March 31, 2007

Gentle Matthew Dowd turns on President Bush

In what might turn out to be an April Fool's Day joke, the New York Times offers "Ex-Aide Details a Loss of Faith in the President" about former Bush chief campaign strategist Matthew Dowd becoming disenchanted with Our Leader:

He criticized the president as failing to call the nation to a shared sense of sacrifice at a time of war, failing to reach across the political divide to build consensus and ignoring the will of the people on Iraq. He said he believed the president had not moved aggressively enough to hold anyone accountable for the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and that Mr. Bush still approached governing with a "my way or the highway" mentality reinforced by a shrinking circle of trusted aides...

"I really like him, which is probably why I'm so disappointed in things... ...I think he's become more, in my view, secluded and bubbled in... ...I'm a big believer that in part what we're called to do - to me, by God; other people call it karma - is to restore balance when things didn't turn out the way they should have... ...Just being quiet is not an option when I was so publicly advocating an election... ...[Deciding to join the Bush campaign was] almost like you fall in love... I was frustrated about Washington, the inability for people to get stuff done and bridge divides. And this guy's personality - he cared about education and taking a different stand on immigration... ...I think we should design campaigns that appeal not to 51 percent of the people... but bring the country together as a whole... ...[In the future] I wouldn't be surprised if I wasn't walking around in Africa or South America doing something that was like mission work... ...I do feel a calling of trying to re-establish a level of gentleness in the world."

Awwww. Did the reporter give him a hug? This has got to be a joke, but if it isn't and he's never able to work for the GOP again, then too bad: he should have figured out that Bush was up to no good years ago and at the least quit the campaign. Of course, as even the NYT reporter points out, his completely voluntary confession "in some ways tracks the public arc of Mr. Bush's political fortunes". Some rats are apparently given to histrionic displays as they flee sinking ships.

He also fingers the only presidential candidate who appeals to him as Barack Obama and what he calls his "message of unity". And, of course, note that he still thinks Bush's immigration schemes are acceptable.

And, after the Bush success, he went on to work for Arnold Schwarzenegger, so he's partly responsible for Arnie's rush to the center.

Of course, there's the possibility that this is just a Dowd - or even Karl Rove - scheme, with Dowd going to work for a Bush-friendly candidate who'll reach for the center, with kindness, corporatism, gentleness, corruption, hugs, and massive immigration for all.

Posted to Politics at 02:52 PM

March 30, 2007

Scratch Mitt Romney off your list (Jeb Bush possible VP)

As previously discussed, the Mitt Romney campaign includes a few people linked to Jeb Bush. Now, Romney says his list of potential vice-presidential candidates includes Newt Gingrich, South Carolina governor Mark Sanford and SC Senator Jim DeMint, and... Jeb Bush.

Even as a trial balloon and as a meaningless shout-out to the person from whom he got a few staffers, that's a scary thought and one that should immediately disqualify him from any further consideration. We can't afford four or eight more years of Bush policies.

Posted to Politics at 12:37 PM

March 29, 2007

Dr. Richard Land wants to hear from you about immigration matters

Dr. Richard Land is the president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and earlier today he appeared with Senator Teddy Kennedy and others at a Washington DC press conference to support immigration "reform" (aka a massive amnesty):

"...We also have a Biblical mandate to act compassionately for those that are in needm, Matthew 25... To love our neighbors as ourselves. Matthew 22. And to do onto others as we would have them do onto us, Matthew chapter 7, verse 12..."

Unlike other "leaders" you have a chance to speak to him one-on-one and tell him how he's wrong: he conducts a radio show each Saturday. I urge everyone to call in and ask him tough questions about what he supports, and let him know about all the aspects of this issue that both he and some of his listeners are no doubt unaware. There's a good chance that a large part of his flock will hear it and he might have to choose between supporting amnesty and being taken seriously by his congregation.

The show is called Richard Land Live! and it's on Saturday from 12pm to 3pm. The call-in number is 888-Faith 56 (888-324-8456). You can listen to the streaming version via links at his site: richardlandlive.com He's got call screeners, so make sure you can weave your question into one of the show's topics or otherwise get past the screener and get on the air.

Then, upload a tape recording of the *broadcast* (not the telephone call) to Youtube, and let's let everyone else know why he's wrong.

UPDATE: The press conference was organized by "Faith in Public Life", and they inform us that in addition to Land those present included "Rev. Sam Rodriguez, Executive Director of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference... Senators Kennedy, Menendez, Graham and Salazar, and Representatives Gutierrez and Flake." There are videos of the confab here: blog.faithinpubliclife.org/2007/03/faith_and_congressional_leader.html

That page has a comments form, and I suggest leaving comments on that and other entries designed to show how they're wrong.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:32 PM

White House TWP illegal alien amnesty PowerPoint presentation

U.S. News has uploaded a PowerPoint presentation the White House has regarding their new illegal alien amnesty scheme in this PDF file. Even by the abysmally low standard of other Bush administration plans, this is idiotic. Most of the provisions in there would not appeal to even the most cravenly corrupt Democrat, so this isn't a good bargaining ploy. And, it allows the far-left illegal immigration supporters (see the Kevin Appleby quote below) and racial power groups to portray the Bush administration as a bunch of meanies, which doesn't seem to square with their supposed play for the "Hispanic vote". The only ones who would support this plan would be corrupt growers and food processors and a fairly small number of completely corrupt GOP Senators.

Not only does it make no sense, it's dangerous. One of the provisions involves a national ID card for we citizens:

Initial implementation of secure identification tools for all Americans and aliens seeking employment... Legal U.S. residents seeking work will use a high-security proof of identity and citizenship... To avoid fraud, racial profiling, and failure of EEVS system, it will also be necessary for Americans seeking work in the future to use secure IDs

It also has a vague indentured servitude flavor to it:

Seasonal workers would contract with their employers, guaranteeing that the laborer will be available for the duration of the season

- A seasonal worker may leave a contracted job, but if so he will have to leave the country and go through a one-year cooling off period out of the U.S.

And, it contains provisions oddly similar to remarks Mitt Romney has made, such as the "probationary registration of aliens" and "universe of illegals seeking adjustment will be known".

And, I was right in my assumption that its "triggers" for the amnesty would be based on spending and planning and such rather than a reduction in the number of illegal aliens; see the end of this post.

There are two visas involved: the "Y Visa" for a new "guest" worker scheme, and the "Z Visa" for current illegal aliens, giving them legal working permission.

* The Y Visa is further broken down into a "main program" ("In U.S. 2 years, then 6 months at home, 2 renewals") and a "seasonal program" ("9 months in U.S./3 months at home, indefinitely renewable").

* The Z Visa (which I'll call the "legal permanent underclass" visa) is indefinitely renewable, and requires a fine of $2000 at every three-year renewal mark, together with a payment of $1500 for a total of $3500 every three years.

From the U.S. News report:

[U.S. News reporter Angie C. Marek] says the new plan has made a lot of the White House's former allies in the immigrant-advocacy community mighty unhappy. Temporary guest workers in this plan would have a tough time getting any sort of citizenship. Under the visa program outlined by the White House, workers can stay in the United States for two years, at which point they'll have to return home for six months, a process that can be repeated two times.

The fee to gain citizenship for immigrants currently in the country illegally would also jump from a proposed $2,000 to about $10,000.

Tom Snyder, national political director of the union UNITE Here, compared the measure with a "21st-century version of the Bracero program" in a conference call with reporters today. And Laura Reiff, cochair of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, a business group that worked with the White House last year on the guest-worker proposals, called the measure "entirely unworkable."

And, from this:

"For us it's a no go," said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the advocacy group National Immigration Forum...

"President Bush said family values don't stop at the Rio Grande. Evidently they do," said Kevin Appleby, director of Migration and Refugee Policy for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops...

Family unification, said [Teddy Kennedy], "has been an essential aspect of immigration policy since the history of this country" and letting immigrants work their way toward legalization is a framework for previous immigration bills that has received substantial support.

"You don't compromise on the morality of these issues," Kennedy said. "We're not going to."

I guess the people the White House was trying to impress don't want to reciprocate the Bush administration's affection.

UPDATE: More unhappy campers don't reciprocate their affection (seiu.org/media/pressreleases.cfm?pr_id=1384):

"SEIU is alarmed by the White House's proposed immigration reform plan which fails to address any of the key elements needed to pass practical, humane solutions to the current broken system. Taking a major step away from our nation's values and our history as a nation of immigrants, the White House plan would make inequality – rather than opportunity – the centerpiece of our immigration system and deny basic rights to our hardest workers."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 05:24 PM

PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians oppose driver's licenses, Arnold's healthcare for illegal aliens

The Public Policy Institute of California has released a statewide survey (link), and some of their findings are questionable due to a lack of specificity in the questions. And, some of the finding have been spun:

While political reform dominates conversation in the state capitol, Californians say immigration (19%) is the most important issue facing the state today, followed by jobs and the economy (13%), and education (12%). Despite their concerns about immigration, a majority of residents (60%) also believe immigrants are a benefit to the state because of their hard work and job skills, while one-third (33%) say they are a burden because of their use of public services.

It bears repeating that to the respondents, immigration is the #1 issue. Unfortunately, this is where their linguistic laxity starts to play a role.

Looking at the PDF (ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_307MBS.pdf), we see that the 19% number was apparently a free-form question allowing people to supply their own answer to the question "First, thinking about the state as a whole, what do you think is the most important issue facing people in California today?" In the top spot is "immigration, illegal immigration"; one wonders why they didn't break that out into two figures. The answer is probably because they were using codes for various answers and, as revealed elsewhere, they seem unable to grasp the differences between legal and illegal immigration.

See, for instance, another question which is referenced in the second paragraph above:

Please indicate which statement comes closest to your own view—even if neither is exactly right: [rotate] [1] Immigrants today are a benefit to California because of their hard work and job skills [or] [2] Immigrants today are a burden to California because they use public services.

Obviously, this is a fundamentally stupid question. It combines different types of immigration into one amorphous whole, and it assumes that the question is only one of financial matters rather than other issues such as the associated political corruption and such.

Then:

Should immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally be allowed to apply for work permits which would allow them to stay and work in the United States, or shouldn’t they be allowed to do that?

64% said yes, but I wonder whether this question could have been phrased better, such as by using "illegal aliens" rather than leading with "immigrants" then revealing they're here illegally.

The language in the previous question is a bit different from two others:

Do you favor or oppose providing health care coverage for illegal immigrants in California?

43% favor, 53% oppose.

Would you favor or oppose state legislation allowing illegal immigrants to get a California driver's license?

43% favor, 54% oppose.

Posted to California at 01:24 PM

March 28, 2007

White House's "tough cop" amnesty scheme (the "infinitely renewable Z visa")

Apparently the private talks the White House has been having with various Senators regarding yet another illegal alien amnesty scheme have reached the point where they're starting to leak the plan in order to get feedback. It appears to be the "tough cop" version of the Flake-Gutierrez massive giveaway; the goal is presumably to get a compromise that most Democrats and many Republicans could support. Most Americans would not support any kind of amnesty if they were aware of the massive legal and continued illegal immigration that would result.

Since they apparently want feedback, I suggest letting them know what you think. The White House comments line is 202-456-1111, and the switchboard is at 202-456-1414.

According to David Espo of the AP, the plan:

would make it harder for millions of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship than under legislation passed by the Senate last year, according to officials in both parties... These officials said the administration also suggested barring future guest workers who enter the country legally from bringing family members with them - a proposal unlikely to survive intact... The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss about elements of a plan that was not yet public...

His sources are anonymous because they say the plan isn't yet public. One of them is probably Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who's a named source in the LAT article (below).

As described by several officials, the proposal would allow currently illegal immigrants to stay in the United States under a new Z visa. They could apply for so-called green cards [legal permanent resident status], taking their place in line alongside men and women who are in the country legally and want citizenship, and would be required to undergo periodic background checks while waiting...

One of the hidden bonuses of last year's Senate scheme was that former illegal aliens who were applying for citizenship would actually have been put in the line ahead of those who've been waiting for a chance to come here legally. And, of course, they'd get to live here all the while unlike those legal immigrants. Since the line is in effect serial, "alongside" needs to be further specified.

The length of their wait would depend on the number of green cards available - a feature that officials in both parties said would mean millions of illegal immigrants would have to wait far longer than under the Senate bill of last year. "It takes longer and they've got to go through the same channels as everybody else," said one Republican who had been briefed on the administration's proposal...

Nicole Gaouette of the Los Angeles Times - who writes like an unaware college newspaper "reporter" giddily transcribing the remarks of government officials - says:

Some illegal immigrants would be given legal status through an infinitely renewable "Z visa." [Georg Cantor, call your office] Those who want to become U.S. citizens would have to leave the country and return legally. A guest worker program would be created that does not allow participants to bring family members, remain in the U.S. or become citizens. And, to ensure that employers can check on whether job applicants are legal, databases at Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration would be linked... The Republican group is also considering several "triggers," or benchmarks, that would have to be met on improved border security, work-site enforcement and document verification before other changes could be made.

The Flake-Guitierrez amnesty scam contains a similar provision, as does the Mike Pence scam, but both of those are not tied to performance regarding reduced illegal immigration; rather, they're tied to having resources in place or as little as having plans ready. I have little doubt that the White House scheme will be similar.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:16 PM

"How Eisenhower solved illegal border crossings from Mexico"

From this:

Fifty-three years ago, when newly elected Dwight Eisenhower moved into the White House, America's southern frontier was as porous as a spaghetti sieve. As many as 3 million illegal migrants had walked and waded northward over a period of several years for jobs in California, Arizona, Texas, and points beyond.

President Eisenhower cut off this illegal traffic. He did it quickly and decisively with only 1,075 United States Border Patrol agents - less than one-tenth of today's force. The operation is still highly praised among veterans of the Border Patrol.

Although there is little to no record of this operation in Ike's official papers, one piece of historic evidence indicates how he felt. In 1951, Ike wrote a letter to Sen. William Fulbright (D) of Arkansas. The senator had just proposed that a special commission be created by Congress to examine unethical conduct by government officials who accepted gifts and favors in exchange for special treatment of private individuals.

General Eisenhower, who was gearing up for his run for the presidency, said "Amen" to Senator Fulbright's proposal. He then quoted a report in The New York Times, highlighting one paragraph that said: "The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican 'wetbacks' to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government."

...Profits from illegal labor led to the kind of corruption that apparently worried Eisenhower. Joseph White, a retired 21-year veteran of the Border Patrol, says that in the early 1950s, some senior US officials overseeing immigration enforcement "had friends among the ranchers," and agents "did not dare" arrest their illegal workers...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:24 PM

Attempt to repeal Kansas' illegal alien tuition law sidelined by Democrat

Kansas has had its own version of the anti-American concept known as the DREAM Act since 2004. Rep. Lance Kinzer, R-Olathe, tried to repeal it, but a motion from Rep. Mark Treaster, D-Pretty Prairie, forced the bill into their Judiciary Committee, which is apparently the equivalent of trashcanning it. The bill also included provisions apparently similar to California's Prop. 187 and Arizona's Prop. 200.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:20 PM

Maryland Delegates want illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens

Maryland's House of Delegates passed a law allowing illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens. The national form of this anti-American concept is known as the DREAM Act.

One of the leaders on the other side is House Majority Leader Kumar Barve, who is of course a Democrat. And:

The debate became emotional on both sides. Del. Melvin Stukes, D-Baltimore City, said the lawmakers voting against the tuition break had "the mind-set" of the framers of the U.S. Constitution who counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Some of his colleagues were offended by the remark, and Stukes later apologized on the floor.

An apparent list of those who voted on this, with links to their contact information, is in comment #14 here.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:17 PM

Illinois House approves driver's licenses for illegal aliens

The Illinois House approved HR 1100 earlier today, which would give illegal aliens "driving certificates" which supposedly would (link to text):

clearly state on its face that it may not be accepted by any federal agency for any federal identification or other official purpose... [and] ...may not be used to obtain a Firearm Owner's Identification Card...

To get it they'd need to:

provide a valid passport and any additional documents, as the Secretary may set forth by administrative rule ...provide the Secretary with a valid individual tax identification number issued by the federal Internal Revenue Service or social security number issued by the federal Social Security Administration ...a photo identity document, except that a non-photo identity document is acceptable if it includes both the person's full legal name and date of birth; ...the Secretary shall not accept any foreign document, other than a valid official passport, for purposes of this subparagraph...

From the foregoing, I gather at least three things: a) Illinois is nearly as corrupt a state as Chicago always has been, b) our Federal government is even more corrupt, giving out tax ID numbers (ITINs) knowing that many of the users are illegal aliens, and c) at least Mexican partisans haven't infiltrated Illinois to the extent that they've infiltrated California.

The last is because of the "foreign document" restriction; similar proposals in other states have allowed the use of Mexico's Matricula Consular card, which is nearly a guarantee that the bearer is an illegal alien.

Somewhat surprisingly, the AP report leads with the pro-American comments and buries the pro-illegal alien whine several paragraphs into their tale:

Bill Ketron has a warning for Illinois lawmakers: Be careful about letting illegal immigrants drive... The Tennessee state senator sponsored that state's 2004 law to create special driving "certificates" for illegal immigrants -- an idea being considered in Illinois... Now the program has been suspended, and Ketron is sponsoring legislation to kill it entirely. People used forged documents to obtain the certificates, he said, and some came from other states to fraudulently get certificates then go home and exchange them for regular licenses... "It's been a disaster," the Murfreesboro Republican said. "If they're proceeding with it (in Illinois), go into it with your eyes open."

Those on the pro-illegal immigration side include Democratic Governor Rod Blagojevich (has said he'd sign it), Rep. Edward Acevedo, D-Chicago (the sponsor), the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police and their deputy director Laimutis Nargelenas, and the Illinois Sheriffs Association. Secretary of State Jesse White is either on the fence or trying to play both sides of it. Rep. Ron Stephens, R-Greenville is quoted in opposition.

Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:56 PM

STRIVE Act: a section-by-section summary

A 50-page PDF with a summary of the Gutierrez-Flake STRIVE Act - including some highlighted differences with last year's Senate bill 2611 - is available in a PDF at this page:

visalaw.com/2007/03/section-by-section-summary-of-strive.html

UPDATE: There's another analysis here. For instance:

...Even when the bill requires that additional vehicle barriers be built along the border, we have to consult with Mexican officials to solicit the views of Mexican communities, lessen tensions, and foster greater understanding! (sections 103, 123)... ...Employers are specifically allowed to lay-off American workers and replace them with "new" foreign workers as long as they lay-off the Americans more than 90 days before or after they file the petitions for the foreign workers. (section 402)... The bill claims to have tough criminal penalties to crack down on gang violence. However, the bill does not take the single most effective step to combat immigrant gang violence - it does not make make members of criminal street gangs deportable (as the House-passed Sensenbrenner-King bill did last Congress). (section 234)...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:10 PM

Flake-Gutierrez: seven amnesties in one; precursor to North American Union

This page looks at some of the provisions of the Flake-Gutierrez STRIVE amnesty, including the news that it includes no less than seven amnesties rolled into one. It also gives illegal aliens a huge benefit of the doubt in trying to prove they're eligible for the main amnesty.

And:

The true horror of H.R. 1645 is that it is the most explicit expression yet of the globalist elite's ambition to destroy United States sovereignty in favor of a European Union-style subcontinental government, including, of course, marriage with Mexico... For starters, they're moving the border. ...H.R. 1645 begins with "Title I—Border Enforcement" and "Subtitle C—Southern Border Security". ...But upon closer examination, theyre referring to Mexico’s southern border!

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:54 PM

Bush's original "guest" worker scheme revealed

In this video segment from 2004, Margaret Spellings [1] described how Bush's original "guest" worker scheme would be open to *everyone*, specifically mentioning nurses, teachers, and high-tech workers. In brief, president Bush wanted to open (most of) the U.S. labor market to the world, including (previously) middle-class occupations.

Oddly enough, the Democrats completely failed to highlight Bush's disastrous, anti- and un-American plans during the 2004 elections. If they had, John Kerry would be president today.

So, why didn't they discuss Bush's horrific scheme?

[1] At the time, Margaret Spellings was a domestic policy assistant; now she's Secretary of Education. You may have seen her losing on Jeopardy! in November.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:59 PM

March 27, 2007

Will Dick Durbin block immigration "reform" (aka a massive amnesty)?

