservation.

Here's more from Tuesday's transcript, including this:

I mean, if they're afraid to enforce the current laws on the books for fear that they will lose politically in terms of Hispanic votes, then isn't any kind of enforcement going to upset this community and impact negatively the possibility they would vote for Republicans down the line? So I don't see any kind of enforcement mechanism here that's going to work.

Posted to Immigration at 11:31 AM | Comments (3)

"One of the founding principles of our country is to have open borders"

When I called the D.C. office of Senator Richard Durbin and expressed my opposition to any amnesty scheme, whether called that or not, the lady who answered the phone uttered the titular phrase.

Only after I repeated what she said back to her a couple times and used the phrase "controlled borders" did she amend it to use that phrase.

To help fight against such attitudes, please call as many Senators as possible and stress your complete opposition to any form of amnesty, no matter how they try to present it as something else.

The main Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or (888) 355-3588. A complete list of numbers is here. You can also send free FAXes here.

Posted to Immigration at 11:19 AM | Comments (1)

The Senate's Rube Goldbergian immigration scheme

The latest scheme from the Senate involves a horrendously complicated series of tiers: illegal aliens here more than five years would be given amnesty, illegal aliens here less than five years but more than two years would need to go to a port of entry to get their amnesty, those here less than that time would need to stay here for another three years to get their amnesty, new illegal aliens would need to wait in line for five years to get their amnesty, legal immigrants who've been waiting for their amnesty will go to Secaucus and pick up a token which they'll take to an apothecariast in Piscataway who will then stamp it and send them to be processed in Paraguay, and on and on and on.

I hate to laugh, because their sellout of our country is not funny in the least.

The main Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or (888) 355-3588. You can also send free FAXes here.

Posted to Immigration at 05:36 AM | Comments (6)

Voting: the next demand illegal aliens will make

Hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens recently marched in our streets, demanding to be given the rights of citizens. The Senate looks to capitulate to their demands, giving them some form of legality. Needless to say, this will set a very dangerous precedent. And, it will give a great deal more power to those on the other side and cause them to make even greater demands.

The next demand I expect them to make concerns the right to vote. It might start out with just being open to legal immigrants, but then the demand will be made - perhaps backed with a show of force - to extend it to anyone "regardless of status".

In fact, the other side has already claimed victory in one case: "Non-Citizens Expected to Get Voting Rights in NYC":

Legislation granting non-citizens the right to vote is expected to pass in New York City this year, immigration rights advocates tell the Amsterdam News.

"We're very excited and very optimistic that this will pass," New York City Councilman Charles Barron said at a recent press briefing...

Dubbed the "Voting Rights Restoration Act," the measure would permit immigrants who have a green card to vote in municipal elections, including for mayor, comptroller and city council, after having lived in the city for six months.

The New York Coalition to Expand Voting Rights sees the measure being extended one day to state and even federal elections. "There is nothing in either the U.S. or the New York State Constitution that prevents us from expanding the franchise to include non-citizen residents," a spokesman for the group argued in January.

If you want to see the thoughts of some really useless idiots, check out the NYCEVR's press page. Even the most corrupt Republican Senator should be quaking in his loafers over the possibility of illegal aliens - no matter how much previously pandered to - having the vote.

Previously:
Will illegal aliens get voting rights because of corrupt Republicans?
Bloomberg opposes non-citizen voting for New Yorkers (just don't take away his greenskeepers!)
"Little to stop illegal aliens from voting"
Mexican agents in the state houses?
Another attempt to give illegal aliens the vote
Leland Yee's plans
MALDEF's and UCLA's plans

Posted to Immigration at 03:07 AM | Comments (1)

Flashback to 1993, when Harry Reid was an American

Nowadays, Harry Reid supports illegal immigration, even when he ends up greatly harming American citizens and assisting Bush, connected contractors, and the government of Mexico in the process. (See also this, this, this and this about an Abramoff connection).

However, Drudge reminds us that it wasn't always so. A 1993 press release from the Senator is in the extended entry.

FLASHBACK: Dem Senate Leader Harry Reid: 'Our Federal Wallet Stretched To Limit By Illegal Aliens Getting Welfare'

'Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally'

August 5, 1993

The Office of Sen. Harry Reid issued the following:

In response to increased terrorism and abuse of social programs by aliens, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today introduced the first and only comprehensive immigration reform bill in Congress.

Currently, an alien living illegally in the United States often pays no taxes but receives unemployment, welfare, free medical care and other federal benefits. Recent terrorist acts, including the World Trade Center bombing, have underscored the need to keep violent criminals out of the country.

Reid's bill, the Immigration Stabilization Act of 1993, overhauls the nation's immigration laws and calls for a massive scale-down of immigrants allowed into the country from approximately 800,000 to 300,000.

