« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

USA Today: "Who supports illegal immigration?"

As a follow-up to their critically acclaimed article "Nation splits 4 ways on illegals", USA Today will soon come out with an article called "Pro-illegal immigration groups split 7 ways". In the original story their "analysis" divided the nation into four groups: "hard-liners", "unconcerned", "ambivalent", and "welcoming".

Only "hard-liners" want to enforce our laws. And, see, it's a matter of sympathy and little else. The "welcomers" are sympathetic and the middle two groups might be sympathetic. The "hardliners" are completely unsympathetic, despite the fact that if our laws were enforced we could greatly reduce border deaths and stop worker abuse. Darn those unsympathetic meanies! Of course, there exists the possibility that USA Today is defining "sympathetic" as "useful idiots for those who seek to profit off illegal immigration", but let's ignore that.

Anyhoo, in the followup, they'll list some of the types of people who support massive illegal immigration:

The Starchildren: Borders? What borders! They don't want to build walls, they want to build bridges. And, they want to hold hands across the bridge while singing folk songs.

The Lunatics/Libertarians: As idealistic as the Starchildren, but idealistic in an evil way.

The Globalist Scum: (Their word, not mine!) They put George Bush in this category.

The Communists: Yes, they're still around! And, USA Today recognizes that - just like the Democratic Party - they see massive illegal immigration as a way to build a proletariat.

Borderline Traitors: (USA Today rushed to note that they don't mean traitors in the specifically legal sense, only in a general sense of supporting foreign citizens instead your own citizens). They put Dick Durbin and Harry Reid in this category.

Racial Power Groups: NCLR, MALDEF, LULAC, ETC, ETC, ETC.

The Barely Coherent: Howard Dean and Teddy Kennedy are in this group.

Posted to Immigration at 08:34 PM | Comments (10)

Bush missed a perfect border photo-op

This post and this one featured pictures of Bush's big photo-op on the border, featuring the leader of the free world tooling around in a dune buggy.

However funny/sad those pictures might be, they can't match this video. It's a CBS Early Show interview Bill Plante did with Bush during his big trip. Behind Bush, you can see three people jumping the border fence. (I can't tell for certain, but the laughter at the end sounds like it was then replayed on the Tonight Show or a similar program.)

If Bill Plante had been paying attention he could have encouraged Bush to rush over and welcome his "amigos" to America, but sadly that photo opportunity was missed.

Posted to Immigration at 02:19 PM | Comments (6)

RFID implants for "guest" workers?

Recently, Mayor Mike Bloomberg proposed a massive biometric database for every worker in the U.S.

In a perhaps unrelated story, VeriChip Corporation has proposed RFID implants for "guest" workers:

"Makers of VeriChip have been planning for this day. They've lost millions of dollars trying to sell their invasive product to North America, and now they see an opportunity in the desperation of the people of Latin America," [Katherine Albrecht, author of "Spychips: How Major Corporations and Government Plan to Track your Every Move with RFID"] observes.

VeriChip's [Chairman Scott Silverman] bandied about the idea of chipping foreigners on national television Tuesday, emboldened by the Bush Administration call to know "who is in our country and why they are here." He told Fox & Friends that the VeriChip could be used to register guest workers, verify their identities as they cross the border, and "be used for enforcement purposes at the employer level." He added, "We have talked to many people in Washington about using it...."

Note that the former head of HHS, Tommy Thompson, sits on Verichip's board. He's apparently said he was going to "get chipped", but has so far refused to follow through.

And, it's not just purported Americans proposing this, but also Alfaro Uribe, the president of Colombia:

...according to Sen. Arlen Specter, (R-Pa.) who said in a speech before Congress (PDF) that "President Uribe said he would consider having Colombian workers have microchips implanted into their bodies before they are permitted to enter the United States to work on a seasonal basis."

And if you think that's going to work, consider what Specter thought of the idea. "I doubted whether the implantation of microchips would be effective since the immigrant worker might be able to remove them," he said.

It's not like he's opposed to them on principle, he just doesn't think they'd work. If something were developed that would be assured of working, have no doubt that a fine American such as Arlen Specter would support it.

Posted to Privacy at 11:29 AM | Comments (5)

NWO, Michael Douglas, guns, North American integration, Amero

The recent article "Michael Douglas backs U.N. gun ban" leads us on a wild ride through the fevered imaginations of globalists everywhere:

Actor Michael Douglas – who for many years has been designated by the United Nations as a "U.N. peace messenger" – is backing the global body's upcoming conference on small arms trafficking.

In a public service announcement, Douglas "spotlights the illicit trade in small arms and light weapons and promotes an upcoming U.N. conference aimed at addressing the problem," according to the U.N. News Center.

The controversial conference wins the prize for having the longest name in memory: "The U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons." It is scheduled for July 26 through July 7 in New York City...

That leads to 1999's "The 40-year gun grab":

...David Patterson, deputy historian at the State Department, downplayed the possible significance of Freedom From War and the Blueprint for the Peace Race -- identifying them as "part of the propaganda war."

"It's a recurring issue which conservative groups would put forward as an example of how we were willing to capitulate to the Soviet Union during the Cold War -- disarm unilaterally," Patterson said. "Of course, none of this was true, but it's still going the rounds of right-wing publications. We get these calls."

Along the same lines comes a 2/27/05 radio interview (pay only, not listened to) described thusly:

Michael Corbin interviews Gui Caron with Council of Canadians. They received a leaked confidential report on North American Integration. This council met to discuss the integration of Canada, the United States and Mexico into a new North American country through NAFTA. Read this confidential report (in PDF format) by clicking here. This report is a warning of things to come in that this group, which is comprised of the Council on Foreign Relations, the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations, and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives are planning on launching a massive campaign to introduce a new slogan for the new North American country, together with a new currency, and strict security measures that will involve a National ID Card. Charlotte Iserbyt, author of The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America, joined during the second half of the hour to discuss the US National ID Card program, which is being designed and implemented by two high-ranking former Soviet KGB officers, who are working within the Department of Homeland Security.

And, believe it or don't, there's even a WP page on the Amero, the proposed North American currency.

Posted to NAU at 04:57 PM | Comments (2)

Dick Durbin: consult with Mexico on border fence

Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT) added a provision to the Senate's immigration bill that says in part:

CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT -- Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

There's backstory and backfilling on this here.

Now comes Senator Dick Durbin (D-MX) (via this):

I mean, to think that we would build a fence without any conversation or consultation with Mexico — that doesn't makes sense... Good fences make good neighbors, too. And remember that when it's all over, there'll be cities across the border from one another in the United States and Mexico, and you'll find in most instances they try to find a level of cooperation... We ultimately want to have the cooperation of the Mexican government. That's going to make this a lot easier, to stop the corruption on either side of the border, to stop these coyotes that are taking thousands of dollars to push people across that border at the risk of losing their lives... We should have consultation. There's nothing wrong with that.

Posted to Immigration at 01:40 PM | Comments (5)

Sharon Runner stands up to Vicente Fox, Mexican-"American" legislators

Earlier today, Mexico's Vicente Fox spoke before the California legislature. As previously discussed, Todd Spitzer (R-Orange) conducted a silent protest. Another American went even further. Sharon Runner (R – Lancaster) refused to show up for the speech entirely. And, she might face a reprimand from the leaders in the legislature who have divided loyalties.

"I believe it is wrong for the California State Legislature to give this platform to a foreign head of state whose policies and corrupt government institutions pose a threat to the social, economic and security interests of the people of the United States... I will not be attending President Fox's address because I do not believe that his Administration has done enough to enforce our nation's mutual border laws and because his country continues to harbor and protect California fugitives from prosecution in the U.S."

"President Fox has a history of non-cooperation with American officials on immigration issues at both state and federal levels... Unfortunately, I am not surprised that the liberal majority in Sacramento would give President Fox this type of platform in California that puts him on equal footing with our Governor or our President. I would be open to discussion with President Fox if he were coming to explain his country's backward policies and offer some resolution and compromise to the California people. However, that is clearly not the case."

"This is one of those issues I feel that passionate about... I do not want to give credibility to the liberal majority's acceptance of illegal immigration and Mexico's official policies urging its citizens to break the law and come to the United States illegally."

"I think the California Legislature's liberal majority is confused, bending over backwards to support Mexico and illegal immigrants... I was elected by the citizens of my district and that is where I will be this evening, serving the people of the 36th Assembly District."

Posted to California at 08:26 PM | Comments (8)

Vicente Fox: Senate illegal alien amnesty a "monumental step forward"

Vicente Fox of Mexico spoke before the Alta California legislature earlier today, and heartily welcomed the U.S. Senate's sellout of this country:

"It is a moment that millions of families have been hoping for. This is the moment that millions of people have been working for... Today's historic vote is a monumental step forward, but we recognize that there is more debate ahead."

He and Arnold spoke privately for 10 minutes. In his big speech, Vicente also informed us that Mexico doesn't promote illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, from the American side of things:

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, was among a group of Republican lawmakers who wore yellow buttons reading "No mas" to protest illegal immigration. They also were unhappy that Fox had declined an invitation to meet with them, even though he met before his speech with Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles.

"It was my silent protest to tell the president, 'Shame on you for shunning the invitation by a group of legislators who wanted to talk policy,'" Spitzer said.

He said he agreed with Fox's desire to expand economic growth and social opportunities in Mexico but questioned Fox's track record on those issues so far.

"I heard a lot of political platitudes," Spitzer said. "He set out a roadmap that if it were implemented would have the greatest incentive to reduce immigration."

Posted to Immigration at 08:12 PM | Comments (2)

20 reasons to oppose the Senate amnesty scheme

Sen. Jim DeMint offers Top 10 Reasons to Oppose Amnesty Bill and Sen. Chuck Grassley offers a different list of the Top 10 Flaws with the scheme.

Posted to Immigration at 09:31 AM | Comments (2)

Jimmy Carter praises Bush on immigration

ATLANTA - Former president Carter, a Democrat and frequent critic of President Bush, sees eye-to-eye with him on immigration.

Carter on Wednesday called the Republican president's commitment to immigration reform "quite admirable," saying he agrees with Bush's support of a system that would eventually grant citizenship to some illegals...

Posted to Immigration at 09:19 AM | Comments (5)

Heritage Foundation, Human Events on the Senate's amnesty scheme

Ed Meese offers "An Amnesty by Any Other Name".

See also "Terrorist Loophole: Senate Bill Disarms Law Enforcement", "Immigration Reform or Central Planning?", and "Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years" (that estimate has since been reduced to 53 to 60 million due to various amendments.)

And, from Human Events:

No conservative could vote for the immigration bill expected to come up in the U.S. Senate today. It is the worst bill ever considered by the Republican majority Congress... First, this bill may cause the Balkanization of America... Secondly, this bill will impose onerous social costs on American communities... ...The bill also insults the intelligence of Americans. Its supporters insist it is not an amnesty. It obviously is: It allows people who have entered our country illegally to stay here and be rewarded with U.S. citizenship... ...And, finally, the bill is loaded with bad surprises. Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a true conservative, found multiple outrages buried in its fine print, which he laid out in a must-read speech delivered on the Senate floor...

Posted to Immigration at 05:33 AM | Comments (3)

More on Mike Pence's "W" worker visa illegal alien amnesty scheme

There's more on Rep. Mike Pence's "middle ground" "guest" worker scheme here. Under that scheme private companies would administer the program, vet applicants, and so forth. The things Pence forgot to deal with include:

* our "guests" would have U.S. citizen children, meaning they would never leave...

* the entire temp agency industry only employs 4 million people now. It couldn't deal with up to three times that many "guests"...

* fraud and conflicts of interest...

* difficulty of doing background checks, especially by private companies...

Previous coverage of this plan here.

Posted to Immigration at 03:26 AM | Comments (1)

Asian "guest" workers have a low "runaway rate"

The 2/20/05 article "New state import: Thai farmworkers" contains the following:

[Mordechai Orian, president of the California-based labor contractor Global Horizons] says... the Thais have a lower runaway rate than the others and are more productive.

The quote above and much more are discussed in this article about guest workers and "cryptoslavery". In addition to Bush, others mentioned include Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay, and:

...the purpose [of the Senate's "guest" worker scheme] is to allow American employers to tap the enormous labor supply of impoverished Southeast Asian and Southern Asians—while continuing to encourage Latin Americans to illegally immigrate!

Further, in the long run, a guest worker program encourages illegal immigration from new countries, such as Indonesia. Which means that even if a future Congress, in a fit of sanity, were to eliminate guest worker programs, the Cheap Labor Lobby would still benefit from flows of illegal immigrants from new countries...

Obviously, the reason my satire about the Jobs for South Asia Coalition didn't take off is because it didn't go far enough.

Posted to Immigration at 10:54 PM | Comments (2)

More on "NAFTA Plus" and "North America"

From this:

Without announcing his intentions to do so, President Bush has decided to support the creation of a North American Union through a process of governmental regulations, never having to bring the issue before the American people for a clear referendum or vote.

The Bush Administration has decided to "back-door" the creation of a North American Union political entity that would effectively erase our borders with Mexico and Canada and create several super-regional governing bodies that would have jurisdiction over the U.S. Congress and the U.S. Supreme Court...

Much more at the link, and recall that earlier this week Vicente Fox had this to say:

"The future of North America must guarantee great competitiveness, greater regional security..."

In 2002 he said:

"Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union..."

More in "CFR's Plan to Integrate the U.S., Mexico and Canada", Should you trust anything Sen. John Cornyn says?, Charlie Norwood on CATO's latest anti-American proposal, and The "New Partnership in North America": double-plus NAFTA

Posted to NAU at 10:43 PM | Comments (2)

Mayor Mike has an immigration plan for you, Citizen

New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is getting real with "Enforceable, Sustainable, Compassionate". He proposes four steps to immigration "reform".

The first is creating a national database so employers would know they're hiring legal workers: "The database must identify all job applicants in America based on documentation that cannot be corrupted--fingerprints or DNA, for example."

Couldn't we just get implants or something? Perhaps with GPS built-in so employers would be extra-double assured their new worker is here legally.

While he's right about the need to hold employers accountable, we already have ways to do that that wouldn't end up turning the U.S. into North Korea and turning all of us into little more than servants of the state.

If his line about greenskeepers (first link) wasn't clue enough, Mayor Mike is part of a certain corrupt class that really has no clue about this country's fundamental principles.

Dismissing the rest of his article is left as an exercise for any grade school teachers who want to give their class a slightly challenging assignment.

Posted to Immigration at 09:10 PM | Comments (2)

Sensenbrenner: White House trying to block House bill (HR4437)

This has been confirmed by someone else on the thread, so it seems accurate:

James Sensenbrenner just called in to Chris Core's conservative radio talk show [on KMAL] to report that Karl Rove, acting for the president, was actively trying to sabotage the House immigration bill by persuading other congressmen not to support it.

Posted to Immigration at 12:16 PM | Comments (3)

History repeats itself with illegal alien amnesty; the huge difference

Many of the aspects of the current immigration "reform" proposals are similar to the horribly failed past amnesties, and even some of the players - such as Teddy Kennedy - have been at this same game for decades.

There is, however, a major difference between now and then that politicians, pundits, policy makers, and even bloggers would be very wise to heed: the internet.

If you wanted to find out the position of a politician on the 1986 amnesty you might have to go scrounge through microfiches at your regional library or buy a pass to a newspaper's archives. Nowadays, information like that is stored on dozens to thousands of websites and is almost instantly available. While censorship is certainly possible, completely wiping the record would be almost impossible and information on the positions of those thought leaders will be readily available for decades or centuries to come.

In other words, it will be much easier to hold, say, an amnesty-supporting pundit responsible than at any previous point in time. If amnesty is passed, that pundit's support for the massive failure will perhaps be brought up every time that he opines on this topic. That might even end a few careers as those pundits completely lose whatever credibility they might have had previously.

As for the deja vu aspects of this issue, even the NYT has taken notice with "Failed Amnesty Legislation of 1986 Haunts the Current Immigration Bills in Congress". They not only use the forbidden word in the title, but in the URL as well:

Day in and day out, as the immigration debate boils, the halls of Congress are haunted by the specter of Senate Bill 1200, the failed amnesty legislation of 1986.

President Ronald Reagan signed that bill into law with great fanfare amid promises that it would grant legal status to illegal immigrants, crack down on employers who hired illegal workers and secure the border once and for all. Instead, fraudulent applications tainted the process, many employers continued their illicit hiring practices, and illegal immigration surged.

Today, senators who hope to put the nation's illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship say they have learned from the past. But some members of Congress and former immigration officials fear history will repeat itself.

Even some who favor legalization warn that the current bill, which requires illegal immigrants to submit affidavits, rent receipts and other documents as proof of eligibility, may fuel a wave of fraudulent documents and applications.