Could Senator Dick Durbin - an illegal immigration supporting hack who refered to himself and illegal aliens as "we" as in "we can win" - block immigration "reform" by trying to push for business-unfriendly H-1B related worker protections? From this:

...Durbin is considering the tougher standards for companies that want to bring temporary foreign workers into the country under the H-1B visa program. According to a summary of Durbin's draft proposal, before they could use such visas, companies would have to give a written pledge, or "attestation," that they made a good-faith effort to hire American workers first and that they were not displacing any American workers by bringing in non-U.S. employees... That would mark a substantial change. Today, companies can hire workers on the H-1B program simply by paying the prevailing wage in a certain job. The U.S. Customs & Immigration Service has said that there's an assumption companies will hire Americans first if there's no financial advantage to hiring foreign workers. But there's no requirement that they try to do so (see BusinessWeek.com, 2/8/07, "Work Visas May Work Against the U.S."). A Durbin spokesman said no one in the office, including the Senator, was prepared to comment on details in the proposal because they are not yet finalized...

If he was pushing for this alone, we could give him a modest brownie point or two. But, he's pushing this as part of an amnesty scheme. So, in that case, his grand gesture is like being grateful for someone just savagely kidney-punching America in the back rather than using a knife as they planned to do.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:24 PM

What Paula Zahn forgot: the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform gets money from the Irish government

Apparently CNN's "Paula Zahn Now" features a "People You Should Know" segment, and in a recent one she featured Niall O'Dowd, chairman of the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform. The link is little more than something the O'Dowd could have written himself. It ends with this:

In addition to leading the Irish Lobby for Immigration, O'Dowd also founded Irish America Magazine and Irish Voice newspaper in New York.

Of course, what she and her producers forgot to tell you is that the ILIR is partly funded by the Irish government. Most people don't take too kindly to foreign-funded groups trying to meddle in our internal politics, but a few people don't. The latter is Paula Zahn's target audience.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:14 PM

Wed. and Thu. are "National Call-in Days for Immigration Reform"

The Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform - which includes one group linked to the Mexican government and another with an alleged link - informs us that Thursday and Friday are their "National Call-in Days for Immigration Reform" (cirnow.org/file/754.pdf). I suggest you join in and call Congress, just make it clear that you oppose CCIR and the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty scheme.

Congressmen Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) have just introduced bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform legislation. The immigration debate is moving forward and Congress needs to hear from you!

Call this number and follow the instructions to connect to your members of Congress:

1-800-417-7666

Tell your representative that we NEED COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM NOW! Comprehensive immigration reform is the solution to fixing our broken immigration system, and now is the time to act. Families, workers, and communities across the country are counting on Congress to get it done, get it right, and do it now.

You can help make it happen with your phone call. JOIN THE EFFORT!

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:45 PM

I know I shouldn't do this, but...

I thought long and hard about whether I want to do this or not. "Isn't it mean and low-class to do something like this?" I asked myself. "Yes, it is, but it's also just a light-hearted jab, plus, it's not like you're doing something like this, and furthermore it's not like you're making fun of her Valley Girl way of speaking and plus it's not like you're ever going to meet her or anything and even if you did it I'm pretty sure you'd never get anywhere. Plus, consider it a satire about the whole idea of being a pundit. Yeah, that's it, it's commentary on punditism. So, just put it up for a bit and then delete it. Just do it, OK?" So, I did what I said to myself, and here it is:

Posted to Bloggage at 02:06 PM

March 26, 2007

Darryl Fears wants Washington Post to junk their comments

Howard "Howie" Kurtz offers the rather pointless "Online, Churls Gone Vile", which I only clicked because Memeorandum was running a link to it next to a pic of the Babe of Brentwood, and couldn't help myself. Anywho, discussing the commenting feature that the Washington Post gives logged-in readers, Kurtz says:

But Post reporter Darryl Fears is among those in the newsroom who believe the comments should be junked if offensive postings can't be filtered out in advance. "If you're an African American and you read about someone being called a porch monkey, that overrides any positive thing that you would read in the comments," he says. "You're starting to see some of the language you see on neo-Nazi sites, and that's not good for The Washington Post or for the subjects in those stories."

I've left a few comments on the WashPost's blogs, but I only appear to have left one on the news side. And, the link to the comments isn't exactly prominent. And, since the WaPo engages in editing, we don't know what was in comments that were deleted and how many were deleted.

Despite that, I think I'm going to go ahead and distrust Fears' judgment in this matter, due to his past habit of misleading about immigration matters. In addition to his name's link above, see:

Darryl Fears: the Democratic line on immigration
Illegal immigration supporters split over May 1 boycott
More pro-illegal immigration propaganda from the Washington Post
WaPo: immigration laws aren't being enforced, therefore they won't work

Posted to Miscellania at 04:39 PM

The SoCal Third World slums the Los Angeles Times helped create

The Los Angeles Times offers "The Southland's hidden Third World slums" about trailer parks in California's Coachella Valley (home of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and other cities). We're told that one of the parks was dumping raw sewage into the Salton Sea, others have flowing sewage behind the trailers, many residents go without heat and even electricity, and, in short, three pages of horrors for we First Worlders. We're told:

The tenants are almost entirely Latino farm or construction workers. Many are in the United States legally, but plenty are not.

If all the illegal aliens in the parks left tomorrow, the conditions of those who are legal residents would improve due to market forces.

The bottom line in this matter is that those responsible for these parks are those who profit from employing their residents, and the enablers of those people. The Los Angeles Times fits squarely into the last category, excusing illegal immigration every chance they get. Sure, the L.A. Times (and almost all Democratic leaders) might want to help them out a bit by building them a community center or otherwise fluffing their pillows, but the last thing they want is for all that cheap labor to leave the country. It's a sweet deal for them: they get ethnic power, combined with cheap, compliant labor, combined with the warm feeling they get from writing stories like this to show how humanitarian and caring they are. But, they aren't willing to do anything about the root cause of the problems they complain about.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:17 PM

Carol Rose/ACLU Massachusetts compares ICE tactics to Slobodan Milosevic, ethnic cleansing

The American Civil Liberties Union is indirectly linked to the Mexican government and is a strong supporter of illegal immigration. Carol Rose - executive director of their Massachusetts chapter - (with help from their communications director Christopher Ott) pens the screed "Inhumane raid was just one of many" which should erase any doubts anyone could have that their group is not interested in doing what's in the U.S.'s best interests. They even finish by comparing ICE's tactics to those employed by Slobodan Milosevic.

They discuss an Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") plan called Operation Endgame (aclum.org/endgame.pdf) which supposedly has as its goal deporting all illegal aliens by 2012. I didn't read the whole thing and I don't know whether "all removable aliens" as used in the PDF refers to all 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, or just subsets of that number. What's clear, however, is that the ACLU wants to use due process as a cover for supporting illegal immigration, and they're willing to wave babies to do it:

The pace of raids will need to accelerate, however, in order to meet Endgame's aggressive deportation goals over the next five years. We'll see more of the surreal New Bedford-style tactics: arrest first, ask questions later. We'll hear more stories of the human suffering that results from such tactics: of nursing babies who become dehydrated when separated from their mothers, of 7-year-olds frantically looking for their missing mothers, and of minors being flown to distant states without adequate protection.

A very careful use of language; unlike the NYT, they didn't falsely accuse ICE of taking the baby away. Then, they engage in their "yes, but":

Obviously, the United States has the right to control who enters our country, as well as the right to deport those who are not authorized to be here. But the US Constitution also says that everyone's fundamental rights must be respected while it is being determined whether or not they have a right to be here.

Allow me to suggest that they read the definition of "Expedited Removal" from the PDF they provide:

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes the DHS to quickly remove certain inadmissible aliens from the U.S. The authority covers aliens who are inadmissible because they have no entry documents or because they have used counterfeit, altered, or otherwise fraudulent or improper documents. The authority covers aliens who arrive in, attempt to enter, or have entered the U.S. without having been admitted or paroled by an immigration officer at a port-of-entry. The DHS has the authority to order the removal, and the alien is not referred to an immigration judge except under certain circumstances after an alien makes a claim to legal status in the U.S. or demonstrates a credible fear of persecution if returned to his or her home country.

That would seem to assuage their concerns over "due process", no? Obviously, their goal is to tie the deportation system into knots. Then come the scare tactics:

Even most US citizens could not prove their citizenship on demand. If ICE raided your workplace, could you? If you're like most people, you don't carry documents such as your passport or birth certificate with you at all times. And in a free society, you shouldn't have to... [...much deleted...] Even US citizens, as well as immigrants who are here legally, will live with the fear of arrest.

Another careful use of language, in that the first paragraph only refers to U.S. citizens, and not legal immigrants. The latter are required to carry proof of their legality at all times, contradicting the second paragraph's claim. Native-born and even naturalized citizens will in almost all cases have little difficulty very quickly proving that they're citizens. The specter of citizens or legal immigrants being unjustly deported is tiny indeed; perhaps the ACLU would be good enough to provide us with recent examples of such cases.

Then, we get to the ethnic cleansing:

ICE tactics call to mind sinister human rights abuses from other parts of the world. The United States went to war to stop Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to "ethnically cleanse" Kosovo in 1999. We should ask ourselves how, just eight years later, we came to be carrying out a policy that involves such similar tactics -- lightning raids, mass arrests, packed detention centers, and mass deportations.

Anyone who directly or indirectly donates to the ACLU should think deeply about whether they want to support an organization that would make such a despicable charge.

It ends on this misleading statement:

We must stop it. It's time to bring operation Endgame itself to an end. We need an immigration policy that balances the right to control our borders with the civil liberties we must preserve in order to remain free.

I highly doubt that the ACLU really cares about "remaining free". Rather, their goal is to hide behind that in order to push a far-left agenda, including massive immigration of any kind.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:24 PM

Bill Richardson: up with Kennedy-McCain, down with Flake-Gutierrez (MyDD sponsored by SEIU)

Jonathan Singer conducted an SEIU-sponsored interview at MyDD with OAS "Special Envoy" Bill Richardson [1], and asked him a question about the latest amnesty scheme. Richardson is opposed to Gutierrez-Flake's "touchback" provision, even though the symbolic gesture of leaving the country to re-enter illegally could be done any time within six years and their staffers admitted that it could be as little as one day:

Richardson: I'd like to see the original Kennedy-McCain initiative, which established a path to legalization without the return that involves setting standards like if you speak English, if you pass a background check, if you pay a fine for coming illegally, you pay back taxes, you embrace American values and you don't get ahead of those who get here legally I think that provision is cleaner, it's clearer, it's more compassionate. You know it's divided up by certain years. You can be eligible for green card or some sort of guest worker pass. I believe that is far preferable. But I haven't seen Gutierrez'... Does it have that provision to return?

Singer: Yeah.

Richardson: I prefer the Kennedy-McCain version.

I'd leave a comment, but they'd probably delete it as they've done in the past.

Here's our Gutierrez-Flake roundup with links to all other posts on that topic.

[1] mydd.com/story/2007/3/26/25954/5752
Note that right at the top it says "[t]his coverage is sponsored by SEIU". On a related note, another blogger (Taylor Marsh) covered another event with sponsorship from the AFSCME (taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=25183).

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:13 AM

March 25, 2007

Here's another fun video

OK, this isn't as fun as the last one, but it's still fun or at least it was to me. I'm actually doing megajumps, bunnyhops, and advanced trials work, you just can't see it because of the camera angle:

If you don't like that one, watch this one instead.

Posted to OutdoorSports at 11:45 PM

Should you drop your links to Washington Monthly and Calpundit?

A week ago I posted about Washington Monthly editing comments without noting they were edited.

But, there's a completely selfish reason why every blogger should re-examine their links to both Washington Monthly and Calpundit.com (Kevin Drum of WM's former site): many of those entries are clogged with spammmm. That's OK if you don't mind linking to pages filled with spammmy keywords and links, but as for me I suspect that search engines might put me in the same neighborhood as the comments to be found at calpundit.com/archives/002525.html (Warning: the comments and links there are NSFW, as is this screengrab.)

I'll be replacing my calpundit links with bare text like that above, and if you link to either site I'd suggest reviewing the linked-to page to see whether you're linking to something you probably don't want to.

Posted to Bloggage at 12:28 PM

Instapundit makes a shocking confession

Instapundit linked to me a few times for my coverage of the "peace" protests, but his last link was to this October 5, 2003 entry. He subsequently ignored my entreaties to meet him while passing through Knoxville. It's been all downhill from there, including me calling him sleazy, pointing out his failure to point out John McCain lying to him in a telephone interview, helping to drive his then-designated point man on immigration coverage - Marc Cooper - over the edge, making my enemies list, and so on.

Now comes this parody. Click for the legible version:

Posted to Bloggage at 11:49 AM

March 24, 2007

Presidential healthcare forum: Bill Richardson for illegal aliens; more media malfeasance

There was a big "presidential" healthcare forum in Las Vegas earlier today, but it looks like the only one who attended were from the Democratic Party. Realizing that I didn't watch it and I'm only relying on a few blogger reports, it looks like there was probably more debate involved at the Third Plenary Soviet.

The moderator was Karen Tumulty of Time, and you can read her nearly content-free round-up here [1]. About the only thing newsworthy she can point to is that someone tripped up Obama, making him look bad because, while he supports universal healthcare, he doesn't have a detailed plan on his website. Apparently the question about that was the toughest question that was asked; weep for "journalism".

From our comment-deleting friends at MyDD [2]:

The first question from Tumulty asks how long it would take to achieve universal healthcare under his plan, to which [Bill Richardson] replied that his plan could achieve it within a year. The second question centers on the Schwarzenegger healthcare plan, which covers illegal immigrants. Richardson says, "They're children... and we should cover children." He also says that we need to deal with immigration through securing the borders (not through the "stupid" wall) but also through legalization. The next question, from the audience, centers on the healthcare accessible to members of Congress and federal employees. Richardson says that this is the "cornerstone" of his plan, that these programs should be open to all Americans... ...One other questioner asked if Berger and Podesta were unhappy with the fact that none of the candidates, other than Edwards, seemed to speak to how they will pay for their plans, Berger notes that other candidates actually did speak to some if this question. On the question of healthcare for illegal immigrants, Berger noted that the position of SEIU was that people should come out of the shadows and that all Americans -- all Americans -- need to be covered.

Bolding in original, as is the inability to understand that, unless we're talking in purely geographic sense, only U.S. citizens are "Americans", and that appelation does not include illegal aliens.

Needless to say, no one bothered to ask Bill Richardson whether he was speaking for himself or for the OAS.

[1] time-blog.com/swampland/2007/03/re_las_vegas_health_care_forum.html
[2] mydd.com/story/2007/3/24/115150/071

Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:38 PM

STRIVE Act: MALDEF, Juan Hernandez, ANLA support; Chertoff kinda

Without refering to Flake-Gutierrez specifically, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff reiterated his support for "guest" worker scheme:

"[The new laws should] bring them out, register them ... and make sure as a condition that they pay their debt to society for having broken the law... What I'm talking about is a common sense policy... We have to be tough. We have to be humane. We have to put into place a workable policy into this vexing issue."

"We" also have to do our job, and Chertoff isn't doing his. If he wants to advocate for an amnesty, he should quit his current position and go to work for the AILA or EPIC.

From this:

The Reform Institute and We Care America today called on Congress to show leadership on immigration. "Inaction on fixing the nation’s broken immigration system can no longer be tolerated. Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform now," said Cecilia Martinez, Executive Director of The Reform Institute.

...Dr. Juan Hernandez, Senior Fellow of the Reform Institute's Comprehensive Immigration Reform Initiative, is available to comment on immigration policy. Dr. Hernandez served as Director of the Office for Mexicans Living Abroad under Vicente Fox. His recent book, The New American Pioneers, is an authoritative look at the complex issues related to Mexican immigration.

And, according to this, Eric Gutierrez of MALDEF ("Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund") says that group supports the bill. And, the American Nursery & Landscape Association (ANLA) "applauds" the bill [1], saying among other things:

"The inclusion of AgJOBS in the STRIVE Act highlights the unique needs of agriculture," said Craig Regelbrugge, ANLA’s vice president of government relations and research. "The time for Congress to engage in this issue is now. Our industry, along with the rest of labor intensive agriculture, is at a labor shortage breaking point that Congress must address this year."

[1] landscapemanagement.net/landscape/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=413918

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:01 PM

STRIVE Act: not everyone happy with "touchback" (even for just one day)

The Gutierrez-Flake amnesty scheme contains a "touchback" provision. Current illegal aliens who pass a screening and meet other requirements would be given a legal worker permit immediately. Then:

Illegal immigrants would within the next six years have to leave the United States for either Mexico or Canada, go to a processing center and re-enter the U.S. legally. Lawmakers were vague about exactly how long they would have to stay outside the country under what is being called the touchback provision. But staff members said they could stay as little as one day.

Despite what is clearly a sham and a very bad joke on American citizens, not everyone is happy. From this:

...Alicia Acosta, an undocumented immigrant living in Montana Vista for the past 14 years, said it would be a hardship on families like hers to have to live [sic] her home.

"We would have to take the kids out of school. And if we live the kids here, how to support them here from over there (Mexico)?" she said.

Others realize how much of a giveaway this is:

"This is going to energize our community in a very positive way," said Fernando Garcia [a Mexican citizen], the executive director of the Border Network for Human Rights [a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government].

Garcia led a lobbying trip of El Paso immigrants to Washington, D.C., this month and is organizing a march in support of pro-immigrant legislation at UTEP April 10.

..."It's a light version of touchback. You don't have to go back to your country. You don't have to go back to Colombia, you can go to Mexico or Canada. It means you could go to Juarez and come back," he said.

...Rep. Flake explained that the touchback provision was important because it would create a record of legal entry for immigrants.

From this:

"We applaud the Congress for introducing a bipartisan and comprehensive immigration reform bill," said Jennifer Allen, director of the Tucson-based Border Action Network, devoted to promoting rights of immigrants of all stripes and border communities. "If something doesn't get passed this year, our communities will continue to struggle and suffer."

However, she and representatives of the like-minded Derechos Humanos oppose forcing illegal immigrants to leave the country. The groups also want to see more oversight of border security authorities to prevent abuses.

They also question how many people may be denied a ruling of "good moral character" based on vague language defining it.

From this:

"We have questions about the operational viability and the political viability of [the touchback provision]," said Frank Sharry, leader of the National Immigration Forum...

..."I think it's unrealistic, though, to expect these people to leave," said Ana Maria Patina, a lawyer and Hispanic activist in Santa Ana. Patina was skeptical that the government could create a program that would let illegal immigrants leave the country and return quickly.

And Amin David, leader of Los Amigos of Orange County, said even a short stay outside the country would worry fearful illegal immigrants.

He said the proposed $2,000 fine – $500 to apply for legal status initially and $1,500 to get on the path to citizenship – will also be difficult for many immigrants to afford...

From this:

Christy Porter, executive director of Hidden Harvest, a produce-recovery program that has helped farm workers laid off following January's freeze in the Coachella Valley, isn't sure the new immigration plan will work.

"Once they hit the promise land, nobody's going back the other way," Porter said. "I just don't see people lining up on this side of the border taking their suitcases over."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:21 PM

Trouble in paradise: AFL-CIO, ACLU, NIF, AFSC not fully happy with Flake-Gutierrez; Teamsters, Democrat Lampson

The American Civil Liberties Union - a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government - has a nit with the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty [1]:

"Drafting comprehensive immigration reform is no easy task... [praise some provisions] ...Sadly, Title III of the bill attacks privacy by creating a national ID card. Creating a national ID card under the guise of a 'secured' Social Security card is not only financially and logistically daunting, it creates the possibility that we will become a society where 'your papers' will need to be presented at every turn. We urge Congress to strike this provision and build upon the hard work of Congressmen Gutierrez and Flake to keep constitutional problems out of this legislation."

Whether it will be struck - and if it is whether that will make the position of the bill's supporters weaker - remains to be seen.

For their part, the AFL-CIO says [2]:

AFL-CIO President John J. Sweeney says the approach to immigration in the 110th Congress "stands in stark contrast to the mean-spirited path that the House of Representatives took under Republican control in the last Congress." ...Milton Rosado, president of the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA), an AFL-CIO constituency group, welcomed the legislation...

However, they also indicate several problems they have with "guest" worker programs; the STRIVE Act contains one such program.

And:

"We have questions about the operational viability and the political viability of [the touchback provision]," said Frank Sharry, leader of the National Immigration Forum.

And [3]:

[The STRIVE Act] fails to protect the fundamental human rights of immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in this country, according to the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker social justice organization... [it] offers little to address the root causes of undocumented migration and contains several troubling provisions... One such provision is "Touchback," which requires an applicant to leave the U.S. and re-enter the country to receive legal immigration status. This is not a practical starting point for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants now living in the U.S...

And, from this:

On the House side, Several Democratic freshmen campaigned against so-called amnesty to help their party win control of Congress... Among them was Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Texas, who won the conservative Republican district once held by former Majority Leader Tom DeLay... "He would not support a bill that has a road to legal residency for illegal and undocumented workers who are already here," said Lampson spokesman Bobby Zafarnia... Democrats also are facing opposition from unions. Many AFL-CIO member unions and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters are concerned that employers will choose to hire foreigners over more expensive American workers... They want limits on work visas for foreigners, but also full labor protections that would let them join unions... "The ideal immigration reform bill would not contain a guest worker program," said Yvette Pena Lopes, a Teamsters lobbyist. If one is created, the Teamsters and other unions want it to expire in three to five years, Lopes said.