The bill also changes asylum laws to prevent phony asylum seekers. Reid said the U.S. open door policy is being abused at the expense of honest, working citizens.

"We are a country founded upon fairness and justice," Reid said. "An individual in real threat of torture or long-term incarceration because of his or her political beliefs can still seek asylum. But this bill closes the door to those who want to abuse America's inherent generosity and legal system."

Reid's bill also cracks down on illegal immigration. The 1990 census reported 3.3 million illegal aliens in America. Recent estimates indicate about 2.5 million immigrants illegally entered the United States last year.

"Our borders have overflowed with illegal immigrants placing tremendous burdens on our criminal justice system, schools and social programs," Reid said. "The Immigration and Naturalization Service needs the ability to step up enforcement.

"Our federal wallet is stretched to the limit by illegal aliens getting welfare, food stamps, medical care and other benefits often without paying any taxes.

"Safeguards like welfare and free medical care are in place to boost Americans in need of short-term assistance. These programs were not meant to entice freeloaders and scam artists from around the world. "Even worse, Americans have seen heinous crimes committed by individuals who are here illegally," Reid said.

Specific provisions of Reid's Immigration Stabilization Act include the following:

-- Reduces annual legal immigration levels from approximately 800,000 admissions per year to about 300,000. Relatives other than spouse or minor children will be admitted only if already on immigration waiting lists and their admission does not raise annual immigration levels above 300,000.

-- Reforms asylum rules to prevent aliens from entering the United States illegally under phony "asylum" claims.

-- Expands list of felonies considered "aggravated" felonies requiring exclusion and deportation of criminal aliens. Allows courts to order deportation at time of sentencing.

-- Increases penalties for failing to depart or re-entering the United States after a final order of deportation order. Increases maximum penalties for visa fraud from five years to 10 years.

-- Curtails alien smuggling by authorizing interdiction and repatriation of aliens seeking to enter the United States unlawfully by sea. Increases penalties for alien smuggling.

-- Adds "alien smuggling" to the list of crimes subject to sanctions under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Expands the categories of property that are forfeited when used to facilitate the smuggling or harboring of illegal aliens.

-- Clarifies that a person born in the United States to an alien mother who is not a lawful resident is not a U.S. citizen. This will eliminate incentive for pregnant alien women to enter the United States illegally, often at risk to mother and child, for the purpose of acquiring citizenship for the child and accompanying federal financial benefits.

-- Mandates that aliens who cannot demonstrably support themselves without public or private assistance are excludable. This will prevent admission of aliens likely to be dependent on public financial support. This requirement extends to the sponsor of any family sponsored immigrant.

-- Increases border security and patrol officers to 9,900 full-time positions.

Posted to Immigration at 09:31 PM | Comments (0)

Sensenbrenner to Catholic Bishops: please stop lying

He didn't say that exactly, but Reps. Jim Sensenbrenner, Henry Hyde, and Pete King have sent a letter to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops:

Since the House bill's passage [HR 4437], many have misconstrued the House's good-faith effort to bring human traffickers to justice as a way to criminalize humanitarian assistance efforts. The House bill does no such thing, nor did it intend to.

We can assure you, just as under current law, religious organizations would not have to "card" people at soup kitchens and homeless shelters under the House bill's anti-smuggling provisions. Prosecutors would no sooner prosecute good Samaritans for "assisting" illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. under the House bill than they would prosecute such persons for "encouraging" illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. under current law, which has existed for nearly 20 years.

Nonetheless, we stand willing to work with you and other persons of good will to ensure humanitarian assistance efforts are not mistakenly ensnared in this moral effort to end suffering at the hands of human traffickers. We remain optimistic this goal can be achieved.

Lastly, we know many of you are concerned about the House bill's provision making illegal presence a felony. We share that concern. As you should know, during the House debate, Chairman Sensenbrenner offered an amendment to reduce the bill's penalty for illegal presence from a felony to a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, this amendment was unsuccessful, primarily because all but eight of our Democratic colleagues decided to play political games by voting to make all illegal immigrants felons. A felony penalty is neither appropriate nor workable. We remain committed to reducing this penalty and working with you to this end.

Whatever happens in the near-term, hopefully in the long term the credibility of all those who lied about this bill will be severly damaged.

Related:
The Catholic Church's anti-HR4437 smokescreen (no soup kitchens here)
Are Rev. Michael DeGerolami and Robert Seltzer lying?
Cardinal Roger Mahony's false "charity"
Rich Lowry on Cardinal Roger Mahoney
"Cardinal Errors" (National Review on Roger Mahoney)
The religious argument against Cardinal Roger Mahoney
AVWatch: Villaraigosa supports illegal immigration, Cardinal Mahoney
"Cardinal Mahoney initiates immigrant rights campaign"

Posted to Immigration at 09:22 PM | Comments (3)

Rasmussen: Enforcement First Favored on Immigration

According to a recent Rasmussen Reports poll:

Two-thirds (68%) of Americans believe it is possible to reduce illegal immigration while just 20% disagree. The belief that the issue could be addressed adds to the intensity of the debate.