Then, they claim that the Migration Policy Institute is "nonpartisan". Let's let them have that one. Then, they highlight how this time around, doing pretty much the same thing would result in a different outcome. Then:

Many lawmakers engaged in this legislative fray are veterans of 1986, and several senators supported amnesty then, including Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania; Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa; Richard G. Lugar, Republican of Indiana; Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York; and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts...

"Since the '86 law did not succeed, people are understandably skeptical," said Mr. Specter, who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. "But this time, things are different."

And, from back in 2000, "My Bush epiphany":

W.'s delusions of cultural similarity don't stop there. "Differences are inevitable" between Mexico and the U.S.," W. continued. "But they will be differences among family, not between rivals."

Coming from the Republican candidate for president of the United States, the statement boggles the mind. It was bad enough when the Democrats in the 1980s started their socialist rant (soon echoed by the Republicans) that Americans are all "one family." But now George W., "The Man from Inclusion," has taken the "family" idea several steps further. For W., it is not just the United States, but the United States and Mexico, and ultimately the United States and the whole of the Americas, that constitutes one "family."

...W. has unambiguously demonstrated his allegiance to the liberal policies of open borders and multiculturalism, characterizing everyone who dissents from those policies as driven by "resentment" and implying that they have no place in the Republican party...

And, 1984's classic WSJ editorial "In Praise of Huddled Masses":

...If Washington still wants to "do something" about immigration, we propose a five-word constitutional amendment: There shall be open borders... The nativist patriots scream for "control of the borders." It is nonsense to believe that this unenforceable legislation will provide any such thing. Does anyone want to "control the borders" at the moral expense of a 2,000-mile Berlin Wall with minefields, dogs and machine-gun towers? Those who mouth this slogan forget what America means. They want those of us already safely ensconced to erect giant signs warning: Keep Out, Private Property...

Posted to Immigration at 11:54 AM | Comments (4)

"Cardinal [Mahony] Antagonizes Catholics on Immigration Stance"

Via this press release we're informed that there's a 7 minute video here featuring:

Cardinal Roger Mahony and International Broadcaster Stanley Interrante of "Catholic News & Views" who provide their conflicting opinions on proposed legislation and the Cardinal's responsibilities... Provisions of the Catholic Catechism are cited by Interrante to demonstrate that any such action by the Mahony and his priests would against the teachings of the Church.

Posted to Immigration at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)

Senate illegal alien amnesty update for May 24

This page informs us that at 10am today there will be:

a vote on a cloture motion – a motion to end debate on the bill in preparation for passage. If the cloture motion passes, a limited number of germane amendments could still be brought up if agreed upon in advance, but a final vote on the bill would likely be held Wednesday or Thursday. If 40 Senators (normally it would be 41, but Sen. Rockefeller is at home following back surgery) vote against the cloture motion, Senator Frist will have to choose to allow the debate to continue or let the bill die and move on to other business. He is almost certain to choose the latter.

Please contact your senators and let them know what you think: senate.gov

UPDATE: The cloture motion passed. And, from Senate likely to pass bill on aliens:

The Senate is expected to approve as early as today the most significant and wide-ranging immigration reform legislation in two decades.

The bill would grant citizenship rights to an estimated 10 million illegal aliens currently in the country and allow them to collect Social Security benefits for work they performed while illegally employed in the U.S. The bill also grants complete amnesty to employers who have drawn the estimated 12 million aliens to the U.S. by illegally providing them with jobs.

In addition, an estimated 2 million new foreigners will be admitted to the country annually under the bill, more than doubling the current flow of legal immigration...

The 3 million [from the 1986 amnesty] became citizens, the border wasn't secured, immigration laws were not enforced and those 3 million were replaced by the estimated 12 million who are the subject of the current bill...

Posted to Immigration at 05:09 AM | Comments (2)

A traipse through the BushBot blogosphere

Believe it or not, there are still KoolAid-besotted bloggers out there who believe in Our Leader.

One of them is "MacsMind", which was previously featured here giving Bush's critics a piece of his mind:

"Shut up whiners"

He's back with this:

No one is above criticism, yet of all the Presidents of recent history - including the previous President - of which history will show to be the most corrupt ever - President Bush is a true leader and a true American hero.

While not always agreeing on everything he presents, one think I admire about him is that he does stand behind what he presents and believes passionately in what he is doing and believes it to be in the best interests of the country.

That's called "Character"...

He also links to the strangely creepy "The Anchoress":

That made me wonder a little - has President Bush lost his bearings, or have we? Is it President Bush who has broken faith with "his base" or have they?

...The president who had delivered one gift after another to his base asked them to trust him, and his base sneered...

I can't quite put my finger on why "TA" seems so creepy, but perhaps it has something to do with the pompous-yet-down-to-earth prose style, or perhaps it's the ever-so-slight whiff of propaganda, or perhaps it's because I suspect she's actually Ken Mehlman.

UPDATE: This is very, very scary. It has come to our attention that a NYC prat likewise has complaints about TA. I only found out about that after I posted the above. And, in Pajamas Media blog babe is scary, but hot I raised issues with Pamela. Only after posting that I found out that the same NYC idiot also had issues with her. Very scary indeed.

Posted to Bloggage at 02:43 AM | Comments (4)

Mike Pence's "W" worker visa illegal alien amnesty scheme

Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) has introduced a "middle-ground" illegal alien amnesty scheme. It seeks to split the difference between the full-on amnesty in the Senate and the supposed only other choice of mass deportations. (As usual, the other choice of simply enforcing our current laws is not mentioned).

As Rep. Tom Tancredo says:

Pence's plan would require illegal aliens to return to their home countries to apply for a new 'W' worker visa. Employers could hire as many foreign workers as they want under the W visa, and, in practice, they would likely hire the same workers who they employed illegally before. Pence wants to start the new foreign worker program before border security is even proved effective, which is the same strategy that was used in the 1986 amnesty. Twenty years later, the U.S. got amnesty as promised but no border security.

"Pence's W visa is aptly named. It gives the Administration exactly what it wants: unlimited foreign workers first, enforcement later or never," said Tancredo. "Pence's plan is just the 1986 amnesty with a trip home tacked on."

The name isn't a joke, it's intentional. And, he first disclosed his scheme in an exclusive offering to Time Magazine:

Pence's measure would create private worker placement agencies called Ellis Island Centers, licensed by the federal government to match approved guest workers with jobs that cannot be filled by Americans — a variation on an idea offered by Bush back in January 2004. "U.S. employers will engage the private agencies and request guest workers," Pence says. "In a matter of days, the private agencies will match guest workers with jobs, perform a health screening, fingerprint them and provide the appropriate information to the FBI and Homeland Security so that a background check can be performed, and provide the guest worker with a visa granted by the State Department."

You can read the details here:

mikepence.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=44113

This is basically the same idea I discussed in Denver Post, Bill Owens immigration proposal will make you laugh out loud. It was ultimately devised by one Helen Krieble, president of the Colorado-based Vernon K. Krieble Foundation.

One rather far-fetched option to prevent something like this from passing is described here. Basically, if Dennis Hastert tries to push this the pro-American House members would fire him as Speaker and bring in someone who'd represent American interests instead.

Posted to Immigration at 12:24 AM | Comments (1)

Send a brick to Senator Mel Martinez

There's a campaign to send bricks to various legislators as a symbol of the border wall. It's certainly a good way to get their attention, but I would perhaps prefer that people spend their time and money attempting to discredit those legislators instead. Be that as it may, the picture above is of bricks in the office of Senator Mel Martinez. Amie Parnes of the Naples News discusses the campaign here in the falsely-titled "Immigration foes throwing bricks at Sen. Mel Martinez", although she doesn't understand the issue very well.

Posted to Immigration at 11:58 PM | Comments (1)

March 10 Committee (illegal alien rally) want immediate citizenship for all

The March 10 Committee organized the big Chicago rally in favor of illegal immigration. And, they've revealed what they want: immediate citizenship for anyone who makes it over the border:

Leaders with the March 10 Committee convened a meeting Saturday in Chicago of about 150 activists from around the country that settled on a more extreme position than many immigrant advocates and sympathetic lawmakers have supported.

Activists said all illegal immigrants should have the right to U.S. citizenship, even if they have lived in the country for only one day. The committee also called on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to stop all deportations until an immigration proposal becomes law.

Jorge Mujica, a spokesman for the March 10 Committee, said he was not worried about losing the support of U.S. citizens who think immigrants should earn legalization through years of work in the United States...

Gosh, that's got to be a kick in the teeth to those "American" politicians who supported foreign citizens marching in our streets: Gov. Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, and mayor Richard M. Daley.

Posted to Immigration at 04:29 PM | Comments (2)

Vicente Fox to visit colonies, meet with Alta California legislators

Vicente Fox of Mexico is starting a whirlwind tour of the U.S. today which will conclude on Friday. The apparent goal of the tour is to help immigration "reform". However, as with the illegal alien marches, he will end up helping the American side.

He'll be in Utah for three days, then he goes to California. While in Utah he'll meet with Gov. John Huntsman, a supporter of Bush's amnesty scheme. He will also meet with leaders of the Mormon Church which is, unfortunately, like the Catholic Church a strong supporter of illegal immigration. (See also: Western Governors Association wants "guest" worker program and Utah's problem with "American" politicians).

He'll also travel to Washington state to meet with no doubt illegal aliens at farms.

Then, it's off to Alta California where he'll have a closed-door meeting with Fabian Nunez, D-Los Angeles. He'll also meet with Arnold as well as Mayor Reconquista himself, Antonio Villaraigosa.

Here's an example of the "thanks for your help, Vicente":

"The Mexican government wants to do its part to promote an immigration reform," Fox's spokesman Ruben Aguilar said in a Monday news conference. "Meeting with the Mexican community in these states, this Mexican government wants to show its total support for the defense of the their labor and human rights."

Maybe he could lead a march through our streets waving his country's flag just for good measure.

UPDATE: From this:

Kicking off a four-day, three-state tour, Mexican President Vicente Fox said Tuesday that his nation wants to be part of the solution in the immigration debate, not the problem.

"We don't set up walls, and that's not the way you're going to fix this situation," Fox said in Spanish to representatives of groups active in Utah's Mexican community. "It's not with fences that we are going to solve this problem."

There were cheers of "Viva Mexico" as Fox shook hands before leaving for an official dinner at the governor's mansion...

..."The future of North America must guarantee great competitiveness, greater regional security, greater availability of energy, greater trade exchanges and, naturally, a greater well-being for all of its inhabitants," said Fox, who is also scheduled to visit Washington state and California this week.

He spoke of the steps he has taken to strengthen the Mexican economy and the democratization of his country...

The phrase "North America" is a bit of a secret code. While most will think he's refering to the space on the map with Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, he's actually referring to things like the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America", a precursor to joining those three nations into one superstate. It's even got its own site: spp.gov

Compare that with this 2002 Vicente Fox speech:

Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union, with the goal of attending to future themes as important as the future prosperity of North America, and the freedom of movement of capital, goods, services and persons.

UPDATE 2: From this:

[Fox told the crowd:] "Even though you are far from Mexico, you are an integral part of Mexico... We will never forget you. We love you... ...Over there, we wait for you with open arms... Your family is over there. Your family that appreciates and loves you. Your home is over there."

...Utah Atty. Gen. Mark Shurtleff, a conservative Republican who just won reelection, choked up as he praised Mexican traditions in fluent Spanish.

"It's a culture that shows the importance of family, in which parents teach and care for children," Shurtleff said to cheers. "It's a culture that teaches by example the importance of labor and work. These are values that, unfortunately, we are losing here in my country."

...Fox on Tuesday praised Huntsman and the state government for being one of the few in the U.S. to allow illegal immigrants to pay the same tuition at public universities as legal residents, and for providing otherwise undocumented immigrants with cards that function as driver's licenses...

Shurtleff should reconsider his citizenship options, because he's clearly in the wrong country.

Posted to Immigration at 11:44 AM | Comments (2)

"Bush border policy linked to Carlyle deal?"

Joining the long line of articles trying to figure out why George W. Bush encourages massive immigration from Mexico comes this. The article could use a diagram showing how each person mentioned is linked to the other, but it basically boils down to Bush-linked companies wanting a slice of the "Hispanic" market.

Posted to Politics at 11:42 AM | Comments (1)

Call the Senate re: their illegal alien amnesty scheme

There's a list of contacts here. This page has updated information on various votes. And, if you want something to talk about, see "Senate Immigration Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants over the Next Twenty Years". They've since reduced that to "just" 66 million, but the difference would probably be made up by all the illegal aliens who'd come here to take advantage of future amnesties.

Posted to Immigration at 05:50 AM | Comments (3)

Giovanna Dell'orto/AP: pro-illegal immigration propaganda on anchor babies

Giovanna Dell'orto of the AP offers "Citizenship by birthright up for debate". Here's the first, PIIPPish paragraph:

Laila Montezuma was 16 when she sneaked across the Rio Grande from Mexico with her mother, only to be abandoned by the smuggler paid to get them into the United States. They had to hire another "coyote" to reach Houston.

The article goes downhill from there, showing how the AP has reduced the "debate" to the level of a Sally Struthers infomercial.

Out of its 22 paragraphs, here's the breakdown:

* 11 deal with 4 sympathetic illegal alien victims and their heartwrenching stories;

* 6 offer biased background information

* 2 are devoted to supporters; one of those features a quote from the Migration Policy Institute

* 3 are devoted to opponents, including a quote from Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA)

That's "balanced" according to the AP's guidelines.

Posted to Immigration_piipps at 04:36 AM | Comments (3)

Walls or Welcome: a false choice from the Catholic Church

Various dioceses of the Catholic Church are support immigration forums called "Walls or Welcome". One of them is described here. Obviously, the very title of the forum is highly misleading. Having a "wall" (actually one or more fences) is not in opposition to remaining a welcoming country. We can still welcome visitors and legal immigrants.

What the Catholic Church means by "welcome" is, in reality, open borders:

...The Catholic Church does not officially support illegal immigration or lobby for open borders, said Gregory Kepferle, the CEO of Catholic Charities of San Jose. The church's position is that people should enter the country legally and that nations can control their borders as long as the controls are humane.

But Catholic leaders are advocating for laws that would allow people who crossed into the country illegally or overstayed their visas to start on a path to legal residence, keep families together and provide a way for workers to enter the country, Kepferle said...

There's always that "but", isn't there? They want to give almost anyone who comes here citizenship, which is just open borders with some minor controls.

Posted to Immigration at 04:24 AM | Comments (1)

Two Mexican illegal aliens are former military

From this:

The Hudspeth County Sheriff's Office intercepts 54 illegal immigrants just 90 miles east of El Paso, and among the group are two former Mexican soldiers.

The arrests were part of Operation Linebacker. Hudspeth County Sheriff Arvin West said it shows how local law enforcement can be another line of defense along the border.

The immigrants were caught on Highway 62/180, near the Guadalupe Mountains. That's where Hudspeth County deputies set up a checkpoint and within a matter of hours intercepted three trucks and one van loaded with illegal immigrants, totaling 54 people, including two children and six women.

The most alarming part, West said, was that two men were carrying Mexican military IDs.

"Two of the aliens that were mixed in with the crowd were either ex- or former military. One of them had been deported just two weeks ago," West said...

Posted to Immigration_terror at 02:19 AM | Comments (0)

More terrorists and illegal immigration reports

There are several reports listed here, including this recent one:

Watch this video of an ongoing investigation done by the news team from KGRV TV serving Harlingen-Weslaco-McAllen -Brownsville, Texas. (Video will open in your media player - it's a news segment.) It is part of an ongoing series highlighting the culmination of months of investigative research into the flow of terrorists over our borders. Fred Burton, a counter-terrorism expert of Stratfor, was interviewed on camera. He stated that now is the perfect time for terrorists to sneak across the border. Escalating violence and an unprecedented flood of illegals is distracting law enforcement and stretching it thin. Zapata County sheriff, Frederigo Gonzales Jr. says that as for WMDs, it is not a matter of "if", but "when".

There are a few quibbles with some of the points in the rest of the post; for instance, not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs. And, some of the, for instance, Iraqis caught at the border turn out to be Christians.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 01:05 AM | Comments (2)

Gandhi, the Dalai Lama, and Lonewacko

Remember the political compass online quiz? I just took that again and, despite my best efforts, I'm still in the same quadrant I was when I took the test a few years ago, the same quadrant into which they place Gandhi and the Dalai Lama. Despite my "leftie-libertarianism" being much closer to the center than either of them, I still wish all blogdom peace.