4/5/07 UPDATE: John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO says:

...under the Bush plan, the 12 million undocumented workers in this nation will continue to labor in second-class status as newly defined "temporary" workers. This plan will only perpetuate the dire situation of these workers and their families, and will lower standards for all of America's workers. Our nation should instead provide a path to citizenship for these immigrants who are already working here, paying their taxes and enriching our communities. The key to raising standards for all workers is to ensure that all workers are able to enforce their rights. As long as there are workers who are unable to exercise their basic rights to the minimum wage, to a safe workplace, or to join a union, we will continue to have a second tier of workers... The theme of the Bush plan is inequality. It guarantees inequality now, for 12 million undocumented workers, and it guarantees inequality for those immigrants who come to our shores legally in the future. A two-tier society is not the America we want and is not the America that workers deserve.

[1] aclu.org/immigrants/gen/29177prs20070323.html
[2] blog.aflcio.org/2007/03/23/legislation-strives-for-real-immigration-reform/
[3] wfn.org/2007/03/msg00338.html

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:04 PM

All you need to know about immigration reform (Flake-Gutierrez)

This article, in one paragraph, tells you all you need to know about immigration "reform" in general and the Flake-Gutierrez amnesty in particular:

And in a couple of new twists that haven't been seen before, the bill would require the United States to work with Mexico to address "border security and human trafficking" while giving U.S. citizens "first shot" or "right to refusal" to jobs normally filled by newer immigrants.

How very nice of them to think of us for a change. Under the best circumstances they'd be thinking of us all the time - that is, after all, their job - but baby steps and all.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:00 PM

H.R.1645 Summary, Co-Sponsors, Full Text (Flake, Gutierrez, HR1645, STRIVE Act)

The official summary of the Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy ("STRIVE Act", aka HR1645, aka H.R. 1645, aka HR 1645, aka the "Flake-Gutierrez Massive Illegal Alien Amnesty of 2007") is here. The full text and other details are available here. It includes both the anti-American DREAM Act and the AgJobs farmworker amnesty.

The current list of co-sponsors is like a veritable garden of idiots:

* Joe Baca (CA) (linked to Armando Navarro
* Xavier Becerra (CA)
* Dennis Cardoza (CA)
* Joseph Crowley (NY)
* Henry Cuellar (TX)
* Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL)
* Mario Diaz-Balart (FL)
* Rahm Emanuel (IL)
* Luis Fortuno (PR)
* Gabrielle Giffords (AZ)
* Charles Gonzalez (TX)
* Raul Grijalva (AZ)
* Ruben Hinojosa (TX)
* Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX)
* Ray LaHood (IL)
* Grace Napolitano (CA)
* Solomon Ortiz (TX)
* Ed Pastor (AZ)
* George Radanovich (CA)
* Silvestre Reyes (TX)
* Ciro Rodriguez (TX)
* Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (FL)
* Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA)
* John Salazar (CO)
* Janice Schakowsky (IL)
* Jose Serrano (NY)
* Albio Sires (NJ)
* Hilda Solis (CA)

Out of those 28 alleged representatives, 21 of them (75%) are of Hispanic origin, with most of those being of Mexican descent.

Note that neither Loretta Sanchez (border subcommittee) nor Zoe Lofgren (immigration subcommittee) have signed on.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:44 AM

Flake-Gutierrez could nearly triple H-1B visas

From this:

[The Flake-Gutierrez amnesty] proposes to increase the annual cap on H-1B visas -- the visa most commonly used for foreign technology pros -- from the current ceiling of 65,000 to 115,000. The Strive Act also proposes increasing the limit up to 180,000 in subsequent years if the 115,000 cap is reached during a given fiscal year. In addition, the bill proposes exempting from the cap certain individuals who have earned an advanced degree in science, technology, engineering, or math at U.S. schools... In the last several years, the H-1B cap has been hit months before the new fiscal year even began...

And:

...Earlier this month, Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates testified before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, as the sole witness at a hearing on U.S. competitiveness, and called for an increase in the H-1B cap and an expedited green card process for highly skilled workers.

Compete America, a Washington-based group that includes IT vendors, trade associations and universities and is lobbying for an H-1B cap increase, today praised the visa-related provisions in the legislation introduced by Gutierrez and Flake.

Robert Hoffman, vice president of government and public affairs at Oracle Corp. and co-chairman of Compete America, said in a statement that the H-1B cap for fiscal 2008, which doesn't start until October, is likely to be reached next month. In light of that, "and with multiyear backlogs in all employment-based visa categories growing, it is imperative that meaningful reform occur this year," Hoffman said...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:33 AM

March 23, 2007

Night of 1,000 Conversations (including 900 Useful Idiots)

The "Rights Working Group" is trying to organize Moveon-style house parties throughout the U.S. on Thursday, April 5, 2007, supposedly to support due process in our immigration system. In fact, it appears to be a backdoor way to promote immigration "reform", aka a massive amnesty. And, some of the organizers lined up are linked to the Mexican government. Details here: rightsworkinggroup.org/?q=ConversationNight

Their "one-pager" (http://65.36.162.162/files/Night_of_1000_Convo_OnePager.pdf ; actually a two pager) includes a blurb from the Washington Post propaganda piece "Deporting a Model Noncitizen" by Marc Fisher (link). Some of the things Fisher forgot to cover are listed in a long comment from J. Scott here.

Their talking points are here: 65.36.162.162/files/NOTC_Toolkit_040507.pdf While they suggest steering the conversation away from immigration matters and back to due process if the former proves too contentious, it's clear that their main goals are supporting amnesty, anchor babies, catch and release, and all the other factors leading to massive legal and illegal immigration.

Their local affiliates are listed in the extended entry. Those with "LTM" have some sort of link to the Mexican government.

1. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (Washington, DC) - Laila Al-Qatami
2. Arab American Institute (Washington, DC) - Valerie Smith
3. Asian American Justice Center (Washington, DC) - Pang Houa Moua
4. Breakthrough: Building a Human Rights Culture (NY) - Carly Castania-Fox
5. Center for Intercultural Organizing (OR) - Kayse Jama
LTM 6. Coalicion de Derechos Humanos (AZ) - Kat Rodriguez
LTM (alleged) 7. Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (Los Angeles, CA) - Sara Sadhwani
8. Coalition of African, Arab, Asian, European and Latino Immigrants of Illinois (Chicago, IL) - Khemarey Nuth
9. Desis Rising Up and Moving (NY) - Monami Maulik
10. Florida Immigrant Advocacy Coalition (FL) - Maria Rodriguez
11. Hate Free Zone (WA) - Hari Kondabolu
12. Idaho Community Action Network (ID) - Leo Morales
LTM 13. Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (IL) - Mehrdad Azemun
14. National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (CA) - Juhyung Lee
15. National Network for Arab American Communities (MI) - Nadia El-Zein
16. National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (CA) - Arnoldo Garcia
17. New York Immigration Coalition (NY) - Avideh Moussavian
18. Pennsylvania Immigration and Citizenship Coalition (PA) - Regan Cooper
19. South Asian American Leaders of Tomorrow (MD) - Deepa Iyer
20. Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TN) - Stephen Fotopulos
21. United Farm Workers Foundation (CA) - Oscar Gonzalez
22. University of New Mexico, School of Law - ACLU Student Chapter - Pamela Hernandez (Albuquerque, NM)

Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:43 PM

Geraldo Rivera's reconquista rant

Geraldo Rivera is half Jewish, half Puerto Rican (Spanish). He hasn't let that stand in his way of standing in solidarity with the indigenous people to whom he has no bond otherwise, such as by supporting illegal immigration and penning a new screed at his site called "GOP Immigration Extremists". In case it disappears, you can read excerpts here.

Discussing it in depth would be worth even less than Geraldo himself, but let's look at this:

All most of the undocumented want is a fair shake and a chance to work hard and realize what we proudly call the 'American Dream'. Give them the chance to regularize and legitimatize their status and watch, as they become another beautiful component of the national mosaic. Maybe even Republicans.

A few paragraphs before that, he said this:

Isn't it reasonable to think that residents of Mexico might hold some affection and nostalgia for their lost North America Empire...? ...Where are the casinos and oil leases for the Mexicans forcibly excluded from their historic lands along with the Apache, Navajo, Sioux and Seminole? ...all agree that modern boundaries are now firmly and forever established. Every reasonable commentator understands that.

Obviously, the thoughts of a few "reasonable commentators" mean nothing when dealing with millions of people who hold "affection" for their "lost North America Empire". Geraldo thinks that we should allow Mexicans to resettle their lands, and somehow by doing that they'll automatically be converted into Americans. History - and everything he says - shows that Geraldo is a fool.

On a related note, his production company (Maravilla Productions) is one of the top lifetime contributors to... the Reverend Al Sharpton, turning over $10,000 to the clergyman.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:17 PM

Al Qaqaa munitions dump is back; BushBot response?

Remember the al Qaqaa dustup shortly before the 2004 election, in which a few reports said that large amounts of munitions had been looted from Iraq munitions dumps, prompting a furious response from the usual suspects who did everything within their powers to support massive Bush administration incompetence? Now, the GAO has weighed in:

The U.S. military's faulty war plans and insufficient troops in Iraq left thousands and possibly millions of tons of conventional munitions unsecured or in the hands of insurgent groups after the 2003 invasion -- allowing widespread looting of weapons and explosives used to make roadside bombs that cause the bulk of U.S. casualties, according to a government report released yesterday.

Some weapons sites remained vulnerable as recently as October 2006, according to the Government Accountability Office report, which said the unguarded sites "will likely continue to support terrorist attacks throughout the region." For example, it said hundreds of tons of explosives at the Al Qa Qaa facility in Iraq that had been documented by the International Atomic Energy Agency were lost to theft and looting after April 9, 2003...

While I appear to have mentioned this here once ("Should conservatives support Kerry?"), I posted several entries about this at the command-post.org and in comments elsewhere. Here's a roundup and another, here's someone else downplaying it and someone else, and here's a link to a (now missing) video report.

TalkingPointsMemo was also on the case: here and posts before and after that.

Oddly enough, the usual suspects appear to be silent this time around. Maybe we should be proactive and seek out their current thoughts.

Posted to Iraq at 12:23 PM

Let's discredit Bishop Gerald R. Barnes (San Bernardino)

Bishop Gerald R. Barnes leads the Diocese of San Bernardino (sbdiocese.org) and, as discussed here, he's also the "point man for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' national Justice for Immigrants campaign".

That says he's being criticized from all sides: pro-borders members complain about his support for illegal immigration, while at the same time the open borders loons from the National Alliance for Human Rights complain about his support for only a limited albeit massive amnesty for illegal aliens.

I'd suggest going to his public appearances and asking him tough questions about his stance. At the very least, print up some flyers and distribute them to his congregation. A possible tack is suggested by the following:

[Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA)] called the bishop's views, "well-intentioned but dangerous" because talk of legalization entices would-be immigrants to come into the United States illegally... "People talking about this, including the bishop, are responsible for people dying on the freeway, drowning in the rivers and dying in the desert," said Bilbray.

Or, consider this Barnes quote:

"I want to make it understood that the Catholic church is for the reformation of the immigration laws so that we do not have illegal immigration... We are not encouraging people in any way to break the law. We want to change the law."

The only way to sharply reduce illegal immigration is to enforce the laws. The U.S. Catholic Church and others have shown time and time again that they do not support enforcement of our immigration laws. Some on the far left even complain about small attempts to deport fugitive and criminal aliens.

The "reform" that Barnes supports will only make the situation far worse, encouraging even more illegal immigration and leading to even more of the problems he pretends to oppose.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:12 AM

Our Lady Queen of Angels Church (sanctuary movement, dupes, IAF)

From Louis Sahagun of the Los Angeles Times' "L.A. church offers migrants sanctuary" (link via this) we learn that Father Richard Estrada of the Our Lady Queen of Angels church ("La Placita";laplacita.org) in downtown Los Angeles is spending $1000 to build living quarters to house a family of illegal aliens facing deportation orders. It mentions the Interfaith Worker Justice and the New York Sanctuary Coalition as being involved in this "new sanctuary movement". It also quotes Rev. Alexia Salvatierra, "executive director of Clergy & Laity United for Economic Justice-California and a pastor in the Evangelical Lutheran Church".

Their goal is to create a media circus:

To be eligible, an undocumented immigrant must be in deportation proceedings, have a good work record and have children who are U.S. citizens by birth. They must also agree to undergo training to overcome their fear of public exposure and articulate their cases at news conferences and public gatherings... [Salvatierra says:] "We're choosing them for their personal stories... but we're training them in how to respond to questions about their plights."

Let a thousand Elvira Arellanos bloom! Maybe they'll even train them to emote from behind a scrim.

The new movement thinks that, unlike the past movement, they won't face arrests as long as those to be deported are in proceedings and are identified.

Pulling the tax exempt status from these churches is certainly one way to deal with this, but there's a far easier and far more effective way: discredit these "leaders". Some might not fear arrest, but all fear being publicly exposed for their inability to figure out everything involved in this issue.

Sahagun also quotes "Peter A. Schey, president of the board of directors of the Center for Human Rights & Constitutional Law Foundation" without mentioning his various links to the Mexican government.

Also of interest is the PDF of an immigration workshop (laplacita.org/workshop.pdf). It contains an overview of immigration which might look slightly balanced, but it doesn't really answer too many objections. And, it's from "One LA/IAF", which is a local affiliated of the Industrial Areas Foundation, founded by radical organizer - and apparent Hillary Clinton idol - Saul Alinsky.

The PDF has cheap labor pimps aspects:

Growers from the Imperial Valley in CA to Yuma County in AZ will fill barely half the 50,000 hand positions needed to gather the region's tons of produce, according to Western Growers

An unimpeachable source, to be sure. They also manage to mash religion, world socialism, and libertarianism together in just one paragraph:

We live in a global economy; the policies and politics of one country affect other countries. We are called to be in solidarity. There is an increasing interdependence between countries who allow free movement of goods, but not of people.

UPDATE: From this:

Nearly one year after a massive Los Angeles protest march electrified the immigrant rights movement, the original organizers gathered again at the downtown spot where they hatched their plans: the historic adobe church known as La Placita... There was the fiery priest, the activist mothers, the Riverside graduate student [Jesse Diaz Jr.]...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:37 AM

Dems temporarily block Bush admin Mexican truck scheme; forgetting something?

The Bush administration wants to allow about 100 Mexican trucking companies to drive beyond the border zone. The reciprocal NAFTA provision allowing U.S. truckers to drive throughout Mexico is still being negotiated. However, the scheme hit a speed bump recently, with an amendment tacked on to the recent Iraq spending bill requiring the administration to provide more details and allow for public comment.

And, it was done by Democrats: Byron Dorgan, Dianne Feinstein, and Patty Murray; the Teamsters are opposed to this provision. Now if we could only get them interested in reducing the flow of cheap labor.

While it's certainly good what they did on this, I think a little public shame is in order as to why they've supported the importation of massive amounts of cheap labor from the same country.

"The administration is rushing to open the border to Mexican-domiciled trucks without assuring their safety and enforcement of the law of the U.S.," said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. "They can't go rushing forward in opening the border without having explained what their pilot project is." ...[Dorgan] also criticized the Bush administration for opening the border to Mexican trucks before Mexico opened the border to U.S. trucks. "They were going to implement these plans for Mexican long-haul trucks in a way that was at odds with how the Mexicans were going to treat American truckers," Dorgan said.

Such concern!

Posted to NAU at 09:38 AM

March 22, 2007

Jeff Flake, Luis Guitierrez STRIVE amnesty: America's new favorite comedy duo?

[UPDATE: Send a free FAX about this here. Links to our full coverage about this below]

Could Reps. Jeff Flake and Luis Guitierrez be the Abbott and Costello of a new generation? The STRIVE amnesty ("Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy") they introduced today makes me think that instead of being duped by them - what they apparently think will happen - we'll all soon be laughing at them once all the details of their scheme have been released.

Consider the farcical "touchback" provision [1]:

Under the legislation, undocumented workers, who pay a fine and pass extensive and thorough background examinations, would be eligible for conditional status with work and travel authorization for 6 years. If, during those six years, the worker remains employed, continues to be an upstanding member of the community, learns English and civics, and pays any owed taxes, they could be eligible to adjust their status if they leave the country and re-enter legally.

I can't find the actual legislation, but that sounds not only like a massive amnesty, but it sounds like the "touchback" feature wouldn't have to be acted on immediately. In other words, the former illegal alien would get a status adjustment immediately, and only if they want to get on the "path to citizenship" would they need to "touchback", and they could do it at any time during the six-year period. In addition, some of the requirements (if they were to be actually enforced) sound slightly close to indentured servitude. What if they become disabled, or what if there's an economic downturn? Will they still get their chance at permanent residency?

And, of course, there's the irony of those who've shown a general lack of respect for our laws then being required to take civics courses.

Then, there's the "guest" worker scheme:

The Gutierrez-Flake bill sets up a new worker program for low-skilled workers, when a U.S. worker cannot be found to fill a needed job... employers would be required to provide foreign workers with the same wages and working conditions enjoyed by U.S. workers...

Let's say U.S. notaries make $20 an hour, and employers know that there are 400,000 potential "guest" notaries who'd be happy with $5 an hour. Flake and Gutierrez think we're dumb enough to think that employers wouldn't find a way to get those foreign notaries into the U.S. one way or another.

Flake flunky Matthew Specht is fielding calls about this scheme at 202-225-2635 or send him an email at matthew.specht *at* mail.house.gov.

[1] flake.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=61241

UPDATE: Straight outta the AILA come these two:

lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/files/STRIVE_Act_Shorter_Summary.pdf
lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/files/STRIVE_Act_Longer_Summary.pdf

Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:21 PM

STRIVEing for amnesty: the Flake/Guitierrez "Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy" Act

We're seemingly moments away from the release of the Jeff Flake/Luis Guitierrez "STRIVE Act", a massive amnesty for illegal aliens. "STRIVE" stands for the Orwellian-named "Security Through Regularized Immigration and a Vibrant Economy". Please contact your representatives and stress your opposition to the scheme, and if you find anyone promoting it do your best to discredit them.

The far-lefties have anticipated the bill, with the Asian American Justice Center "encouraged" and, not to be outdone, the American Immigration Lawyers Association "enthusiastically welcomes" it.

Turning to the "news":

Millions of undocumented immigrants could get legal permission to stay in the U.S. by paying fines and symbolically re-entering the country, under an immigration reform bill introduced in the House Thursday.

Well, at least they're being honest about it. After "symbolically" re-entering, they'd be put on a non-symbolic "path to citizenship".

The bill also would allow up to 400,000 foreign workers to come to the U.S. legally every year.

Presumably that's refering to the "guest" worker program, which in an earlier bill was capped at 200,000. And, for those of you who think Jeff Flake isn't a liar, consider this quote from Flake:

"This bill will end illegal immigration"

It'll do that in about the same way as the 1986 amnesty did. Any "tough" provisions would eventually be ignored or watered down. The forces that would do that would include the racial power groups, industry groups, corrupt banks, foreign governments, and such that have been pushing "reform". They currently support illegal immigration, and this bill will give them even more political power from which to continue their support for illegal immigration. Flake is simply a liar.

The legislation would require Homeland Security officials to certify that border security and worksite enforcement measures are in place before allowing foreign workers to apply for new visas. It would force undocumented immigrants to leave the country and then re-enter before they could apply for conditional legal status that would eventually lead to citizenship.

Those mandates were added to the proposed legislation during careful negotiations aimed at giving cover to Republican supporters of the bill in hopes of avoiding the partisan standoff that killed similar legislation last year.

If they're looking for cover, that means they know they're doing something deeply unpopular. And, as indicated above, the certification would be watered down, and, while I don't know exactly what it entails in past proposals the certification only dealt with the money being spent, not on the overall success of various programs.

UPDATE: From this:

"What is reform? What Congressman Flake and I have presented, and we're supporting today, this is reform," Gutierrez, speaking in Spanish, told a reporter at a Capitol Hill press conference...

[In a written statement, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said:] "Our first responsibility to the American people is their safety... We must enact immigration reform that is humane and honors our American tradition of being a nation of immigrants and a land of opportunity for all... It provides an excellent framework for Congress and the president to begin work on the vital task of immigration reform...

And, from this:

Despite their optimism and good cheer, the group was not joined by the relevant subcommittee or committee chairs or ranking Republicans, nor any of the elected Democratic leadership of the House.

Meanwhile in Detroit, the Metropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength (MOSES) came out in support of the scheme. Those quoted were: Noel Saleh, "president of the board at the Dearborn-based Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services", Father Tom Sepulveda, "pastor of Saint Anne de Detroit Catholic Church, where the majority of worshippers are immigrants", and Dawud Walid, "head of the Michigan branch of the Council on American-Islamic Relations."

