« April 2007 | Main | June 2007 »
Ezra Klein, useful idiot
Pictured right is a blogad currently running on the site (ezraklein.typepad.com) of Ezra Klein of TAPPED (The American Prospect). The ad is for cirnow.org, the Coalition for Comprehensive Immigration Reform.
I'm not going to hold someone responsible for the ads on their site... except blogads have to be approved by the blog owner and, more importantly, the ad includes a quote from Klein himself, which links to a piece he wrote at TAPPED. So, one might assume that he doesn't have any problems with the ad's extremely over-the-top emotionalistic support for illegal immigration.
And, one can assume that he doesn't have a problem with CCIR, which, as detailed at the link consists of various far-left groups including:
* One member that has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government (CHIRLA)
* Another that's headed by someone who serves on a Mexican government advisory council (Juan Salgado of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; see the letter he wrote to Vicente Fox)
* Another that funds extremists (National Council of La Raza)
* Another that's partly funded by the Irish government (Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform)
From that I assume that Klein either supports those groups and their goals, or he's just a useful idiot who isn't capable of doing research.
Previously:
Think Progress, Ezra Klein, AP downplay organizers of illegal immigration marches
Posted to Bloggage at 09:40 PM
Joe Klein/Time Magazine: just a sleazy liar
In his latest column, Joe Klein of Time Magazine discusses Mitt Romney, and says:
[Romney] has flipped on immigration, to better suit the Mexican-fearing tendencies of a segment of the Republican base.
That's a sleazy statement which tries to give the impression that opposition to massive illegal activity and massive public and private corruption is due to xenophobia and racism.
Now for an example of Joe Klien lying. In a previous column, he said this:
I've been surprised by how ineffective Tancredo has been in making his anti-immigrant pitch, which should have some resonance in the Republican Party.
A smear and a lie, in just one sentence. Tancredo is not "anti-immigrant", and the idea that such a platform would find "resonance" is a smear.
(Also: Wonkette/Ana Marie Cox said on their blog that Hugh Hewitt was an "immigration foe", placing me in the uncomfortable position of having to defend him.)
Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:05 PM
David Leonhardt/New York Times: illegal immigration supporting hack
David Leonhardt of the New York Times offers the much-linked "Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs". It discusses a few facts that Dobbs has gotten wrong, and to that extent it's worthwhile: everybody needs a fact-checker to keep them honest. However, one wonders about this bit:
He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.
That kind of smear doesn't sound like fact-checking to me. According to Lesley Stahl, journalists shouldn't mix in opinion with their facts. Does that above sound like a fact? Should Leonhard be considered a journalist?
In fact, what's going on here is the that New York Times and most of our corrupt elite support massive illegal activity, something that Dobbs opposes. The NYT is simply striking back.
He also mentions the Southern Poverty Law Center, calling them a "civil rights group" without mentioning that they have an indirect link to the Mexican government. Shouldn't a good journalist disclose such links?
And, one of Leonhardt's statements doesn't exactly square with previous NYT coverage. He quotes "James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen's Disease Program, an arm of the federal government" as saying:
"It is not a public health problem — that’s the bottom line... You've got a country of 300 million people. This is not something for the public to get alarmed about."
However, one of those sounding alarms... was the New York Times back in February 18, 2003 with "Leprosy, a Synonym for a Stigma, Returns":
But, in fact, as cases of leprosy have been declining worldwide in recent years, the infection has actually been on the rise in the United States... While there were some 900 recorded cases in the United States 40 years ago, today more than 7,000 people have leprosy, or Hansen's disease, as it is now called. ''And those are the ones we know about,'' said Dr. William Levis, attending physician at Bellevue Hospital's Hansen's Disease Clinic. ''There are probably many, many more.'' ...the disease is now officially endemic to the Northeastern United States for the first time ever.
Wouldn't a good journalist have at least mentioned that earlier article? Leonhart's smears continue:
Mr. Dobbs argues that the middle class has many enemies: corporate lobbyists, greedy executives, wimpy journalists, corrupt politicians. But none play a bigger role than illegal immigrants. As he sees it, they are stealing our jobs, depressing our wages and even endangering our lives.
I only see his show occasionally, but I suspect that Dobbs focuses more on illegal aliens themselves as symptoms of the former group, yet Leonhardt is implying that Dobbs focuses on the illegal aliens themselves.
Leonhardt's hack status is further entrenched with this chestnut:
There is no denying that this country's immigration system is broken.
The bottom line here is the bottom line: some people profit from illegal immigration, either monetarily or through obtaining political power. And, they're quite willing to defend their bottom line through lies and smears.
More to come, including Dobbs' response and a list of those who helped retransmit Leonhardt's smears.
UPDATE: Dobbs responds: "An answer for my critics".
I point out that I was one of the few people attempting to counteract this smear here. That helps illustrate why the MSM and politicians are continually allowed to spread lies and pro-illegal immigration propaganda.
The NYT article also contains this:
For one thing, Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality. He has said, for example, that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants. That's wrong, too. According to the Justice Department, 6 percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (compared with 7 percent of the population).
Bearing in mind that I'm not familiar with the statistics he cites, this site says:
Notice how Leonhardt has changed the subject. Dobbs was talking about federal prisoners, and Leonhardt is talking about the entire state plus federal prison population.
UPDATE 2: It's starting to get funny now. From the current NYT article:
Second, Mr. Dobbs really does give airtime to white supremacy sympathizers. Ms. Cosman, who is now deceased, was a lawyer and Renaissance studies scholar, never a medical doctor or a leprosy expert. She gave speeches in which she said that Mexican immigrants had a habit of molesting children.
Now, let's turn to this article from March 19, 2006:
Madeleine Pelner Cosman, a prominent writer, scholar and lecturer whose passion for what she called the "glorious order" of the past led her first to a career in medieval and Renaissance studies and more recently to wide public advocacy of tougher immigration laws, died on March 2 in Escondido, Calif. She was 68... Ms. Cosman took her work seriously. She could sing madrigals, play the lute and eat with her fingers off a trencher in the proper medieval style. Her house in suburban New Jersey was appointed with ornately carved period furniture. Arms and armor lay about, the walls were hung with Flemish tapestries, and the cellar was stocked with mead.
It goes on in its own laudatory way, with the only discordant note being the use of the term "anti-immigrant" to refer to websites that promoted her latter works. The source? Why (of course) the New York Times (link, copy).