Posted to WackyHumor at 11:44 PM | Comments (0)

Elite vs. popular opinion on massive immigration: an analysis

From 2003 comes this long analysis from a former aide to Mexico's National Action Party (PAN). In that capacity he spoke with 80 putatively American legislators, mostly federal:

...In these talks with the congressmen, this author encountered an unexpectedly large amount of sympathy for the proposal to extend amnesty to existing undocumented immigrants, and to even increase immigration from Mexico. Interestingly, several of them were proposing amnesty with us even before it became Fox's official policy (this was duly reported back to the campaign)...

...Only five congressmen expressed an unequivocal concern (four of them politely) with immigration in general, and opposition to illegal immigration in particular. The rest who expressed concern about immigration touched on the issue in passing, but did not emphasize it, preferring to touch on other matters...

...The traditional division between "conservatives" and "liberals," and then between Republicans and Democrats, is not a good way to explain this behavior...

He goes on to divide those "congressmen" (that is, the 80 legislators with whom he spoke) into four quadrants similar to those in the political compass, analyzing the possible reasons those in each of those quadrants would support massive immigration. The following is not indicative of the rest of the article, but it does show how many legislators think when they think they're talking to a comprade:

...several congressmen mentioned how happy they were with their Hispanic constituents. The more usual compliments included: "They are grateful for whatever you give them;" "they never give me problems, I love going to their barrio;" "they are loyal;" "they are a gentle people;" and "they make ideal constituents." Referring to the mostly white population of his district, one congressman apologized for his "redneck" constituents who "don't understand" the importance of increased immigration. Another congressman spoke of the consequences immigration would eventually have for his competing party, in that it would "disappear, once and for all."

Posted to Immigration at 11:17 PM | Comments (3)

Andrew Sullivan is truly a lightweight

In the recent past this site has somewhat defended Andrew Sullivan because of his battles with Instapundit and other BushBots.

However, given his support for illegal immigration ("Panic builds up behind America's Great Wall", link), that policy will change. He diagnoses a large part of the opposition to illegal immigration as being caused by xenophobia and racism, even attempting to portray mass deportations and Vox Day's infamous column as representative of "grassroots Republican" thinking.

Thankfully, someone else has responded to Andrew Sullivan's column, sparing me the task. (Since Sully has fewer readers than, say, the HuffPost and has access to greater resources, you'd think he'd be able to enable comments. Perhaps he's afraid of everyone pointing out exactly how he's wrong.)

That site also links to this Mark Steyn column which, while featuring a bit too much humor, does contain this:

But a "worker class" drawn overwhelmingly from a neighboring jurisdiction with another language and ancient claims on your territory and whose people now send so much money back home in the form of "remittances" that it's Mexico's largest source of foreign income (bigger than oil or tourism) is not "immigration" at all, but a vast experiment in societal transformation. Indeed, given the international track record of bilingual societies and neighboring jurisdictions with territorial claims, it's not much of an experiment so much as a safe bet on political instability.

Posted to Immigration at 11:06 PM | Comments (1)

The view from Kevin Drum's window

Kevin Drum informs us that Sully is asking his readers to send in pictures from the windows of the cubicle whence they encumber the world with their thoughts.

Rather than provide my own, I decided to make a slight modification to the picture that Drum is good enough to provide. It's only a slight modification, so look closely:

Posted to Bloggage at 08:21 PM | Comments (0)

Mexico keeps foreign-born from working at thousands of jobs

From this:

If Arnold Schwarzenegger had migrated to Mexico instead of the United States, he couldn't be a governor. If Argentina native Sergio Villanueva, firefighter hero of the Sept. 11 attacks, had moved to Tecate instead of New York, he wouldn't have been allowed on the force.

Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.

In the United States, only two posts - the presidency and vice presidency - are reserved for the native born.

In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.

Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."

Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges...

Bear in mind that those being discussed above are naturalized citizens of Mexico who were born in other countries, not foreign citizens and not illegal aliens.

Posted to Immigration at 03:34 PM | Comments (1)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein touts her own amnesty scheme

From this:

California's senior senator called for an amendment to the immigration bill now moving through the Senate that would allow undocumented workers the chance to earn a green card after a years-long wait.

Speaking on television Sunday, Dianne Feinstein called her “earned legalization program” a comprehensive, realistic program to clean up problems with visa programs and increase border security.

The Hegel-Martinez bill now before the Senate is not workable, Feinstein said, because it would require 4.8 million of the foreign workers in the country to return home before applying for citizenship.

UPDATE: From this:

The Senate rejected a California Democrat's plan to allow the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country to remain, work and eventually become Americans, preserving a fragile bipartisan coalition needed to pass the bill.

Several lawmakers who voted against the proposal offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday said they did so reluctantly, but out of necessity to ensure survival of the broader immigration bill. The legislation is expected to win Senate passage Wednesday or Thursday.

Posted to Immigration at 01:23 PM | Comments (3)

Senate amnesty bill is for employers too

One point that I haven't made as often as I should is that an illegal alien amnesty would also be an amnesty for those who've employed those workers:

Among those who will be cleared of past crimes under the Senate's proposed immigration-reform bill would be the businesses that have employed the estimated 10 million illegal aliens eligible for citizenship and that provided the very "magnet" that drew them here in the first place.

Buried in the more than 600 pages of legislation is a section titled "Employer Protections," which states: "Employers of aliens applying for adjustment of status under this section shall not be subject to civil and criminal tax liability relating directly to the employment of such alien."

Supporters of the legislation insist that such provisions do not amount to "amnesty."

"The legislation we are considering today is not amnesty," Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said last week. "That is a pejorative term, really a smear term used to denigrate the efforts at comprehensive immigration reform. This is not amnesty because amnesty means a pardon of those who have broken the law."

Mr. Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, and others argue that the bill is not amnesty for illegal aliens because they will have to pay $2,000 in fines before they gain citizenship.

The law does not, however, provide for such fines against employers who have broken the law by hiring the illegals...

Posted to Immigration at 11:26 AM | Comments (2)

USCIS director: Senate amnesty timeline is not "practical"

You have to wonder what else in the Senate's illegal alien amnesty scheme isn't practical as well:

The director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that would administer a new guest-worker program and rule on applications from millions of illegal aliens, says the pending Senate bill doesn't give his agency enough time to prepare for that giant task.

"Quite frankly, I don't think that's really practical. Ninety days to register 12 million people. Do the math," Emilio T. Gonzalez, who took over as director early this year, told The Washington Times...

...He acknowledged that fraud could be a huge problem under a plan that divides the illegal population by year, and said "it's a big 'depends'" as to whether there are documents that are secure enough to prove beyond a doubt that someone has earned the status...

He also offers a lukewarm defense against the charges by a whistleblower of widespread fraud at the USCIS.

Posted to Immigration at 11:26 AM | Comments (1)

Correction: Bush may have lied one fewer time in big speech

In my discussion of Bush's big May 15 immigration speech, I took issue with this statement:

And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

I maintain that those "guests" will never leave, and thus that Bush lied to the country.

However, here's Kaus on that statement:

Was it a Clintonian weasel (technically accurate in the zen-tautological sense that their "stay" doesn't conclude until it concludes)

I'm forced to agree: in Bush's mind he might not have told a lie, because their "stay" will never end.

There's also this, which tends to show that Bush and the Senate don't intend our "guests" to ever leave:

Sens. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) tried to amend the bill to stipulate that the 200,000 low-skilled immigrants allowed to enter the country under a new temporary-worker visa would have to leave when the visa expired. With Bush and his top political aides in Arizona, conservative Republican aides persuaded lower-level White House staff members to back the amendment, reasoning that Bush has always said he backs a "temporary worker program," not a permanent funnel of immigrants to the United States.

"It was a matter of truth in advertising," Cornyn said.

When word reached the backers of the compromise, they were furious, according to a senior Republican Senate aide involved in the events. Immigrant groups such as the National Council of La Raza and the National Immigration Forum had said they would withdraw their support for the Senate bill if the amendment passed. With no prospects for equality under the law, temporary workers would become a permanent underclass, like immigrant laborers in France, they reasoned. And if temporary workers were not offered a path to citizenship, they would simply go underground when their visas expired, re-creating the problem of illegal immigration.

If anyone who comes here is eventually offered citizenship, that is closely approaching an open borders position.

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

Bush touts "guest" workers at National Restaurant Association meeting

Earlier today, president Bush spoke at the National Restaurant Association meeting in Chicago. In addition to discussing Iraq, he also apparently - yet again - promoted his "guest" worker scheme.

The restaurant industry makes heavy use of "immigrant" workers, the (other) NRA has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to politicians, and most of our politicians refuse to make sure that our immigration laws are enforced. Could there be a connection?

Note also this quote from John Gay, the NRA's chief of government affairs and public policy:

"We value the work done by our employees, documented or not... It's not like they broke into the bank to rob it... They broke into the bank to sweep the floor."

The transcript is not yet available, but a preview is here and the AP's report on the speech is here. The latter only mentions the Iraq-related comments.

UPDATE: From this:

He praised the restaurant industry for providing many with their first job -- "a start" -- and showing people how to show up for work on time but said immigration must be safe, orderly and fair. "You can't secure our borders with thousands trying to sneak in," he said.

UPDATE 2: The transcript is at whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060522-1.html

You not only help people put food on the table, but you provide many Americans with their first job, with a start. You teach people the importance of showing up on time, and working hard and meeting the needs of our customers. You're also America's largest employer of immigrants. And you know how essential it is that we have an immigration system that is safe, orderly and fair. (Applause.) And I agree with you, and that's why I laid out a vision for comprehensive immigration reform that would accomplish five key goals.

[...his five selling points deleted...]

The reforms I proposed regarding guest workers are really important for your industry. Your association estimates that restaurants will add -- will need 1.9 million new workers over the next 10 years, which means if you need workers -- your need for workers will be growing faster than the American labor force. So you understand why effective immigration reform must include a practical and lawful way for businesses to hire foreign workers when they can't fill those jobs with Americans. The restaurant industry has firsthand experience with immigrants and immigration law. And I appreciate your strong stand on Capitol Hill for comprehensive reform. (Applause.)

And here's where we are. The House passed a bill last -- an immigration bill last December, and the Senate is working hard on its version of the bill. The Senate needs to complete its bill now, so that the House and Senate can work out their differences and pass a comprehensive reform bill that I can sign into law. (Applause.)

If that weren't bad enough, here's one of the difficult questions that the leader of the free world was asked:

Mr. President, my daughter's name is Jamie. She's a 16-year-old girl. What advice or recommendations would you give to her and to other youth of our country to help make our country a better place?

The other questions are only slightly more challenging. Isn't it extraordinarily dangerous to have a political leader who never has to directly face criticism of his policies?

Posted to Immigration at 09:31 AM | Comments (1)

Useful Idiot Watch: Kossack wants to "Erase the Border"

A Kossack named Ben Masel offers "A Radical Immigration Plan: Erase the Border": dailykos.com/story/2006/5/20/112725/240

The author was described in 1996 as Madison's [WI] own pot promoter, former candidate for Dane County sheriff and Libertarian candidate for Congress. He's also the Wisconsin chapter president of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML).

While the post generates a few negative comments, many are supportive. And, there's only one negative comment that slightly implies that our good friends at Kos might be useful idiots for the "global elites" (comment #26 about Carla Hills of the CFR).

The reaction to the cross-post at Maryscott O'Connor's site is even more positive: myleftwing.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=8691

The comments at the latter link shows how those "global elite" can make use of those useful idiots:

weeping for brunnhilde: As far as I'm concerned, the sooner we dismantle geo-political borders, the sooner we dismantle our own mental borders. Then maybe we'll recognize that we're all in this together and start to act like it. This is the hope, anyway.

eugene: The conservative complaint here is that they don't like how globalization forces them to interact with people they consider their racial inferiors. Hence the fence.

MSOC: When asked as to my feelings about immigration ("the immigration problem"), I reply that I wish for open borders. Watching that little segment on Thursday's Colbert Report about the "Minutemen" was so thoroughly depressing and enervating, the humour was almost completely lost on me.

sfarnell: No borders = no nationalism. Yeah n/t

Those who seek to delete the borders in order to profit can make use of such idiots by appealing to their extreme and extremely misplaced idealism as well as their intense, psychologically-based desire not to be called racists. Since comments like #26 at the DK thread aren't going to do it, pushing back might consist of pointing out that the left wing of the Democratic Party wants the same thing as George Bush. Then, let BDS work its magic.

Note also that Masel says, "Canada could have the option to sign in on similar terms." Now, compare that to the opinion piece from Steven Hill of the CFR-linked "New America Foundation", which contains "not wishing to be left out, [Canada] would ask for inclusion". Going further, Masel even has this to say:

With "illegals" getting to vote, Texas ceases to be an Anglo dominion. effectively, Mexico re-conquers.

As if that diary weren't bad enough, 'Mumon' offers "Jerome Corsi: Hegemony, Nativism and paranoia...." ( dailykos.com/story/2006/5/20/958/70763 ), about the article "North American Union to Replace USA?" As with the other useful idiots, Mumon supports the goals of Bush and other members of the "global elite", in effect acting as a CFR apologist. As does the blogger we refer to as "Hatrios": atrios.blogspot.com/2006_05_14_atrios_archive.html#114806872226565666

This amusing bit of wingnuttery from swift boat liar Jerome Corsi brings us back to the black helicopter era of wingnuttery which thrived so well under Poppy.

COMPLETE TOOL UPDATE: From the libertarian perspective ( uncsense.com/root/2006/05/that_about_sums.html ) comes this:

Let me tell you conservatives and Republicans something: You disgust me with your incessant and evil harping about "illegal" immigration. You have lost completely and totally the spirit of what America was all about. Completely and totally. Nothing is left. You think it was about a constitution and laws. It was about leaving oppression and misery behind, risking it all -- including your very life -- and seeking new opportunity in a new land where you could trade in peace and hopefully earn for yourself and your loved ones a better life. It was about Declaring your Independence from those who would prevent you by force from exercising what you believed was your God-given (not government given; not democratically given) right to the honest and peaceful pursuit of your own life, liberty, and happiness.

Posted to NAU at 12:15 PM | Comments (8)

Senate massive illegal alien amnesty updates

There's a chart with a summary of all actions taken so far here.

Posted to Immigration at 12:15 PM | Comments (7)

"Border Patrol: Fence Stops 95% of Illegals"

From this:

More than a ten years ago, the federal government built a fence along the San Diego sector in California. Ed Henry, assistant chief of the Border Patrol for that region, says that the impact was immediate.

"Apprehensions here are down a staggering 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000," he told National Public Radio last month.

Posted to Immigration at 12:09 PM | Comments (5)

San Diego: immigrant smugglers rarely prosecuted

From this:

...The report focused on a Border Patrol station responsible for 13 miles of mountainous border east of San Diego. It said that only 6 percent of 289 suspected immigrant smugglers caught there were federally prosecuted for that offense in the fiscal year ending in September 2004.

Some were charged with different counts, but others were released by the Border Patrol or saw their cases rejected by federal prosecutors.

Federal officials say the report, provided to the AP by the office of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., reflects a reality along the entire 2,000-mile border: Judges and federal attorneys are so swamped that only the most egregious smuggling cases are prosecuted.

"Why are agents putting their lives at risk when the people perpetrating this illegal act just walk away from the whole ordeal scot-free?" the report states. "It is very difficult to keep agents' morale up when the laws they were told to uphold are being watered-down or not prosecuted."

Posted to Immigration at 12:07 PM | Comments (5)

Has the U.S. Senate endorsed use of forged documents and identity theft?

From this:

The Senate voted yesterday to allow illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits based on past illegal employment -- even if the job was obtained through forged or stolen documents.

"There was a felony they were committing, and now they can't be prosecuted. That sounds like amnesty to me," said Sen. John Ensign, the Nevada Republican who offered the amendment yesterday to strip out those provisions of the immigration reform bill. "It just boggles the mind how people could be against this amendment."

The Ensign amendment was defeated on a 50-49 vote...

The U.S. Senate is clearly saying that some forms of use of forged documents are acceptable. It's unclear how this would affect someone who's using the SSN of a U.S. citizen where that fraudulent use of their SSN has caused some sort of damage to that citizen.

What about all those U.S. citizens who've committed identity theft or have used forged documents? Will they get a pass too? Or, are passes only given out to citizens of other countries?

More on this here, here, and here.

Posted to Immigration at 11:47 AM | Comments (3)

What would a border fence cost?

There's some number crunching here.

Posted to Immigration at 11:15 AM | Comments (1)

What did we do to deserve this moron?

A similar picture is here. [UPDATE: That and the following pics are no longer there; links removed.]

A scowling closeup with El Presidente pointing his finger is here. In that shot, his shirt looks vaguely like a guayabera.

The following shots have a Border Patrol symbol in the background: middle ground, long, and a side view.