A similar number (66%) believe it doesn't make sense to debate new immigration laws until we can first control our borders and enforce existing laws. Just 21% disagree with that approach.

However, those who are seeking a compromise on the issue may be underestimating the public desire to reduce the number of illegal aliens already living in the country as well as stopping the flow of future illegal immigration.

In our survey, we informed respondents that there are 11 million illegal aliens living in the United States and that more than half have lived here for more than five years. Upon hearing those facts, 40% favored forcibly requiring all 11 million to leave the United States. Just 44% are opposed to a forcible removal of illegal aliens.

This does not mean that 40% would support whatever actions are required to remove the current population of illegal aliens. However, it clearly indicates that there is no broad support for a policy that begins with an assumption that those who already live here should be allowed to stay...

Posted to Immigration at 12:49 PM | Comments (1)

Have the Bushes finally lost it over immigration?

Has the immigration "debate" had a debilitating toll on the Bush family?

First up we have Jeb Bush race-baiting the issue:

"My wife came here legally, but it hurts her just as it hurts me when people give the perception that all immigrants are bad... The cumulative effect of some politicians pounding their chests about immigration is hurtful to both of us," [Jeb] wrote, referring to himself and his brother. "I fear they do so for current political gain at the expense of thoughtful policy over the long term."

...The governor speaks the language fluently. His son, George P. Bush, has cited his Latino heritage in campaign appearances for his father and uncle and is considered an heir to the family political dynasty.

"Columba and I watch the news early in the morning and in the evenings," Bush wrote in the late-night e-mail exchange. "The cumulative effect of the coverage is that immigrants are bad and hurting our country. The coverage is black and white, good and bad, without the nuances that the coverage deserves."

Rush Limbaugh mentioned Jeb's statements, and couldn't figure out who Jeb was refering to. In fact, he said that the only people he could think of that were contributing to the negative tone were supporters of amnesties, including the Bushes.

And, is the Bush family trying to change the demographics of this country in order to help along P's political career? Perhaps in their next email exchange the LAT could ask that question.

Next up, we have the President of San Marcos himself:

WASHINGTON, April 5 /PRNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by President Bush:
The Colonnade
8:55 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: The United States Senate is debating a very vital issue for our country, and that is immigration reform. I urge the senators to continue to work toward getting a comprehensive bill; a bill that will help us secure our borders; a bill that will cause the people in the interior of this country to recognize and enforce the law; and a bill that will include a guest worker provision that will enable us to more secure the border, will recognize that there are people here working hard for jobs Americans won't do, and a guest worker provision that is not amnesty, one that provides for automatic citizenship.

This is a vital debate. I thank the members who are working hard to get a bill done. I strongly urge them to come to a conclusion as quickly as possible and pass a comprehensive bill.

Thank you all very much.

END 8:57 A.M. EDT

I have a great deal of trouble parsing the boldened sentence. Who exactly is he refering to? Perhaps he's refering to the FDIC working with the Chicago Mexican consulate to give home loans to illegal aliens. Wait, that started under Bush, and he could stop it if he wanted. In fact, if someone in the "interior" isn't enforcing our immigration laws, President Bush has all the resources at his immediate disposal to make sure that they do.

Can anyone else explain what he means?

Posted to Politics at 09:39 AM | Comments (2)

Please call your Senators

McCain admits he doesn't have enough votes to get his massive amnesty by, so in response they may be trying to sneak a "limited" amnesty by that would "only" cover 7 million illegal aliens or so.

The main Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or (888) 355-3588. You can also send free FAXes here.

UPDATE: The Corner is following this closely, so check that for updates.

Posted to Immigration at 05:30 AM | Comments (2)

CNN immigration poll misleads about HR4437

We've seen an awful lot of misleading polls recently, and the one from CNN takes the cake.

They received a 47% for, 44% against to this question (about the unnamed HR4437):

As you may know, Congress is considering a bill which would build fences along 700 miles of the border with Mexico, increase criminal penalties for illegal immigrants who are caught inside the U.S., make it illegal for organizations such as churches or charities to provide food and medical care to illegal immigrants, and increase penalties for employers who hire illegal immigrants. Based on what you have read or heard, do you favor or oppose a bill that included all of those proposals?

The bolded part is highly misleading, if not an outright lie. It would make it illegal for anyone to knowingly or recklessly do what's specified, not just churches or charities. And, even with that misleading statement, they still get more for it than against it.

They also asked this:

How important will the issue of illegal immigration be when you vote in the congressional elections this fall? Illegal immigration will be the single most important issue when you determine your vote; it will be very important, but not the most important issue; it will be somewhat important, or it will be not important at all?