Posted to Immigration2007a at 05:06 PM
Chicago alderman's father target of document forgery investigation
Back in April, the Feds raided a shopping center in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood to break up a document forgery ring that also involved an attempted murder. One of the stores raided was a photo store owned by the father of Chicago Alderman Ricardo Munoz (22nd); at the time he said that his father had no involvement in the alleged crimes. And, the raid generated a march through the streets with illegal immigration supporters going as far as saying that "Soldiers bombarded our neighborhood".Now comes this:
ABC7 has learned from a source close to the Munoz family that Elias Munoz will fight the charges maintaining that he only sold photos and had nothing to do with any conspiracy to make fake IDs. But the feds claim the 22nd Ward alderman's father was a major player and target of Operation Paper Tiger.The Feds may or may not be over-selling their case; they found blank identity cards in the shop which are apparently legal, but it isn't known the extent to which they're basing the case on that. See also the PDF from the previous post describing the crimes involved in this case.
Federal agents allege that a ring of fake ID sellers that operated for at least 3 1/2 years in the parking lot of a Little Village strip mall routinely sent their customers -- sometimes over 100 a day -- to Nuevo Foto Munoz, 3105 W. 26th St., to fill out forms and have their pictures taken for $10 each. At another location, the counterfeiters used the snapshots to make bogus Social Security cards, green cards and driver's licenses.
The government claims it has affidavits from informants and undercover agents that will link Elias Munoz to the ring, 13 members of which were arrested in an April 24 raid on the mall. On that day, Elias's son, 22nd Ward Alderman Ricky Munoz, led complaints about how the raid was conducted...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:10 PM
voceunidas.org is now the Swift Raid Collaborative (Mexico-linked Peter Schey)
Peter Schey is an immigration attorney with at least three links to the Mexican government. In addition to heading the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, he also operates vocesunidas.org, which until recently was called the "Mexico Project". It's since undergone an interesting change. The previous version included this:
A collaborative project of the Dirección 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.
It also included a "Partial list of participating consulates", listing Mexican consulates in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Oxnard, San Diego, San Francisco, Austin, Houston, Dallas, Brownsville, El Paso, Laredo, and Chicago.
Now, the site has become the "Swift Raid Collaborative", and there's no note on the front page of any collaboration with the Mexican government. There's a banner on the right called "Voces Unidas/A project for Mexican National women and children survivors of domestic abuse", but that leads back to the home page.
Thankfully, a copy of the original page has been cached both by me, by google, and by archive.org, so the next time Teresa Watanabe, Peter Prengaman, Martha Mendoza, or other "reporters" quote Schey without mentioning his links to the Mexican government, we can have something to send them to.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:37 PM
Is immigration reform an elaborate practical joke? (Chertoff USA Today interview)
USA Today continues their obvious attempt to help the Bush administration push amnesty with a transcript (link) of part of the meeting USA Today's editorial board held with DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. After reading it, I know three things: a) there were no doubt tougher, less Soviet interviews in Izvestia, b) neither Chertoff nor Gutierrez are inhabiting the same universe as the rest of us (possible name of their universe: rubegoldbergia), and c) their scheme would be a bigger debacle than Iraq and Katrina multiplied together.First, it's worth noting that USA Today leads off the posting with: "Cabinet secretaries tackle myths of the immigration debate..." Obviously, the non-disclaimed word "myths" is editorializing and gives a strong clue to USA Today's stance on the issue. Let's take a look at this:
Q: So let's be sure we understand this. If this compromise becomes law, 12 million illegal immigrants could instantly enroll in the system and receive probationary legal status. Once a series of enforcement "triggers" are met — such as improved border security and a set system to verify the status of illegal workers — they could apply for a Z visa. That visa would allow them to remain and work in the country and, if they choose, put them on a path to citizenship. You'd be adding this to a system that was strained and challenged even before this legislation. Is this possible?Of course, what he fails to stress is that after simplifying the current system, they are going to have millions and millions of new applicants. Why not just simplify the current system, without the massive rush of millions and millions of new applicants?
Chertoff: By simplifying the system and by not having a very complicated process for getting the Z visa, you're eliminating a lot of the problems under the current system, which was built as a patchwork. (Illegal immigrants who were in the country by Jan. 1, 2007, are eligible for the Z visa.)
Then:
Q: How will you get the illegal immigrants to enroll, and what happens once they do?A model they could follow is the one the Mexican government uses with their mobile consulates. I'm kidding, but I wouldn't be surprised if they thought of that.
Chertoff: We need to have locations all over the country, particularly in places with large numbers of illegal migrants. We hope to get local community leaders to help...[describes Z visa process...]
Needless to say, the "local community leaders" will almost all be far-left with some of them being radicals and/or having direct or indirect links to the Mexican government. I have little doubt that individual offices would be under tremendous pressure to get as many people on "probationary" status as quickly as possible, with the "leaders" supplying much of the pressure, and lawyers from the ACLU and other groups supplying more. I am extremely doubtful that intake personnel will be experienced or skilled, with many being taken in by liars, with many feeling sympathy with applicants, and with some being on the take. "Mad rush" doesn't begin to describe what the offices will look like, even if many illegal aliens decide to maintain their current status.
Chertoff goes on to claim that after a certain period there will be no more Z Visas issued; can anyone see that happening? If there are hundreds of thousands or millions of unadmitted illegal aliens after the first phase, what are they going to do but wave the magic wand again? Expect an extension to be issued just before the end of the first phase; see "Temporary" Protected Status for an example of how that would work.
Chertoff then goes on to assure illegal aliens who enter the program that if they play by the rules and don't have criminal records, they won't be deported. While he has to say something like that in order to increase the miniscule possibility that the scheme would work, its irony was no doubt lost on the USA Today board. Or, perhaps they had a nice chuckle.
Then:
Q. So once the Z visa system is in place, will every employer have access to a computer in order to verify an employee's legal status?What? The last time I was in a PO (admittedly several months ago), they were barely electrified. Does this bill include the computerization of the post offices?
Gutierrez: Yes, and for those who may not have a computer, there will be post offices with computers and secretaries of state with computers.
Q: Would anyone who hires a day laborer — to do yard work, for instance — have to verify status?Did he stifle a laugh as he said that? The worries about getting caught hiring an illegal alien day laborer would be the same post-"reform" as they are now: none. Newspapers have even promoted the practice.
Gutierrez: Yes.