UPDATE: While I'm not partial to the source, this photo-op appears to have gone fully according to the script written by White House chief of staff Josh Bolten:

1 DEPLOY GUNS AND BADGES. This is an unabashed play to members of the conservative base who are worried about illegal immigration. Under the banner of homeland security, the White House plans to seek more funding for an extremely visible enforcement crackdown at the Mexican border, including a beefed-up force of agents patrolling on all-terrain vehicles (ATVs). "It'll be more guys with guns and badges," said a proponent of the plan. "Think of the visuals. The President can go down and meet with the new recruits. He can go down to the border and meet with a bunch of guys and go ride around on an ATV."

Posted to Immigration at 11:25 PM | Comments (10)

Caption Bush in Yuma

There's an even less flattering picture here. [UPDATE: That image no longer exists]

Posted to Immigration at 11:20 PM | Comments (3)

Keep track of today's Senate votes on immigration

There's a live thread here.

Posted to Immigration at 11:47 AM | Comments (1)

"Mexican government running US immigration policy--Part I"

An interview with a former Border Patrol Supervisor is here:

Because the U.S. Government is so eager to please foreign interests, particularly Mexican interests, Border patrol managers allow the Mexican Consulates to intrude far beyond the requirements of the treaties. There is no requirement under the treaties that the Consuls have access to aliens before they are interrogated, processed or even that the Consuls have access to Law Enforcement facilities. The agreement is simply that if an alien requests to speak to the respective Consul that they are allowed to do so. I think there is also a provision that the Consuls be notified of any injured aliens. The Border Patrol has gone far beyond these requirements in that Mexican Consular officials are allowed to solicit complaints from aliens, even when the aliens had no previous complaints...

[In a specific case in San Diego] Mexican officials impersonated Border Patrol Agents and checked a smuggler out of the hospital and returned the smuggler to Mexico and thwarted his prosecution by U.S. authorities. If this had been done by one of us, we would have been prosecuted for impersonating a federal officer. The Mexican government has special immunity...

Posted to Immigration at 11:45 AM | Comments (3)

President Bush visits Yuma Arizona

According to the local paper:

Bush is coming to Yuma to see the problem of illegal immigration first-hand. He is scheduled to tour the border, visit the Border Patrol's Yuma Sector headquarters and meet local officials. He will also make remarks at a press briefing.

Obvious to anyone who's looked into this matter, Bush is a major part of the problem; in effect he's going to be taking a look at his handiwork. The Q&A session will also reportedly be very short, and won't give the MSM the chance to ask those damning questions that we know they could come up with if only they had more time.

Posted to Politics at 11:40 AM | Comments (1)

Border Patrol Local supports Minuteman Project, bashes Bush

From this:

The largest local union of Border Patrol agents in the country has declared its support for the Minuteman Project in Arizona, while at the same time slamming both the American Civil Liberties Union and President Bush.

According to its website, the U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544, which covers the Tucson sector of the agency, the volunteers involved in the border-monitoring Minuteman Project have been nothing but supportive...

"If only President Bush were so supportive of the rank-and-file agents," the site states. "While President Bush hangs out thousands of miles away in the White House, these people are willing to give up their time and energy to actually do something. While President Bush entices millions of illegal aliens to keep coming with his amnesty proposals and his demoralizing statements that he doesn't want Border Patrol agents chasing 'good-hearted people just coming here to take jobs Americans won't do,' the Minutemen are trying to get our laws enforced...

Similar article here.

Posted to Immigration at 11:37 AM | Comments (2)

Mel Martinez opposed illegal alien amnesty... in 2004

Just as Harry Reid changed his mind from supporting America's borders into supporting massive illegal immigration, Mel Martinez (R-FL) seems to have done a 180, and much more recently. From October 24, 2004:

Our immigration policy should first and foremost ensure the security of our nation and those individuals posing a terrorist threat should be prevented from entering our country. I strongly oppose amnesty for illegal aliens.

Nowadays he's the author of the massive illegal alien amnesty known as Hagel-Martinez. Of course, he'll say it isn't amnesty, but if something acts like an amnesty and is seen as an amnesty by hundreds of millions of people around the world, it's an amnesty.

Posted to Immigration at 12:45 AM | Comments (4)

What is a Pelosi?

In case you're wondering what it is:

A strange and funny creature that is indigenous to the banquet halls and wine-tasting parties of Northern California. Its mating call is a shrill, repetitive howl; scientists have yet to decipher its meaning, but its frequency seems to be related to the proximity of television cameras. Some experts believe that the noisy, persistent call of the Pelosi really means nothing at all, but is simply a mere cry for attention.

(Via this)

Posted to Politics at 12:41 AM | Comments (1)

The "Open Letter on Immigration": a quick response

This site is circulating an "Open Letter on Immigration":

In cooperation with the Independent Institute I am looking for as many signatures as possible from economists and other social scientists. Brad DeLong, Greg Mankiw, Vernon Smith, Tyler Cowen and many others from both the left and the right have already signed on.

It's certainly an interesting letter, but it has little relevance to the current debate. No one is talking about completely shutting down immigration in general, but that's about all the letter covers.

And, the letter almost completely deals only with economic issues and not the many other factors involved.

For instance, it doesn't deal with:
1. The wisdom of having so many immigrants from one country.
2. Especially when that country used to own part of your country.
3. And, especially when many political leaders have expressed irredentist views and that viewpoint is held by a certain percentage of those immigrants.
4. The effects on our laws and political system of massive illegal immigration, such as its effect on political corruption.
5. The political power inside our country that Mexico and other countries have been able to obtain by sending us millions of people, and the impact of those countries continually trying to meddle in our internal politics.

And, at the end they even include this:

The American dream is a reality for many immigrants who not only increase their own living standards but who also send billions of dollars of their money back to their families in their home countries—a form of truly effective foreign aid.

I already discussed that in this article about remittances.

I think they need to write another letter that deals with everything involved in this issue.

Posted to Immigration at 10:40 AM | Comments (4)

NRO contributors oppose Bush immigration plan

They have reviews of Bush's big speech from George Borjas, Heather MacDonald, John O'Sullivan, and others. Most of them were a bit negative. Just a bit.

Posted to Immigration at 08:54 AM | Comments (2)

Mexico threatens to sue us if National Guard detains their citizens

From this:

Mexico said Tuesday that it would file lawsuits in U.S. courts if National Guard troops on the border become directly involved in detaining migrants.

"If there is a real wave of rights abuses, if we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates," Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a Mexico City radio station. He did not offer further details.

Mexican officials worry the crackdown will lead to more deaths...

Obviously, stronger border enforcement will lead to fewer coming, which will have the impact Mexico claims to want. So, why are they trying to make it difficult for us to do more border enforcement? Gosh, that's a tough one.

Related: Maricopa County Attorney: Mexico trying to block Arizona law
We're being sued by Mexico (in the International Court of Justice)

Posted to Immigration at 05:46 AM | Comments (1)

Immigration "reform" would be a disaster

Lawrence B. Lindsey - former chief economic adviser to President Bush and a supporter of "reform" - offers this:

...Comprehensive immigration reform promises that people already in the United States illegally can apply for citizenship, but requires them to "go to the back of the line." But a key question is, the back of which line? The reform bill before the Senate doesn't require illegal immigrants to go back home--to, say, Hong Kong, to the end of the 10-to-15-year line there--to get a green card. Instead, it allows the current illegals to receive their green card immediately--having, in effect, jumped the line at the U.S. consulate abroad. Then, like other green card holders, they will be able to work here, collect government benefits like food stamps and Medicaid, and travel as freely as if they had a U.S. passport.

The line the current illegals will go to the back of is the citizenship line. Under the proposed law, current illegals, newly minted green card in hand, will have to wait six years, then get in line to apply for citizenship. But even after six years, they will be years ahead of many people who have gone through the legal process and are waiting overseas for a consular official to let them come here. Once those who have been playing by the rules all along get here, they too have to wait six years before getting in line for citizenship.

If we really mean "the back of the line," that should be behind everyone who is already in the pipeline to come here legally. If you are granted your green card under the new "guest worker" system, you shouldn't be able to apply for citizenship until after everyone already on queue has had their citizenship adjudicated. It's a simple matter of not rewarding people for line-jumping.

This is more than an appeal for elementary fairness. There is a very practical reason to prevent queue jumping: It helps consular officials keep order on the front lines of immigration policy. How can anyone enforce the rules for entry to America if line-jumping becomes the law of the land? Once the world knows that we make citizenship easier for those who break the rules, enforcing the rules becomes a nonstarter.

We supporters of immigration reform correctly deride the "ship them home" crowd for gross impracticality. But any kind of queue-jumping allowed by a new reform will create a law-enforcement nightmare for every American consulate on the planet...

...But there is a difference between bureaucratic slowness and rigidity and the complete breakdown of the process. In 2004 the INS issued 946,000 green cards and naturalized 537,000 people. The proposed immigration reform anticipates giving green cards to up to 11 million people in one fell swoop and making them eligible for citizenship six years later. It is inconceivable that the INS could handle an eleven-fold increase in its workload...

Nor would this problem be easy to solve, even if Congress and the president were willing to budget for the flood of new work brought on by reform. Government bureaucrats require recruitment, background investigations by the Office of Personnel Management, training, and supervision by experienced personnel...

Then there is the issue of software--a term that covers a host of troubles. The proposed law contemplates that those issued "guest worker" status will be allowed to apply for citizenship if they perform the normal functions of citizens: paying their taxes, not breaking the law, and so on. Are we going to link the new "Earned Citizenship" program computer to the IRS computer to make sure taxes have been paid? How is the new program going to link with hundreds of state and local law enforcement authorities to discover which individuals have been law abiding?

...With so many political factions benefiting from the perception of failure, the current lack of forethought about these problems is stunning.

...In theory, the "reform"-oriented Senate bill is supposed to be combined with an "enforcement"-oriented House bill in conference to produce "comprehensive" reform. But substantial parts of the "reform" coalition have no interest at all in "enforcement." This includes many of the advocacy groups who staged the recent demonstrations and some of their political supporters. It probably also includes many employer groups, who have no interest in sanctions, and have embraced the guest worker approach only as a means of dampening demands for tougher enforcement.

...First, "the back of the line" for citizenship must really mean the back of the line. No newly legalized illegal should obtain citizenship before anyone who has already begun the application process. Second, substantial money, manpower, and management skills must be committed as soon as possible to implementing the new immigration procedures. The government must be candid with the public about the enormous magnitude of the effort it is about to undertake. Otherwise, the inevitable missteps will undermine citizens' and would-be immigrants' confidence in our seriousness about the rule of law. Third, the government must make enforcement credible. This may mean physical barriers to entry; it certainly requires stepped-up enforcement at workplaces and by dispensers of government services. Logic would dictate that enforcement, particularly at the border, begin even before all of the administrative apparatus is in place. At the very least, government should act to minimize the size of the problem it faces...

So, why aren't politicians discussing all these nagging little details? Why aren't reporters asking them exactly how they intend to implement their dream legislation?

Since reporters won't do their job on this issue, please go to public appearances by politicians and try to ask them some tough questions.

Posted to Immigration at 02:59 AM | Comments (3)

AP: "Immigration Crackdown Could Create Ghost Town"

The AP offers a video report here that Yahoo or they subtitle with the following:

Visit Columbus, New Mexico, where some community leaders fear that blocking immigrant smuggling could put the town out of business.

While I didn't watch the video I have a pretty good idea of what it will and won't cover. They might give an ironic tip o' the hat to Columbus being the town where Pancho Villa conducted his infamous raid. But, they probably will treat transnational corruption as a wonderful good.

Posted to Immigration at 12:13 AM | Comments (2)

The GOP needs your help to damage the U.S.

Chairman Mehlman has issued an urgent plea:

Dear ______,

Our immigration system is broken. And we need your help to fix it.

In his address to the nation last night, President Bush showed the way to getting real results on this difficult issue. We need your help today to stand up in support of the President's bold plan. Sign the petition and call your Senators and Representatives to demand immediate action on comprehensive immigration reform...

Here's the Fact Sheet: Overview: Comprehensive Immigration Reform. Obviously, it's extremely easy to rip that fact sheet to shreds, but just consider the bit about holding employers accountable.

You don't need something similar to a national ID card to do that. There's a voluntary program that currently a very small number of employers use to verify SSNs. And, there are 500,000 people all using an SSN with all zeroes. It's much easier to do workplace enforcement than Bush says. And, if he won't do workplace enforcement now, should anyone trust him when he says he'd do it after his "reforms" are passed?

There are also some very highly redacted supportive comments from others here:

gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6324
gop.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=6325

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

Los Angeles Times supports Bush immigration speech

They offer the editorial "The right words". Their only quibble is that he wasn't specific enough:

The president has given the process some much-needed direction, urgency and even a moral framework.

As I briefly described here and in other posts, allowing illegal aliens to come or stay here is actually immoral.

Posted to Immigration at 11:07 AM | Comments (1)

Scales fall from eyes of BushBot Hugh Hewitt over border fence; Captain's Quarters

Or: A fence, a fence, Hugh Hewitt's fiefdom for a fence

Currently at this site is a transcript of the interview Hugh Hewitt did with ICE Assistant Secretary (and Chertoff daughter-in-law) Julie Myers. Just some of the questions from HH reveal how it went:

...But in terms of actual fencing fencing, how many miles are we talking about? ...Is he committed, though? Did you have a talk with him about extending, for example, the San Diego fence, which is 1,400 miles long, and the El Paso fence, which is many miles long, double, and sometimes triple barrier fencing? Is that on the table? ...So we're still unclear of how far the administration is committed to actual fencing on the border? I mean, concrete, physical fencing? ...And there were no specifics in terms of miles on that. ...But expand on what that means, because I've got to tell you, I'm underwhelmed, because I thought you'd come out with administration talking points on the fence, which was number one to me. And obviously, they haven't issued those. ...So I'm back to the fencing conversation. If fencing is the best way to stop them at the border, why don't we have a plan laid out for that? ...Assistant Secretary Myers, correct me if I'm wrong. I think you just walked the administration back from the fence. ...Ms. Myers, I just want to go back over the fence, because I must tell you, I wagered everything on the President being serious about the fence, because the fence works. And whenever I've heard people talk about it, it works. It works in San Diego, it works in Israel, it works in El Paso. But I must say, I'm completely underwhelmed. It doesn't seem like you really believe in it. (pause) Ms. Myers, are you there?

And then, the final comments:

Well, I appreciate your coming on. I must be just candid with you. I think that's disastrous, politically. I think that is a nightmare, both policy and political wise, because I thought the President had come down for the fence, but you're saying it's really a much subtler approach. ...All right. Thank you, Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Julie Myers. I'm just stunned.

UPDATE: Now even stalwart Bush supporter Captain's Quarters says:

It really seems as if the White House wrote a speech to just pacify their critics instead of actually responding to their concerns. If this is how seriously the administration takes border security, then we need to bring a screeching halt to the immigration reform bill until that attitude changes.

What's sad is that both those people are probably serious and thought all this time that Bush was on their and America's side.

Posted to Politics at 10:48 AM | Comments (2)

New York Times goes nuts over immigration

That rag provides "Border Illusions":

President Bush's speech from the Oval Office last night was not a blueprint for comprehensive immigration reform. It was a victory for the fear-stricken fringe of the debate.

Because, we know that anyone who supports the sovereignty of this nation is simply driven by fear.

Rather than standing up for truth, Mr. Bush swiveled last night in the direction of those who see immigration, with delusional clarity, as entirely a problem of barricades and bad guys.

Obviously, they're trying to confuse their readers about legal immigration vs the illegal variety.

His plan to deploy "up to 6,000" National Guard troops to free the Border Patrol to hunt illegal immigrants is a model of stark simplicity, one sure to hearten the Minuteman vigilantes, frightened conspiracy theorists, English-only Latinophobes, right-wing radio and TV personalities, and members of Congress who have no patience for sorting out the various and mixed blessings that surging immigration has given this country...

Thankfully, there are papers like the NYT that can see clearly about this issue, unlike those scared, fear-stricken people who want to enforce our laws. Note also the use the loaded term "hunt" to describe the lawful actions of the Border Patrol. The Mexican government uses similar terms to the ones used by the NYT.

And, while "surging immigration" has certainly given many people benefits, it's largely accrued to those who employ them. For instance, as greenskeepers.

He denounced "amnesty" again, but did not speak up forcefully enough for a citizenship path for the 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants who, in huge national marches in recent weeks, have made their hunger to assimilate powerfully clear.

Bush supports amnesty. The NYT is apparently unwilling to admit that Bush is on their side. And, of course, waving the flag of Mexico, shouting racial slogans, and proclaiming this as your "homeland" is a great way to show that you have a deep hunger to assimilate.

It does not ennoble our democratic experiment by importing a second-class society of worker bees who are vulnerable to exploitation and have little incentive to adopt our values.