UPDATE: Ralph G. Neas - president of the People For the American Way issues his support for the bill, launching a flock of canards:

"In several states where anti-immigrant measures have caused worker shortages, growers are being forced to leave their products to rot. In small towns across the country, immigrants are being accosted by ordinances that purport to root out lawlessness but in reality foment hate and distrust – and are draining the life out of some communities that had been invigorated by immigrants... In November, Americans rejected many proponents of anti-immigrant extremism. Now this Democratic-led Congress has the perfect opportunity to prove that it not only received the message, but is prepared to act in a responsible way to address a serious national problem..."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:42 AM

March 21, 2007

George P. Bush.. In The Navy

Setting out to find pleasure, search the world for treasure, and learn science and technology, George P. Bush - Hispanic nephew of Our Leader George W. Bush - is joining the Navy Reserve as an intelligence officer. He'll serve eight years, but he'll make it thirty more years if we're lucky. In the unlucky option, he'd get out when he's 38. To run for president you have to be 35, and this is a likely precursor to the U.S. being treated to yet another member of the Bush family degrading the nation with their "leadership".

Of course, by that time the U.S. will have an even larger Hispanic minority, and "P." can appeal to them out of racial grounds and almost certainly through socially conservative demagoguery: gay marriage, abortion, and the like. In fact, all of that might have been their plan all along. Of course, there's no guarantee that "P." would even run as a Republican; he might have a miraculous conversion if that party is no longer able to get enough votes to win national contests.

In one of his first likely public lies, "P." says:

"Honestly, I'm kind of a little disappointed that the word got out... I was hoping to keep this as confidential as possible. I'm not doing it for political purposes or anything along those lines..."

On a lighter note, a commentor says:

It might be to get away from his sister Noelle's constant begging for crack money.

Earlier:
George P. Bush was scheduled to speak at the Dallas illegal aliens march
Quote: "...we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us."
"Bush nephew backs off on INS"
"Mexico may sue U.S. over pepper-ball projectiles"

Posted to Politics at 11:33 PM

"Bill offers temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants..."

Drudge has a habit of linking to misleadingly or falsely titled - or just plain false - articles about immigration matters, the latest example being "Bill offers temporary legal status to undocumented immigrants" from Dave Montgomery of McClatchy Newspapers. That's the McClatchy-supplied title.

By "temporary", most people might think six months, maybe a year tops. Try again:

Bipartisan legislation to be unveiled Thursday in the House of Representatives would offer temporary legal status to millions of undocumented immigrants but would require them to leave the country before they could be eligible for permanent residency and U.S. citizenship.

...[ two paragraphs deleted ]...

...The Gutierrez-Flake proposal includes many of the ingredients of the failed Senate bill. It would create a guest-worker program that would enable foreign workers to stay in the country for up to six years to hold jobs that U.S. workers have bypassed.

If you think six years is in any way "temporary" - especially considering that many of those "guests" would have U.S. citizen children during that time, making it nearly impossible to deport them - please stand in line for the wallet inspector.

Previous examples of Drudge not finding better stories to link to:
EFE admits Goldwater "concentration camps" smear
ADL's (latest) smear job on Minuteman Project
Los Angeles Times goes to border, discovers immigration laws won't work
Chertoff promotes "Temporary Worker Program" at Senate meeting

Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:28 PM

Humane Borders did distribute border maps in Mexico

Last year, Humane Borders - a group of collaborateurs, far-lefties, and useful idiots - wanted to distribute maps in Mexico which supposedly warned "migrants" of the dangers of crossing the border. Of course, they also showed the best places to cross and how many days it took between stops and were thus about as effective in their supposed purpose as a two-foot high fence around a swimming pool.

The last I heard, the plan had been canceled, but apparently that's not entirely accurate (lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/03/view_from_the_b.html):

Here is the latest from the UC Davis law student delegation visting the U.S./Mexico border region in southern Arizona:

After our meeting with Border Patrol we met with Paul Fuschini of Humane Borders. With over 8,000 volunteers, Humane Borders offers humanitarian assistance to migrants by maintaining over 80 water stations throughout the Arizona/Mexico border region [funded by Tucson's Pima County]...

...In our meeting with Border Patrol, Officer King described the efforts of organizations such as Humane Borders as encouraging migrants to cross the desert and increasing "illegal immigration."

...The organization wanted to distribute these maps in southern Mexico, where, in recent years, a large number of migrants come from... Last year, the organization spoke with the Mexican Human Rights commission, a government agency, which agreed to distribute the posters. However, the following week, secretary of DHS, Michael Chertoff stated that the maps would encourage illegal immigration because they would show migrants how to cross into the US illegally. The Mexican human rights commission subsequently decided not to distribute the maps. Undaunted, Humane Borders itself sent a brigade of volunteers to distribute the maps in the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:54 PM

Bill Gates: "freedom of migration is a good thing" (also: Reuters misleads)

Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates - sounding like a cross between Vicente Fox and Martha Stewart - said the following in Mexico:

"I'm a big believer that as much as possible, and there's obviously political limitations, freedom of migration is a good thing."

He also supported immigration "reform". Obviously, Bill Gates should concentrate on creating clunky software. While Microsoft benefits from increased levels of high-skilled immigration, what's best for MS isn't always what's best for the U.S. And, in Mexico, "freedom of migration" means the right of low-skilled workers to enter the U.S. at will, thereby affecting our own low-wage workers, increasing social problems such as crime and school costs and on and on, and giving even more political power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government. About the only immediate benefit to Microsoft out of that would be lower prices for their employees' domestic workers, coupled with higher prices for social services.

Massive illegal immigration is also a strong indicator of massive political corruption, and Gates might want to be wary of the latter. While to a certain extent he might be relying on political corruption in the U.S. or other countries, it can always turn against him. He might want to take a lesson from the other billionaires in Russia and China and take a look at Hugo Chavez' nationalization moves.

The unnamed "reporter" from Reuters also makes a highly misleading statement:

Tens of thousands of Mexicans sneak into the United States every year...

Now, go back and add a zero to that figure.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:57 PM

Pro-illegal immigration performance art (funding by Bank of America and Wells Fargo)

Observe, if you will, this picture:

Here's the explanation:

Families affected by a series of federal immigration raids this month spoke out in San Rafael on Tuesday at a news conference that showcased them as silhouetted subjects shrouded behind a privacy screen.

Hosted by Canal Alliance at a building adjacent to its headquarters on Larkspur Street, the bizarre question-and-answer session - featuring men, women and children assigned pseudonyms - was aimed at telling their stories while hiding their identities to protect them from possible deportation, organizers said...

Those "in the shadows" also made various claims, such as a supposed 14-year-old claiming he'd been punched in the jaw by a "law enforcement officer assisting in the raids".

I don't know whether these people were actually illegal aliens, or were just far-lefties pretending to be same. I wouldn't be surprised if one or many of them were in the latter category. After all, it could happen, and that's all that matters, right?

I note also that Canal Alliance's "Corporate Partners" (canalalliance.org/AU_P_Don_Corp.shtml) include Bank of America and Wells Fargo, two banks that seek to indirectly profit from the fruits of illegal activity.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:45 AM

March 20, 2007

Jeff Flake, Luis Gutierrez to introduce amnesty bill in House

Looks like there's a bit of work ahead, as Reps. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) and Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) are going to introduce an illegal alien amnesty bill in the House on Thursday. Senator Teddy Kennedy "applauds" their efforts as he continues his attempts to bring forth a horror in the Senate.

The details of the bill as provided by those Reps and apparently annotated by the OC Register are included in the extended entry, and they even include the creation of a "North American security perimeter".

The exact details of the amnesty itself don't really matter: the bill is amnesty and will be perceived as such around the world, resulting in massive amounts of both legal and illegal immigration to the U.S.

The way to solve this issue is clear:

1. Call your representatives and urge everyone else you know to do the same.

2. Work to discredit anyone who supports this or other amnesties. That includes anyone who has some sort of influence, from major bloggers to religious leaders to Congressmen. If you have the chance to destroy their career, do it.

_A new worker program. This variation on a guest worker program would allow low-skilled people to get jobs here when U.S. workers could not be found to fill a needed job. These employees would be able to change jobs and travel and eventually get on a path to citizenship. The worker visa would be valid for three years and renewable once.

This provision is likely to draw fire from those who favor a temporary worker program, under which guest workers would not be able to remain here indefinitely. A group of Republican senators have been working with the White House on their own bill that is expected to include a guest worker program, but not one that would lead to permanent residency.

_A legalization plan. Illegal immigrants who pay a fine and pass background checks would be eligible for a conditional status and could work and travel for six years. If during that time they learned English, stayed employed, had clean criminal records, paid fines and back taxes, the immigrants would be eligible for legal status.

This plan also includes a requirement that the undocumented immigrants leave the country and reenters legally. It's not clear from the summary available exactly how that would work.

Such a provision will likely engender opposition from immigration advocates who would see that as an impediment to some of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants coming forward. But it could make such a plan more palatable to those who say any legalization plan amounts to an amnesty.

_Employer verification. Employers would have to verify that the people they hire are legally entitled to work in the U.S. The new system would eventually apply to all employees and all new hires and would be implemented in phases. Penalties would be increased for employers who don't comply with the verification system.

Both sides in the immigration debate have been calling for such a provision.

_Agriculture. The AgJobs legislation introduced in the House and Senate would be included. This would give a path to legalization and citizenship to an estimated 5 million agriculture workers.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., have been especially pushing this provision. Feinstein has said she would prefer to start with this plan instead of a broader overall bill.

_Education. This provision would allow illegal immigrant students to pay in-state college tuition and also remove current barriers to their getting a higher education and to working.

This proposal has had strong bipartisan support in past congresses.

_Border security. More border enforcement personnel would be hired and increased technology used to secure the U.S./Mexico border. A North American security perimeter would be established in coordination with Mexico.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:40 PM

Cardinal Roger Mahony lied to his parishioners

Cardinal Roger Mahony - who frequently hides behind "humanitarianism" to support illegal immigration - has been caught in a lie:

At least six months after Cardinal Roger M. Mahony told his superiors at the Vatican that a videotape provided proof of a priest's criminal misconduct with high school boys, the head of the Los Angeles Archdiocese told the public that the tape showed no sexual activity between Father Lynn Caffoe and the boys, according to court records.

Documents newly filed in the Caffoe civil case provide the first glimpse into confidential priest files that Mahony sought for four years to keep sealed in the midst of a sexual abuse scandal that engulfed the archdiocese. He eventually took the secrecy fight to the U.S. Supreme Court...

Posted to Miscellania at 04:57 PM

Hey, that's what I drink!

I have a confession to make. I drink a lot of Diet Shasta, frequently guzzling straight out of the 3 liter bottle. Now, you can almost see one kinda explode:

I've used the bottles for various purposes, such as carrying drinking water when hiking and backpacking, and also carrying several of them filled with non-potable water on training hikes; when I get to the top of something I empty out the water. I've dropped them on rocks and such, and I've only had one of them create a spill. That was in a 99 Cents Store parking lot, and, while I didn't write anything down, I seem to recall that that was a cap-related issue.

I think it would be possible to fashion a fairly cheap way to do this that would create a very large explosion; perhaps with a time-release setup of some kind (candy coated with something else) or something that would automatically release a large number of candies all at once in the bottom of the bottle rather than simply putting them in the top by hand.

Posted to WackyHumor at 03:04 PM

How to be a Gramscian in fifty easy links (race awareness, anti-racist, etc. etc.)

Would you too like to increase your race awareness and work on your anti-racist viewpoint while at the same time learning about transracialism, white privilege and Oppression?

I knew you would! That's why I recommend visiting this page and following all the links at the "super-sized link post" from the "10th Erase Racism Carnival": blogher.org/node/16991

Your host is the fetching Carmen Van Kerckhove, who's the co-founder and president of New Demographic (newdemographic.com), "an anti-racism training company that goes beyond diversity buzzwords to tackle the real issues behind race and racism.". She podcasts at "Addicted to Race", and her other sites include "Racialicious", "Anti-Racist Parent", and "Race Changers".

Now, I'd like you to express how much you hate racism. Let it all out! Stamp out that racism! Spend a good two minutes doing that.

Posted to MultiCultiCult at 01:10 PM

Teddy Kennedy: Massive Amnesty or Bust! (Fabian Nunez)

From "Kennedy pledges his version of border bill will reach Senate" we read:

Sen. Ted Kennedy vowed Monday that immigration reform - including citizenship for illegal workers - will hit the Senate floor by June, despite attempts by the White House and other opponents to massage the bill.

With California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez by his side, the Massachusetts Democrat said he and presidential contender Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., are negotiating the measure and that he hopes to introduce legislation "in the very near future."

That's not going to sit too well with McCain's new pro-Pence scheme tack.

"California bears a disproportionate amount of the burden," to its health care and education systems because of illegal immigration, Kennedy said. The problem, he contended, is "because we have not had an effective national program."

Please. Waving a magic wand and declaring all illegal aliens to be legal workers isn't going to fix anything. And, it will encourage even more illegal immigration, making the situation far worse.

On the bright side, the pro-"reform" coalition might be splitting into two parts, those who want amnesty for all or most, and those who only want a more limited, pro-business program:

Kennedy called talks between interested parties "useful" but warned the White House against pushing a watered-down measure that, for example, includes a program to allow foreign temporary workers but blocks legalization or citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants now in the country.

Nunez also had a meeting on this issue with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:54 PM

Bill Richardson opposes border "wall"; whose agenda is he promoting?

Yesterday, Texas' House and Senate approved House Resolution 853, a tribute to New Mexico governor Bill Richardson and his "brilliant career". No, really. Those of strong stomach can read it here.

During his acceptance speech, he said this:

"The [border] wall should be torn down... It's bad policy. It was done to get election votes... And the next president should not build it. I wouldn't build it."

He also went on to propose "joint border patrols" with Mexico, something that would lead to even more Mexican-style political corruption in the U.S.

Obviously, despite what both he and W. Gardner Selby of the Austin American-Statesman say, it's not a "wall", it's a fence.

More importantly, it's an open question as to whose agenda Bill Richardson was pushing. On whose behalf was he speaking? Just himself? The citizens of New Mexico? Or, others?

Last year, the OAS ("Organization of American States") named him as their Special Envoy to 'promote dialogue on issues... such as immigration and free trade' [1]. Member states of the OAS include the U.S. and Canada, but every other member state has a "people export" policy to the U.S., in particular Mexico. In his press conference, he also came out against building the fence, and the OAS also nearly passed a resolution opposing the fence.

Was Bill Richardson representing the OAS when he came out against the "wall"? It isn't entirely clear, and that's always going to be the case when dealing with people who clearly have divided loyalties such as Richardson.

[1] See nomoreblather.com/bill-richarson-registered-foreign-agent

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:47 PM

Ford Foundation money helped create Jupiter Florida day laborer center (Philip Williams, Manuel Vasquez)

The Ford Foundation knew that its money was used to help create a day laborer center where many of the workers were illegal aliens. Not only that, they've doubled down and given another grant to two University of Florida professors who used Ford Foundation money to help start the center. From a press release:

Building on previous research, two University of Florida professors [Philip Williams, professor of political science, and Manuel Vasquez, professor of religion] will use a $450,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to study social interaction between Latino immigrants and the established Atlanta community, as well as the multiple roles religion plays in shaping immigrant acceptance and incorporation.

...Vasquez [says:] "Immigration is not just a national issue. It's a global issue."

[..."research and outreach programs"... "Focus groups and workshops"... ..."academic publications... pamphlets, media articles and a Web site"...]

...Williams and Vasquez studied the experiences of newly immigrated Latinos in Pompano Beach, Deerfield Beach and Jupiter, Fla. for a previous project also funded by the Ford Foundation.

...The researchers worked with the [Jupiter] community to create a labor center that would address the problem, but even that solution was problematic. Many of the day laborers were undocumented immigrants, so the use of local government funds for the project generated controversy.

The professors knew the foundation was pleased with their previous work, and they were encouraged to apply for this second grant, Vasquez said.

Previously:
St. Peter Catholic Church, Jupiter Florida, supports illegal immigration
Jupiter Florida's illegal alien hiring hall coming soon
Jupiter Florida's seamy, corrupt, "liberal" underbelly
The Palm Beach Post goes off the deep end

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:33 PM

Adam Nagourney doesn't confront GOP candidates on immigration politics

Adam Nagourney of the New York Times (with assistance from Rachel Swarns) offers "G.O.P. Candidates Confront Immigration Politics". Despite being two screens long, we're only told that GOP candidates are facing the ire of Iowa voters regarding immigration matters, but we aren't given much in the way of specifics. And, Nagourney doesn't attempt to ask Senator John McCain or others any tough questions that would reveal the flaws in their positions. About the only slight news in the piece is that McCain is backing away from Kennedy-McCain, and instead is moving towards a scheme similar to that proposed by Mike Pence. You know, the one that featured unlimited immigration.

We're also informed that "McCain... is from a border state that is deeply divided over immigration." Yes, large majorities voting for three propositions designed to reduce illegal immigration mark a state as "deeply divided". It's truly an "NYT-style" deep divide.

And: "Tom Tancredo... has based his campaign on an anti-immigration message". Didn't Adam Nagourney just lie?

And:

Mr. Giuliani has yet to campaign in Iowa and has not been pressed on his views on immigration;

Why not? Isn't it the job of people like Nagourney or Swarns or others at the NYT and other media sources to press them on vital issues? Why aren't they doing their jobs?

Then - oddly enough - Nagourney quotes someone saying something a bit questionable:

Mr. Brownback was reminded of that throughout the day on Saturday, including during his march in the St. Patrick's Day Parade up Locust Avenue in Des Moines. "We need to build a fence," Mike Clark, 38, a pig farmer, told Mr. Brownback as he walked alongside him. "We need to get them stopped."

Then, we get thoughts on the Pence scheme:

"The business community has always been skeptical about any requirement to make workers leave the U.S. to obtain legal status," said Laura Reiff, of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, which represents service industries. "We haven't ruled a Pence-like touchback completely out of the question, but it would need to be an efficient, functional process."

The EWIC is a bit more than that, including among their members the American Immigration Lawyers Association, First Data (former owners of Western Union), Tyson Foods, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Please write public *at* nytimes.com with your thoughts. You can also contact the "reporter" by clicking on his name at the article page and then clicking the contact link.

Posted to Politics at 12:22 AM

March 19, 2007

Obamanation! Trademark Office says: stick your application where the sun don't shine

Two radio hosts from Chicago tried to trademark the term "Obamanation", refering of course to Barack Hussein Obama. They were refused because the term was considered to be "disparaging". Oddly enough, however, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office attorney Karen K. Bush included an extremely questionable screenshot in her notice of refusal. (Children can stop reading this entry right about here).

... (Did the kids leave?)

OK: in her refusal, the U.S. PTO attorney included a screengrab of the Wikipedia entry for "ButtttPluggg", except without the doubled-up consonants since I don't want to get hits for the regular version.

You can see a copy of the email the U.S. PTO attorney send them here, and read WND's overview here.

At first glance it seems to have absolutely no bearing on the refusal, and since I don't have Lexis/Nexis I can't check the cited cases to see if they have some bearing. I'm going to assume she was just playing around (with her career).

Posted to Miscellania at 08:15 PM

Gil Cedillo's SB 1 would create "Office of Immigrant Affairs"

California state Senator Gil Cedillo - a Democrat whose actions are usually indistinguishable from those that a paid Mexican agent would engage in - is back with a new scheme: creating an "Office of Immigrant Affairs" with bill SB 1.

He pretends that that Office would help new immigrants get settled in the state, help them apply for citizenship, and so forth. In actual fact, it would end up supporting both legal and illegal immigration, it would help create new voters for the Democratic Party - especially those who are racial demagogues like Cedillo - and it would serve as a make-work program and an entree for far-left groups, perhaps including those linked to the Mexican government. For examples, look into the Illinois Immigration Task Force, that state's "New Americans" program (similar to ones in Iowa and Arkansas), and the Los Angeles Office of Immigrant Affairs. The first and the last involve groups linked to the Mexican government.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:39 PM

March 18, 2007

Washington Monthly desperate enough to edit comments without noting they were edited

[Update here]

Washington Monthly ("WM"; Kevin Drum/Political Animal, washingtonmonthly.com) used to have an open commenting policy, and I've been posting the occasional and almost always critical comment at that site since Drum moved there and at his previous location (calpundit.com) since 2002 or 2003.

WM recently changed to some form of post-moderation of comments. Unlike almost everyone else who uses moderation, that includes the sleazy and underhanded tactic of editing comments without noting that they've been edited. In particular, adding extra characters to some URLs left in messages rendering them inoperable.