Asked about the "justification for the guest-worker program":
Gutierrez: Our unemployment is 4.5%. It's below the average of each of the last four decades. This is a very tight labor market. We don't have enough truck drivers. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough people working in the fields. We don't have enough maids in hotels. I'm constantly hearing this. So there's no question we don't have enough workers.I generally avoid economic arguments here, but my understanding is that many of those jobs are of the McJob variety, most of the recent jobs have gone to immigrants, and large numbers of Americans are structurally unemployed (and thus not reflected in the 4.5% figure). So, I don't think Gutierrez is being intellectually honest. And, of course, he says that he's bought the propaganda from cheap labor-seeking employers, and he wants everyone else to buy it as well.
Near the end, USA Today says this:
Q: Some people express concern that so many of today's immigrants speak the same language, and it's not English. Does that make this different from past waves of immigration?There are huge differences between the current wave and past waves. USA Today can't mention them all, but they're falsely implying that that's the only or the major difference. Gutierrez goes on to inform them that two of his children were born in Mexico (apparently this was when he was a Kellogg executive and after he'd obtained U.S. citizenship) and that because "the television; the whole environment is in English" it's not a problem. Obviously, there are huge problems with that statement.
Chertoff and Gutierrez are just snake oil salesmen, with USA Today as their shill.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:00 PM
Minor immigration debate reveals fundamental issue (Dianne Feinstein)
Not only do open/loose borders loons not understand or support our borders, they also have issues with public vs. private property. Earlier today a small group of said loons delivered petitions to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's San Francisco office. They also gathered on the steps of the building, and the building is private property. The security guard asked them to get off the steps, and it apparently took several minutes before they relented:[After having been asked to leave the steps...] As a woman who identified herself as Mary Doyle of the Diocese of Oakland began to read a prepared statement, Cooper [the security guard] stepped into the middle of the group and told her to stop.He then apparently showed them the "border line". After having determined that they were on private property, most people would relent and move to public property. It's quite revealing that they did not:
Another man in the crowd asked Cooper if he was afraid of the group.
"No, I am not afraid of you," Cooper said. "I asked you very politely to break this up and you have not done it. Can you please comply with that?"
A demonstrator told Cooper, "No." Another person said it was the group's First Amendment right to be there.
"To invade private property is your First Amendment right?" Cooper said.
At one point, Doyle began reading her statement again, and Cooper started making loud noises over her speech in an effort to get the group's attention. He asked the group to move again... [...they got into an argument...]They didn't cross the sidewalk, the sidewalk crossed them.
...In the end, the organizers moved 10 feet to a nearby sidewalk and continued their demonstration.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:33 PM
Bush attacks immigration "reform" opponents, taps out literary allusions
Our president spoke [1] in Georgia earlier today at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco. The topic: comprehensive immigration "reform", specifically the Senate's amnesty bill.
I am uncertain how to proceed.
Do I offer a summary? A point-by-point "fisk"? Do I make fun of his blather? Do I outsource commenting to others? Do I frantically search through the collected works of Kafka, Gogol, Shakespeare, even Bradbury or Vonnegut or Asimov to try to find literary corollaries to his remarks? Contact professors of Russian or Classical history for past examples? I really don't know what to do in this case.
[1] whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070529-7.html
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:02 AM
Steve Lopez: up with illegal immigration propaganda, allegedly Mexico-linked CHIRLA
Via this, Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times offers "Family crossed the border to success". The family in question is that of Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. As discussed at that link, CHIRLA has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government. In the piece, Lopez says that Salas' job is to "tell stories" and even to "share her stories with immigrant-bashers". And, she "believes the tone of the debate has been and will continue to be changed by humanizing it". "Tell stories, Angelica Salas says."
Does he ask Salas about her group allegedly collaborating with the Mexican government? Does he bust her for spreading pro-illegal immigration propaganda? Does he try to find out who in the media or government has assisted her with spreading that propaganda?
No. In fact, he gladly joins in with her efforts and supports "humanizing" the debate through heartwarming anecdotes, offering a few of his own.
In previous columns, he's shown an inability to understand simple economics but even more relevant Steve Lopez spread propaganda from a Mexican consul.
Please write him at steve.lopez *at* latimes.com with your thoughts.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:38 AM
Natalie Merchant is not having a good day
Even transcendental demigoddesses like Natalie Merchant can have their off days, as this photo illustrates:
(It's not one of mine, I got it from here. I didn't get it from here.)
Posted to WackyHumor at 05:24 PM
"North American union plan headed to Congress in fall"
From this:A powerful think tank chaired by former Sen. Sam Nunn and guided by trustees including Richard Armitage, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Harold Brown, William Cohen and Henry Kissinger, is in the final stages of preparing a report to the White House and U.S. Congress on the benefits of integrating the U.S., Mexico and Canada into one political, economic and security bloc.There's much more at the link, and their report is here: canadians.org/water/documents/NA_Future_2025.pdf
The final report, published in English, Spanish and French, is scheduled for submission to all three governments by Sept. 30, according to the Center for Strategic & International Studies [csis.org].
CSIS boasts of playing a large role in the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994 – a treaty that set in motion a political movement many believe resembles the early stages of the European Community on its way to becoming the European Union.
Posted to NAU at 05:23 PM
Bill Richardson Lied about the Border Fence
Speaking on Meet the Press, New Mexico governor and Democratic presidential contender Bill Richardson lied about the border fence:MR. RUSSERT: The wall hasn't worked?Now, let's turn to NPR from April 2006:
GOV. RICHARDSON: No, it hasn't worked.
MR. RUSSERT: Anywhere along the border, the fence hasn't worked.
GOV. RICHARDSON: It hasn't worked. What has worked is more border patrols. What has worked is some National Guardsmen. What has worked is some technology. It's made the program better. But, Tim, we got to talk to Mexico, our friend, get them to do more...
Today, Henry is assistant chief of the Border Patrol's San Diego sector. He says apprehensions here are down 95 percent, from 100,000 a year to 5,000 a year, largely because the single strand of cable marking the border was replaced by double -- and in some places, triple -- fencing.Obviously, the border fence has worked in that area, and Richardson lied.
And, of course, the idea that Mexico is a "friend" is ludicrous.
Here's the video of him making these claims:
Related:
Bill Richardson still "special envoy" for Organization of American States
Posted to Politics at 01:26 PM
Janet Napolitano endorses Senate immigration bill; "silent amnesty"
Note that she's using the same term as Michael Chertoff; who used it first isn't known:Saying the only current alternative is allowing a status quo of "silent amnesty," Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday [5/23/07] tentatively endorsed a U.S. Senate proposal on immigration.