In article after article and editorial after editorial the New York Times has supported illegal immigration. And, the bill they support would encourage millions more illegal aliens to come here. Either they can't think things through, or they fully support a "second-class society of worker bees".

If there must be guest workers, there must also be a path so they, too, can seek citizenship if they choose.

Lewis Carroll would be proud of that sentence. If they can stay here, then they aren't "guests", right?

It is still possible that a good bill will emerge this year, but only if Democrats and moderate Republicans hold firm to protect the fragile flame of good sense against the deter-and-deport crowd.

What exactly is the NYT's issue with "deter-and-deport"? Aren't those necessary functions of a sovereign nation? And, won't those be required even if the NYT's dream legislation passes?

In fact, earlier in the piece they claim that Kennedy-McCain would "tighten the enforcement of immigration laws in the workplace". Isn't that used as a form of deterrence? And, what happens to those illegal aliens who are detained in workplace sweeps?

Exactly how serious is the NYT about the "reform" it supports? If they mock the enforcement of our current laws, what makes anyone think they won't do the same thing about those who want to enforce their dream laws?

Posted to Immigration at 10:43 PM | Comments (7)

Live-blogging Bush's immigration speech

Is he insane? This is the same speech he's delivered countless times. Does he expect a different result? Is he intentionally trying to drive his popularity down to 20%?

For decades, the United States has not been in complete control of its borders... First, the United States must secure its borders. This is a basic responsibility of a sovereign Nation.

Bush has had over five years to secure the border, and it's been well within his ability all that time. It's a matter of will and nothing more. In this speech, he's admitted that he's violated his oath of office.

We are a Nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a Nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals – America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time.

Yes, that's why we have an immigration system, complete with a set of laws that the Bush administration refuses to enforce.

And temporary workers must return to their home country at the conclusion of their stay.

How exactly is Bush going to do that? If he almost completely refuses to deport people other than at the border now, is he - or President Clinton - going to do that? And, of course, our "temporary" workers/"guests" will have U.S. citizen children, they'll buy property, and so forth. Isn't it going to be extremely difficult to deport someone who has U.S. citizen children? In fact, another argument used in his speech could be used by Bush or others to keep those "guest" workers here:

That middle ground recognizes that there are differences between an illegal immigrant who crossed the border recently – and someone who has worked here for many years, and has a home, a family, and an otherwise clean record.

In other words, there's a deep conflict within the same speech.

There is a rational middle ground between granting an automatic path to citizenship for every illegal immigrant, and a program of mass deportation.

Obviously, that's a false choice, and the rational middle ground is not amnesty. It's simply enforcing our laws.

The absolute idiots at the WaPo offer "On Immigration, Bush Seeks 'Middle Ground'". They do not explain that that "middle ground" is based on the false choice described above.

---
On a lighter note, here's a fun game of mix and match:

1. "A Very Good Start --Finally."
2. "Shut up whiners"
3. "...his plan is the right plan in all respects..."
4. "If you think that is amnesty, then you are either a moron or a liar. If you ar truly a Republican to begin with, if you are truly a conservative, then you will applaud this speech and support the reforms he has articulated. Otherwise, you are not a Republican. You are not a conservative. You are a LIAR. A LIAR"

A. Hugh Hewitt
B. "MacsMind"
C. BlogsForBush (Mark Noonan)
D. The unhinged BushBot Alexander K. McClure at Polipundit

Answer: 1A, 2B, 3C, 4D
---

Bush doesn't really have a complete plan, just outlines. But he has spoken favorably of the Senate plan. Now, see Senate Bill Would Allow 100 Million New Legal Immigrants Over Next 20 Years.

If you don't want that, contact your senators.

---
UPDATE: Hugh Hewitt momentarily puts a finger outside the reservation for a millisecond:

My interview with Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Julie Myers staggered me, undoing in a handful of minutes my confidence in the president's commitment to border security first. Either the president's team had not communicated effectively with sub-cabinet appointees about the fence, or the president doesn't really believe in the fence, because Assistant Secretary Myers is clearly not a proponent of the fence.

UPDATE 2: See also "Did these ploys sneak into Bush's speech?" That was written before the speech.

Posted to Immigration at 05:02 PM | Comments (3)

Bush/Senate plan: 80 to 217 million more legal immigrants by 2026

From this:

U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) today unveiled an impact analysis that shows the Senate immigration bill – should it become law – would permit up to 217.1 million new legal immigrants into the United States over the next 20 years, a number equal to 66 percent of the total current population of the United States.

Even if the maximum levels are not reached, the increase to the U.S. population caused by S. 2611 will be at least 78.7 million in 20 years, just over 25 percent of the total current population. This lower estimate assumes that the bill's escalating caps on certain visas will not increase at all over the next 20 years; if the bill's caps are hit each year, the total number will be the higher estimate.

Posted to Immigration at 10:44 AM | Comments (3)

More on Bush's big immigration speech

At this point in time, the biggest question about his upcoming speech is "why?" Since he's apparently going to say the exact same things he's said before - with one slight addition - why is he bothering to give a speech that will just make even more Americans distrust anything he says? His attempts to sell America on amnesty have failed miserably so far, and nothing he can say is going to change that.

The only addition is an apparent Rove-inspired plan to put the National Guard on the border. Apparently that would consist of him supporting a bill by Rep. Virgil H. Goode Jr. [R-VA]. As pointed out here, each NG soldier would have to have a Border Patrol "buddy", they'd have little authority, and the plan would only last one year.

While few U.S. citizens will take Bush's ploy seriously, Vicente Fox has gotten scared enough to verify that Bush is still on his side:

Mexican President Vicente Fox telephoned President Bush on Sunday to express his concern about what he called the possibility of a "militarized" border between the two nations.

According to Fox's office, Bush told his Mexican counterpart he was considering sending the National Guard to the border but said this did not constitute a militarization.

...A White House official told The Associated Press on Sunday that Bush will call for thousands of National Guard troops to be deployed along the Mexico border in support of patrols aimed at keeping out illegal immigrants.

...The official spoke on a condition of anonymity before Bush's expected address on the topic on Monday. The official would not say how many troops Bush wanted to use, except that it would be in the thousands but less than an estimate of as many as 10,000 being discussed at the Pentagon.

..."In the conversation, President Bush reiterated his conviction that the migration issue can only be resolved with an integral and comprehensive reform," the [Mexican news release] said...

And:

"The president made clear that the United States considers Mexico a friend and that what is being considered is not militarization of the border, but support of border patrol capabilities on a temporary basis by National Guard personnel," White House spokeswoman Maria Tamburri said, describing a telephone conversation between Bush and his Mexican counterpart.

Note also that the AP is already getting their point of view out there: "Border Security Plan Worries Texas Town".

Posted to Immigration at 05:44 AM | Comments (4)

Rev. Allan Ramirez helps block radio parody

From this:

Served over the airways at WBAB Radio in Babylon, critics of a parody that include the words "no green cards, just right" call the song an un-appetizing array of insults and slurs...

"I felt insulted," said Reverend Allan Ramirez of the Brookville Reformed Church. "I felt that I was being treated as less than human."

The parody, played on the popular Long Island radio talk show, Roger and JP on WBAB, is a fake minute-long commercial...

The d-j's insist they never intended to offend anyone. In fact, one of the hosts, John Parise, himself of Hispanic descent, says it's one of many parodies the duo plays on its morning radio show, titles which include "Brokeback Steakhouse" and "My Immigration", a parody of the popular Who song, "My Generation."

More obsequiousness and outright groveling at the link. I haven't heard the song and I don't know where it came from. However, many similar parodies are produced by companies that specialize in that sort of thing. I highly doubt that anything that a normal person would consider racist would be provided by those services.

Rather, I'm going to assume that this is just a power play, and one perpetrated with the apparent assistance of someone with a quite interesting link.

As the second link shows, during the fight to prevent illegal alien clown houses, that Reverend was called a "friend" by Mexican consul Arturo Sarukhan:

"They are my friends and they have done a fantastic job in defending the day laborers."

Posted to Immigration at 02:49 AM | Comments (3)

AVWatch: James Sterngold helps Villaraigosa hide extremist side

That S.F. Chronicle staff writer offers "Immigration rallies force L.A. mayor into political tight spot: Villaraigosa backs away from image as single-issue leader"

In a long, late afternoon conversation in his office, Villaraigosa, 53, often pausing to collect his thoughts, said he fears that his conspicuous involvement may make him vulnerable to being branded a one-issue politician, aligned with one community.

He doesn't really have to worry, now does he? After all, he's only been a former member of the racial separatist group MEChA for over three decades, and due to the MSM - largely the L.A. Times - covering up for him that hasn't affected him all that much. Even when he was forced to somewhat renounce that group by one guy carrying a sign to his campaign appearances, the L.A. Times didn't cover it. After all, in their world it didn't exist.

But while a supporter of immigrant rights, Villaraigosa has been careful not to align himself with some of the more forceful demands and actions of the rights movement.

In 1999, AV had this to say:

"As leader of the state Assembly, I say President Zedillo [of Mexico] had great impact in defeating Proposition 187"

This time around, he appears not to have welcomed Vicente Fox to Los Angeles, nor has he joined Fox in starting the Chicano Power handclap on the floor of the California Assembly as he did with Zedillo. He's learning!

Then, James Sterngold turns this into even more of a fawning profile, implicitly tarring the only opponent quoted in the speech as - what else - a nativist and a racist. Taking the cue as he has before, Tony plays the victim card:

One complication, Villaraigosa said, is that his position on immigration reform has been distorted, leaving him vulnerable to charges that he is pandering.

He said he has consistently backed firm border control and the need for immigrants to learn English, yet has been characterized merely as "pro-immigrant," suggesting he wants the border left more or less open.

Barbara Coe, chairwoman of the California Coalition for Immigration Reform and a staunch opponent of providing rights to illegal immigrants, said that in her view, and in the view of people like her, Villaraigosa endorsed lawlessness, plain and simple.

"He only represents one ethnicity and not all the citizens of the city," Coe said. "He's pandering. He feels he's going to ride the tide of the illegal aliens in Los Angeles."

The mayor said he is aware of such criticisms, and he makes clear he finds them objectionable. Asked if he fears that opposition to the immigrant rights movement could be shadowed by nativism or racism, he replied:

"I know what you're getting at, and I'll say this: You take the world as it is. I don't spend a lot of time focusing on that."

If you'd like to suggest that the author does a better job next time, write: jsterngold@sfchronicle.com

Posted to Los_Angeles at 08:34 PM | Comments (1)

Bush immigration speech May 15

UPDATE: Comments on the speech here. --- I'll update this post with comments on the speech after Bush delivers it to the Americans.

In the meantime, here's a preview:

Dear Americans:

I would like to speak to you tonight about the immigration crisis. As you know, millions of good-hearted, hard-working people are trying to cross our borders just to put food on their table. They're just trying to feed their children. They're just coming here to work. They take jobs Americans won't do...

...Therefore, as a way of pulling the wool over the eyes of the one-quarter of you Americans who still believe anything I say, I will be stationing the National Guard at the border. This should make you gullible Americans think I'm doing something... and I am!

See, there's a huge underground market with "cay o tees" as they call them. Our National Guard troops will be used to undercut those "cay o tees" and remove their market. Our troops will be helping those good-hearted immigrants in case they get lost on their way to Phoenix or Los Angeles...

Posted to Immigration at 10:38 AM | Comments (7)

Frist, Reid reach deal on illegal alien amnesty; contact the Senate

The Senate has decided to move forward with its massive illegal alien amnesty. Details here and here.

Please contact a Senator or two and let them know what you think.

One worthy candidate is Dick Durbin, who had this to say:

These [illegal immigration marches] 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.

You can reach him at (202) 224-2152. Perhaps you could ask his staff to explain the use of the word "we" in the quote above. Is his really siding with foreign citizens against the wishes of the vast majority of Americans?

Another option is Harry Reid at 202-224-3542. Perhaps you could ask his staff why, when given a choice between what U.S. citizens want and what foreign citizens want, he tends to choose the latter group.

And, of course, there's Bill Frist at 202-224-3344.

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

UPDATE: From the article "Migration deal seen as positive measure":

The [Mexican] Foreign Relations Secretariat said in a statement Thursday afternoon that the deal is a "positive step toward the approval of a migration accord." Mexico also will uphold its responsibility in securing its border with the United States, the news release said.

Posted to Immigration at 05:49 AM | Comments (5)

Karl Rove supporting putting troops on the border

Earlier today the House voted to let the Pentagon put troops on the border in certain cases. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), this looks like 'boob bait for Bubba':

"The Texas delegation is very concerned about the border and are pushing urgency," said Rep. Kevin Brady, R-Texas, who joined other Texas Republicans in a meeting with [Karl] Rove this week. He said Rove was "very forthright" about border projects that Homeland Security is starting up, its current projects and what the needs are.

The only "need" the Bush administration is interested in is looking tough in order to keep from falling even lower in popularity, while at the same time actually doing nothing or even making it easier for illegal aliens to enter the country.

Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano said the military help "is basically what she has been asking for," spokeswoman Jeanine L'Ecuyer said. Napolitano has been asking the Pentagon to send more National Guard troops — but not regular military — to confont illegal immigration from Mexico. About 170 National Guard troops are helping in such efforts in the state now.

If you think Napolitano is in favor of reducing illegal immigration, raise your hand.

Under the Civil War-era Posse Comitatus Act, federal troops are prohibited from performing law enforcement actions, such as making arrests, seizing property or searching people. In extreme cases, however, the president can invoke the Insurrection Act, also from the Civil War, which allows him to use active-duty or National Guard troops for law enforcement.

That is indeed one of the very major downsides of this plan. In fact, this might be an attempt by some to grant more powers to the military rather than the stated purpose. It would be much better if the government could start doing workplace enforcement on a regular basis, and in that case any discussion of the Posse Comitatus Act wouldn't be necessary.

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

"Dobbs to President: Do you take us for fools?"

Lou Dobbs:

President Bush continues to push his guest worker program and amnesty for anywhere between 11 million and 20 million illegal aliens, and he insists still that nothing less than what he calls comprehensive immigration reform is acceptable.

And the lies keep coming from both political parties. This president is not enforcing the immigration laws enacted by Congress, and this Congress is failing in its duty of oversight to demand that those laws be followed.

Only a fool, Mr. President, Sen. Kennedy, Sen. McCain, would believe you when you speak of new legislation. You don't enforce the laws now.

Posted to Immigration at 01:19 PM | Comments (5)

Illegal immigration and "equitable estoppel"

The left-wing screed "Undocumented Immigrants Have The Right To Stay Here" is only highlighted here as an example of what might happen if we continue to allow politicians to refuse to enforce our laws:

I maintain that undocumented immigrants have the right to stay, and probably the right to citizenship as well...

...The US de jure immigration policy forbids entry and work here without formal permission and official documentation.

The US de facto immigration policy has for decades allowed entry and work here without formal permission and official documentation.

The concept of equitable estoppel bars our government from now adopting a position that contradicts the de facto immigration policy, because that contradictory stance would be unfair to the undocumented immigrants who relied on the de facto policy.

I'm not saying the doctrine of equitable estoppel is enforceable in a court of law on behalf of undocumented immigrants...

But, no doubt some corrupted and/or far-left lawyers are no doubt looking into something similar. And, recall that a couple of years ago the U.S. was sued by Mexico in the International Court of Justice. And, recall that the U.N. is very much in favor of illegal immigration from poorer countries to richer countries.

Posted to Immigration at 10:45 AM | Comments (4)

Senate to resume trying to pass illegal alien amnesty

The AP reports that the Senate will spend the next two weeks trying to pass their massive illegal alien amnesty bill.

About 99% of the time this site takes issue with the AP's biased reportage, but this is not one of those times:

...Senate Democrats have expressed fears that protections for illegal immigrants will be sacrificed in the negotiations... Reid has insisted that once the bill is passed, those who support protecting illegal immigrants from deportation must control the Senate team that will negotiate with the House in conference in developing a final bill.

Reid and the other Senate Democrats are not trying to protect the legal rights of those illegal aliens. They're explicitly trying to give those illegal aliens rights to which they aren't entitled. They're explicitly trying to "protect" illegal aliens from deportation.

At its highest levels the Democratic Party fully supports illegal immigration. They are willing to give more weight to the demands of foreign citizens than to the demands of those they claim to represent.

Please choose a Senator or two and give them a call with your thoughts. The main Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or (888) 355-3588. You can also send free FAXes here.