This has happened to me at least three times, once in January [1], again in February [2] and the second time earlier today (washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_03/010948.php), when a space character was inserted into a URL [3] in my comment (search for "TLB"), causing that link to generate a 404 (file not found message) and causing me to have to add a redirect rule into my .htaccess file. The comment is below. [4]

I don't know whether it's Kevin Drum or someone else who edits these comments, but Drum certainly knows about it. After the second incident I wrote him regarding it and he said it "probably" wouldn't happen again. He also mentioned that the person who did it may have been "annoyed"; whether he was refering to himself or someone else wasn't clear. He didn't raise any issues with the contents of any comments I left there. Note also that in December a comment I left there was deleted entirely.

Note also that two other URLs left in the comments on the latest thread were not modified, one to this page and another to this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnett_Slepian

Clearly, as with those sites that have deleted comments I left or banned me entirely, they realize they don't have an argument and are forced to resort to playing sleazy games.

On the technical side of things, WM now uses the nofollow tag, meaning that all those who help WM create a "community" are doing so for free. Their older entries are clogged with spammm (example: washingtonmonthly.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=8000). Meaning that they penalize legitimate commenters at the same time as they probably turn up in search results for spammmmy terms and generate click-through traffic for those spammmers. Anyone who links to their entries is linking to pages filled with spammm links and keywords.