Napolitano said she sees some flaws in the Senate proposal but that it "includes all the elements of comprehensive immigration reform."
..."The status quo is not acceptable, and when I hear those who are opposed to the bill call it amnesty, I really want to say to them what we have now is silent amnesty, because nothing is being done with those who are already illegally in this country, and we have no system to do anything with those already illegally in this country," she said.
...Napolitano wrote in a newspaper commentary published Tuesday that she wanted changes made to the U.S. Senate proposal. She criticized the proposal's delay of a temporary worker program until border security measures are deployed, a requirement that temporary workers return home for a year after two years of work in the United States and a requirement that illegal immigrants who are heads of household return to their country before gaining legal status...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:30 AM
ACLU has "concerns" about Senate immigration amnesty bill
From their press release [1]:The American Civil Liberties Union today [5/25/07] expressed grave concerns about the due process and privacy implications of the Senate immigration bill. The proposed legislation would create a vast federal database to verify the work eligibility of all job applicants in America - including U.S. citizens; expand indefinite detention; and deny effective judicial review of Department of Homeland Security errors denying immigration status.In addition to their many othe flaws, the ACLU is indirectly linked to the Mexican government. However, that doesn't stop me from agreeing with them in principle, despite the fact that I think they're overselling the downsides. And, the danger in this case is that the bill could be amended in a way that would make them - and other far-left and racial power groups such as La Raza - support it.
...The proposed legislation would require every job applicant in America to have their eligibility to work verified by the DHS, using the error-plagued Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS). EEVS creates a massive government database containing extraordinary amounts of personal information on everyone in America, tied to each individual's Social Security number. If DHS makes a mistake in determining work eligibility, there will be virtually no way to challenge the error or recover lost wages due to the bill's prohibitions on judicial review.
As a part of EEVS, every person in America would be forced to carry a hardened Social Security card perhaps containing biometric information about the cardholder - essentially a national ID - and present a Real ID-compliant driver's license to get any new job. The proposed legislation also expands current practice of expedited removal. The ACLU noted that these policies do nothing to solve the problems of illegal immigration and violate the fundamental American value of due process.
[1] aclu.org/immigrants/gen/29878prs20070525.html
Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:15 PM
Trent Lott's question for voters: "Is the current immigration situation intolerable?"
From "Fury grows over US immigration bill" comes this:Trent Lott doesn't usually answer his Senate phone himself, but when angry callers are burning up the lines – as they are over this week's debate about revising America's immigration laws – the Republicans' No. 2 Senate leader has picked up to hear what they've got to say.Of course, if Gail Russell Chaddock wanted to be a real journalist, she would have pressed him on that point, asking for examples of the "misinformation". And, of course, some of the information is obviously true, since Lott only says "a lot" of it isn't. And, of course, whether what he says can be trusted is an open question; he may in fact be lying through his teeth.
A lot of the talk is misinformation, he says. Talk radio and the blogs were blasting the compromise bill, which includes a guest-worker program and a path to legal status for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the US, well before the text of the bill was ready for senators on Tuesday.
Then, continuing the transcription:
The Mississippi senator urges his colleagues to take three questions home to voters this week: Is the current immigration situation intolerable? Is the bill before the Senate significantly better than the current situation? The answer to both questions is yes, he says.It's an established trick to make a situation far worse than it has to be in order to strongarm through the "fix" you've wanted all along. A very good follow-up question to anyone who asks about whether the situation is intolerable is who's responsible for getting us into this position? What exactly was Lott doing to, for instance, encourage Bush to enforce our laws all throughout his presidency? Isn't Lott partially responsible for the current situation?
His final question is this: Will more time make a better bill? With next year's election results uncertain for Republicans, the answer is "clearly no," says Lott.
"This," he says, "is our last best chance to make a significant improvement in our immigration laws."
Please call him and ask.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:17 PM
Linda Chavez: opposition to amnesy is just about racism, xenophobia
Linda Chavez - recently mentioned here playing the race card in the case of the Fort Dix Six - just got back from the 99 Cents store with a bag full of cards and threw all of them - together with whatever small amount of credibility she had remaining - on the table:Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.There really isn't that much of a difference between her argument and those to be found at DailyKos, BrainFireHeadDogLakeBrain, Amanda Marcotte's site, or other left-wing smear sites. And, if she feels this way about the large majority of Republicans who oppose illegal immigration, then perhaps she (together with Bush, Michael Gerson, and the rest) should find another party more to their liking.
No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans -- fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most -- otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors -- most prominently, Lou Dobbs -- and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.
Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:59 PM
Michael Chertoff: Mexicans aren't encouraging illegal "migration"; Senate bill is "straight with the American public"
This CSPAN WMV file has DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff saying the following:"If we're going to change the dynamic here we've gotta be completely honest with the American people about what's practical and what's impractical, about how long it's going to take, about how much it's going to cost and about what the collateral consequences are going to be and this bill was an effort to really be straight with the American public...I would hope that even an NYT/CBS poll would show that a vast majority think the Senate bill itself, the way it was created (even including secret meetings), the way it's been handled, and the entire immigration "debate" are completely dishonest and reveal deep political corruption. And, I would hope that Congress would look into Chertoff's refusal to do his job, as well as whether he's spending too much federally-subsidized time being a snake oil salesman rather than running the DHS.
After promoting a "holistic" aka comprehensive approach, the host asks about NYT Mexican consulates article. Chertoff replies:
"I don't think the Mexicans are encouraging illegal migration in this country, I don't think they're discouraging it... I think they're servicing their citizens in another country... as long as they comply with the law that's really their business.I guess it depends on your definition of "the law". Back in 2003, 12 Congressmen complained to Colin Powell about Mexico's "breach of international protocol" regarding their consular activities. And, as detailed in the many other posts here, Mexican consuls are extremely aggresive, with Mexico's former foreign minister even making a sideways threat to the U.S. Wait, what was I thinking? The Bush administration is complicit in their schemes, such as by allowing the FDIC to work with the Mexican consulate in Chicago to give home loans to illegal aliens.
...I think they realize that in the long run they're better off [with a "guest" worker program with circular movement]"
Posted to Immigration_consul at 11:47 AM
Sleazy Bush proxy Michael Gerson attacks "nativists" in GOP base over immigration
The Bush administration's charm offensive continues with Michael Gerson - a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and Bush's former head speechwriter ("Axis of Evil") - offering up "Letting Fear Rule/Nativism Is a Recipe for Long-Term GOP Losses". As you might expect, it's one smear after another.