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

Maricopa County Attorney: Mexico trying to block Arizona law

Andrew Thomas, the Maricopa County Attorney (Phoenix), is trying to prosecute a coyote and 48 illegal aliens. However, his attempts have resulted in a legal challenge apparently directed by the government of Mexico:

In a letter of protest to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, County Attorney Andrew Thomas today accused the government of Mexico of interfering in the internal affairs of Arizona by attempting to void Arizona’s Human Smuggling statute, which was enacted by a bipartisan majority of legislators and signed into law by Governor Janet Napolitano.

In an attempt to undermine Arizona law Los Angeles lawyer Peter Schey, at the request of Carlos Flores-Vizcarra, Consul General of Mexico, has filed legal motions intended to thwart the prosecution of a "coyote" and 48 illegal immigrant conspirators arrested by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office on March 2, 2006. If this attempt by the Mexican Government succeeds, Thomas noted, the citizens of the State of Arizona will be deprived of their right to uphold public order and to protect themselves against the Mexican government's systematic, unlawful export of humanity into the state.

From the PDF file with the letter:

Dear Secretary Rice:

This letter is to request respectfully that the U.S. Department of State lodge a formal protest with the government of Mexico for its covert attempt to dismantle a new law in Arizona designed to combat illegal immigration and, specifically, human smuggling... I am charged with prosecuting those who violate Arizona's new anti-smuggling law or so-called coyote law, A.R.S. § 13-2319. I write because the Mexican government, through allied legal counsel, is seeking to nullify this new law by organizing and possibly underwriting the legal defense efforts of criminal defendants currently under indictment for violation of this statute.

...On March 9, 2006, I received a letter from Carlos Flores-Vizcarra, Consul General of Mexico in Phoenix, questioning these prosecutions. He also requested that I present certain evidence before the Maricopa County grand jury. In a letter dated March 24, 2006, I responded to Mr. Flores-Vizcarra... I noted that his attempt to "instruct this office on how to present evidence before the grand jury is presumptuous and highly troubling," coming as it did from "a foreign government that actively encourages illegal immigration to the United States..."

...On May 4, 2006, in their coverage of my office's prosecutions of smuggling cases, the Arizona Republic and other media sources reported that attorneys at the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, based in Los Angeles, California, had been "brought into the case by the Mexican Consul General’s Office in Phoenix." ...The Arizona Republic article quoted Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law as preparing to mount legal challenges to prosecutions made under the coyote statute.

On May 5, 2006, Mr. Schey and his office filed motions to dismiss the charges brought against illegal immigrants indicted for being co-conspirators. One motion claims that Arizona's coyote statute "amounts to an attempt to regulate immigration, conflicts with federal immigration law, and injects the State into a field fully occupied by federal law." Accordingly, the motion argues that the courts should invalidate the coyote statute...

...I have taken the unusual step of writing to you and asking for your assistance because of the important stakes involved in this dispute, and the circumstances of this challenge to Arizona's laws. Under our constitutional system of government, the people of Arizona have the right to uphold public order and to protect themselves, through the state's criminal justice system, against the Mexican government's systematic, unlawful export of humanity into the state and nation. As it now stands, a foreign government is directly challenging the rights of the people of Arizona as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. Admittedly, given the Mexican government's frequent complaints that the United States interferes in the sovereignty of Mexican affairs (often simply because of American attempts to curb illegal immigration from that country), the Mexican government's efforts to nullify duly enacted state laws in this nation are highly ironic. Yet that is the current state of affairs...

Unfortunately, nothing in that letter will cause Condi or the Bush administration to do anything. He did copy it to several Congressmen, so perhaps they just might be able to get the State Department to issue some lukewarm statement. Then, of course, they'll go back to in effect helping Mexico with their agenda.

Note also that this attempt seems to be in line with the proposals from Schey which can be found at Mexico's website: portal.sre.gob.mx/ime/pdf/IV.8_Anexo.pdf

Posted to Immigration at 04:54 AM | Comments (0)

John McCain wants to know why he's wrong about illegal immigration

One good way to reduce illegal immigration - or at least try to stop an amnesty - would be if Americans would go to appearances by politicians and ask them tough questions. Then, make sure that the question and the answer are publicized.

As an example, think what would have happened if someone had asked a difficult question during this April 7 New Hampshire appearance by Sen. John McCain (via this).

He informs his nearly-silent listeners that "our borders are broken, they are not under our control... the first obligation of every government is to enforce our borders." Then, he promotes his "guest" worker scheme.

Then, he lies. He offers a false choice, saying that we only have three possibilities:
1. The status quo with its associated abuses.
2. "Just send them all back." He even references George Will's similar false choice argument.
3. Pass Kennedy-McCain, which he informs isn't amnesty.

Then, he repeats a couple times, "if you have a better plan, let me know."

Someone apparently tried to chime in, but McCain said he wanted to finish. It's not known whether that person was able to say anything and what it was, but if it was me I would have asked something like:

"You forgot the fourth option: simply enforce our current laws. That will encourage millions of illegal aliens not to come here, and millions who are here now to leave. And, it's your job to make sure that our laws are being enforced. Since you say that 'the first obligation of every government is to enforce our borders', it should be clear to anyone that our government is not doing its job, despite that being well within its powers. Furthermore, if you aren't enforcing the laws now, why should we believe you when you say you'll enforce the new laws?"

It needs a little work, but since John McCain wants your input, please go to his appearances and try to ask him something similar.

Posted to Immigration at 02:38 AM | Comments (2)

Bush admin ratting out Minuteman Project, Part 2

The Bush administration is giving the Mexican government information on law-abiding domestic border watch groups operating inside the U.S.

The claims and denials fall into three general categories:

1. The U.S. government is simply abiding by the letter of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (overview here).

2. The U.S. government is going further than that and giving Mexico background information on apprehensions made by the Border Patrol or other groups or individuals. That would allow that country to map out the locations of border watch groups if they were involved in the detentions in some way.

3. The U.S. government is going even further than that and providing Mexico with intelligence (aka opposition research) on various border watch groups.

#1 above is not disputed. Moreover - dare I say it - DHS apologist Russ Knocke tells the author of the link in #1 that that's all they do:

Mr. Knocke explained that, if an alien asserts his consular notification rights under the treaty, DHS notifies Mexico about the facts of the violation of the immigration laws – generally speaking, the time and location of apprehension.

I specifically asked him whether DHS informs Mexico if the detention of an alien was the result of a tip to the Border Patrol by a civilian volunteer, such as one of the Minutemen. Knocke replied that DHS does not do that; such information is considered law enforcement sensitive, and is not called for by the notification process...

However, as pointed out in the previous post, his statement is a bit difficult to square with a statement in the original article from USCBP spokesman Mario Martinez.

And, here's reporter Sara Carter:

[The DHS' Kristi Clemons] did not deny my story or what Mario Martinez told me. What she did say was that I didn't get the whole story in the report -- she was refering to the Vienna Convention on the treatment of detainees. I asked her to give me details on what areas of my story were inaccurate and she said only that the information on Vienna Convention was not mentioned.

As for choice #3, that claim seems to be based on some of the information in the document on Mexico's website that lists MMP activities in various states. While there is certainly the possibility that that came from the administration, there are other possibilities. For instance, I can think of three Illinois groups that would probably not consider it beyond the pale to provide information to Mexico. Or they could have obtained it through public sources. I haven't seen detailed reports, such as with the names of members.

However, note this from Carter's followup "Officials disclaim Bulletin 'tipping' report":

Some of the information cited in the Mexican document originally was given only to U.S. Border Patrol and law enforcement officials, border watch organizers said.

"Nobody but law enforcement and Border Patrol knew where we were at," said Andy Ramirez, chairman of the Chino-based nonprofit group Friends of the Border Patrol. "So how is our base address on a Mexican government document dated last August? Nobody, not even media, had this information."

Ramirez said he revealed the location of his base camp only to local and federal officials. The Mexican document gives the exact location of his group's site, which was on private property near San Diego.

There are several possibilities. Someone in his group, a ranch neighbor, or even a member of one of those agencies could be not who they say they are. Or, Mexico obtained it after the fact. Or, it was given to Mexico by someone inside our government.

Hopefully some group that can be somewhat trusted will look into this. In fact, Congressmen Jack Kingston, John Doolittle, Marsha Blackburn, and Ric Kellerare are asking for an investigation:

We are familiar with the U.S. Customs and Border Protection's statement (05/09/2006) responding to this allegation. However, it is our opinion that this press release falls short of clarifying this situation fully which could put American lives at risk.

In order to better understand the U.S. Border Patrol's role in this issue, we respectfully ask that your agency fully investigate the allegation and report your findings back to us.

On a lighter note, here's the BushBot response.

UPDATE: Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA), Darryl Issa, (R-CA), and John Culberson (R-TX) have sent a letter of their own asking for an investigation.

Posted to Immigration at 10:51 PM | Comments (0)

Will the Bush administration reporting on Minuteman Project lead to impeachment?

One can only hope. While treason is narrowly defined, if the Bush administration has indeed been giving the Mexican government information on law-abiding U.S. groups operating inside the U.S. that doesn't relate to specific Mexican nationals, they have committed treason in the general if not the Constitutional sense. We should give the Mexican government information on their nationals who have been detained or who have had encounters with border watch groups. However, providing that government with the locations of those groups - or even with opposition research - is crossing the line into colluding with a foreign government.

And, of course, the Democrats won't be able to add 2+2 in this case, just as they can't do the math in all similar cases. Their complaints about corruption fall on deaf ears because they support corruption when it involves illegal immigration; they complain about domestic spying but will refuse to discuss this case. If they had opposed illegal immigration in 2004 Kerry would have been elected president. And, if they came out strongly against illegal immigration in general and the current case in particular, they could pick up millions of new votes. The problem, of course, is that the Democratic leadership is about as American as the GOP leadership. It is truly tragic that the U.S. cannot have at least one political party that represents U.S. interests rather than selling them out.

The original report on the collaboration is in Mexico kept in loop: Border Patrol giving Minuteman locations.

The MMP responds here and here, promising even more information to come.

The BP responds in "Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Inaccurate" ( cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/highlights/news_highlights/statement05092006.xml ). However, their denials are to a great extent contradicted by statements in the SBSun article:

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection spokesman confirmed the notification process, describing it as a standard procedure meant to reassure the Mexican government that immigrants' rights are being observed.

"It's not a secret where the Minuteman volunteers are going to be," Mario Martinez said Monday.

Rep. Tom Tancredo responds here:

"The Minutemen haven't been accused of breaking the law. Quite the contrary - they have gone out of their way to aid law enforcement and ensure the safety of our border. The U.S. government has no grounds upon which to stifle the Minutemen's constitutional right to organize," Tancredo concluded. "I want to know the legal basis for CBP informing a foreign government of the activities of private citizens who are obeying the law."

The AP offers a roundup in "U.S. notifying Mexico of some civilian border patrol acts".

Some of the following may be the pages from which the SBSun report was derived:

sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte3.htm
sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte1.htm
sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/masinformacion.htm
sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte2.htm
sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/resolucion.htm

There are thousands more mentioning the MMP, so feel free to start searching.

The first of those above mentions Griffen and also implies that Mexico was successful in shutting down Bonner's civilian border patrol proposal:

Como respuesta, la tarde del propio 21 de julio el Departamento de Seguridad Interna de Estados Unidos expreso, a traves de un comunicado de prensa, que las declaraciones del Comisionado Bonner no representaban una posicion oficial.

And, on a somewhat related note, see this report from the CHCRL: portal.sre.gob.mx/ime/pdf/IV.8_Anexo.pdf It proposes ways that the Mexican government can oppose the MMP and similar groups, including spreading opposition research to domestic groups.

UPDATE: More impeachment talk. More on the situation here.

There's audio of Chris Simcox discussing the situation here. The MMP links to the sre.gob.mx/eventos/minuteman/reporte3.htm above, saying:

Widespread reports yesterday of the U.S. Border Patrol reporting locations of Minuteman activities along the border have now broadened in scope. The reports obtained from the Mexican government include an August 2005 document, "Third Report on the Activities of Vigilantes" -- posted on Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations Web site -- suggest U.S. officials were giving out more details than required by the Vienna Convention. Part of that information included reports on activities in the interior United States in locations such as Illinois, Nevada, Utah, Massachusetts and Tennessee.

UPDATE 2: Here's Part 2.

Posted to Immigration at 04:32 AM | Comments (28)

"I am an American" campaign

A new website "I am a proud American" (iamaproudamerican.com) seeks to counteract stereotypes about Latinos. For instance, they've produced a "short film":

In one, a Hispanic man is mowing the lawn of a giant home in an affluent neighborhood. A blonde pulls up in a BMW and asks the man how much he charges to landscape the home.

He replies, "Why would I charge to landscape my own yard?" An on- screen message appears: "I am an American."

Blondes, presumably of the "Anglo" variety? BMWs? Now there's a stereotype they should explore. And, they apparently got this from an old joke.

The person behind this is Bettina Nava, a former worker for America's own John McCain. Whether the site has been done with his assistance or with the assistance of any business groups isn't known. What is known is that while they don't appear to be in the far-left category, they more or less support endless chain migration by one ethnic group ( iamaproudamerican.com/proudamerican ):

We cannot support unrealistic measures that would return our family members, friends and colleagues back to their country of origin.

Apparently our new immigration laws will include a provision that anyone who makes it across the border gets to stay, just as long as they have family members, friends or colleagues here.

For decades, it has been against the law to work here illegally; ironically, it has not been illegal for business to hire a worker without legal status.

I'm pretty sure that's incorrect.

On a lighter note, doesn't the middle model look an awful like the model at the site for Second Federal Savings? Are they using the same clipart collection?

Posted to Immigration at 10:41 AM | Comments (4)

"Illegal Immigration, the Catholic Bishops, and the Misuse of Scripture"

This post has more on the titular subject.

Posted to Immigration at 09:21 AM | Comments (1)

Banks worried about being called felons just because they may have aided and abetted illegal aliens

The Chicago Tribune's "Immigrant bill worries banks" from Becky Yerak informs us that officers of banks that give home loans to illegal aliens are worried about being named as felons if HR4437 passes.

As discussed below [1], if a bank knows that someone is here illegally, and then gives them a home loan that allows them to stay here illegally, hasn't that bank committed a felony under current law?

For reasons that I completely, absolutely cannot understand, Yerak didn't look into that side of things. She didn't, for instance, ask legal experts to weigh in. In fact, that paper covers this from the angle of the banks as the victims:

Headquartered in the heart of Chicago's Little Village neighborhood since the late 1800s, Second Federal Savings isn't shy about marketing itself to immigrants.

On the home page of its Web site, a link directs undocumented immigrants to a program that can help them become homeowners.

Indeed it does. In fact, this is the first paragraph of that page ( secondfederal.com/sdf/aboutus.aspx?pid=itinLoanProgram ):

Unique loan program helps undocumented immigrants to buy homes Second Federal has pioneered the Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) Loan Program, an innovative mortgage-lending program to help undocumented members of our community to get off the rent rolls and into home ownership.

I have to believe one of three things: either that bank has consulted lawyers and has determined that explicitly promoting giving loans to illegal aliens is not a violation of our laws, or they think the use of "undocumented" rather than "illegal alien" is defensible, or that bank knows that our politicians and prosecutors are willing to look the other way.

That page continues:

We have developed strong partnerships with the Chicago office of the Mexican Consulate and regional Latino brokers who cater to the Mexican/Latino community. Second Federal also participates in the New Alliance Task Force, a Chicago/Milwaukee coalition of bank representatives, regulators and nonprofit service organizations. Through our involvement in the coalition, we have led the way in the financial services industry with regard to ground-breaking loan programs using alternative IDs such as Matriculas and ITINs. The Matricula is an alternative form of identification issued by the Mexican Consulate to Mexican nationals living in the United States, regardless of their legal status.

It seems our leaders may have given their imprimatur to this scheme.

The article continues:

Particularly worrisome to financial institutions serving undocumented individuals is a bill sponsored by U.S. Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., and recently approved by the House that would make it a crime for any person or business to help illegal immigrants.

Some bankers worry that such a law could end up making a criminal out of any institution making loans to illegal immigrants. Homeownership should be encouraged to stabilize a community, they say.

One banker worries that if the U.S. government plays hardball with immigrants, then hostilities could erupt in the United States, just as they did recently in France.

I'm sure he's thinking of what's best for the U.S. and not just for what's best for his pocket book.

If you live in Illinois, could you please contact all your representatives and urge them to look into what this bank is doing? Let's make an example of Second Federal Savings.

[1] "New South Federal Savings Bank... and RICO?" concerns a different bank with a similar program:

"What this bank is doing is a clear violation of the U.S. Immigration and Nationality Act," said Craig Nelsen, executive director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement... [FILE] is threatening to use the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) to file a civil damages lawsuit against the bank...