On the wider issue, I was banned from RedState despite having posted almost 75 diary entries there over a one and a half year period. I've also been banned from ThinkProgress and QandO and I was banned from DailyKos back when he was just a solo blogger. And, I've had one or more comments deleted from MyDD (2), Think Progress, Brad DeLong, the New Haven Independent, Brothers Judd, the Arkansas Family Coalition, Media Matters for America (2, 3), John Kerry's blog, and, last but not least Blogs For Bush (example 1, 2). Obviously I'm doing something right.

~~~~~~~~ FOOTNOTES ~~~~~~~~

[1] In January a comment I left at washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_01/010513.php had the link in the following converted into gibberish:

Arnold is/was taking advice from someone linked to the MexicanGovernment. Details here. I don't expect Kevin Drum to understand this, but perhaps he should evaluate who Arnie is linked to, who he's being advised by, and who his plans will ultimately benefit before jumping on board.

[2] In February a comment I left at washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2007_02/010675.php had a link left in a comment changed from "lonewacko.com" to "lonewdfhsdfhaacko.com".

[3] The link http://24ahead.com/blog/archives/005911.html was changed to have a space character before the period.

[4]

I agree with our host about the 'hearts and minds' aspect, but he seems to have left a few things out of the equation. Many of those on the far-left think the U.S. is a bigger terrorist than, you know, the terrorists. Moderate Democrats don't exactly seem to be doing their part to reign in people like that.

On the wider issue, both the GOP and Dem leaderships are willing to put the U.S. at great risk out of fear of alienating their respective interest groups.

Recall that ChuckieSchumer pulled a web video about BorderControl simply because one or two Hispanic groups sent out press releases. Rather than taking them on, he capitulated. And, here's something most probably don't know either: HezbollahTerrrorists have infiltrated the U.S. over our porous SouthernBorder. That happened on Bush's watch, but you haven't heard any Democrats speak out about it.

Perhaps the GOP leadership should put the U.S. CofC on hold and think about protecting the U.S. And, perhaps the Dems should put the NationalCouncilofTheRace on hold and think about the same duty.

Posted to Bloggage at 10:17 PM

ACLU's anti-Hazleton star witness admits myth-making

From "Owner admits Hazleton's immigrant law didn't force store to close":

...Most of the stories claim that the Hazleton laws aimed at throwing out illegal immigrants have harmed innocent people instead...

...[Jose and Rosa Lechuga; in English, "lechuga" = "lettuce"], legal immigrants from Mexico, said police damaged their businesses by parking cruisers nearby. They said this was a source of intimidation to potential customers, whether they had citizenship or not.

But last week, during the early stages of the federal trial that will decide the constitutionality of Hazleton's immigration laws, city lawyers exposed the Lechugas' story as untrue.

He was far behind on his mortgage payments, and a suburban store he opened failed because many of the customers were illegal aliens who were picked up in a federal raid.

And, "Mr. Lechuga testified that most of his customers at the suburban store were illegal immigrants."

Now, let's turn to October 31, 2006's "Federal Judge Blocks Hazleton Anti-Immigrant Ordinance, Says Law Causes Harm to Legal Immigrants" from the ACLU of Pennsylvania (aclupa.org/pressroom/federaljudgeblockshazleton.htm):

A federal judge today issued a temporary order [aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file230_27227.pdf] blocking anti-immigrant ordinances from being enforced in Hazleton, Pennsylvania, noting that the laws could cause "irreparable injury" to the city's residents. The ordinances were challenged in court by local business owners, landlords and residents who would be negatively impacted by the laws.

In issuing the order, Judge James M. Munley cited examples of citizens and non-citizens who stand to risk "housing, livelihood, and education" if the ordinances are enforced, including Brenda Lee Mieles, a United States citizen who may be evicted from her residence because of her inability to establish her citizenship, and Rosa and Jose Luis Lechuga, who continue to suffer a great loss of business in their store and restaurant. In contrast, he found, the city had not supported any of its "vague complaints about the presence of illegal immigrants" with evidence or statistics...

I'd say that federal judge - a Democrat - owes us an explanation, and Lechuga and the ACLU owe the judge an explanation as well. From the TRO:

For example, Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 risks being evicted from her apartment along with her two young children, although not an "illegal alien" under the laws of the United States...

As discussed in the First Amended Complaint of October 30, 2006 (aclu.org/images/asset_upload_file429_27220.pdf) she's applying for LPR under the VAWA; it would seem like the ACLU could work with Hazleton to deal with such most likely highly rare cases. Er, why didn't they? Then, we get to the lettuce couple:

Plaintiffs Rosa and Jose Luis Lechuga have suffered and continue to suffer a great loss of business in their store and restaurant located in Hazleton, which they blame on the ordinances...A monetary price cannot be placed on such matters as plaintiffs' housing, livelihood and education.

From the First Amended Complaint:

16. Plaintiffs Rosa and Jose Luis Lechuga ("Lechuga") are husband and wife and are residents of Hazleton. Plaintiffs Lechuga own a grocery store in Hazleton. They formerly owned a restaurant in Hazleton as well. 17. Plaintiffs Lechuga came to the U.S. from Mexico in 1981. They moved to Hazleton in 1991 to work on tomato and cucumber farms. 18. Plaintiffs Lechuga opened their store approximately eight years ago; they opened their restaurant at the beginning of 2006. 19. Plaintiffs Lechuga have lost significant revenue since the Immigration Ordinance and its predecessor - Ordinance 2006-10 - were enacted. Before the enactment of the Prior Ordinances, Plaintiffs Lechuga served between 45-130 customers per day at he restaurant, and between 95-130 customers per day at the store. Since the enactment of the Prior Ordinance, they served between 6-7 persons per day at the restaurant and 20-23 persons per day at the store. The loss in revenue and profit resulting from the passage of the Prior and New Ordinances has forced Plaintiffs Lechuga to close the restaurant. Plaintiffs Lechuga remain obligated to pay rent for the restaurant location under a lease.

We now know that some of the drop-off is apparently due to other factors.

And, let's turn to the March 12, 2007 post from the ACLU-PA's blog (aclupa.blogspot.com/2007/03/if-you-speak-english-youre-not-criminal.html):

In the afternoon session at the Hazleton anti-immigrant trial, three Hazleton residents testified that the ordinance negatively impacted life in the city.

"Everything has totally changed," said local businessman Jose Lechuga, who noted that racism and "hatred" became more prominent after the passing of the ordinance.

...On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Lechuga if the customers of his grocery store were documented and undocumented immigrants.

"I don't think that's my job to find out," Lechuga replied.

Throughout the afternoon, the defense team has attempted to show that the Lechuga's businesses were failing before the ordinance and that documented immigrants had nothing to fear from the new law. The testimony of Dr. Lopez and Mr. Lechuga, along with Rosa Lechuga, Jose's wife, and Pedro Lozano, who also testified this afternoon, made it clear that there was a marked difference in the business climate and the neighborhood environment after the passing of the ordinance last summer.

And, from March 13, 2007, here's Wade Malcolm of the Scranton Star-Tribune:

Jose Lechuga once thought he'd spend the rest of his life in Hazleton, a place he always considered fit for raising his five children.

That dream died recently, he said. And when he was asked on the witness stand why he thought this happened, Mr. Lechuga gave a simple answer.

"La ordenanza," the Mexico native testified Monday about the ordinance, through a court-appointed translator at the William J. Nealon Federal Courthouse.

From the same date here's the AP's Michael Rubinkam buying Lechuga's myth-making instead of trying to verify it (entitled "Grocer: Pa. Town's Laws Scared Customers" by the Guardian):

Jose Lechuga struggled as a grocer, but he said his Hispanic customers became scarce when the city of Hazleton began to crack down on illegal immigrants. "They didn't feel safe and they didn't want to have any problems," he testified through an interpreter as the first federal trial began on a local law meant to curb illegal immigration.

Please put other cites in comments.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:29 PM

March 17, 2007

Watanabe, Gorman on "Unity Blueprint for Immigration Reform" (massive amnesty, questionable links)

Teresa Watanabe and Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times offer "Immigrant advocates gear up". Several pro-illegal immigration groups have crafted a radical plan called the "Unity Blueprint for Immigration Reform". The "reporters" fail to note that one of the leaders behind the effort - Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law - has at least three links to the Mexican government and that one of the other groups involved - CHIRLA - has allegedly collaborated with that government. Others involved include LULAC, Nativo Lopez, and the AFL-CIO.

Please write readers.rep *at* latimes.com and suggest they include such material facts in future reports. The Project Director of the UCLA Downtown Labor Center (labor.ucla.edu/dlc) is also an endorser; let's ask them what they think about that: chancellor *at* conet.ucla.edu

As for the "blueprint", it's even worse than might be imagined. You can see it here: mapa.org/_03_07/reform.pdf

First of all, one wonders why the guy in the upper right is grimacing, and why he has his hand in that position. Was he holding a flag that they airbrushed out?

Then, we get to their demands. Take a deep breath:
- Entrenching anchor babies. Anyone who had a child here could petition for citizenship; no need to wait until the child is 21.
- Make illegal aliens a protected class under civil rights law.
- Legalize everyone except those who've committed "serious crimes".
- Legalize everyone under TPS status.
- Raise the numbers of visas to match labor needs based on "reliable economic indicators".
- No expansion of "guest" worker plans.
- No more time-based ban on those who've entered illegally or overstayed their visas.
- No U.S. military on the border.
- "Make enforcement of laws to prevent vigilantism a priority and monitor vigilante activity."
- "Make border enforcement solely a federal function."
- "Repeal the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in its entirety."
- "Enact legislation prohibiting mass non-individualized detentions of citizens and immigrants at work sites and elsewhere." (no more raids like the recent show raids)
- "Repeal the recent law that bars States from issuing drivers licenses to undocumented immigrant drivers."

There's much more, but including all their demands would take up too much space. After reading this, I have to wonder whether they're serious or not, since these demands are extremely radical and could have been written by the Mexican government itself. For all we know, they indeed had input into the process. Even one of the endorsers admits the ideas are extreme:

"Why shouldn't we ask for everything?" said Pablo Alvarado, president of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "These are our dreams."

And we see them pointing to examples of recent propaganda:

Activists said the blueprint reflected consistent academic research showing that immigration is good for America, that current visa levels are artificially low and that a large underclass of illegal migrants serves no one except unscrupulous employers who exploit them. They acknowledged that many of the provisions would be seen as politically unrealistic but said they expressed their highest hopes for immigration reform.

In addition to Schey and Alvarado, Nativo Lopez of the Mexican American Political Association has some involvement. Their campaign manager is Clarissa Martinez De Castro. And, while I thought they were at least somewhat rational:

The blueprint has won the backing of the AFL-CIO and other major labor unions by rejecting guest workers in favor of more permanent visas for foreign laborers, subject to stronger workplace protections and stricter tests on whether Americans are available for those jobs.

Others signing it are:

* Maria Elena Durazo
Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO

* Father Richard Estrada
Our Lady Queen of Angels, Los Angeles

* Antonio Gonzalez
President, William C. Velasquez Institute

* Dolores Huerta
President, Dolores Huerta Foundation & Co-Founder of the United Farmworkers Union

* Victor Narro
Project Director, UCLA Downtown Labor Center

* Rosa Rosales
National President, League of United Latin American Citizens

* Angelica Salas
Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights of Los Angeles

* Angela Sanbrano
Executive Director, Central American Resource Center (Los Angeles) and President of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities

Of interest also is how all these groups are linked together:

The draft blueprint developed at the initial meeting was further considered and improved upon following discussion at the National Latino Leadership Summit on Immigration Policy held in Phoenix on February 3, 2007. That meeting was jointly convened by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the William Velasquez Institute (WCVI), the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC), and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA). The summit meeting was attended by approximately fifty organizations from around the country involved in immigration reform work... The draft blueprint was next considered and improved upon following discussion at a meeting of the Border Human Rights Working Group in San Antonio, Texas, on February 12-13, 2007. The Border Human Rights Working Group is a collaborative project of over fifty NGOs, CBOs, legal services providers, and faith-based organizations working along the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:44 PM

March 16, 2007

Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley's "Save The Sweatshops" movement

The archbishop of Boston, Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley, offers "A more humane immigration policy" about the New Bedford immigration raids, you know, the ones at the factory just about everyone admits was a sweatshop. In it he hides behind false humanitarianism to support illegal immigration and he is in effect supporting the abuses to which illegal aliens are subjected, including having to work in sweatshops:

But before they are "illegal," they are human -- women and men with families, hopes and dreams, a determination to find a better life for their children. Their humanity, human dignity, and -- most of all -- their children have the first claim on our conscience as Americans.

If we asked the Cardinal whether he would support deportations as long as it's done in a humane way that preserves their human dignity, there's an excellent chance he would hem and haw and the bottom line would be that he doesn't support deportations.

On the uncontroversial side, he supports better coordination between federal and local officials and relatively minor changes to the immigration laws concerning caregivers. However, he also goes the extra step and calls for "comprehensive immigration reform", something that will continue to allow illegal immigration and continue to allow abuses such as those alleged at the factory.

What he needs is to have a "comprehensive" approach to this topic instead of simply playing on peoples' emotions. He doesn't want us to look for "villians", thus avoiding discussing what those illegal aliens were thinking when they came here illegally with or later had children. He also doesn't discuss the political aspects of this issue, such as how illegal immigration helps prop up corrupt foreign governments.

There are a lot of aspects he doesn't discuss, and as usual I strongly urge everyone to try to ask him and others like him tough questions designed to point out all the flaws in what little argument they provide.

(Hat tips are due to the ACLU of Pennsylvania, which sarcastically links to this article thusly: aclupa.blogspot.com/2007/03/more-left-wing-communist-america-haters.html . That also links to this DailyKos diary: dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/3/15/5512/50599 . Consider it Useful Idiot Friday)

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:57 AM

March 15, 2007

NYT hides behind "terrorized" illegal aliens to support massive immigration

The New York Times has yet another editorial calling for "immigration reform" entitled "Immigration Misery". It's thankfully shorter than the last such screed ("They Are America"), but just as wrong. This time, they're in their "sleazy/maudlin" mode:

A screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken, dehydrated, to an emergency room, so that the nation's borders will be secure. Her mother and more than 300 other workers in a leather-goods factory in New Bedford, Mass., have been terrorized - subdued by guns and dogs, their children stranded at school - so that the country will notice that the Bush administration is serious about enforcing immigration laws. Meanwhile, tens of thousands of poor Americans, lacking the right citizenship papers, have been denied a doctor's care so that not a penny of Medicaid will go to a sick illegal immigrant.

[See the updates below]

Anyone who thinks about this in more depth than the NYT would like them to realizes the errors in what the NYT is promoting: none of this will change after "reform". If the "reform" they support passes, we aren't going to be transformed into a magical land with only citizens and legal workers. Rather, we're still going to have a large number of pre-"reform" illegal aliens around (those who aren't eligible for "reform" for one reason or other [1]), and we're going to have plenty of new illegal aliens coming here because they'll see "reform" for what it is: amnesty.

In other words, what the NYT opposes now will become even more necessary after "reform". We'll still have to do border enforcement and we'll still have to conduct new workplace raids to prevent a spike of illegal immigration.

Or, at least that's what the supporters of "reform" say. Suddenly, after reform, those who've made a career out of avoiding enforcement of our laws, and those who've supported illegal immigration in every way possible, will be magically transformed into opponents of illegal immigration who'll abide by the "reform" they now promote.

Obviously, it's not going to work that way: the NYT (and Nancy Pelosi) will still promote illegal immigration by accusing the Feds of "terrorizing" people, those who refuse to enforce our laws now will simply continue to do so, and those who support illegal immigration now will continue that practice.

The space for their editorial would have been better served with a classified ad offering the Brooklyn Bridge for sale.

[1] One other selling point of "reform" is that those who'd be eligible for "reform" would be subjected to "tough background checks". Obviously many illegal aliens aren't going to want to go through that "hassle", and many that do will be rejected. And, the Hagel-Martinez "compromise" (S. 2611) didn't include those who've been here for two years or less. No matter which final bill they come up with, there will be hundreds of thousands or even millions of illegal aliens not covered.

UPDATE: Bill O'Reilly says he tried all day to get the NYT to give him the details on the baby, and they were unable to do so. He had the head of the state DPSS on who told him that one baby he knew of was already in the hospital when the raid occured. It was dehydrated because it was ill; they requested the mother (who was detained in the raid) and got her there in two days.

Unless the NYT can come up with *another* baby, they're liars.

UPDATE 2: Here's a quote from O'Reilly's show:

"America must not harm children and the feds have to make exceptions on humanitarian grounds when kids are involved. The kids are not responsible for the immigration mess. But Talking Points is fed up with misleading and dishonest tactics in this debate. "The truth is that we cannot find a baby in Massachusetts that was forcibly weaned from her mother's breast. The truth is that the two babies we did find had developed pneumonia on their mother's watch before the raid... Unless the New York Times has other verifiable information, honesty dictates it correct its editorial."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:10 AM

GOP Senators plotting immigration "reform" in private meetings

As discussed here, several GOP (U.S.) Senators have been holding meetings to discuss how to come up with a "comprehensive immigration reform" bill. Others in the meetings include Michael Chertoff of the DHS and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez. There's no word on what exactly they're discussing, but those listed as involved are:

* John Cornyn (R-TX)
* Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
* Arlen Specter (R-PA)
* Mel Martinez (R-FL)
* Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
* Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
* John Ensign (R-NV)

There are apparently a few more, but they aren't listed.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:00 AM

March 14, 2007

Deval Patrick knew about New Bedford immigration raid in February ("humanitarian crisis")

After the New Bedford immigration raid, Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick ranted against the Feds, claiming that they had caused a "humanitarian crisis" due to the children of illegal aliens involved. In fact, this has become a stock talking point of the usual supporters of illegal immigration, with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, William Delahunt, and Barney Frank supporting "grieving" illegal aliens.

Now, a different picture is emerging. Namely, the Patrick administration had months of foreknowledge of the raids and seemingly every chance in the world to try to prevent the "crisis" From this:

"We had an open and frequent exchange of information to make sure that (the state Department of Social Services) were getting information on child-care issues," said Immigration and Customs Enforcement spokesman Marc Raimondi. "We're going above and beyond the role of a law-enforcement agency to address humanitarian concerns."

Mr. Raimondi said ICE met with state officials regarding the raid as early as August 2006, and met with Deval Patrick's administration in late December as well as Harry Spence, director of the DSS.

...He said ICE officials made every effort to determine if those illegal immigrants arrested were the sole caregivers for children. Of the 361 people arrested at the scene March 6, 60 were released within 24 hours, he said. Since then, at the urging of DSS, ICE has released 20 Salvadorean immigrants being held in Massachusetts jails and 10 people of various nationalities being held in Texas...

...Mr. Raimondi said some immigrants arrested at the factory were not telling the truth about their children, making it difficult to assess their situation after the raid...

This has caused even Boston Globe columnist Eileen McNamara to turn (via this) on Deval Patrick:

...Patrick himself was told in February [about] the raid...

...As late as yesterday afternoon Nancy Fernandez Mills, communications director for the Patrick administration, was insisting that "the governor was not told and did not know the raid was happening until it was going on" and that "DSS did not know about this raid until it was in progress."

Told that, in fact, members of Patrick's Cabinet had briefed him about the operation weeks ago and that Spence had participated in a conference call with ICE the day before the raid -- a fact the commissioner himself acknowledged in yesterday's newspapers -- she reconsidered: "I'd like to retract that statement until I talk to someone who actually knows something about this timeline."

It is going to be a long four years.

Their handling of this is strangely similar to Tom Vilsack possibly misleading about the Swift raid in Iowa. Wouldn't it just be easier on corrupt Democrats like Patrick and Vilsack if they decided to tell the truth and support our laws from the start?

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:43 PM

NYT: the ACLU vouches for CAIR

Neil MacFarquhar of the NYT offers a two-screener about unnamed sources running down CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations). That's the organization whose spokesman said in 1993 that he'd like to see the U.S. adopt sharia law; the NYT fails to include that quote, and they also fail to find any links between CAIR and terrorist organizations. I'll leave it to others to discuss the various shortcomings in the article, only pointing out this:

CAIR and its supporters say its accusers are a small band of people who hate Muslims and deal in half-truths. Ms. Boxer's decision to revoke the Sacramento commendation provoked an outcry from organizations that vouch for the group's advocacy, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the California Council of Churches.

"They have been a leading organization that has advocated for civil rights and civil liberties in the face of fear and intolerance, in the face of religious and ethnic profiling," said Maya Harris, the executive director of the A.C.L.U. of Northern California.

Well, if a far-left, frequently anti-American organization that opposes our immigration laws and has an indirect link to the Mexican government and that was founded by a Communist vouches for them, then they must be OK! But, who will vouch for the ACLU? Quick, get the SPLC on the line!

In another context, I might assume that promoting the ACLU as the bearer of truth was simply liberal propaganda. However, in this case I think it was unintentional: the NYT is so very steeped in "liberalism" that they think the ACLU is actually in a position to vouch for anyone.

Posted to Terrorism at 07:42 PM

John McCain: your lettuce picking trainee is ready

bush lettuce

Our president loading lettuce onto a truck in Guatemala at a relief facility involving the US AID.

On the audio, he says loading the lettuce was one of the top moments of his presidency and it was, "really, really fun." I'm not making that up.

UPDATE: Read it and weep (whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070312-4.html):

The United States and Guatemala trade a lot, especially now that Guatemala has become a full member of CAFTA-DR. President Berger and I believe that CAFTA can spread opportunity, provide jobs, and help lift people out of poverty. We saw how trade can transform the small village of Chirijuy -- part of our experience in traveling with the President was to get outside the capital. It was really, really fun -- and really heartwarming. As a matter of fact, it was one of the great experiences of my presidency. The town has grown from subsistence farming to selling high-value crops, like lettuce and carrots and celery. As a matter of fact, I got to pack some lettuce. The President and I were hauling boxes of lettuce, we were putting them in the truck.

On the audio he can't pronounce "subsistence", and he sounds even more like a five-year-old than the text might lead you to think.

Posted to WackyHumor at 04:17 PM

Biased USA Today/Gallup Poll offers false choice on immigration

The March 2-4, 2007 USA Today/Gallup Poll has a question on immigration that features a false choice:

Which comes closest to your view about what government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the United States? Should the government -- [ROTATED: deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country, allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States in order to work, but only for a limited amount of time, or allow illegal immigrants to remain in the United States and become U.S. citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time]?

According to them, 59% of respondents chose the last of the three options. Let's see if their following paragraph gives us a clue as to why this poll was designed to deceive:

Given these three options, the majority of Americans, 59%, support the government allowing illegal immigrants to remain in this country and eventually become U.S. citizens if they meet certain requirements. Fifteen percent of Americans support allowing illegal immigrants to stay in the country to work for a limited period of time. About one in four Americans, 24%, say all illegal immigrants should be deported back to their home countries.

There are other options, such as enforcing our current laws. Gallup simply offered the standard false choice that cheap labor supporters continually use, offering a choice between massive deportations and a massive amnesty.

Please let them know what you think: galluppoll.com/contactUs

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:31 PM

I capitulate on Global Warming, just make the video stop

Want to see an unintentionally funny video of Yale students rapping against Global Warming? Check out that video and many others here: truths.treehugger.com

I am willing to elect Al Gore a secular Pope if it will make stuff like this stop.

UPDATE: I submitted the direct link to the video (truths.treehugger.com/video/convenient_truths_climate_and.php) to both Digg and Reddit, and it went nowhere. Apparently I didn't sell the "unintentionally hilarious" aspect well enough. Or, maybe it's just me, but I think it's really, really funny.

Posted to WackyHumor at 01:56 PM

For the ACLU, it's about illegal immigration, not rights (Hazleton trial)

The ACLU's suit against Hazleton, Pennsylvania over their Illegal Immigration Relief Act continued today with mayor Lou Barletta taking the stand. The AP claims that the ACLU is suing because they think the proposal is "unconstitutional". However, they also quote the ACLU lawyer sounding like a cheap labor pimp, promoting the supposed economic benefits of illegal immigration.

And, the ACLU-PA's own site makes it clear that this is about supporting the rights of foreign citizens to come here and reside here at will, and not about the ACLU's supposed concern for the Constitution. From the AP:

...The American Civil Liberties Union argues that the federal government has exclusive power over immigration policy...

Take a look at aclupa.blogspot.com for what they really think about this issue. Note that you can leave comments on their entries, and I strongly suggest that you take the opportunity to leave on-topic comments designed to discredit them.

From aclupa.blogspot.com/2007/03/is-it-getting-hot-in-here.html

Day III of the Hazleton anti-immigrant trial kicked off today with testimony from Manuel Saldana, president of Casa Dominicana of Hazleton, a plaintiff in the suit...

[...mayor reduced numbers of cops as population increased...] But crime is the fault of "illegal aliens"... [in quotes in original]

Several times, the mayor appeared to be unnerved by [ACLU-PA legal director Vic Walczak]'s questioning. Vic asked him if undocumented immigrants engage in "consumer spending." At this, Barletta became agitated about discussing the economic value of "illegal aliens," but Vic cut him off by saying, "I'm not asking you for a value judgment."

Later, Vic asked the mayor if he and the city solicitor discussed NAFTA, the United States' treaty obligations, the presidents of Guatemala and Mexico, or the implications for the country if every U.S. city passed an ordinance like Hazleton's. The answer, obviously, was no.

Apparently the ACLU thinks we should consult with Mexico and perhaps get their permission to enforce our laws. And, the penultimate paragraph above leaves off what Barletta said before, according to the AP:

"So do other people who commit crimes," Barletta replied. "Do I condone illegal behavior because they buy gas or eat in someone's restaurant? I'm not one who believes that's OK."

From aclupa.blogspot.com/2007/03/hazleton-trial-heats-up-with-testimony.html

(A note about language: attorneys for both sides use the terms "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens" rather than our preferred term, "undocumented immigrants," so I am using the first term to give a more accurate picture of what transpired in the courtroom.) [italicized in original]

...Under examination by plaintiff's attorney Tom Wilkinson, it quickly became clear that the Hazleton City Council had acted with little information or preparation in passing their anti-immigrant ordinances... [they appear to be right about that]

Tensions erupted at the end of the day, when Wilkinson asked Yanuzzi if he now regretted the fact that the city council had not studied the issue more before passing the ordinance, given the potential harm it could cause. Yanuzzi responded, "Every law we make, somebody's going to be hurt. There is no 100 percent. I pass the pooper-scooper law, what am I going to do - study that? We can't have consultants come here every two seconds."

"So removing these people from town who are working, living, employed is just the same thing as removing something off the sidewalk?" Wilkinson asked pointedly.

Obviously a sleazy question to ask.

Related: The ACLU is indirectly linked to the Mexican government.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:30 PM

Perp walk: churches to shelter illegal aliens facing deportation

From this:

Churches in major cities across the country are preparing to grant "sanctuary" to illegal immigrants facing deportation in an effort to unite evangelicals behind comprehensive immigration reform, according to a pastor organizing the effort.

Rev. Alexia Salvatierra [an ordained Lutheran minister], executive director of Clergy and Laity United for Economic Justice (CLUE), said Monday that Christians will fight to prevent families from being divided when illegal immigrant parents are deported, leaving behind children who are legal residents.

"There are congregations all across this country that see this as a moral issue," Salvatierra said during a discussion on immigration at the Center for American Progress in Washington, D.C.

She says it will start in Los Angeles. The article also quotes Rev. Jim Wallis who, while apparently not involved with CLUE, does promote "comprehensive immigration reform".