14% said "Single most important", 43% said "Very important", and 31% said "Somewhat important". While some of those probably support illegal immigration, I'd imagine that most of those 88% are opposed to it.

It's really not that difficult to articulate a common sense immigration policy that doesn't include amnesty and that has built-in safeguards against being racially demagogued. Perhaps the Democrats should jetison their loony left wing and their racists and see if they can be an American party again.

Posted to Immigration at 03:21 AM | Comments (1)

Bush uncovered: he doesn't know what country he runs

The Los Angeles Times' offers a four(!)-screener from Peter Wallsten entitled "Immigrant Issues Are Personal for Bush".

I believe the best way to characterize it is as a lame attempt to further divide Bush from his base. The subtext of the article is that the latter are opposed to illegal immigration because - quite unlike Bush - they're opposed to Hispanics or Mexicans.

The article conflates support for Hispanics with support for massive illegal immigration from Mexico. Further, we're informed that Bush has an "unusual comfort level with Mexican culture".

We're also informed that Bush filmed a campaign video in which he waves the Mexican flag. That was apparently at a Mexican Independence Day parade in 1998. Despite that, lefties are already trying to make childish hay.

Those of a more serious bent might want to consider this:

[Texas state Rep. Garnet Coleman] credits Bush for taking on Wilson on Proposition 187, but says Bush's stance today seems more about keeping low-wage labor available to industry. "I think he's doing it out of interest in keeping cost of production low for his friends," he said. "It's pure economics."

And this:

Ernest Angelo, a petroleum engineer and mayor of Midland during the 1970s boom, brought up the issue when he encountered Bush at a political event, telling the future governor that he was concerned about the open border. Angelo suggested ending bilingual education in the U.S. to force greater assimilation.

But Bush didn't agree. The two debated the issue for half an hour.

"He told me that was the wrong thing to do," Angelo recalled. "I saw right then that he had a very deep-seated feeling that the immigration situation was beneficial to the country."

And, most damning of all, this:

The five-minute video, narrated by Bush, opens with an image of him fishing on his property near Crawford, Texas, as he essentially described millions of Americans who populate his home state as the true foreigners in someone else's native land.

"About 15 years before the Civil War, much of the American West was northern Mexico," Bush says in the video. "The people who lived there weren't called Latinos or Hispanics. They were Mexican citizens, until all that land became part of the United States.

Obviously, Bush has taken all this a bit too far. Should any conservative - or American for that matter - support someone who sounds like one of the "this is stolen land!" idiots? I didn't watch the video, but I wouldn't be half surprised if it doesn't include a five minute rant about the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo or a call to build Aztlan.

Related: El Andar: Los Amigos de Bush: "The disturbing ties of some of George W. Bush’s Latino advisors"

Posted to Politics at 10:46 PM | Comments (1)

"How to get "big business" opposition to immigration reform"

If illegal aliens who'd been here for several years were granted amnesty, they'd have to present proof that they'd been working and such, right? If this post is correct, then employers might oppose that amnesty for fear of being accused of having employed illegal aliens.

While it's good in theory, I see a fly in the ointment. Namely, those busine$$e$ would convince their repre$entative$ to include an amne$ty for employer$, or would simply claim that they had no knowledge that the employee was an illegal alien. And, who would dare to prosecute any such employers anyway?

Posted to Immigration at 10:16 PM | Comments (3)

John McCain: "If you like, I will leave"

Earlier today, John McCain was booed because of his immigration schemes. Unfortunately, his threat to leave appears to have been just one big jolly jape:

"If you like, I will leave," McCain told the AFL-CIO's Building and Construction Trades Department, pivoting briefly from the lectern. He returned to the microphone after the crowd quieted...

...the senator outlined his position on the Senate immigration debate, saying tougher border enforcement must be accompanied by guest-worker provisions that give illegal immigrants a legal path toward citizenship.

Murmurs from the crowd turned to booing. "Pay a decent wage!" one audience member shouted...

...But he took more questions, including a pointed one on his immigration plan.

McCain responded by saying immigrants were taking jobs nobody else wanted. He offered anybody in the crowd $50 an hour to pick lettuce in Arizona.

Shouts of protest rose from the crowd, with some accepting McCain's job offer.

"I'll take it!" one man shouted.

McCain insisted none of them would do such menial labor for a complete season. "You can't do it, my friends."

Some in the crowd said they didn't appreciate McCain questioning their work ethic...

What exactly was the "pointed" question? Shouldn't they disclose that?

And, what exactly is a U.S. Senator trying to say about American workers? We sent a man to the moon and now we're too soft to pick strawberries?

And, what exactly is he trying to say about Mexican field workers? Are they genetically pre-disposed to fruit-picking? Or, do they just have the right level of desperation?