Like Lindsey Graham reading documents from 1911, he leads with the Chinese Exclusion Act, then starts the lies and name calling: "anti-immigrant sentiments", "a nativist party will cease to be a national party", "Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear", "any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie", "rage and national chauvinism".
His overall thesis is false in at least three ways. First, there's absolutely no guarantee that importing millions more Latin Americans will cause at least 40% of them to vote GOP. Even if the corrupt forces in the GOP prevail and it becomes a party of loose and race-based immigration, the Democrats will always be able to offer a looser deal and one even more explicitly based on race. Anyone who's familiar with this issue realizes that many groups (LULAC, National Council of La Raza/"The Race") are very successful at making racial appeals, as are racial demagogues like Antonio Villaraigosa. Gerson and the rest are actually giving those groups more power, as David Frum stated earlier. He even approvingly quotes someone promoting the "Latinoization of America". There's clearly an extremely strong possibility that he's wrong, yet he doesn't acknowledge that fact.
Second, if his argument has any validity it's one for immigration in general, not massive illegal immigration or massive immigration of any kind from one country or region.
Third, it certainly is possible to both be non-discriminatory to Hispanics and oppose illegal and massive legal immigration at the same time. Yet, he undercuts that by assuming that those are incompatible and smearing those who show it is as "nativists".
He should just be considered a smearing CFR hack and a Bush proxy.
UPDATE: ThinkProgress - the political answer to the National Enquirer - uses his remarks to further spread the "GOP = nativistic racists" meme, something that Gerson and his presumed handlers should spend more time attacking and less time aiding and abetting:
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:10 AM
False choice alert: NYT/CBS poll says "Majority Favor Changing Immigration Laws"
Julia Preston and Marjorie Connelly of the New York Times get out their megaphone and shout, "Majority Favor Changing Immigration Laws, Poll Says". The New York Times/CBS News Poll in question obtains that result by offering a false choice, and some of the other answers in the poll are a bit schizophrenic [questions: graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070525poll.pdf].
And, needless to say, the NYT is pushing what is actually a lie to the greatest extent possible:
Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demand, the poll found... Point by point, large majorities expressed support for measures contained in the legislation that has been under debate since Monday in the Senate...
Not so fast now. First, the false choice is in this question:
61. If you had to choose, what do you think should happen to most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years: They should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status, OR They should be deported back to their native country?
62% said the first, 33% said the second. There are other options which weren't, of course, asked, such as strictly enforcing the current laws in order to encourage many of those here now to return home. Why wouldn't the NYT and CBS ask about that? Obviously, the poll question was dictated by the result they wanted. This is made obvious by the next question they asked:
62. ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID DEPORTED: Do you think it is possible to find and deport most illegal immigrants to their native countries, or do you think that is not possible?
That was 19 for the first, 14 for the second, plus 1 for undecided (adding up to the 33% in the previous question). Needless to say, this is a stock talking point employed by Bush, Chertoff, and others.
There's also this question:
48. How much have you heard or read about changing the laws regarding immigration in the United States — a lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?
Only 26% said "a lot", with "some" at 51% and "not much" at 18%. One wonders how much the results would differ if they had broken them out by those groups.
Other questions showing support for "guest" workers are followed by this:
71. Some people say a guest worker program would DECREASE illegal immigration by giving the people who want to come and work in the U.S. a legal way to do so. Other people say a guest worker program would INCREASE illegal immigration because those who came to work in the U.S. might stay longer than allowed. What do you think — would having a guest worker program increase or decrease illegal immigration?
45% say it would increase vs. 41% saying it would decrease. Perhaps they should have asked that question before asking the other "guest" worker questions.
And, in the schizophrenia category, 69% (vs. 24%) say yes to this:
Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally, or shouldn't they?
Another question shows more support for the Border Patrol than building fences (actually another false choice). 34% would favor a "tamper-proof government-issued identification card", vs. 15% against and 49% undecided. A slim majority oppose a database of all workers, including citizens. 51% vs. 34% favor skills-based rather than family-based immigration.
Then, there's this misleading question about the anti-American DREAM Act:
75. Do you think the children of illegal immigrants who graduate from high school in the U.S. should be allowed to attend state public colleges at the same reduced in-state tuition rates as other state residents, or should they pay higher tuition?
52% say they should pay the in-state rate, with 39% saying the higher rate. However, that question is highly misleading, since the issue is that the children themselves are illegal aliens, not just the parents. And, they don't note that every discount that goes to an illegal alien is one that was taken away from a citizen.
If they had correctly stated the issue - and informed the respondents of everything involved in this issue - no doubt the result would be very different. Of course, that applies to most of the other questions in the poll as well.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:41 PM
We're all birds today
Posted to WackyHumor at 05:31 PM
LHF: Bush won't do job, shows how the Senate illegal immigration amnesty would fail miserably
Criticizing Bush's endless stream of blather on immigration is just about the lowest hanging fruit possible, but let's look at his latest stream of semi-consciousness [1]. First, he sounds like Howard Dean ("scapegoating immigrants") when he accuses his opponents of targeting illegal aliens. Then, he enters his peevish/defensive mode with the next four sentences. Then, he offers a non-sequitur for the last:
...It's easy to hold up somebody who is here and working hard as a political target. I would like to get this bill done for a lot of reasons. I'd like to get it done because it's the right thing to do. I'd like to get it done because I happen to believe the approach that is now being discussed in the Senate is an approach that will actually solve the problem. I'd like to get it out of politics. I don't think it's good to be, you know, holding people up. We've been through immigration debates in this country, and they can bring out the worst, sometimes, in people. We're a land of immigrants.
Is this "land of immigrants" a verbal tic or something? Why exactly would he add that on at the end?
Before that, he showed a) he's willing to mischaracterize the positions of his opponents, b) that like Michael Chertoff he's not willing to do his job, and b) how "reform" would fail miserably:
A tough issue, of course, is what do you do with the people already here? Anything short of kicking them out, as far as some people are concerned, is called amnesty. You can't kick them out. Anybody who advocates trying to dig out 12 million people who have been in our society for a while is sending a signal to the American people that's just not real....
He goes on to define amnesty in his own special way. As for the last sentence, the "reform" he supports has provisions designed to "dig out" people who come here as "guests". Those "guests" will be here "for a while", and it's trivially easy to imagine corrupt politicians like Bush or Kennedy saying the exact same thing about "guests".