The FILE letter contains this:

It is very likely a court would find the issuance of a mortgage under your new program to be a criminal violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324 (Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens), which makes it a felony to encourage an alien to reside in the United States knowing that such residence is in violation of law. §1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) It is hard to imagine any court taking seriously a claim that helping an illegal alien buy a house situated inside the United States isn't knowingly encouraging the illegal alien to reside illegally in the United States.

Posted to Immigration at 05:32 AM | Comments (5)

Shhh! Illegal aliens to "Surround The Whitehouse" on May 19

According to this, there will be yet another illegal immigration march in Washington DC on May 19, but this will have an interesting twist. They intend to "surround" the White House as part of their rally. While I haven't confirmed that, he says he heard it on Azteca America, a cable channel in Spanish. The ownership of this station is from Mexico.

I agree with the link that the protesters should bring as many Mexican and other non-U.S. flags as possible. Make sure and bring those nifty "this is my homeland" banners too, along with that big red "International Socialist Organization" banner. But, whatever you do don't alert them beforehand, lest they order even more U.S. flags for the event.

As for why they'd be surrounding the White House, surely they must realize that Bush is on the same side as they are, right? Perhaps he'll even send out "P." to do a meet and greet.

Posted to Immigration at 09:36 PM | Comments (4)

Senate wants to double legal immigration to 2 million per year

The article "Immigration bills concern some experts" says:

Three key elements of the Senate legislation raise particular concern... [1.] A permanent doubling of today's historically high levels of legal immigration, from roughly 1 million a year to 2 million a year. The provision has attracted surprisingly little attention.

While that has been covered here in the past, it's worth pointing it out again. The article has more on some of the downsides of the Senate's plan. Leaving aside the affects of their plan, if the Senate seriously considers something that's unworkable aren't they calling into question their ability to lead?

Posted to Immigration at 12:28 PM | Comments (2)

Chinese documentary predicts American downfall

From this (via this):

A China Central Television (CCTV) unit is developing an epic, fall-of-Rome-flavored documentary TV series around the theme of America in decline.

Unlike the crude state-sponsored videos that glorified the September 11 terrorist attacks as a humiliating strike against an arrogant superpower, the planned multipart production promises to be a slick dissection of American economic and military might...

...the producers plan to devote at least one episode to the US immigration crisis and attempt to draw historical parallels between a commonly perceived cause of the fall of ancient Rome--unchecked immigration and invasions--and the flood of illegal immigrants pouring into the United States from Mexico and Latin America...

Posted to Immigration at 10:26 AM | Comments (4)

Dear Washington Post: Appeal to Tradition is a logical fallacy

The Washington Post prints "U.S. Immigration Debate Is a Road Well Traveled" by staff writer Michael Powell. Apparently he's unfamiliar with logical fallacies, because the whole article is one long example of "Appeal to Tradition" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition).

His slice o' propaganda posits that because the U.S. has admitted millions of immigrants in the past there's no difference between then and now. The same arguments were made a hundred years ago as are made today (or so he claims).

What he fails to recognize is the significant differences between today's immigration and that of yesteryear. If the underlying situation changes, then the fact that past immigration worked out doesn't imply that the current immigration will.

But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term "illegal immigrant" had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them.

And, of course, many "new arrivals" today simply sneak over the border. There's no proof of identity required, because there's no one on our side asking them for it. And, with current illegal immigration there isn't any kind of sponsor involved.

Perhaps in a future attempt to promote illegal immigration the WaPo could outline some of the differences between then and now:

1. They're from a neighboring country, meaning those "immigrants" don't have to make a clean break, they can go back and forth.

2. Related to that, past immigrants came here on ships; current immigrants can walk over.

3. Italy, Poland, Germany, and Ireland never held territory in the U.S. On the other hand, the Southwest U.S. briefly was Mexican territory. And, in a poll conducted in Mexico, 58% said that the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.

4. There wasn't a far-left, Gramscian "multiculturalism" movement a century ago.

5. There were ethnic newspapers, but nothing like today's ethnic media.

6. Immigrants who came through Ellis Island were checked for disease and suitability. And, they were pre-screened by the cruiseship companies, who were charged if someone was rejected. Nowadays, anyone can overstay their visa or just walk across.

Posted to Immigration at 03:20 AM | Comments (3)

Quetzaoceloacina, Democratic Party positions indistinguishable

There was an anti-illegal immigration protest in Santa Clara on Friday, which was counter-protested by "local La Raza representative Quetzaoceloacina" and a dozen of her friends:

"We are the indigenous people of this land. This is stolen land... You are the ones who are illegal aliens... They have the audacity to congregate on this day [May 5]... So it is our responsibility to come out here and protest against them because they represent racism, they represent white nationalism and they are the ones who've been checking our people as we cross the military border that has divided our nation... Our traditions, our culture, our diet, everything is throughout this continent... We've been traveling here for thousands and thousands of years and we've left all of our creativity here. And now they have the audacity to say we're illegal aliens? I don't think so."

According to the paper, Quetzaoceloacina believes that all immigrants should enjoy the same rights, whether they have papers or not.

All joking aside, just how much of a difference is there between her position and the effective position of the Democratic Party?

Posted to Immigration at 12:24 PM | Comments (7)

"Nativo Lopez, The Ethno-Grifter"

Nativo Lopez is one of the organizers of the May 1 illegal immigration marches. He's also with Hermandad Mexicana Nacional and he's the president of the Mexican-American Political Association (MAPA). And, he was kicked off the Santa Ana School Board for his views on bilingual education; one parent even said he wanted to make Spanish the official language of California.

And:

Apparently trying to get on camera was not Nativo's only motive to be in Los Angeles that day. Turns out he was also having people collect money from the poor immigrants, many of them being told this was to help those who may lose their jobs. In all, over $5,000 was raised from the people giving all they had out of their pockets. Of course Nativo was then given the money... After intense grilling, he finally broke down and admitted the money was going to be used to "reimburse" the costs of promoting the May 1st events. So basically he was trying to recoup the costs of promoting the event by raking money from the working poor.

One wonders what his supporters - such as Ezra Klein, the AP, and Think Progress or the Los Angeles Times - will do about this. Will they jettison "Larry" (his real name), or will they just let it blow over and then continue helping him with his work?

Posted to Immigration at 12:13 PM | Comments (3)

Chicago immigration "debate": ICIRR pulls out; far-lefties go nuts

An immigration "debate" was scheduled in Chicago yesterday, to feature the local Minuteman Project chapter squaring off against the Blagojevich-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. The later group was one of the sponsors of the March 10 rally which was also organized by someone linked to the Mexican government.

At the last moment, ICIRR pulled out, but organizers tried to continue the meeting with a Q&A session. However, that ended in 10 minutes after the crowd got out of hand. From the CBS 2 report, you might be left wondering what all was involved.

Then, you realize that since CBS 2 doesn't mention any particulars, it must have been the illegal immigration supporters that started the unruly behavior. Then, you find this first-person report complete with pictures of the far-lefties outside, some of whom were apparently inside the church causing a disturbance:

The visiting pastor tried to calm everyone down, as did several other people who were attempting to keep order. People started chanting and stomping.

"Hit the road! Hit the trail! Racist Minutemen go to Hell!"

Things just went dowhill from there. It got louder and more unruly. The news cameras whirred away, the cameramen turning this way and that as various people stood up to should above the melee. The pastor and other leaders tried in vain to quiet the gathering. The cops started looking concerned. The crowd changed chants.

"The cops, the courts, the Minutemen -- all a part of the boss's plan!"

That last one is so sweet I'm going to have to save that and use it again and again. I think we have a pretty good idea of the political orientation of those who started the problem, and I think we can understand now why CBS 2 wouldn't want to disclose to their viewers who was involved.

UPDATE: There's a followup here.

And, from this report:

"No free speech for terrorists!" chanted the demonstrators...

..."They have to know that their racist ideas are not going to be tolerated," said protestor Maria Melquiades of Chicago. "Racism kills. You don't debate racism," she said.

"All immigrants are welcomed and Minutemen are not," said protestor John Eriksen of Chicago. "Where they are, they need to be shouted down because they are racists and Nazis," he added.

The forum had to be cancelled when police were called in to disperse the protestors. Officers arrested one demonstrator for disorderly conduct.

...A statement released by [ICIRR] read: "Our organization has no interest whatsoever in contributing to an event in which people could be hurt and that allows extremists to vent their hatred or that further exacerbates tensions at a time when our nation is interested in solutions. We have always welcomed debate with those with different views than ours, and will continue to do so. But we reject needless provocation that may lead to people being hurt."

"I didn't see any Minutemen act up in that church," said [Rosanna Pulido, Illinois Minuteman Project Director]...

Posted to Immigration at 06:11 AM | Comments (9)

AP quotes Peter Schey, fails to mention Mexico affiliation

The AP's "Cost to Remove 12M Illegal Immigrants Huge" is a bit more balanced than we've come to expect from the AP. (The author is Martha Mendoza, and that appears to be the AP-supplied title). While they start with the Center for American Progress' "study" that features a hugely-inflated cost to remove 12 million illegal aliens, they follow it with this quote:

"Nobody is seriously proposing that, because that will require a massive infiltration of law enforcement officials and will disrupt the economy," said Sensenbrenner told CBS' "Face the Nation" this week.

And, with this:

Ira Mehlman of the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which advocates limits on immigration, said he does not believe a mass deportation "has ever been seriously suggested. It's the straw man that proponents of amnesty set out there so they can set it on fire."

Unfortunately, they then provide this:

Peter Schey, president and executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law Foundation, said it would be "absolutely absurd, impossible" to protect the legal rights of millions of people facing deportation.

The AP seems to have left a major affiliation of Mr. Schey out of that quote. As that link discusses, he's not only collaborating with the government of Mexico on the website vocesunidas.org, he's also been brought in by that government to represent their citizens who were arrested by Phoenix Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Please write feedback *at* ap.org and suggest they provide a bit more background on those who they quote.

Posted to Immigration at 02:54 AM | Comments (3)

Peter Schey working with Mexican government (Arpaio posse)

By now you've heard about Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's plan to use his posse to round up illegal aliens in the Phoenix area. The Sheriff has already arrested about 120 illegal aliens and charged them with conspiracy to smuggle themselves into the country.

What you probably haven't heard about is the lawyer who's been brought in by Mexico to defend those Arpaio has arrested. In fact, that might have been by design. Consider this intriguing paragraph from Amanda Lee Myers of the AP in "Ariz. Posse to Arrest Illegal Immigrants":

A Los Angeles attorney brought into the case last week by the Mexican Consul General's Office in Phoenix plans to file another motion claiming Maricopa County Attorney officials are violating state and federal law because it's the federal government's job to control illegal immigration.

Isn't it odd not to name the attorney? Aren't most attorney's, you know, publicity hogs?

I had to search through a few articles, but I finally found out who Mister Mysterioso Esq. is, in the Arizona Republic's "Migrants challenge smuggling charges":

On Friday, a Los Angeles attorney brought into the case by the Mexican Consul General's Office in Phoenix will file another motion to dismiss charges claiming Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas is violating state and federal law and using the conspiracy charges to control illegal immigration, which is the federal government's job...

"(Thomas) was elected to be a county prosecutor, not the head of the federal Department of Homeland Security," said Peter Schey of the LA-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

Those related links have more on Mr. Schey, whose CHRCL is collaborating with the Mexican government on a site called the "Mexico Project" at vocesunidas.org. He also argued Plyler v. Doe before the Supreme Court. Because of that case, illegal aliens are entitled to receive K-12 education and, of course, that's served as a huge magnet for illegal immigration and greatly helped give the Mexican government a safety valve for their unwanted population.

5/9/06 UPDATE: See this disturbing PDF from the CHRCL: portal.sre.gob.mx/ime/pdf/IV.8_Anexo.pdf It offers advice on how the Mexican government can fight "vigilante" groups, including doing opposition research.

And, from this:

A prosecutor seeking to convict dozens of illegal immigrants for illegally crossing into Arizona has accused the Mexican government of organizing legal efforts to dismantle a state law targeting immigrant smugglers.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas says the Mexican government has arranged for a lawyer to challenge his legal opinion that illegal immigrants suspected of using smugglers to cross into the state can be charged as conspirators.

The lawyer also argues that the state can't regulate immigration.

Thomas has asked the U-S State Department to protest the Mexican government's alleged involvement in the case.

Posted to Immigration at 09:11 PM | Comments (3)

"May Day protest organized by communists"

If you saw my long list of May Day supporters, you already know that, but there's even more here from the NYC rally.

Groups mentioned - most with photos of their signs - are:

Workers World Party
International Socialist Organization
F.I.S.T. (Fight Imperialism Stand Together)
A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition
SDS (Students for a Democratic Society)
Camp Casey (Cindy Sheehan)
Stop the War on Iran
Revolutionary Communist Party
The Catholic Church
Break the Chains Alliance

(Apparently Cindy Sheehan was there in the spirit of solidarity only.)

...At one point, a black-shirted radical climbed the George Washington Statue in Union Square to wave a Che Guevara sign before the crowd, a Mexican flag hung on the statue, flowing over his left shoulder as he shouted out defiantly. Che Guevara, the worldwide symbol for revolutionary socialism and communism, was easily grafted by the Workers World Party onto the amnesty message of this pro-illegal immigration protest.

Comfortably, the Hispanic immigration boycotters mixed Che Guevara's image and the Mexican flag to deliver the radical message: "Imperialism NO! THE PEOPLE UNITED will never be defeated." The Che Guevara poster printed by the Workers World Party called for solidarity with Iraq, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Palestine, Haiti, New Orleans, Asia and Africa.

The point of the radical left was that the "struggle for immigrant rights" was just part of an international struggle for the oppressed underclass. To underscore the point, protesters carried placards with the applicable Workers World Party slogan: "Workers' Struggles Have No Borders!" ("Las Luchas Obreras No Tienen Fronteras") In other words, we should eliminate the border with Mexico, because nation-states are not relevant for the radical revolutionaries.

Posted to Immigration at 12:51 PM | Comments (2)

Zogby: majority support House on immigration

The latest Zogby poll should send a very loud, clear message to the Senate that if they support any form of amnesty their parties will be in serious trouble in 2008 if not sooner. Consider just this one point: "2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low". That's 2, as in "two".

On immigration generally, Americans want less, not more, immigration. Only 26 percent said immigrants were assimilating fine and that immigration should continue at current levels, compared to 67 percent who said immigration should be reduced so we can assimilate those already here.

While the Senate is considering various bills that would increase legal immigration from 1 million to 2 million a year, 2 percent of Americans believe current immigration is too low. This was true for virtually every grouping in the survey by ethnicity, income, age, religion, region, party, or ideology.

...Support for the House approach was widespread, with 81 percent of Republicans, 72 percent of independents, 57 percent of Democrats, and 53 percent of Hispanics saying it was good or very good idea.

...When given three choices (House approach, Senate approach, or mass deportation), the public tends to reject both the Senate plan and a policy of mass deportations in favor of the House bill; 28 percent want the Senate plan, 12 percent want mass deportations; while 56 percent want the House approach.

The false choice between mass deportations and amnesties is one continually used by illegal immigration supporters.

...Public also does not buy the argument we have tried and failed to enforce the law: 70 percent felt that past enforcement efforts have been "grossly inadequate," while only 19 percent felt we had made a "real effort" to enforce our laws...

See the link for many more findings, including in a tabular format. And, please send that link to your representatives.

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

"Democrats Must Fight Illegal Immigration"

From this:

...the most important domestic policy challenge in the 21st century is found in the labor market. Alone among industrialized nations, the United States has a massive class of unskilled workers. This unskilled workforce is being buffeted by globalization-enabled labor arbitrage, the automation of blue-collar jobs, and, yes, the arrival of millions of low-skilled laborers through illegal immigration. Tragically, this class of workers is only going to grow in the future, just as the returns to schooling will become higher than ever. Let me offer an underreported but rather shocking fact: the number of young people who graduate from high school, as opposed to receiving a GED, is declining. And, as James Heckman of the University of Chicago has shown, workers with a GED have the same economic prospects as workers who drop out of high school and never get an equivalency degree. In sum, a greater proportion of American young people are low-skilled dropouts than thirty years ago. Close to 50% of these dropouts are immigrants. Now there's a problem for the overclass to consider.

America tolerates an immigration policy that adds millions of very low-skilled workers every decade, who come to this country at the expense of low-skilled native workers. Why? There is no good explanation, especially for Democrats, who like to believe that their core constituencies are the middle and lower classes of America...

...For Democrats, fighting illegal immigration would not only be good policy, but would have the welcome effect of being good politics, too. Democrats' major political obstacle is the increasingly intractable opposition of the non-union working and middle class, exactly the groups who most fervently oppose illegal immigration. While the opponents of immigration no doubt include nativists and xenophobes, the vast majority of those who oppose illegal immigration do so on sound public policy grounds. Illegal immigration is seen rightly as a threat to their economic livelihood. So when the Republican Party offers a platform that not only comports with their social and religious beliefs, but also addresses the one economic threat that is open to government solution, is there any wonder that the working and middle classes find solace in the GOP? Democrats should find a way to bust up this alliance between economic populists and social conservatives, and make many current Republican voters choose which of these movements matters most...