Posted to Politics at 10:08 PM | Comments (5)

The Mexican government's plan for the United States

There's a lot of racism swirling around the immigration "debate", and not always of the kind that's obvious. Certainly, some of those who oppose or support various forms of immigration are indeed racially-motivated.

However, one of the more hidden varieties comes from those who think of Mexicans as just those happy smiling serf laborers out in the fields picking their "cheap" lettuce. Those so afflicted don't think that, for instance, the Mexican government could be capable of hatching a devious plot such as that described in Georgie Anne Geyer's "Mexican Plan Puts American Values to the Test". While those with this affliction attribute everything including the phases of the moon to the machinations of Karl Rove, they would have trouble getting their minds around the possibility that the leaders of those happy field workers might actually have such a plan:

...In 1995, I was in Mexico City interviewing two accomplished Mexican diplomats, one of them being Ambassador Alejandro Carrillo Castro, who had been Mexico's consul general in Chicago. He had put forth the idea of "dual citizenship" for Mexicans in the United States. The State Department encouraged it, and the new age was born. No longer did Mexican immigrants have to choose -- and thus began the development of the plan.

When in Mexico again last November, I saw the next steps. I dropped in at the Foreign Ministry to see Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez, head of the Institute of Mexicans Abroad. He told me: "The basic concept is that the Mexican nation goes beyond the borders that contain Mexico. You can feel part of our nation without being on our territory.

"For the first time, we are exporting our politics. Many Mexicans now live 'transnational' lives, with one foot in our country and one foot in the other. This contributes to everyone's well-being."

Soon, Mexican candidates were traveling to Los Angeles to run for Mexican positions. Among the dual citizens there, they were asking the immigrants to influence their families "back home." At the same time, the passage of NAFTA bred more outward-looking attitudes. And a new breed of consuls with a different profile, highly politicized, were suddenly found across the United States. Mexicans in America could now "force anti-immigrant American politicians to pay a price," Gonzales continued.

Proof that these Mexican efforts were carefully and often cynically calculated according to American sensitivities was shown in the institute's hesitation to have Mexican citizens seen in voting lines -- in America -- voting for Mexican candidates.

"My most serious concern was to open the ballot boxes in Pilsen in Chicago and have lines of people voting for Mexican politicians," Gonzales remarked seriously. "The advantage of the system we set up -- Mexicans voting through the mail -- is that it goes under the political radar."

In short, what we have is a new ethnic-political situation totally unlike anything in America's past, except perhaps the 1920s German Bund and the present-day Israeli lobby. Both made and make strong political demands on their American members in the name of "the old country." Other national groups represented in America -- Polish, Lithuanian, British, French, etc. -- are more cultural organizations.

But with the Mexican immigrants, it is ineffably more difficult. Their homeland is often only an hour or two hours' flight away, and of course they can simply walk across the border. Their homeland hangs onto them. Still another dramatic example: Mexican President Vicente Fox recently put ads in American papers asserting Mexico should "participate in the design, management, supervision and evaluation" of any American guest worker program...

(Via this.)

Posted to Immigration at 06:10 AM | Comments (2)

Californians not nativistic or xenophobic, poll shows

A new poll from San Jose State University's Survey and Policy Research Institute might be taken to show that most Californians support some form of "guest" worker scheme or even citizenship for illegal aliens.

The San Jose Mercury crows about this in the article "Poll: Californians sympathetic to immigrants" by Howard Mintz. The PDF about the poll is available here. Here's the single question that was asked, which generated an overall yes of 59% from all respondents and 54% from respondents who vote:

In your opinion, should undocumented or illegal immigrants living or working here be allowed to become legal residents of California?

There are a few problems with this news. First, why the "or"? One is just a euphemism for the other. Was there a 50-50 test, or is that the exact question that was asked of all? Could people have been confused over the "or"? I'd bet that - due to all the propaganda associated with immigration matters - some were confused.

And, what exactly is a "legal resident"? A "guest" worker? A citizen? Enrolled in some visa program?

And, what's the deal with the SJ Merc's article? Why does it read like not just a press release, but outright propaganda? Whatever could be the deal with that?

And, here's a quote from Phil Trounstine, director of the SPRI:

"Although some politicians appear to be trying to stir up the issue, our survey suggests that Californians are not nativistic or xenophobic. In fact, even when the issue is posed using a politically incorrect term like 'illegal immigrants,' Californians say they think there ought to be a means by which these people can become legal residents."

Does that quote give anyone any even slight degree of confidence that this poll wasn't designed to show a specific result?

Posted to Immigration at 03:39 AM | Comments (1)

Fareed Zakaria's wonderful, heartwarming, misleading essay on immigration

The TV pundit offers a wonderful, heartwarming, and misleading essay in "To Become an American".

1. He downplays the issue of illegal immigration, and might give the uninformed reader the mistaken idea that there's little difference between the legal and illegal variety.