As has been pointed out many times, the easy way to deal with situations like this is to go to public events where "religious" leaders are speaking and completely eviscerate what little argument they come up with. The only reason they're able to support illegal immigration is because they shelter themselves from tough questioning.

For an even easier option, Jim Wallis accepts comments here: beliefnet.com/blogs/godspolitics

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:12 PM

March 13, 2007

Bush now Quisling: pledges immigration "reform" to Mexicans, Mexican government

President Bush has crossed the line from being a borderline-Quisling to a full blown Quisling on his Latin America trip's stop in Mexico. Here are his remarks [1] from earlier today in Mexico:

PRESIDENT BUSH: Buenos días. Estamos encantados de estar en Mexico otra vez. We're delighted to be in Mexico again...

President Calderon, I appreciate your determination to create new opportunities for the people of Mexico. I share your commitment to building an Americas where the poor and the marginalized begin to feel the blessings of liberty in their daily lives. I respect your views on migration. Because we're working together, I believe we will make good progress on this important issue. Together, we're working to ensure that we have a secure and modern border that speeds the legitimate flow of people and commerce, and stop those who threaten our common safety and prosperity.

The first paragraph is important because it shows that he said the second paragraph in English. Thus, he used the word "migration", which is one of the Mexican government's euphemisms for "massive illegal immigration to the U.S." And, while we definitely are part of a region called North America, I don't recall a vote on how close we want to get to our neighbors; Bush is promising to help build "an Americas" which is almost certainly beyond good neighbors made by good fences (so to speak). And, the choice of "safety and prosperity" is eerily similar to the "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America".

The United States respects rule of law. But in the debate on migration, I remind my fellow citizens that family values do not stop at the Rio Grande River, that there are decent, hardworking honorable citizens of Mexico who want to make a living for their families. And so, Mr. President, my pledge to you and your government -- but, more importantly, the people of Mexico -- is I will work as hard as I possibly can to pass comprehensive immigration reform.

He's pledging something that the great majority of Americans would never support if they knew everything involved. Instead of making promises to foreign leaders, he should remember who he's supposed to be working for.

Today, the most important ties between the United States and Mexico are not government to government, they are people to people. These ties include churches and faith-based institutions that serve people on both sides of the frontera.

What, collaborateurs like Humane Borders? The Catholic Church? Aren't even the "people to people" ties extremely problematic, in that they retard assimilation and encourage people to think of themselves as belonging to two countries?

We'd all be better off if Bush just stayed in Mexico. And, no, I'm not joking.

[1] whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/03/20070313-1.html

UPDATE: I added the picture from their dinner. Note the guayabera.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:47 PM

Ramos/Compean: Congress to investigate Mexican involvement

From this:

Democrats have approved a congressional hearing to explore Mexico's possible influence on the prosecution of Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean.

The request by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. – ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights and Oversight – was approved by the panel's chairman, Rep. William Delahunt, D-Mass.

As WND reported, documents indicate the Mexican Consulate played a role in the events leading to U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's high-profile prosecution of Ramos and Compean, who are serving 11 and 12 year sentences for their role in the shooting of a drug smuggler...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:38 PM

Kennedy drops Kennedy-McCain; to promote Specter version?

From this:

Facing a rebellion from some key Republicans, Sen. Edward Kennedy has abandoned efforts to produce a new immigration bill.

Instead, he is proposing using legislation produced last March by the Republican-controlled Senate Judiciary Committee as the starting point for negotiations this year, lawmakers said Monday.

Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is principal architect of immigration legislation in the Senate, now controlled by Democrats, said he was shifting gears in hopes of winning Republican support and speeding the passage of immigration legislation in spring.

Four of 10 Republicans on the Judiciary Committee voted last year for the panel's bill, which would tighten border security, create a temporary-worker program and legalize the nation's illegal immigrants...

...Specter, who said Kennedy first suggested the new approach on the Senate floor on Friday, said he was still weighing whether to support it. He said he and several Republican lawmakers met with White House officials when it became clear they would not be included in the negotiations between Kennedy and McCain...

Specter said he would consult with GOP colleagues and White House officials before deciding [whether to support Kennedy's latest scheme]. The bill passed by the Judiciary Committee did not include several measures included in last year's Senate legislation, including a provision to compel several million illegal immigrants to leave the country before seeking citizenship.

If I have my borderline-treasonous legislation correct, the legislation being refered to included aspects of Kennedy-McCain, and was later morphed into the Hagel-Martinez "compromise".

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:36 PM

Kerry, Kennedy, Delahunt, Frank support illegal immigration (New Bedford, Congressional investigation)

For further proof that Democratic Party leaders do not support our laws, here's the caption of the following photo:

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., talks with Mildred Gonzalez, 14, during a Spanish Mass held at Our Lady of Guadalupe at Saint James Church in New Bedford, Mass. U.S. Rep. William Delahunt said Sunday that there would be a Congressional investigation into the immigration raid at a leather goods factory last week that left dozens of families in turmoil. Delahunt joined Sen. Edward Kennedy, Kerry, and U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, all Democrats, at a meeting of family members Sunday at this New Bedford church that has served as a clearinghouse since the Tuesday raid.

The next caption is even worse:

Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., holds hands with grieving members of the immigrant community during a prayer at a Spanish Mass held at Our Lady of Guadalupe at Saint James Church, Sunday, March 11, 2007, in New Bedford, Mass...

They're "grieving" because we have laws that disallow self-service immigration.

There are other pictures here and here.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:49 PM

Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform ready to push amnesty

The Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform said today that they're going to push even harder for a massive amnesty for illegal aliens:

"This campaign is unprecedented in the pro-immigration community," said Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president of the National Council of La Raza, in a statement. "Never before have we brought together under one banner such a formidable political coalition to fight for passage of comprehensive immigration reform. We now have the money, the people and the political will to punch this vital issue over the goal line in Congress and make America a better place to live and work."

Formidable indeed. Here are some of the members of their group:

* Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles (allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government)

* Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (linked to various Illinois politicians and much, much more. Their president is a member of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad's advisory council to the Mexican president. He helped organize the big marches in Chicago, and after the first he sent a letter to Vicente Fox congratulating his fellow members of that advisory council for helping organize the marches. He also spoke at Mexico's version of the White House after the march.

* The NCLR funds extremists.

* Two unions in the CCIR (SEIU, UNITE HERE) have deep links to the various immigration marches.

If you see the CCIR lobbying near you, ask them about those highly questionable links.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:00 AM

March 12, 2007

It's going to be a Megasummer!

Visiting Southern California? Feel free to print out and refer to the following chart:

This year's midwinter = late Spring (in Maine, but really dry)
Two weeks ago = Spring
Now = Summer
Summer = Megasummer!

Note: temperatures in the right side of each equation are PG (Pre Gore).

Posted to Los_Angeles at 06:45 PM

March 11, 2007

M. Elizabeth Roman on fear-struck sweatshop workers

M. Elizabeth Roman of the Worcester Telegram & Gazette (pron: "wuhssusshzstahhhahchawdah") offers "Immigration raid rattles locals" about the raids at the Michael Bianco Inc. factory, widely considered to be a sweatshop. It follows a now-familiar pattern:

A climate of fear has cast a pall over the local immigrant community in the wake of a government crackdown in a seaport town a hundred miles away.

When hundreds of federal agents checked into Fitchburg and Leominster [pron: leehahaministerahchawdah] hotels several days before they stormed New Bedford-based Michael Bianco Inc., rumors of a local raid spread quickly.

"It is devastating to families," said Matthew Feinstein of the Worcester Global Action Network. "The police presence caused many to fear to go to work or send their children to school."

I have no clue where something calling itself the "Global Action Network" falls on the political spectrum. Could they be centrist? Perhaps a little to the right side of things?

...Immigrant community members in Worcester County watched and waited in fear. When and where would ICE strike next? What could city officials do to prepare?

Maybe if M. Elizabeth Roman wants to do some real reporting - instead of just being a propagandist - she should look into whether any of those city officials have a financial interest of some kind in local companies that profit from illegal activity.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:54 PM

Walter Moore for Mayor of Los Angeles?

Somewhat out-of-control Republican Walter Moore is running for Mayor of Los Angeles, and he's looking for $150,000 so he can get into the debates. First example of something not quite being right: he can't even put up a website at the short form of his domain (MooreIsBetter.com); instead, it redirects to the previous MegaLink. Obviously, we can't all have the polished political machines of the current L.A. alcalde, but why can't Moore even get his domain right?

Nevertheless, as pointed out the last time around, if he's allowed into the TV debates he might raise some interesting issues.

Posted to Los_Angeles at 09:46 PM

Christopher Smart, Salt Lake Tribune: how do you spell propaganda?

Christopher Smart of the Salt Lake Tribune offers "With parents deported to India, Utah teen finds comfort in spelling":

How do you spell "perseverance?"

When 13-year-old Kunal Sah stands before television cameras May 30-31 to represent Utah - for the second time - at the National Spelling Bee in Washington, D.C., his parents won't be there with him.

Ken and Sarita Sah were deported back to India last July after 16 years residing legally in this country. They ultimately lost their battle to remain under tough U.S. immigration regulations in the post-9/11 atmosphere...

[...heart-wrenching moments deleted...]

How do you spell "heartache?"

I am not making any of that up. The article appears to have been rewritten as an Associated Press story here, it appears in the Houston Chroncle here, the Salt Lake Tribune here, and as a Scripps "news" story here. It's refered to here as a "kleenex box moment".

Now, let's turn to the facts that Christopher Smart left out:

Sah's asylum claim? He feared Muslim persecution in his home country. That might engender sympathy—until one realizes that his home country is India, which has 800 million fellow Hindus for Sah to live amongst. And that Sah's basis for fearing persecution was because, as a member of the radical Hindu nationalist organization Vishwa Hindu Parishad, he "took a very active part in organizing and conducting [anti-mosque] meeting[s]" and that he "actively participated in the riots to [attempt to] demolish the Babri Mosque." (Vishwa eventually succeeded in destroying the mosque in 1992, causing religious riots that killed 900 people.)

Posted to Immigration_piipps at 01:08 PM

Sites on new host

Yesterday I moved this site and boreamerica.com from their previous host (tronictech.com) to their new host (steadfast.net). They'd been at the first for almost two years, but recent visitors may have noticed long periods during which this site was suspended. Rather than dispensing information to an information-starved world, I was left dispensing a "this site has been suspended" banner.

tronictech.com is "unsupported" hosting, meaning that if you need to ask how to do things you have to pay. That suits me since I can usually figure things out by myself. Unfortunately, during this episode I wasn't given the information I needed to determine what the issue could be, and my emails went unanswered for several hours. The first problem was with a comment script, so I went to haloscan for the comments, even though I'd prefer to use on-page comments. The penultimate outage was apparently due to some mt.cgi access which had occured when neither I nor my only remaining MT-related cron job were doing anything. The final outage was due to a rebuild I was doing. I hate Perl, so I have no idea what could be causing these problems, and I wasn't given any information I could use to try to solve them. While some of the problems were apparently due to me, others weren't, and I wasn't able to determine whether that was malicious or just an MT or Perl issue. I still have several sites in two tronictech accounts which I'll probably be moving to other hosts as well.

Eventually I'll be moving this site to Drupal but, since there are thousands of entries here that's going to be a bit of work. There are also several entries that for one reason or another were dropped from MT's database, and those will need to be reimported.

If there are any problems please leave a comment.

Posted to Bloggage at 11:48 AM

Sweatshop supporter Ted Kennedy will never support immigration enforcement

Our favorite Senator, Ted Kennedy, offers "Families pay the price for failed system" about the Michael Bianco Inc. raids. As with the "news" report from Maria Sacchetti and Yvonne Abraham of the Boston Globe, it features a sympathetic photo of a "victim" of the raids.

All over New Bedford on Tuesday, hundreds of women and men woke up, kissed their children goodbye and left for another day of work at Michael Bianco Inc. They knew it would be a grueling day because there was no other kind of day in the sweatshop-like conditions of the factory. But they were willing to work hard and without complaint because they believed in the American Dream, in which hard work creates a hope for a better life - if not for them, then for their children.

Note to "liberals": Teddy Kennedy is supporting working in a sweatshop. I bet if I looked hard enough I could find similar articles written about slaves working in the fields or child laborers working in the factories of Dickens-era London.

What happened next was a tragic example of the desperate state of our current immigration policy. Hundreds of armed police and immigration officers raided the factory, creating panic among the workers. They handcuffed unarmed men and women in the same factory where the workers had already known nothing but indignity at the hands of their employer.

...We must enforce our nation's immigration laws. But the raids in New Bedford and elsewhere are merely a stopgap solution that unfairly penalizes vulnerable workers in an already flawed system...

As already pointed out a few times, those who make this sort of argument are full of it. Teddy Kennedy will never support enforcement and will always find some sort of excuse. If "reform" passes, he'll say it wasn't the enforcement he had in mind originally and try to water it down (even further). Or, he'll do what he's doing now: say we shouldn't enforce our laws until the (next) "reform" passes.

Posted to Temporary at 11:29 AM

Maria Sacchetti, Yvonne Abraham, Boston Globe support sweatshops, illegal activity

Maria Sacchetti and Yvonne Abraham of the Boston Globe offer a massive slab of pro-illegal immigration propaganda in "Fear grips kin after immigration raid" about the Michael Bianco, Inc. raid. The article is designed to provoke an emotional response and encourage those who aren't familiar with this issue to support illegal aliens being allowed to continue working here rather than being deported. It glosses over illegal activity and the alleged Dickensian conditions at the plant.

It even features a highly saturated photo from a press conference with three children being used as a prop. At first glance I thought the photo was a painting, and I wonder whether it really came out of the camera looking like that or whether they've performed some color manipulations.

The article starts like this:

Karin Fernandez had problems in Honduras.

She was two months pregnant, and the baby's father was gone. She had only a ninth-grade education and no work.

But her aunt in New Bedford offered a solution: Come to Massachusetts. Have the baby here. Work in the leather goods factory where it's easy to find a job.

"I was in a really ugly crisis," said Fernandez, 19.

In late 2005 she paid a smuggler $4,500 to bring her over the border. She made it to New Bedford and to the factory where the managers were said not to care if their employees' documents were fake.

Their hugely sympathetic rendering has just glossed over people in foreign countries looking to the U.S. as an escape valve rather than trying to solve their problems in their home countries. There are hundreds of millions or billions of people in situations worse than Fernandez', and they can't all come here. And, that escape valve is something the leaders of countries like Honduras know about and encourage. Isn't it better for us and for them to encourage those countries to solve their own problems rather than using us as an escape valve?

They also gloss over what was most likely an explicit attempt to have an anchor baby, as well as the network effect involved in illegal immigration. And, needless to say, human smuggling is illegal, as is entering the U.S. without permission, as is hiring someone knowing that they're an illegal alien.

Maria Sacchetti and Yvonne Abraham (with contributions from Brian R. Ballou) want you to forget about those unnecessary complications. Just look at the waving baby, concentrate on the waving baby, you're getting sleepy, you're ready to support massive illegal activity and sweatshops...

Please write ombud *at* globe.com with your thoughts.

UPDATE: As Jeebie points out in comments, $4500 is a lot of money in Honduras. In fact, according to this, the Honduras Per Capita Gross National Income was $2710 USD. This page say the Gross National Income per capita was $2590 USD in 2003. This page has it even lower: "per capita gross national income in 2003 was approximately $970", and this page agrees. Let's be generous and say it's $3000. Meaning that she was able to come up with at least one and a half times the per capita gross national income of her country, and we're supposed to believe she "had problems"? For those who'd like to do more research, $4500 is equivalent to about 85,000 Honduran Lempiras.

UPDATE 2: Various figures for the U.S. Per Capita Gross National Income are available from around $33,000 to $40,000. Let's lowball it at $30,000, meaning that roughly speaking her $4,500 is equivalent to a U.S. 19-year-old having $45,000.

Posted to Temporary at 10:01 AM

March 09, 2007

Erika Hayasaki/Los Angeles Times tries to help sweatshop (er, workers, yeah that's it)

Erika Hayasaki of the Los Angeles Times returns with another slab of pro-illegal immigration propaganda, this time about the raids at Michael Bianco Inc., a company that pretty much everyone agrees treated its employees in a Dickensian fashion. The article is entitled "Mayor criticizes raid for disrupting families", and it's consistent with the "yes, but" thought process described in the last link: "liberals" want to complain about abused illegal aliens, but when you get right down to it they also either don't care or support them working in those conditions.

An example is the town's leader:

New Bedford Mayor Scott Lang called the factory a sweatshop, like "something out of a Dickens novel." He said that though the federal government was right to investigate the conditions and crack down on illegal immigrants, the workers should have been given a chance to take care of their children and put their affairs in order while awaiting legal hearings.

To paraphrase: "terrible, terrible conditions. So, how soon can you get back to work?"

And, outdoing herself, Hayasaki starts the article thusly:

Before heading off to jobs stitching safety vests for U.S. soldiers, the mothers kissed their babies goodbye, leaving them at nurseries or with sitters.

Now, seriously. Is this in any way a news report? If you cornered them, wouldn't the LAT's editors be forced to admit that this article might as well be an ad for Illegal Immigration, Inc.?

Please write readers.rep *at* latimes.com with your thoughts.

Posted to Temporary at 08:13 PM

Tamar Jacoby now Los Angeles Times contributing editor

The lider of the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, Andres Martinez, has announced changes to their lineup. Some, such as CFRer Max Boot are out; some, such as Gregory Rodriguez, remain; and there are some new contributing editors [1] including:

* Tamar Jacoby. What more needs to be said?

* Gustavo Arellano of the OC Weekly. He's a former MEChA member and an apologist for that group. See also NCLR acting in the same role and referencing him. From our side.

* Timothy Garton Ash. I have absolutely no idea who he is, but he has three names, so he must be important. He also won the "George Orwell Prize for political writing", so he should be quite rightfitting with the LATimes.

* Denise Dresser. A "Reforma" columnist from Mexico; I think I've seen her on TV but I don't know how virulent a supporter of massive immigration she is.

* Sergio Munoz. Executive editor of La Opinion, a pro-illegal immigration rag run by Monica Lozano.

* Lawrence Summers, formerly of Harvard.

* Arianna Huffington, reporting from Brentwood.

[1] laobserved.com/archive/2007/03/new_oped_lineup_at_lat.php

Tamar Jacoby reiterates pro-busboy, pro-gardener stance

Posted to Temporary at 07:49 PM

Indiana plastics company raided; activists enraged over detainee treatment

A plastics company in Northern Indiana was the subject of an immigration raid today, with 36 arrested and "many enraged", sources say. One of those enraged persons is Emma Lozano of Pueblo Sin Fronteras. In addition to her day job, she might just be Elvira Arellano's puppetmaster. Refering to the detention, she says (via this):

"They treat these people as if they're numbers and not as human beings. But worse, is that they're being held and given nothing to eat and treated as if they are criminals."

But that's not all:

"When we knew about this issue, we immediately reacted and we complained with immigration authorities and homeland security," said Carlos Sada of the Mexican Consulate.

As to what they're complaining about: using a felt tip marker to write numbers on the detainee's hands. Oh, the humanity!

Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:42 PM

Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007 (Barack Obama)

On Wednesday, Sen. Barack Obama introduced the "Citizenship Promotion Act of 2007". This important story was overshadowed by the most likely unimportant story about his stock holdings [1]. The CPA could be described as a "New Democrats Initiative/Funding Source for Possibly Foreign-Linked Pro-Illegal Immigration Groups" bill, and perhaps some reporters should have asked Obama and his co-horts about that. While the main feature is freezing the proposed hike in the cost of citizenship applications, another provision would distribute perhaps millions of dollars to pro-illegal immigration groups, some of which might be linked to the Mexican government. The bill would need to pass and those funding sources would need to be designated, but I know of no "immigrants rights" groups that are not virulent supporters of illegal immigration.

The original co-sponsors are: Senators Bob Menendez, Jeff Bingaman and Ken Salazar; Representatives Mike Honda, Neil Abercrombie, Hilda Solis, Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva. Two other Reps involved are Luis Gutierrez and Jan Schakowsky. From the who-cares department comes this video of NYC Councilmen Hiram Monserrate and Miguel Martinez and NY Assemblyman Jose Peralta urging Hillary Clinton and others to co-sponsor it.

Those endorsing the bill include:
National Council of La Raza (funds extremists)
National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (directly linked to Mexican government via Ohtli award)
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund (MALDEF) (indirectly linked to Mexican government)
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (president linked to Mexican government)
Immigrant Legal Resource Center [2]
National Immigration Forum
National Immigrant Justice Center
Asian American Justice Center
Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
Legal Momentum
American Immigration Lawyers Association
Jewish Federation of Metropolitan Chicago
Massachusetts Immigration and Refugee Advocacy Coalition (MIRA)

[1] See The Hill for an example. Suzanne Gamboa of the AP offers her attempt at a pro-Obama press release at his site.
[2] lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/03/ilrc_statement_.html According to a press release from the Mexico-linked National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, it would also:

...make the test for U.S. citizenship fairer by providing for uniform administration of the exam throughout the nation. The legislation would require the USCIS, when administering the test, to take into account the special circumstances of applicants who face particular challenges because of their age, education, or other similar characteristics...

...[provide] for greater accountability in the system of conducting background checks on naturalization applicants. Many naturalization applicants have experienced lengthy waiting times during their application processing because these checks are not completed in a timely manner. The bill generally would require the FBI to complete those background checks within 90 days...

...the CPA would create a national New Americans Initiative ("NAI") to provide $80 million for U.S. citizenship promotion, education and assistance by the USCIS and non-profit community organizations. Through the NAI, the USCIS must develop outreach materials to encourage legal permanent residents to apply for naturalization, and must disseminate those materials through public service announcements and other media...

Posted to Temporary at 11:01 AM

March 08, 2007

This sweatshop brought to you by... liberals (Michael Bianco Inc.)

All is not so well in the land of cheerful foreign workers just doing the jobs Americans won't do. As you read the following, keep in the front of your mind that these conditions were enabled by all the many "liberals" who support illegal immigration:

Conditions at the Michael Bianco Inc. manufacturing plant harken back to the sweatshops of the early 1900s, according to the U.S. Attorney General's Office.

...[Joseph Thomas, publisher of Spinner Publications in New Bedford] researched the SouthCoast garment industry in the 1970s and 1980s, interviewing and photographing work conditions, but he did not discover any conditions that came close to those at Michael Bianco Inc. "This sounds much worse. ... It might have been the norm in the 1880s or 1890s," he said.

Information in the federal indictment, based on an undercover federal agent who worked at the plant, stated employees were fined $20 if they were in the restroom for more than two minutes. If they went to the restroom twice, they were fired. One roll of toilet paper was placed in each stall and was gone within 40 minutes of startup time. It was not replaced...

The U.S. Attorney General's Office said employees worked in "deplorable conditions," and that workers actually made far less than $7 an hour because they were fined for so many violations.

Employees were forced to work double shifts stitching military gear, but Mr. Insolia did not pay overtime, they allege...

As long as there are illegal aliens, there will be people like Insolia to exploit them. If all workers are legal, then these types of abuses are much less likely to occur.

So, the "liberals" say, let's legalize everyone! The problem with that scheme is that if you do that, many millions more will try to come here; if they can't do it legally (because of "guest" worker caps), they'll do it illegally. That will result in more illegal aliens and more possibility for abuse.

So, when you think it through, you see that there are only two ways to prevent illegal immigration: either literally pass out worker permits at the border to anyone who asks, or enforce our immigration laws. Not just promise to "enforce" the laws, but actually do it. And, enforcing those laws means deporting people. Because if you don't, then everyone around the world will know that we don't deport illegal aliens, we just let them loose in the U.S. as either legal or illegal workers. As for passing out worker permits at the borders, something like that would only be supported by about 0.05% of the populace at most. It's not going to happen.

In summation, the only practical way to prevent sweatshops like this is to enforce our immigration laws across the board. Those who oppose that enforcement - such as corrupt politicians, corrupt businessmen, and useful idiot "liberals" - enable such sweatshops. Regarding the latter group, that brings us back to the usual formation: is it that they aren't able to think things through, or that they just don't care?

Posted to Temporary at 11:06 PM

Zoe Lofgren trying to tie ICE's hands (deportations, Return to Sender)

Rep. Zoe Lofgren - chair of the Immigration Subcommittee and a former immigration lawyer - sent a letter to Julie Myers of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 1 demanding information on their recent sweeps called "Operation Return to Sender" [1]. That operation was designed to pick up around 1000 fugitive and criminal aliens - hundreds of them already in jails - and the far-lefties and some Democratic leaders won't even let ICE do something so limited it's almost meaningless. This show once again that those who support immigration "reform" are simply opposed to deportations. They might used enhanced enforcement to sell "reform" now, but after it passes there's almost no chance they would allow that enforcement to take place.

The letter makes clear that Lofgren has taken the hysterical word of far-lefties for the raids, as she rattles off twenty questions for Myers, which are followed by about a dozen more. Here's the money question:

What is the average cost per person of executing a warrant for arrest, detaining the individual, and pursuing the removal pursuant to Operation Return to Sender?

Her goal appears to be to try to use that information to say it's not worth it, perhaps even engaging in a Center for American Progress-style slight-of-hand. Lofgren also requests a Congressional hearing, as well as field hearings in "areas of enforcement open to interested NGOs and the general public so that you may individually address their questions and concerns." I'm sure the Mexican government could help Lofgren by encouraging their citizens to show up for the hearings and ask questions.

[1] The letter is at lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/files/lofgren_ice_raid_letter_307.pdf

Posted to Temporary at 11:04 PM

Bonnie Erbe/Michael Barone on U.S. Attorneys being fired

Earlier today, the blogosphere was rocked with the news that alpha particles from Mars had penetrated Michael Barone's thick skull, forcing him to say:

The emerging scandal surrounding the dismissals of eight former U.S. attorneys should signify to American voters the depth, breadth, and permeation of corruption in the Bush administration.

Sully was stunned, but now says:

A reader alerts me that it might have been a hacker's work. It's not listed on his blog's full posts. I'm checking into it. In the meantime, I've taken it down. I'll keep you posted, as it were.

In fact, Barone sent him an email denying any involvement in the matter, and Sully's investigative reporting skills now have him saying: I was duped by a hacker.

By now, the reader has figured out what this is about: it wasn't a Barone post, it was a post by Bonnie Erbe, who is not a hacker. It was just a technical glitch. The original URL now redirects to a URL at Erbe's USNews blog.

Previous:
Bonnie Erbe: Anchor Babies hurt working class

Posted to Politics at 05:15 PM

Google to just let Wikipedia control search results from now on

You know, when searching for something as seemingly basic as that in the graphic below, one would expect that a multi-million dollar TV network's main site or the page listing their shows would appear first in the results, not what is simply a bunch of junk, including at least two mailing list messages in the first five results. And, of course, what would search results be without the now-obligatory Wikipedia entr(ies)?

The Yahoo results are strikingly similar, and this might be related to that network now just using its initials. However, one would think there would be hundreds of old links using its full name or that these search engines would be able to figure it out and deliver something at least slightly helpful.

Posted to Miscellania at 12:20 PM