[1] whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070524.html
Posted to Politics at 01:10 PM
Sleazy Robert Novak on "immigrant-bashing" and "anti-immigration"
Robert Novak offers "Immigration trap for GOP candidates/Immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans":Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia were booed at their respective state party conventions Sunday for supporting a compromise immigration bill. Their specific sin was collaborating with the liberal lion Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. But behind the catcalls was GOP rage over undocumented foreigners, a sentiment GOP lawmakers must appease or risk dire consequences.Of course, Novak and Graham are too much sleazy lightweights to realize the huge differences between then and now.
Why are the party faithful so incensed by immigration? When I asked Graham, he quoted from a federal government report on the new arrivals to this country, "largely unskilled laborers" and heavily illiterate: "The new immigration has provoked a widespread feeling of apprehension as to its effect on the economic and social welfare of the country." The report, by the U.S. Immigration Commission, was dated 1911.
...This nation of immigrants has greeted successive waves of newcomers with apprehension stoked by demagogues. It has overcome such past xenophobic impulses. But that will be more difficult in an era of Internet bloggers and radio talkers, with the Republican Party in trouble and seeking a unifying issue at the grass roots and with the Democratic Party sensing their adversary's weakness and moving in for the kill.The only ones advocating that are Novak and the corrupt Senators who support illegal immigration and "guest" workers.
...Graham was not happy with his junior South Carolina colleague, Sen. Jim DeMint, for playing to the convention crowd with anti-immigration oratory... Many Republicans reach for an anti-immigration lifeline because of the party's plight... But immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans. In a recent closed-door meeting of the House's conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina raised the danger of resembling South Africa's National Party advocating apartheid.
I'm outsourcing the rest of this to The Derb:
Novak comes out with every creaky old tune in the songbook of the open-borders nutsos, and garnishes it all with a big greasy dollop of huddled-masses sentimentality... ...He ignores **everything** that immigration wonks have been thrashing out for years...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:58 AM
Chertoff: won't do job; going after bloggers; will stage show raids to inflame left
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, in a meeting with the editorial board of USA Today, admitted that he's not going to do the job he's supposed to be doing, said that the White House will be creating a "rapid response" team to counter criticism from the MSM and from bloggers, and implied that those immigration raids that he'll be conducting in the future will be designed to inflame the left and other illegal immigration supporters.Bottom line: Congress should try to get him fired. Since it's clear that he has not and will not do his job, that should be easy. Except, of course, most of them appreciate the fact that he's not doing his job.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday that Republican conservatives working to block an immigration bill risk endorsing a "silent amnesty" by insisting on deportations that are "not going to happen."Trying to force many of them to leave would not be impossible if we had a DHS Secretary who was willing to do his job, together with a president who would make sure that he was doing his job.
Chertoff also leveled criticism at liberal immigrant rights advocates, saying they could prolong the anguish of immigrant families by withholding support for legislation that could make them legal.
...a "rapid response" team is countering critics, not only in the conventional media but, for the first time, on Internet blogs, said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan...
Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, "We are bowing to reality."
..."[Responding to attrition:] You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."
[Rep. Brian] Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."
Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."I've suspected that some of the high profile raids which appeared to have been flubbed were intentionally managed in a way to generate the most negative publicity, and Chertoff has just almost confirmed my suspicions.
[Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says:] "The reality is, we don't have enough people," said Gutierrez, adding that many of the USA's economic competitors, such as France, Germany, Japan and China, will be facing a similar demographic shift. "The big challenge of the 21st century is: Who gets the people? Who gets the immigrants?" he said. "We don't appreciate today that these people are coming in for free."
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:17 AM
Philip Dine/St. Louis Post-Dispatch: North American Union just "urban legend"
Philip Dine of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch offers 'Urban legend of "North American Union" feeds on fears'. That appears to be the original title, it doesn't appear to have been printed in his own paper, and it's accompanied by a handy chart listing other "urban legends". The latter are obvious ones, such as the perennial favorite about a rebate from Microsoft. (They use Snopes.com as a source for those "legends", despite that site not being known for their accuracy or ability to admit their mistakes.)While Dine does provide the anti-NAU side, and he isn't as much an apologist as Michael Medved, and it's good to see the MSM at least mentioning the scheme, the tone of the article is dismissive. It starts like this:
Forget conspiracy theories about JFK's assassination, black helicopters, Sept. 11, 2001. This is the big one.There's a summary of the rest from Cliff Kincaid:
On another front, White House spokesman Tony Snow calls the North American Union (NAU) a "myth," despite the abundant evidence of White House involvement in the development of a North American identification card and security strategy. This is how the subject of national sovereignty gets marginalized and dismissed. In this case, our "adversary press" meekly accepts the White House line. Echoing Snow, Philip Dine of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch has written an article saying the NAU is based on an Internet "rumor" with a "few grains of truth" that has led people to "an unsubstantiated conclusion." It is apparent that he didn't attend the "North American Law" conference which I covered, featuring wide-ranging discussions on how the North American Free Trade Agreement is leading to the integration of the economic, legal and political systems of the U.S, Canada and Mexico.There are more things the "debunkers" fail to mention here.
In the article, other "debunkers" are:
"There is absolutely no U.S. government plan for a NAFTA Superhighway of any sort," said David Bohigian, an assistant secretary of commerce. Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., a powerful member of committees that would authorize and pay for a North American Free Trade Agreement Superhighway if one were being planned, dismissed the notion as "unfounded theories" with "no credence."Well if two Commerce Department officials and two quite possibly corrupt academics say it ain't so, it ain't so. But, as a capper, Robert Pastor, the American University professor to whom conspiracy theorists point as "the father of the NAU" says:
...Matt Englehart, spokesman for the Commerce Department's International Trade Administration, said the North American partnership "is absolutely not a precursor" to a loss of American sovereignty...
Michael Barkun, a Syracuse University political scientist who specializes in conspiracy theories, said a major theme long has been "that schemes are being hatched to destroy American sovereignty."
"The only thing that's new here is that it appears in the guise of a North American Union," he said. "Previously it appeared in the guise of U.N. domination. I think whatever appeal this has may derive from the fact that there are pre-existing concerns about trade that have been around since the creation of NAFTA, and even more strongly the immigration issue in the sense of border security. So in a way it becomes an issue onto which all kinds of anxieties and concerns can be projected."
Doug Thomas, professor of communications, technology and culture at the University of Southern California, said the advent of the Internet has made conspiracy theories widely available.