Posted to Immigration at 02:47 AM | Comments (7)

"Immigration Madness - Come One, Come All, No Ticket Needed"

Tony Blankley:

It is almost inconceivable that an argument is taken seriously that we don't have the right to secure our borders and determine who shall enter our country. Not only has such lunacy become respectable, but our mainstream media instantly, instinctively embraces such a position. Every radio headline newscast, almost every newspaper and television report willfully refuses to distinguish between illegal and legal immigrants. Each report stamps the mark of evil on the forehead of all who would guard our borders...

For the open border crowd -- which apparently includes virtually the entire American political, media, academic and business establishment -- there is no reason to try to keep out anyone who wants to come in. (The Senate and the president have made it quite clear that they have no plans to actually secure the border. Their border security proposals are charades and calculated pretenses.)

There are still about 700 million Chinese peasants waiting impatiently for a decent job; probably about an equal number of Indians. And most of the African continent could surely live better in Phoenix than they do being butchered in genocidal wars or starving in man-induced famines.

What is the moral basis for discriminating against that part of suffering humanity unlucky enough to find itself not sharing a border with the good old U.S. of A.?

Posted to Immigration at 10:38 PM | Comments (1)

Will there be an American presidential candidate?

From this:

...There's room for a nativist-but-not-bigoted populist candidate in the center. The problem for the raging moderates is finding that person. He's likely to come from outside of elective office, since such a critter will have a hard time getting elected in the modern two-party system. He'd likely have to be fairly rich and/or famous in order to finance a campaign from outside the normal special-interest loci of the major parties.

However, if such a person does surface, there would be room for them to maneuver. There is a market for a populist immigration hawk, but it would have to come from the center if he were to have a chance of getting to 30% and having a shot at a plurality win.

Any suggestions for our Dobbsian candidate?

Posted to Politics at 10:31 PM | Comments (3)

Mexican politician promotes reconquista

From this:

On NPR's "All Things Considered," Gloria Ramirez Vargas, a politician in Baja, Calif., rallied her constituents with a similar cry: "Many Mexicans are nourishing the ground in the U.S., but those lands were once ours. Those same lands, which now with intelligence, with love and with a lot of work, we are re-conquering again for our Mexico."

You can listen to the audio here.

Posted to Immigration at 10:47 AM | Comments (3)

John Boehner challenges Nancy Pelosi over CA Senate resolution

Here's part of his challenge:

"The brazen support of California Democrats for this walkout amounts to a reckless endorsement of policies that make our nation and our borders less secure... Nancy Pelosi and her Capitol Hill Democrats should explain to the American public whether they support California's Democrat leaders who defied their oath to uphold the laws of the land. If Nancy Pelosi cannot bring herself to denounce this stunt, it will serve as yet another signal of Democrats' support for open borders, weak enforcement and more illegal immigration."

She didn't respond. Please go to events with Democratic leaders and ask them where they stand, then publicize their answer.

Posted to Immigration at 10:40 AM | Comments (1)

Reconquista May 1 march pictures

Here's a gallery from Seattle, two disturbing photos of extremists leading a San Diego march, and a slideshow from the Bay Area here.

UPDATE: There are several pics from the L.A. march here, including one from the Los Angeles chapter of the FMLN. That's a former El Salvadoran Marxist guerrilla group turned political party, which got 40% of the vote a few months back. At their site, they discuss a May 1 march in their country in support of their citizens in the U.S.: tinyurl.com/kv9xe

UPDATE 2: There's a video here.

UPDATE 3: There are a few videos from the other side here.

Posted to Immigration at 10:37 AM | Comments (1)

Illegal Immigrants, Unite Here! (under the union banner)

Byron York does something that the MSM fails to do: follow a link.

At the big pro-illegal-immigration rally on the Mall in Washington on April 10, thousands of demonstrators held aloft dark blue signs that read, "We Are America." Below those words, in smaller letters, was the name "New American Opportunity Campaign," and below that was a web address, www.cirnow.org...

Following that he comes to this:

As it happens, that is the Washington headquarters of UNITE HERE, the labor union formed a few years ago by the merger of the Union of Needletrades, Industrial, and Textile Employees, and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. UNITE HERE—which represents about 460,000 workers in the U.S. and Canada but hopes to unionize millions of newly arrived, low-paid, unskilled immigrant workers—played a major role in organizing the Washington rally, as well as other pro-illegal-immigration events across the country. Joining UNITE HERE in the immigration fight is the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which represents about 1.8 million workers in the U.S. and Canada. "You need to legalize the 11 million people who are here on an undocumented status," a top SEIU official told the liberal Air America radio network recently. "Many of them are our members." The chief organizer and spokesman of the Washington rally was a man named Jaime Contreras, who heads the local SEIU chapter and is also in charge of what is called the National Capital Immigration Coalition, a mix of labor, business, church, and civil-rights groups that staged the event.

The article is pay-only after that, but there's a much more worrisome side to the NAOC: one of their board members (CHIRLA) has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government.

You can see a picture of the signs in question here. Why couldn't the AP or the SFGate do what York did?

Posted to Immigration at 06:35 AM | Comments (4)

Heather Mac Donald: Illegal Immigration Myths

From this:

As the nation braced for another demonstration of illegal alien power today [May 1], the press has been trotting out "fear engulfs the illegal alien community" stories, following the arrests last month of over 1,000 illegal aliens working for IFCO Systems North America. For instance: IMMIGRANTS PANICKED BY RUMORS OF RAIDS, reported the New York Times; ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS FEAR ROUNDUP, announced the Wall Street Journal; TALK OF IMMIGRANT ARRESTS IN AUSTIN FUELS FEAR, blared the Austin American-Statesman; and PATIENTS, FEARING INS RAIDS, DON’T SEEK HEALTH CARE, the Contra Costa Times warned...

...This ubiquitous journalistic conceit exposes two myths and raises a public policy question. The first myth is that illegal aliens live in the shadows. The "shadows" claim then becomes an urgent reason why Congress must pass a legalization plan: so that 11 million people can come out of hiding. In fact, illegal aliens live in the full blaze of day. Only when confronted with the merest hint that immigration enforcement is even possible do they curtail their movements—and then elite thinking immediately declares such curtailment a gross injustice.

But even if it were true that illegals lived in the shadows, why is that unfair? The bargain they chose was clear: if you come here illegally, the law says that you should face deportation. It is a measure of how surreal our immigration practice has become that it is now "mean-spirited" simply to raise the possibility in an illegal’s mind that his deportation risk is real, much less actually to deport him...

On a note related to the first paragraph, I discussed one such recent story in Laura Wides-Munoz propaganda on frightened "immigrants".

Posted to Immigration at 02:31 AM | Comments (1)

Herndon: illegal immigration supporters voted out

The mayor (Michael L. O'Reilly) and most of the members of the Herndon (Virginia) town council were voted out of office earlier today. That city is home to a day laborer center and the vote was seen as a leading indicator of the illegal immigration debate, the Washington Post sheepishly admits in their falsely-titled report "Immigrant Backlash In Herndon":

Council members Carol A. Bruce and Steven D. Mitchell, who voted for the center, were turned out of office...

[The four members who were voted in oppose the center...] Two incumbents were reelected. Dennis D. Husch was one of two council members to vote against the center when it was approved by the panel in August. He received more votes than any of the eight other council candidates. J. Harlon Reece was the lone supporter of the center who was reelected. He received the fewest number of votes among the winners.

Twenty-six percent of the town's 10,203 registered voters came to the polls, according to Fairfax County figures, up from 20 percent when O'Reilly was elected two years ago.

Previously:
Herndon Embraces All With Respect and Tolerance (We HEART illegal aliens)
Have Herndon officials conspired to violate federal law?
WaPo Virginia poll: only 8% support illegal alien hiring halls
Has the Washington Post finally lost it?

Posted to Immigration at 09:21 PM | Comments (5)

"Arab-Americans bring own agenda to rally, receive mixed reaction"

From this:

Waving a Palestinian flag, a group of Muslims and Arab-Americans on Monday joined thousands of demonstrators in the state capital participating in the national boycott to support immigrant rights.

While their presence was welcomed by the predominantly Hispanic crowd, their message received a mixed reaction.

..."No to the U.S. occupation of Iraq. No to the Israeli occupation of Palestine," shouted Kiswani, program director for the National Council of Arab Americans in Sacramento. "Yes to the return of Palestinian refugees to their homeland."

Lie down with ANSWER, wake up with far-left groups and people passing out 'Free the Cuban Five' pamphlets.

Posted to Immigration at 12:44 PM | Comments (1)

May Day pictures; mini-riot in Vista

There are pictures of the illegal immigration march in Sacramento here, with photos from various other marches here. Here are some videos from Escondido. Don't be fooled: we'll still have Taco Bell.

And, there was a mini-riot in Vista near San Diego.

From the other side, there are L.A. pictures here: dailykos.com/story/2006/5/2/125337/4719. The author of that diary is a true useful idiot.

UPDATE: Here's another Vista report.

Posted to Immigration at 10:35 AM | Comments (1)

How to reduce illegal immigration

The best, most long-lasting way to reduce illegal immigration is to reduce the credibility of those leaders who support it. That includes politicians, media sources, and leaders of various lobbying organizations.

If very few people believe what they say, they'll be forced to either tell the truth or they'll simply be marginalized.

We need to get to the point where supporting illegal immigration (or ignoring it or opposing enforcement of our immigration laws) is considered a fringe, untenable position.

Unfortunately, many who oppose illegal immigration go about it in a less than effective and even counter-productive way. For instance, burning a Mexican flag is a pretty stupid thing to do. What if we were able to, for instance, end the career of a reporter who supports illegal immigration? Wouldn't that be far more effective and send a much more powerful message to other reporters?

Here are some of the ways to get from here to there:

1. When you see media bias, send a short polite note to the ombudsman or editor of that paper.
2. Start a blog and highlight media bias or politicians with links to extremist groups. (Take a few extra seconds to look up the email address for that source's ombudsman, editor, or publisher and encourage others to write emails complaining about their coverage.)
3. Post examples of media bias to sites that accept contributions, such as FreeRepublic.com
4. Attend personal appearances by politicians and pundits, and ask them short questions that make them look as bad as possible. Not exactly "gotcha" questions, just something that they can't answer. And, ask it in a way that makes it difficult for them to avoid answering it. Unfortunately, many of those who make such attempts tend to ramble, so practice first. Consider having flyers with additional information, and consider passing those out before or after the event. Afterwards, make sure as many people as possible know about the question and their answer.
5. Comment on blogs; use technorati to look up recent posts about immigration matters.
6. Contact your representatives on a regular basis, and let them know that you oppose illegal immigration.
7. The WaPo is a frequent source of pro-illegal immigration propaganda. Despite that, some of their stories have a box where they link to bloggers discussing that article. They get that from technorati, so if you start or run a blog, make sure the latter site is being pinged.

Regarding #4, I attempted something like that in October. While related or not, note that Jacoby has changed her tune from supporting a "guest" worker program into supporting "earned legalization". And, here's an example of a direct link; all it took was one guy with a sign to force a politician to change his tune. Two worthy candidates would be Senators Harry Reid and Dick Durbin. Please attend their appearances and try to ask tough questions or at least pass out flyers explaining exactly what their positions mean.

Posted to Immigration at 05:10 AM | Comments (5)

"Lou Dobbs: Radical groups taking control of immigrant movement"

From this:

We all awoke to headlines in our nation's most important newspapers reminding us that this is "A Day Without Immigrants." Not illegal immigrants, mind you, but immigrants.

USA Today headlined today's demonstrations and boycott "On Immigration's Front Lines." The New York Times headlines its story "With Calls for Boycott by Immigrants, Employers Gird for Unknown." The Washington Post and The Los Angeles Times are both calling their coverage "The Immigration Debate."

These major newspapers obviously don't want to disturb their readers with the information that today's demonstrations and boycott are about illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens.

CNN and Fox News are both using a banner calling their coverage "A Day Without Immigrants," while MSNBC is titling its coverage "Immigrant Anger..."

Posted to Immigration at 01:47 AM | Comments (3)

AP/MyWay/ABCNews pro-illegal immigration propaganda

The AP article "1M Immigrants Skip Work for Demonstration" reads like free advertising for the "immigrants" who were marching in our streets. And, MyWay has coupled it with no less than four heartwarming photos of big American flags. Taken together, it's clear where MyWay stands, and I'd suggest choosing another source if you want to read AP articles.

ABCNews prints the same article, this time with just one slightly propagandistic photo of a waving American flag.

The S.F. Chronicle has the same article, with the pictures on a separate page, including this one of NYC protesters holding 'We Are America' posters. The posters are from the New American Opportunity Campaign (cirnow.org).

As described at that link, one of the cirnow board members has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government. "New American" indeed.

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

"Day without Illegal Alien" not so bad

I drove across Hollywood in record time. An intersection that's usually backed up a block or two was only backed up a half a block...

I'm sure that the great majority of legal residents of Los Angeles would gladly pay an extra 10 cents for lettuce just to enjoy such light traffic on a daily basis. Plus, think of all the money that was saved by cars not having to idle at stops...

As my part in the anti-boycott, I bought a water pump and an O2 sensor (~$130) and paid a couple bills...

When's the next boycott?

UPDATE: How long before L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa proposes spending $500,000 to plant trees on Wilshire Boulevard so those foreign citizens can march in the shade?

Posted to Los_Angeles at 06:48 PM | Comments (15)

Gloria Romero's revolution

California state senator Gloria Romero (site) will be marching in solidarity with foreign citizens today and joining their boycott and show of force, saying:

"The boycott is as American as apple pie... Many of us have decided to join in recognizing the call of immigrants for one day out of a year, one day out of American history, to simply say we matter."

Despite her best efforts to cloud the matter, they aren't "immigrants", they're illegal aliens and their supporters. But she goes even further:

Romero compared the economic boycott with the Boston Tea Party and the civil rights movement.

Obviously, there's a huge difference between the current situation and the civil rights movement, but let's recall what the Boston Tea Party was about:

The Boston Tea Party was a protest by the American colonists against Great Britain in which they destroyed many crates of tea on ships in Boston Harbor. The incident, which took place on Thursday, December 16, 1773, has been seen as helping to spark the American Revolution... The Stamp Act of 1765 and the Townshend Acts of 1767 angered colonists regarding British decisions on taxing the colonies with no representation...

Is Gloria Romero proposing a similar revolution, with illegal aliens as the new patriots and American citizens as the British? By marching with foreign citizens who oppose our laws and demand that we capitulate to their demands and by comparing this to pre-Revolutionary War America, is she committing a crime? Will the Democratic Party censure her, or will they rush to her defense?

Note of course that she's also the primary author of a resolution in support of the boycott that the following Democratic state senators approved:

Alarcon Alquist Bowen Cedillo
Chesbro Ducheny Dunn Escutia
Figueroa Kehoe Kuehl Lowenthal
Machado Migden Murray Ortiz
Perata Romero Scott Simitian
Soto Speier Torlakson Vincent

Sen. Richard Alarcon also used the same revolutionary line when explaining his support for that resolution.

It would be too much to expect that the federal government is looking into its options in this matter, but it may have to come to that if California's elected officials go much further down this path.

Posted to California at 09:17 AM | Comments (2)

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)

• USA Today: "Who supports illegal immigration?"
• Bush missed a perfect border photo-op
• RFID implants for "guest" workers?
• NWO, Michael Douglas, guns, North American integration, Amero
• Dick Durbin: consult with Mexico on border fence
• Sharon Runner stands up to Vicente Fox, Mexican-"American" legislators
• Vicente Fox: Senate illegal alien amnesty a "monumental step forward"
• 20 reasons to oppose the Senate amnesty scheme
• Jimmy Carter praises Bush on immigration
• Heritage Foundation, Human Events on the Senate's amnesty scheme
• More on Mike Pence's "W" worker visa illegal alien amnesty scheme
• Asian "guest" workers have a low "runaway rate"
• More on "NAFTA Plus" and "North America"
• Mayor Mike has an immigration plan for you, Citizen
• Sensenbrenner: White House trying to block House bill (HR4437)
• History repeats itself with illegal alien amnesty; the huge difference
• "Cardinal [Mahony] Antagonizes Catholics on Immigration Stance"
• Senate illegal alien amnesty update for May 24
• A traipse through the BushBot blogosphere
• Mike Pence's "W" worker visa illegal alien amnesty scheme

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