2. By doing the first, he might give uninformed readers the mistaken idea that the question is about whether to allow immigration in general.

3. He provides a quote from Stanford historian David Kennedy, which I'm going to assume he got via Samuel Huntington. I believe the quote appeared in Kennedy's 1996 article "Can We Still Afford to Be a Nation of Immigrants?" Oddly enough, FZ didn't know or forgot to tell you that in the same article, Kennedy warns that the "possibility looms that in the next generation or so we will see a kind of Chicano Quebec take shape in the American Southwest".

4. FZ also forgot to mention the goals of the Mexican government.

5. FZ seems also to be - dare I say it - trying to pull the wool over your eyes regarding enforcement. He says we need more border enforcement, but he forgets to tell you that what we really need - and what aren't almost completely not getting now - is workplace enforcement.

6. FZ forgot to mention that around 40% of Mexico's population say that they'd move here if they could. I guess we're going to need to really ramp up legal immigration to accomodate them. Plus, all the millions from other countries who'll come here to take advantage of future amnesties like the amnesty FZ supports.

Perhaps Fareed Zakaria might consider whether articles like this assist his credibility or not.

Posted to Immigration at 10:54 PM | Comments (4)

Tim Rutten on Lou Dobbs

Is Tim Rutten of the Los Angeles Times correct in his assesment of Lou Dobbs ("Lou Dobbs: bile across the border")? Rather than discussing Rutten's thoughts, here's a handy chart perhaps showing why the LAT would be so upset:

Dobbs: reports on backgrounds and affiliations of racial separatist groups and politicians who used to belong to said groups

LAT: covers up those politicians' backgrounds and affiliations

Dobbs: covered the mini-riot in Baldwin Park, reported on how an American was hit in the head by a counter-protester, reported on groups involved

LAT: covered for the groups involved, downplayed the attack, called ANSWER's LA affiliate an "antiwar and anti-racism group".

So, it's understandable how Rutten could be angry: Dobbs is showing his paper to be the propaganda rag it is.

Posted to Immigration at 12:38 PM | Comments (1)

Former Mexican consul organized the Georgia boycott

Welcome readers of the Washington Post's "Town's-Eye View of Immigration Debate". There are a few things missing from that report, the most important being that the boycott the WaPo mentions was organized by a former Mexican Consul General. The WaPo's Peter Slevin says:

Proponents of more generous accommodations for illegal immigrants staged a one-day economic boycott on March 24 that shuttered businesses and boosted morale.

Did Slevin know who was involved in that boycott? Shouldn't he had mentioned it if he knows?

Posted to Immigration at 11:56 AM | Comments (4)

"It's Starting To Sound Like Slavery"

This blog post discusses two rich people admitting the real reason they support illegal immigration.

The first case is Erica Jong: she supports it so women of her class can have domestic help.

And, they cover the recent comments of "Mayor Mike" Bloomberg. He supports illegal immigration, and one of the reasons he presents is because they keep the golf courses green. If we're lucky, one of these days he'll warn us about "$200 green fees if we stop immigration" or similar. Perhaps he'll launch into a tirade about "give us your tired greenskeepers". Or, he'll discuss how we're a land of gardeners.

Posted to Immigration at 11:06 AM | Comments (10)

Dick Morris' idiotic thoughts on immigration

Dick Morris offers "Menace in Mexico". If you read it with a proofreader's eye, you'll notice that it has several errors. Unfortunately, his thoughts have even deeper errors.

He wants us to pass immigration "reform", aka a "guest" worker scheme. Because if we don't, it will drive the "Mexican electorate" (presumably refering to Mexicans in Mexico, although nowadays one has to think that through) into the hands of AMLO, aka Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador.

If AMLO becomes president, he and Hugo Chavez might not give us their oil. And:

Think we have security problems now, with Vicente Fox leading Mexico? Just wait until we have a 2,000-mile border with a chum of Chavez and Castro.

First, as I understand it, it would be foolish for Mexico to refuse to sell us oil. If we don't buy their oil, they might have to ship it to China, thereby decreasing their profits. Perhaps someone who's an oil expert could weigh in.

But, the more important fallacy in Dick's thinking is: what if we give in and then despite all our craven capitulation AMLO wins?

Won't we then have the worst possible scenario? Millions of new "guest" workers and millions of new illegal aliens, together with an even more hostile Mexican president?

What would AMLO do, given such a situation? Would he even go for the full enchilada, and threaten massive riots performed by his people in our country if we don't give him what he wants?

Obviously, someone who's thinking this through clearly realizes that the safest solution is to back away slowly: stop Mexican attempts to send us as many of their citizens as possible. Because, the more they're able to do that, the more power they have in the U.S. and the greater our danger should a Mexican president be even more hostile than the previous ones.