Lawsuit over crime victim visas; Juliana Barbassa/AP, Tyche Hendricks ignore Mexico link

Juliana Barbassa of the Associated Press informs us:

Attorneys for undocumented immigrants who have suffered violent crimes sued the federal government Wednesday for failing to issue protective visas approved by Congress more than six years ago.

The 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act created a visa category allowing such victims who cooperate with law enforcement to remain in the country and eventually apply for permanent residency... [visas not implemented yet]

..."We finally decided that without the intervention of the federal courts, we could easily be waiting for another six years before an application form is made available," said Peter A. Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and lead counsel for the lawsuit filed in San Francisco...

What the AP forgot to mention is that Schey's group is collaborating with the Mexican government on a website project associated with these visas (vocesunidas.org). Similarly forgetful was Tyche Hendricks of the San Francisco Chronicle in "Special visas sought for some illegals", link. The AP has a history of not mentioning Schey's links to Mexico: Peter Prengaman did it in September, an un-bylined story did it in August, and Martha Mendoza did it last May.

In the middle of the page at vocesunidas.org it says:

A collaborative project of the Direccion General de Proteccion y Asuntos Consulares of the Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores of the Government of Mexico and the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.

And, from vocesunidas.org/lawsuit_fact_sheet

On March 6, 2007, a coalition of civil rights organizations and immigrant victims of violent crimes, including the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, Catholic Charities of San Francisco, International Instutute of the East Bay. Friendly House (Phoenix, Az), and Sanctuary for Families (New York), which jointly serve thousands of immigrant families with domestic violence survivors and victims of violent crimes, filed a class action federal lawsuit...

It's odd how that backstory - as well as Schey's other links to the Mexican government - were not even mentioned in those two articles. The AP story even includes a link to the CHRCL's site.

Everyone please write these sources and suggest they tell their readers the whole truth:

feedback *at* ap.org
readerrep *at* sfchronicle.com

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:33 AM

Can Bill Richardson answer this?

Back in 1995, then-Congressman Bill Richardson said this:

"We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans - we have to network better - we have to be more politically minded - we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past."

I strongly urge everyone to go to his campaign appearances and read him that quote, then ask him the following:

If a white politician had said something similar, wouldn't they be branded an ethnic nationalist and driven out of public life? Could you explain why you think you should be any different?

The video version is below, although Netscape's transcoding isn't the best. A better version of the video is here. Richardson's full quote is here, with a link to audio.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:35 AM

March 07, 2007

Schwarzenegger may sign Nunez, Perata Protection Act (February primary)

The California Assembly has approved a bill that would move the presidential primary to February 2008. As previously discussed, this will also allow a proposition to appear on the ballot that will extend term limits for such worthies as Fabian Nunez and Don Perata. Arnold still needs to see the final bill, but he's indicated his support in the past. If you'd like to suggest that Arnie's in the wrong party, give him a jingle: 916-445-2841

Posted to California at 08:14 PM

ICE raids Michael Bianco Inc. in Boston; Yvonne Abraham

Yvonne Abraham and Brian R. Ballou of the Boston Globe offer "350 are held in immigration raid" about raids at the Michael Bianco company in Boston. Allow me to change a few words in the article and provide this example of what this article would have been like if it had been published a century back:

Hundreds of immigration officers and police descended on a New Bedford leather goods factory yesterday, charged top officials with employing child workers, and rounded up 350 workers who could not prove they were over 16 years of age.

The waterfront company, Michael Bianco Inc., was using the children to produce safety vests and backpacks for the US military, officials said.

Workers inside the plant described a terrifying scene. At first, several hundred employees, most of them 11 and 12 years old, were told to remain at their sewing stations as officials reviewed their status. Chaos ensued, as some panicked workers tried to flee.

"When we realized what was going on, a lot of people were screaming and crying," said Tim Tinny, a supervisor who has worked at the company for six years since he was 8. "They told the older children to stand in one area and the younger children to stand in another area. It was terrible, they were crying and didn't know what was going to happen."

The ACLU is now threatening to sue the DHS, claiming that they engaged in height profiling. Meanwhile, representatives from the Association to Protect Child Laborers are interviewing the children to make sure that they can go back to work, assisted by members of the Democratic Party. Rep. Theodorius Kennedy (D-MA) is especially concerned about the fate of the childrens' younger brothers and sisters. He pledges to do everything in his power to make sure that their older siblings can get back to working their full 12 hour shifts. Developing...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:30 PM

March 06, 2007

MyDD and/or Drum Major Institute delete criticism of immigration plans

[DMI didn't do it; see the update below.]

Yesterday, user "DMIer" - presumably an associate of the Drum Major Institute - posted the entry "How everyone can get smart on immigration & the middle class" at the site MyDD [1]. I decided to do my part, posting a long criticism of the post. My comment was deleted not long after that, presumably either by "DMIer" or by MyDD management. [2]

Either DMI or MyDD don't want their readers to hear negative comments about their plans, and that almost certainly means that they know they have a very weak argument and the only way to paper over its weaknesses is by silencing dissent.

Here's the comment in question:

1. What happens to new illegal aliens who are hired by unscrupulous employers? Will DMI wave its magic wand in that case as well, converting them into legal workers? In that case, won't that swamp our low-wage labor system? I mean, millions of prospective illegal aliens are going to see DMI's plan as amnesty, and they're going to come here. If DMI says they would support deporting future illegal aliens, well, pardon me if I don't believe them. Those who oppose deportations now will almost certainly oppose them in the future.

2. Won't this massive legalization give even more political power inside the U.S. to the Mexican government, leading to a loosening of DMI's rules? Mexico's former foreign minister even said he was going to use U.S. groups to push reforms, and several non-profits have links to that government. Isn't DMI's plan working against attempts to prevent Mexico from sending us even more of their excess population?

3. Most of our recent immigrants of all types are low-skill and low-wage. Since DMI promotes how much money we're supposedly making from illegal aliens, wouldn't we make even more money if we stopped immigration by low-skilled labor and concentrated on high-skilled? Aren't DMI's plans favoring importing even more massive amounts of low-skilled labor?

4. Can you list all the groups that profit from importing massive amounts of low-skilled labor? (Hint: one group is not obvious, but might be the most important).

[1] mydd.com/story/2007/3/5/111331/8112
[2] A copy of the same comment that I posted to TPMCafe is still there; note that "ElanaDMI" responded to my comment regarding the MyDD issue, but I have no idea if she's the same as "DMIer". In addition to content-free complimentary comments, the MyDD thread contains two comments - one from DMIer - refering to me. Yet, my comment is nowhere to be found. And, I note that a comment I posted on a Matt Stoller entry last year was deleted.

UPDATE: The DMI was kind enough to reply to my email request for more information, and informed me that they aren't able to delete comments left on their entries at MyDD. Thus, unless it was space radiation, my comment was deleted by a MyDD administrator.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:11 PM

Greece, Turkey declare war on each other... on Youtube!

Some of the currently top viewed videos on Youtube are currently what appear to be back and forth insults directed at each country. Will the next news we hear out of the region be a withdrawal of their ambassadors from the other country?

Would you like to see what it would be like if Borat was Turkish and was mad at you or your country? Here's a sample. Warning: text and graphics on video are NSFW, very NSFW.

UPDATE: Unfortunately, the video was "removed by the user". You can see another one of these here, but I couldn't find one that, like the original link, was in English.

Posted to Miscellania at 01:11 AM

March 05, 2007

AILA, Catholic Legal Immigration Network helping illegal aliens

From this:

Advocates have launched a campaign to educate immigrants about their rights following a series of arrests in Southern California and across the nation.

Legal aid and nonprofit groups have joined forces to hold town hall meetings, hand out information packets and produce a DVD to prepare illegal immigrants for future law enforcement sweeps.

The outreach is part of a broader effort by the Catholic Legal Immigration Network, American Immigration Lawyers Assn. and other organizations seeking reforms...

On the one hand, this isn't extremely objectionable in that illegal aliens do have rights, including the right to representation. However, given the history of the U.S. Catholic Church I get the feeling they aren't approaching this in good faith. I also wonder whether they have any qualms about including "Legal Immigration" in their name.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 05:56 AM

Bergen County Community Action Program: coffee, donuts for illegal aliens

It's tempting to just put "Supporters feed, clothe immigrant day laborers" by Elizabeth Llorente of The Record/Herald News in the circular Useful Idiots file, but it'll get worse in a second:

The aroma of the meat-filled turnovers, known in Spanish as empanadas, filled a narrow side street Saturday, as more than 100 immigrant laborers who gather here daily were treated to breakfast.

Laborers also availed themselves of doughnuts, bread, milk, juice and bottled water. And most of them picked up brochures that offered information in Spanish on everything from work-related accidents to recognizing the signs of heat exhaustion and hydrogen sulfide leaks.

The food and information were courtesy of a group of immigration advocates from various towns of Bergen County. The advocates said they hosted the breakfast to show support to the laborers and offer encouragement at a time when the federal government is cracking down on illegal immigrants and political tensions are rising.

The Bergen County Community Action Program, which is increasing its involvement with day laborers, coordinated the event...

According to their page (bergencap.org/aboutus.html), the BCCAP "is Bergen County's designated anti-poverty agency" and they "draw upon multiple funding and support streams from federal, state and local governments, and the corporate and philanthropic sectors". Like Casa de Maryland, this is another example of a publicly-funded non-profit supporting illegal immigration.

One of BCCAP's helpers at the event is Ellie Spiegel of Leonia; she appears to be part of a couple "international"-oriented organizations, and has been standing on street corners for a few years protesting the Iraq war (preview.tinyurl.com/ytsajh):

Spiegel was among about a dozen North Jersey residents who mingled with the laborers, asking about their lives in North Jersey and the lives they left behind. Together, they looked over the brochures and spoke about the services that the county offered them despite the illegal status of nearly all of them.

Rather than encouraging these illegal aliens to return to their home countries, presumed representatives of the BCCAP are encouraging them to use public services. The quoted article from gets worse and includes another Useful Idiot dropping off clothing for the day laborers.

One of BCCAP's reps is their "community organization coordinator" Cesar Estrella, who's also featured in "CAP agency's liaison aids immigrant workers" by Monsy Alvarado, which reminds us yet again that there are almost no Hispanic reporters who don't oppose our immigration laws.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:10 AM

March 04, 2007

Alfonso Chardy and the "moratorium movement"

Alfonso Chardy of the Miami Herald offers "Activists urge Bush to stop deportations". It's about as biased as you would expect, including offering sympathetic portrayals of scared "immigrants" who are avoiding lawful enforcement of our laws. "Immigrant rights activists" drop by:

"It is a great tragedy," said Jose Lagos, president of Honduran Unity, a Miami immigrant rights group. "Families have been broken up. People's lives have been disrupted and panic has gripped our communities, all on the eve of possible legalization. These people are being denied hope."

...Lagos' group is among those behind the moratorium movement. Others include the Florida Immigrant Coalition, Haitian Women of Miami, League of United Latin American Citizens or LULAC and the Fair Immigration Reform Movement.

Supporters of immigration reform in Congress have yet to weigh in on a moratorium. Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and brothers Lincoln and Mario Díaz-Balart support legalization for millions of undocumented workers. But when pressed on the moratorium, they and others who worked on immigration reform last year -- including Rep. Kendrick Meek and Sens. Mel Martinez, John McCain and Ted Kennedy -- declined to comment further or did not respond...

Someone supporting a moratorium now is a very strong indicator that that person would support yet another moratorium and that they really don't support our immigration laws at all. Perhaps the politicians listed are just tactically smarter than the list "rights" groups. I note also that FIRM has at least three questionable members: ICIRR has a direct link to the Mexican government, AFSC has an indirect link, and CHIRLA is alleged to have collaborated with that government.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:56 PM

Here's a fun video

This is a little slow at the beginning, but it slightly picks up speed - as do I - near the end:

Background on this here.

Posted to OutdoorSports at 11:35 AM

Commenting status

Comments are currently disabled, because leaving them enabled led to my host shutting this site down temporarily on Friday and on Saturday. The commenting script was using a lot of CPU for a reason I haven't looked into yet, but it may be a bug, or a MovableType "feature", or it may have been abuse. Regarding the last, I note that I had two short busloads of "liberals" coming by here recently (this and this), but whether it's related to that I don't know.

Posted to Bloggage at 11:29 AM

March 02, 2007

Sen. Bob Dutton pulls out of $500 newborns savings accounts bill

Following an appearance on yesterday's John and Ken Show on KFI, Sen. Bob Dutton has dropped his name from Senate Bill 752. That would have given each newborn in California a $500 savings account:

"Over the last 48 hours, thousands of Californians have asked me what I was thinking so I thought I would take this opportunity to share my thoughts."

Indeed. He also references the federal version of the bill and says:

Just yesterday, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke voiced his support for similar accounts by saying "To the extent that we can help people learn about how to save, how to budget, we are doing a great service."

Posted to California at 04:07 PM

CPAC Day 2: Captain Ed's transcription service

The blog fight is on! Yesterday, "Captain Ed" posted an interview with Mike Huckabee. In a vain attempt to get someone - anyone - attending CPAC to ask anything remotely approaching a difficult question, I responded ("NoMoreBlatherDotCom"), the "Captain" responded, and now I have the feeling I'm about to be banned from yet another site.

I posted the following comment:

I just scanned it, but I didn't hear any in there about "Huck"'s immigration stance, despite it being so much of an Achilles heel that a five-year-old who knows just a little about the issue could end his candidacy with just a few tough questions.

Addressing me, the "Captain" says:

I asked 14 questions of Huckabee on various policy points after prepping for about an hour during the day, in the middle of writing 7 posts. I note from your web site that you have two posts ... in 2007. Pardon me if I don't take advice from you on conducting interviews, and invite you and your rather snotty attitude to go somewhere else if you don't like it here.

Trying to be just as diplomatic as I can possibly be, I posted the following in return. This comment has been moderated, most likely because of the large number of links:

My first post on Huckabee was back in 2004 on my other site, and I've mentioned him in about 25 other posts (search function on each page). I've also asked those to whom I was given access some difficult questions (1, 2), tried with others, and tried to encourage others.

Think of my comment as less trying to pick on you specifically and more a plea that the blogosphere rises above the MSM M.O. of acting as a transcription service.

P.S. You do know the link I included to your own site has a nofollow tag, right?

For an example of that transcription, see his Giuliani post.

For another example of me attempting to shame those in the blogosphere who are given access to politicians to do some actual reporting, see the NoMoreBlatherDotCom here.

Note also that just recently I've requested interviews with and received no reply from the Los Angeles Archdiocese and Rudy Giuliani (via Patrick Ruffini). I also sent a question to Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin without a reply. However, Giovanni Peri of UC Davis was kind enough to reply to a question I had.

Those who are intellectually honest might want to wonder why there's almost no intersection between the set of those who will ask tough questions and the set of those who are given access to political leaders.

3/8/07 UPDATE: Oddly enough, the Captain never did approve my final comment, for one reason or another.

Posted to Bloggage at 03:10 PM | Comments (0)

Bob Barr takes Bank of America's side; did the ACLU get to him?

Former Republican Georgia Congressman Bob Barr - also an advisor to the ACLU, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government - comes out in support of Bank of America's credit card for illegal aliens in "Immigration indigestion" (link). He ends up sounding like Bill Press, and makes the same fundamental error as he did:

When word surfaced recently that some banks, such as Bank of America, were allowing individuals to open accounts, apply for credit cards and obtain home mortgages even though they did not possess a Social Security number, it was not Big Government Liberals who rose up in arms to stop "greedy" financial institutions from offering such services. It was Small Government Republicans, like Colorado's Tom Tancredo and Californians Ed Royce and John Doolittle, who waxed indignant that banks engaged in such a free market activity as extending credit to someone who proved creditworthy but did not have a Social Security number.

The problem is that that isn't the "free market", it's the "corrupt market". Banks were not originally allowed to accept Mexico's Matricula Consular ID card, but the Bush administration fought to change that. That's despite both the FBI and the DOJ pointing out that the cards were not a reliable means of identification and would provide "an opportunity for terrorists to move freely in the United States". As detailed at the last link, the Mexican government is allowed to visit their outposts in the U.S. and distribute them like candy.

The "natural order" of things was not to accept those cards; political corruption and the Bush administration's support for corporatism led to the change.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 05:52 AM | Comments (0)

NYT: Majority Back Health Care for All!

The results of the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll are in:

While the war in Iraq remains the overarching issue in the early stages of the 2008 campaign, access to affordable health care is at the top of the public's domestic agenda, ranked as far more important than immigration, cutting taxes or promoting traditional values.

The poll asks about making "health insurance available to all Americans".

The problem is that the Democratic Party has a problem understanding that "Americans" word, and think it includes all of Mexico and most of the rest of the world. If the Dems had their way, any healthcare plan would be open to everyone, including illegal aliens who'd just snuck across the border five minutes earlier.

Several Democratic elected officials are directly or indirectly linked to current or former Mexican government or Mexican political party officials, and just a few weeks ago several Democrats joined with Mexican legislators to promote an amnesty in Washington DC.

If the Dems want to sell anything like universal healthcare, they should first take a look at which country they're supposed to be working for.

UPDATE: I don't think the Dems would extend healthcare to "all of Mexico and most of the rest of the world". That is what's refered to as "hyperbole", and everyone should be able to recognize that as such. However, the statement that if "the Dems had their way, any healthcare plan would be open to everyone" isn't hyperbole, and I invite everyone to find examples of specific plans from Democrats excluding illegal aliens.

And, I don't expect everyone to know who Elvira Arellano is or to follow immigration matters as closely as I do. However, when you've got (supposedly U.S.) representatives joining with Mexican representatives to support immigration "reform" - aka a massive amnesty for illegal aliens - and standing together demanding a moratorium on deportations and they've got Saul Arellano with them and one of the Mexican representatives says the U.S., Mexico, and everyone else should become "one America on one continent", well c'mon. You'd have to be in deep, deep denial not to realize that they're on the same page and neither group have much use for our immigration laws.

And, I note also that even Arnold Schwarzenegger supports healthcare for illegal aliens, and there was another bill that would also give those same benefits to foreign citizens from state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, a Democrat. New Jersey is even establishing clinics for illegal aliens as part of their proposal. I don't think you'll find a left-wing or racial power non-profit that doesn't support healthcare for illegal aliens, and in the extremely unlikely event that the Dems came up with a plan that excluded them those groups and others would put a tremendous amount of pressure to include it. In fact, some elected Democrats might join with Mexican legislators to demand it just as they did with a call for a moratorium on deportations.

UPDATE 2: Regarding the David Terrenoire comment, it isn't exactly clear what the "strawman" is, but claiming that the Democratic Party fully supports illegal immigration is certainly not a strawman. Now, certainly, if you asked them flat out whether they support that they would say no. However, their every action and statement concerning immigration serves to support and even encourage the illegal variety. It's not just a preponderance of circumstantial evidence; it's almost every single piece of relevant evidence. Here's Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Howard Dean [1], [2]. And, here are some links between Democratic Party elected officials and those linked to the Mexican government or Mexican political parties.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:48 AM | Comments (11)

March 01, 2007

Mitt Romney comes out against the word "amnesty"

Glen Johnson of the Associated Press offers "Romney assails rivals on national issues". It quotes Mitt Romney as saying the following at a New Hampshire campaign stop:

"I don't agree with [presumably McCain's stance on immigration]; I think it's the wrong course... I do not believe amnesty is the right course for the 11 or 12 million illegal immigrant who are living here. It didn't work in the 1980s; it's not going to work in the 2000s either."

It isn't clear whether Romney opposes amnesty in the same manner as George Bush does. Bush supports amnesty, he just doesn't support calling it amnesty, prefering to use euphemisms. Bear in mind that Mitt Romney is linked to Jeb Bush.

"Reporter" Johnson could have asked Romney a question that would have revealed exactly what he supports and what he doesn't but, needless to say, he acted only as a transcription service.

Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, said he opposes amnesty, favors securing the U.S.-Mexico border with a fence, and wants to institute an employment verification system through high-tech identification cards.

"If we can do that, then we can solve our problem with immigration. The answer is not amnesty," Romney said to hearty applause from an audience of more than 150 gathered at New Hampshire Technical College.

McCain spokesman Matt David cited the discrepancy in Romney's statements on the issue, citing his comment last March in which the former governor said he doesn't believe in rounding up 11 million people and forcing them at gunpoint from the country.

"At a time when Senator McCain is working with the White House to solve one of our nation's biggest challenges, factually inaccurate rhetoric might score short-term political points but it does nothing to solve the larger issue," David said.

Once again, "reporter" Johnson should have pointed out the false choice that McCain is offering but did not.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:30 PM | Comments (1)

Bloggers visit CPAC; tough questions, real journalism to follow soon

Several of our favorites have been selected as "credentialed bloggers" for this year's CPAC ("Conservative Political Action Conference"). I fully expect earth-shattering news to come from "Bloggers' Row", as these internet journalists use their new-found access to ask the tough questions that the MSM won't. Digging ever deeper for the truth, these citizen journos will ask embarrassingly tough policy questions that the MSM is afraid to ask.

Why, yes, I am being sarcastic. I have absolutely no doubt that this will be yet another in the long line of supposed watchdogs simply doing the same thing the MSM does, only worse: acting as a transcription service. It will be worse because they aren't as jaded as the jades in the MSM, and some of them might even go as far as asking for autographs and then crowing about it on their sites. Now, of course, that doesn't apply to every single one of them, but let's wait and see.

A list of the attendees (from preview.tinyurl.com/ynovyo) is in the extended entry.

And, if you tried to get credential for CPAC but were denied, please leave comment.

UPDATE: A brief scan of the blogs listed below shows not an awful lot of Les Kinsolving going on. But, I believe we've located today's winner of the Ryan H. Sager Award in one Sean Hackbarth of "The American Mind". He says:

Phyllis Schlafly, a woman I only think about when I'm at CPAC, spent half her talk railing about immigrants and the english language... Then Schlafly went into kook-land expressing her fears of a "plan to integrate with Mexico and Canada."

Given all of the evidence - and statements from Mexican and Canadian government authorities - supporting her view, I think it's clear who's the "kook".

* Ace of Spades HQ
* Alarming News
* American Mind
* American Spectator
* Ankle Biting Pundits
* Captain's Quarters
* Hot Air
* Human Events
* Fausta's Blog
* Little Miss Attila
* Michelle Malkin
* Musclehead Revolution
* National Journal
* NewsBusters
* NOVA TownHall
* Outside the Beltway
* Politico
* Reasoned Audacity
* Red State
* RobertBluey.com
* SaveTheGop
* SeeJaneMom
* ShopFloor.org
* Spot On
* The Conservative Voice

Posted to Bloggage at 11:46 AM | Comments (0)

Why the Bush administration's immigration plans are nuts, Part #439592

From this:

President Bush waded gingerly back into the debate over immigration Wednesday, as two of his top lieutenants urged Congress to grant "legal status" to an estimated 12 million people now living in the country illegally.

Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff stopped short, however, of endorsing a plan to give illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship. "I believe what people want first and foremost is to have legal status," Gutierrez said. "I don't think everyone wants to be a citizen."

Well, it's good that he doesn't "think" that. Of course, we can look back at the Bush administration's handling of Iraq, Katrina, and flu vaccinations for a clue that they have absolutely no clue about governance.

What would happen is that those newly-legalized former illegal aliens would be highly attracted by the prospect of obtaining the rights associated with citizenship. And, racial demagogues would take every chance they could find to encourage legal residents to apply for citizenship. Remember "today we march, tomorrow we vote?" And, considering that Mexico recognizes dual citizenship, there would be little harm in going for U.S. citizenship as well.

The Bush administration has no clue, and the great majority of those it sees only as low-wage workers would eventually become citizens. And, the great majority of those would vote Democratic:

Democrats argue that offering an eventual chance at citizenship is the only way to guarantee the elimination of an exploitable underclass of workers. "We need to establish a path to citizenship that is fair and predictable," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was to have said in remarks scheduled for delivery Wednesday night to the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. "It may be a path of many steps, but the endpoint must be clear and attainable."

We're also informed:

At the Senate hearing, Chertoff said deporting all of them would be "a gargantuan task."

Needless to say, the reporter didn't try to point out that that was likely a false choice between amnesty and mass deportations.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:13 AM | Comments (1)

Darrell Steinberg, Bob Dutton: give every child born in California $500 (anchor babies, bank boondoggle)

California Senators Darrell Steinberg (D-Sacramento) and Bob Dutton (R-Rancho Cucamonga) have introduced a bill that would given every child born in California from 2008 on a savings account with an initial deposit of $500 (AP link). The two Senators are either very high or very corrupt, perhaps both.

First of all, the program is open to every child, and makes absolutely no distinction as far as residency, citizenship status, or the like. While people from Korea probably aren't going to spend $1000 on a plane ticket to come here just for $500, this will reduce the costs of such birth tourism. And, needless to say, the government of Mexico is probably printing up comic books as I type showing their citizens how to take advantage of Steinberg/Dutton's largesse.

And, it doesn't take much to see where we might also "follow the money": what type of business makes money when the state deposits close to $300 million per year? Hint to the AP: it's not mattress manufacturers.

If any citizen journalists want to make a name for themselves, look into whether Steinberg and Dutton (or NAF; see below) have received donations or have links to the banking industry.

The program does have some restrictions: they probably can't get at the money until they reach 18, at which time they can only spend it on good things (not crack or anything): an education, a house, or funding a retirement account. However, none of those have to be in California.

This bill appears to have been pushed by the CFR-linked New America Foundation; one of their fellows is Gregory Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Times. Whether he's involved is not known, but this NAF page identifies another fellow, Anne Stuhldreher, as "a key player in sponsoring the legislation" and another person quoted is "Ray Boshara, New America Foundation Vice President and Director of the Asset Building Program". They also state:

Legislation that would implement KIDS Accounts throughout the U.S. is currently pending in Congress. Known as the ASPIRE Act, the federal bill is co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of lawmakers that the New America Foundation works closely with.

The latest version of that I could find is H.R.1767 and S.868, both from 2005.

The California bill is SB 752 (link), and these are the only requirements:

There is hereby established in the State Treasury the California Kids Investment and Development Savings (KIDS) Account for every child born in California on or after January 1, 2008.

There's nothing else in there regarding residency or legal status.

The bill also race-baits and tries to trigger guilt reflexes:

Across the country, one-quarter of Caucasian children and one-half of non-Caucasian children grow up in households without any significant savings or resources available for investment.

Shouldn't that be "Caucasian-American"? And, it contains unclear language:

An individual who is 18 years or older may withdraw funds from the account for the following purposes

Which "individual" and which "account" they're refering to isn't clear. That's certainly a minor point and will probably be cleared up, but it helps illustrate their muddled thinking.

The principal coauthors are: Dean Florez and Jenny Oropeza in the Senate and Patty Berg, Dave Jones, Ted Lieu, and Tony Mendoza in the Assembly.

I'll outsource discussing the idiocy in the rest of the bill to others, but I'd suggest using the points highlighted above to drive the idiots involved in this out of office.

UPDATE: Bob Dutton has dropped his name from the bill.

Posted to California at 12:22 AM | Comments (0)