"It's the speed and the distribution," he said. "People are able to join in and flush them out a little quicker, so everybody can add a piece to the puzzle."
On one recent day alone, Pastor said, he received 100 e-mails on the topic. "They get turned on by [CNN's] Lou Dobbs and [Fox's] Bill O'Reilly, who are fearful that Mexicans and Canadians are about to take over our country," Pastor said, adding that such claims are a product of "the xenophobic or frightened right wing of America that is afraid of immigration and globalization."
Posted to NAU at 12:06 AM
"Bush grants presidency extraordinary powers" (in emergency; undercuts Congress)
From this:President Bush has signed a directive granting extraordinary powers to the office of the president in the event of a declared national emergency, apparently without congressional approval or oversight.It's a National Security Presidential Directive (NSPD-51) and a Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-20) and it creates a national continuity coordinator who would be Frances Townsend.
The "National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive" [whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html]was signed May 9, notes Jerome R. Corsi in a WND column.
...The directive establishes under the office of the president a new national continuity coordinator whose job is to make plans for "National Essential Functions" of all federal, state, local, territorial and tribal governments, as well as private sector organizations to continue functioning under the president's directives in the event of a national emergency.
"Catastrophic emergency" is loosely defined as "any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions."Much more at both links, and in case you think this would only be for continuity of government, note that it apparently supercedes the more Constitutionally-correct National Emergency Act, which explicitly involves Congress. Also note this May 2005 story:
Corsi says the president can assume the power to direct any and all government and business activities until the emergency is declared over...
The directive also makes no reference to Congress and its language appears to negate any requirement that the president submit to Congress a determination that a national emergency exists...
The Bush administration periodically put the USA on high alert for terrorist attacks even though then-Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge argued there was only flimsy evidence to justify raising the threat level, Ridge now says.
Posted to Politics at 10:31 PM
Bill Richardson still "special envoy" for Organization of American States
In response to my query, Bill Richardson's communication director informs me:Governor Richardson has never "worked" for the OAS.From that I assume that BR continues in his status as a "special envoy". Snippet from the press conference where his appointment was announced here.
Last year he was appointed a special envoy to the Secretary General for Latin America. That means the SG could call on the Governor to assist, on a purely humanitarian and voluntary basis, if he felt there was a situation that required diplomacy from someone like the Governor, who has extensive experience with and ties to Latin America.
As for the Clintonian objection to my asking whether he was still "working" for them, not all jobs are paid, and I knew and have stated that it was an unpaid position. In any case, I'll abide by their apparent wishes and just refer to it as an appointment.
Shouldn't a candidate for president resign all such appointments, so that those who know about this issue don't question whether they have divided loyalties? Have any past presidential candidates been in such a situation? Can we get a list of the "situations" where Bill Richardson has represented the OAS? Has he done so while on the campaign trail, or perhaps when supposedly working for the residents of New Mexico? Does this being an "appointment" - or the fact that the OAS is apparently domiciled in the U.S. - mean that he doesn't have to register as a Foreign Agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act?
Posted to Politics at 04:29 PM
Senate immigration amnesty bill: the downsides
The concept of amnesty is bad, and almost everything in the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill is bad as well. It's fairly obvious to just about everyone that this is an extremely flawed piece of legislation, so what I'd suggest is using it to further discredit its supporters. However, please don't lose sight of the forest: we need to stop amnesty in general, not just this particular piece of legislation. You can do that by following these steps.
There's a top ten list in "Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law".
There are seven more reasons here, including the provision regarding the "United States-Mexico Border Enforcement Review Commission". I actually scanned that section earlier, but I failed to note this:
Members from the law enforcement community will be balanced out by members from "academia, religious leaders, civic leaders or community leaders" (read: the open-borders lobby).
For an example of how that would work, note that Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's "New Americans Immigrant Policy Council" includes an organization which is headed by someone linked to the Mexican government (Juan Salgado).
David Frum has also discussed the downsides. In this post, he discloses that Bush has apparently never heard the pro-enforcement side of the argument. No big surprise there. And, from this:
With this immigration bill, the GOP is telling hard-pressed workers: Go look to somebody else to help you... ...the deal also identifies the GOP as a party that in the crunch puts employers' interests first... ...The president and the senators have now managed to divide and demoralize their party even further... ...The deal has wounded all three of the GOP front-runners... ...this White House's first instinct when faced with dissent in the ranks is to insult and abuse its strongest supporters... ...And unfortunately the White House's second instinct when confronted with dissent is to revert to incompetent spin. Unlike the Clinton administration, which lied with a fluency and bravado that will impress PR hacks for decades to come, the Bush administration stumbles, flusters, and eventually disheartens even its staunchest supporters... ...Republicans have done so well because until now, the highly diverse Hispanic population has not voted as an ethnic bloc. Now we ourselves are forcing that to change. It's as if this Republican president and these Republican senators have said, "Hmm. Can we invent an issue that will teach Cuban-American doctors, Honduran day laborers, and Mexican-American army officers to think of themselves as a unified ethnic group? Can we then provoke a fight that all of them (whatever their diverging practical interests) will treat as a symbol of acceptance in American society? And can we then stage-manage this fight to ensure that two-thirds of our party will have no choice but to fall on the wrong side of it?"
And, Hugh Hewitt - often described here as a Bushbot - has done yeoman work by reading the bill and posting several of its downsides here.
There's an online version of the bill here.
National Review calls it a "Bipartisan Fantasy".
And, Heather Mac Donald says "Don't Be Fooled", highlighting the provision that grants immediate legitimacy to former illegal aliens.
UPDATE: Sen. Jeff Sessions says "Immigration Bill Is Worse Than You Think".
UPDATE 2: Some of the downsides are in this segment from the Lou Dobbs show. Apparently illegal aliens would have first dibs on federally-funded legal aid for their applications for citizenship.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:41 PM
Dick Morris: "Republicans should back immigration compromise"
In case you were wondering why I erupted into peals of laughter moments ago, your answer is here. Of course, then I wondered, "Is he still working for the Democrats, or Mexico?"
The Republican Party would be self-destructive (not for the first time, either) if they did not let the immigration compromise negotiated by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) pass and become law. The hopes of the entire Latino community are pinned to immigration reform and, if the GOP is seen as blocking it, the consequences for the indefinite future will be horrific. The Republican Party will lose Hispanics as surely as they lost blacks when Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 against the civil rights bill (even though a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats backed the bill in each house).