Dick Morris' strategy is one of capitulation, and hopefully our leaders will spend a bit more time than he did thinking this through. Please contact your representatives and urge them to do more thinking than Morris.

Posted to Immigration at 10:12 AM | Comments (6)

NYT: "Immigrants and the Economics of Hard Work"

In what might be an attempt to resuscitate their credibility, the NYT offers this article that discusses whether the phrase "they take jobs Americans won't do" is accurate or not. Surprisingly, they show just how false that is. And, they've even got charts. (In case that link stops working, there's a long excerpt here.)

Posted to Immigration at 08:23 AM | Comments (1)

AP/Ipsos poll: designed to mislead about illegal immigration?

The AP breathlessly announces the results of their latest poll: "Poll: Most Open to Letting Immigrants Stay":

Overall, 56 percent of Americans favor offering illegal immigrants a shot at some kind of legal status; roughly two-thirds of those ages 18-34 like the idea and an equal share of those with a college education agree, the AP-Ipsos survey found.

The results are available here. Let's turn to the question that was asked:

"Would you favor or oppose allowing immigrants with jobs who are in the United States illegally to apply for legal, temporary worker status?"

As pointed out before, poll questions like this are misleading (Time Magazine poll: Large Majority Favors "Guest Workers", Do Californians really support "guest" worker schemes?)

Most people would tell you that - yes! - they like free ice cream. However, if you listed all the assumptions involved that would make that ice cream quite costly, they'd say no.

Likewise with questions about "guest" workers. Since our "guests" will never leave, poll questions like this are quite misleading and are probably just attempts to mislead.

Posted to Immigration at 05:59 AM | Comments (1)

Propaganda Watch: "The GOP could lose the 'Hispanic Vote'"!!!

Oddly enough, a series of recent articles make the claim that if the GOP doesn't enact a "guest" worker scheme or take other steps to encourage even more illegal immigration, they run the risk of losing the (mythical) "Hispanic Vote".

First up is Ed Gillespie ("chairman of the Republican National Committee in the 2004 election cycle. His firm, Quinn Gillespie & Associates, represents clients who support a temporary guest worker program."). He offers the ludicrously titled "Populists Beware! The GOP must not become an anti-immigration party." I already responded to it in comments here. Perhaps we Americans could pool our money and hire him to come up with a way that the GOP could oppose illegal immigration while at the same time not appearing "anti-immigrant". Of course, just about anyone could come up with that simple plan, so I guess we won't have to hire Gillespie after all.

And, a few days ago Reuters reporter John Whitesides offered the same shtick.

Now comes Bill Kristol with "Y is for Yahoo", which refers to the "Anti-immigration yahoo Tom Tancredo".

He goes on to recite a series of instances of Republican candidates coming out against illegal immigration and then failing or facing problems.

But, since being opposed to illegal immigration is "populist" and since most voters are concerned about it, perhaps Kristol has - oddly enough! - missed the real reason those politicians have faced problems.

Namely, that the GOP is corrupt and will refuse to support or even work to undermine any candidate who opposes the importation of cheap labor. If Kristol is going to bring up these cases, isn't it rather odd that he would ignore that aspect? Very, very odd.

Posted to Immigration at 04:54 AM | Comments (4)

Jack Kelly: we can have it both ways on illegal immigration!

The titular person is a write for the Toledo Blade, and he offers "Combine Enforcement And a Path to Legalization".

In brief, he wants to enforce the border. But, he also wants to legalize those already here.

What will happen when our border defenses are ignored by corrupt politicians and even more illegal aliens come here to take advantage of future amnesties is not specified. Perhaps he needs to think about this in a bit more depth.

He bases his opposition to simply enforcing our laws on the - dare I say it? - braindead strawman arguments offered by two leading lights of America's intellectual life:

George Will noted it would take a line of buses stretching from San Diego to Alaska to deport 11 million people. To devote the resources required to round up all those who pick fruit and clean houses would be like telling the police to forget about murderers and rapists to crack down on overdue parking tickets. That would be insane.

And immoral, said the Web logger the Anchoress:

"We have to think long and hard about what it means to gather people at gunpoint and put them on trains to send them to a place they do not want to go," she said. "That cannot be America, if she is to survive."

We also need to think long and hard about why anyone would take anyone who makes either of those strawman arguments seriously.

Posted to Immigration at 08:53 PM | Comments (3)

Los Angeles Times, Joe Hicks on student protests

The Los Angeles Times gives some background on the recent pro-illegal immigration student protests (one of which featured the Mexican flag flying over an upside-down American flag) in "Student Protests Echo the '60s, but With a High-Tech Buzz".

You can practically smell the patchouli as the aging hippies at the Times celebrate the youthful activists fighting the power, man. It's all like one big party.

Never mentioned is how many of those involved are actually foreign citizens, nor do they cover the culture of entitlement, nor do they cover the propriety of promoting what is in reality a show of racial solidarity and power.

To fill in some of the gaps, now comes community activist Joe Hicks:

...many Latino immigrant-rights organizers and their sympathizers seem to be saying that there is some inherent right being expressed when people sneak into the country, thumb their noses at the law and make fools out of those who wait patiently in foreign lands for visas to come to the United States.

It is quite clear that many of those participating in the demonstrations have adopted the stance of the beleaguered victim, perceiving frustration about illegal immigration as racism. Some comments have been painfully ignorant. One protester said: "I'm here to make sure that Mexicans get their freedom, their rights."

During the student protests, the American flag was only occasionally on display, while the Mexican flag was omnipresent. A student said he was waving the latter in support of La Raza (the race), while another asked why illegal immigrants were "treated like criminals." Perhaps he wasn't aware that crossing the U.S. border without the required visa is now, and always has been, against the law.

The participation of students, some as young as 13 and 14, is especially troubling given that all too many seemed clueless about the issues. Perhaps more puzzling is that some of the student walkouts took place on a day honoring the memory of Cesar Chavez. The great Chicano labor organizer held a march in 1969 from the Coachella and Imperial valleys to the Mexican border. Chavez and the United Farm Workers were protesting the use of illegal immigrants as strikebreakers. Further, Chavez believed that illegal immigration was antithetical to the wage interests of the migrant workers he represented...

Why couldn't the L.A. Times have said the same thing? Perhaps someone at the LAT should try and find out.

Posted to Los_Angeles at 04:51 AM | Comments (5)

Non-"liberal" coverage of immigration, Iraq, terrorism, multiculturalism, Los Angeles, California, privacy, and occasionally celebrities and wacky humor...

Main

Atom feed · RSS 2.0 feed · RSS 0.91 feed · WML

Immigration 2008a · Immigration 2007b · Immigration 2007a · Immigration · Immigration (6/05 to 12/05) · Immigration (1/05 to 6/05) · Immigration (8/04 to 12/04) · Immigration (before 8/04) · Immigration & Terrorism · Immigration & Driver's Licenses · Immigration & Consuls · Immigration & Media Bias · Immigration & Europe · North American Union

Blogging Across America

MultiCulti Madness · General Politics · Privacy · Miscellaneous · The "Peace" Movement

Los Angeles · California · Outdoors and sports · Celebrities · Wackiness · Inside Blogging

Iraq · Beltway Sniper · Terrorism & Extremism · The Saudis · Warblogging · War On Drugs

• 2008: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
• 2007: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2006: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2005: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2004: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2003: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2002: 9  10  11  12 

All Posts(links to each post by title)

• AVWatch: patriotism is the last refuge of Antonio Villaraigosa
• Will Communists thank "conservatives" for helping them build a proletariat?
• Let's help Steve Lopez think
• The "Immigrant" Rights Movement
• Laura Wides-Munoz propaganda on frightened "immigrants"
• AVWatch: Antonio Villaraigosa and the illegal immigration march/boycott
• "Guantanamo Detainee Caught At The Border"
• May Day illegal immigration march/boycott: the supporters
• 55 percent of Mexican-Americans consider themselves Mexicans first
• Fat suit + Empire State Building = fun!
• California State Senate supports foreign citizens marching in our streets
• ADL's (latest) smear job on Minuteman Project
• Loretta Nall: Bama Boobs and the Pot Party Party
• Majority of Americans want a viable third party
• The People's Democratic Republic of Chicago declares open borders
• Bush favors a massive illegal alien amnesty. Should he switch parties?
• Jeb Bush: take college discounts from citizens, give them to illegal aliens
• Senator Dick Durbin supports illegal aliens marching in our streets
• Bush laughs about his failure to stop illegal immigration
• Senator Bill Frist plans to sneak illegal alien amnesty through

My trip to Alpine County What not to do, again (September 1-2, 2002)

Boston Market Cornbread Temperatures Please help contribute to this important study (August 28, 2002)

Did The Gap Put Celebrities at Risk? An Open Web Letter to The Gap (May 20, 2002)

Humphreys Peak Arizona's highest point (May 19, 2001)

Go Heavy, Go Slow, Get Lost Bay Area highpoints (December 14, 2000)

Hubris in New England The highpoints of RI, CT, and MA (October 8, 2000)

Let's go to Utah Zion, Bryce, and Grand Canyon (August 14, 2000)

Your host, climbing Monkey Face (5.14d)

Your host's arm (circled)

Your host's hopelessly outdated conditioning progress

BigMediaBlog.com : "Comments for sites that don't have comments."

BoreAmerica.com: monitoring Air America Radio

tolstoy.com : my business site

Drudge
The John and Ken Show (KFI-Los Angeles)
The Stein Report
Sam Zamarripa
RedState
Res Ipsa Loquitur
PCWatch
Natalie Merchant
Samizdata