The "entire Latino community"? That's certainly a false statement. I doubt whether most Puerto Ricans, for instance, really care all that much about allowing Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to import their relatives here via endless chain migration. Of course, some may do so out of pan-Hispanic solidarity, but surely Republican - or at least conservative - principles say that should be discouraged and fought against, rather than encouraged. Wait, what was I thinking assuming that Dick Morris even knows what principles are?
If the Hispanics are not massively turned off by a Republican rejection of immigration reform, they will drift into an increasingly pro-Republican orientation just as Irish and Italian Catholics did before them. Already Protestant evangelicalism has converted a third of the American Latino population, a clear precursor of GOP political support.
Of course, those who realize the dangers inherent in the GOP becoming a vassal of religious fundamentalists might not approve of the tack Morris implies: delivering the bread and circuses via gay marriage, abortion, and other red meat social issues.
Related:
Dick Morris still wrong; Hispanics, unprincipled GOP, religious conservatives
House offers border security bill; Dick Morris, liberals
Base responds to Dick Morris' Base Desires
Dick Morris' idiotic thoughts on immigration
Dick Morris offers thoughts on Bush and immigration
Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:24 PM
Bill Richardson isn't running exclusively as a Hispanic (wink, wink); would support amended Senate amnesty
From "Richardson enters '08 race by letting Latinos know he's 1 of them":Democrat Bill Richardson has officially entered the presidential race with a naked appeal to Hispanics, saying in an interview that it's "rudimentary politics" to make sure the country's fastest growing voting bloc knows he's one of them.Likewise, John Edwards could stress that he's white, Hillary Clinton could stress that she's a white woman, right? Just trying to reach out to their base. I'm sure an ethnic nationalist like Bill Richardson wouldn't have a problem with that.
Richardson announced his candidacy in both English and Spanish from the heart of the U.S. Hispanic population and the nation's most delegate-rich state [i.e., Los Angeles]...
Richardson told The Associated Press that he's not running exclusively as a Hispanic, but as the American governor of New Mexico who is proud to be Latino.
"One of my potential problems is that one of my potential bases - Hispanics - don't know that I'm Hispanic, so I'm trying to change that. It's just rudimentary politics," Richardson said in an interview. "When my name recognition among Hispanics is below 10 percent, I've got to accentuate it, because it's a potential base for me."
In both English and Spanish, Richardson criticized the immigration bill under debate in Congress, which he said would separate families by requiring illegal immigrants who are heads of households to return to their home countries before gaining legal status. But he said the proposal is a "step in the right direction" because it would establish a path to citizenship and because it increases border patrols.Note that Bill Richardson is or was working for the OAS as their "special envoy" to encourage discussion on immigration matters. He's not getting paid, but if he were he'd be earning his keep.
In an interview later at the exclusive Regency Club, where he was holding an evening fundraiser, Richardson said he would vote for the bill if he were in Congress. But he said he would try to amend it to make improvements, including an elimination of the required return to home countries and the creation of a 370-mile border fence.
The article ends with a disputed conversation he had concerning a Marine who was killed in Iraq; whether that will become yet another one of his scandals isn't clear.
If you want to sink his candidacy, follow these steps.
UPDATE: From this:
"I am saying 'It's Bill Richardson Lopez and I am one of you and I would like you to consider me, not because I am Hispanic but because I have the best program for the country'," he told Reuters in an interview late on Monday.Obvious translation provided here.
UPDATE 2: Flip, flop, flip, flop. The AP article above is from Tuesday morning, and the interview presumably took place Monday evening. Now, from this:
Mr. Richardson initially said he would support the immigration compromise announced earlier this week. But on Wednesday, he said that after reading it in detail, he had decided to oppose it, saying the measure placed too great a burden on immigrants — tearing apart families that wanted to settle in the United States, creating a permanent tier of second-class immigrant workers and financing a border fence that Mr. Richardson had long opposed.Maybe the OAS called and told him this was one of those "situations".
Posted to Politics at 12:25 PM
Wikipedia deletes, locks North American Union article
Continuing our long series of discussing how nothing in Wikipedia can be trusted and how - because it appears at the top of search results for nearly every term - it's little more than a disinformation source, plug the following into your browser:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Union
You'll find yourself at the "Independent Task Force on North America" entry with a note at the top saying, "North American Union redirects here". On the talk page, we read comments from various parties:
...The related article "North American Union" was previously deleted after being inaccurately characterized as a hoax/conspiracy theory in its AFD debate. While it is true that some WP editors did add questionable or biased material to the article, it is a very real proposal which does merit a properly-written article... I'm going to list this for NPOV review to ensure that the article sticks to the relevant and verifiable facts...OTOH, the SPP article is not only still there, but all of the links I added to the Criticisms section are also still there:
...North American Union is the only topic I've searched at Wikipedia that was deleted and locked... I find it strange that a topic COULD be locked in that way. I don't know the history and didn't see the entries that caused it to be locked, as even the discussion was deleted and locked--wtf is up with that?--stopping discussion? On the surface, it makes it appear that a conspiracy exists to prevent there being a North American Union entry...
...Yes, I was also surprised that a topic like this could be deleted and locked...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security_and_Prosperity_Partnership_of_North_America
It's certainly odd that they'd wipe everything from the record like that, and it certainly makes me wonder who could have done it.
7/15/07 UPDATE: What is purported to be the pre-deletion version of the NAU article is here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wisepiglet/North_American_Union
I don't know if that's the full article and what date/time it's from however.
Posted to NAU at 10:47 AM
Rasmussen: only 26% favor Senate illegal immigration amnesty
According to Rasmussen Reports, only 26% of those polled favor the Bush/Senate illegal immigration amnesty:...The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters.All "reformers" have to do is post a bond that would guarantee that their plans would truly reduce illegal immigration (rather than increasing it as seems almost certain), and their "reform" would pass. Surely, they wouldn't hesitate to do that, right?
Advocates of "comprehensive" reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be "Why?" Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States."
...Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a "very long path to citizenship" provided that "the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English" and that the compromise "would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country." The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include "strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States."
Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:52 AM
New York Times alludes to Mexican meddling via consulates (Little Rock)
Randal Archibold of the New York Times offers "Debate Raging, Mexico Adds to Consulates in U.S." about Mexico's latest outpost, this one in Little Rock, Arkansas. Somewhat to my surprise, they actually include some of the downsides and question some of Mexico's motives although, of course, they don't go far enough. This is just a fly-in report, not investigative journalism:Increasingly, [Mexico's consulates] are also acting as influential free agents in a broken immigration system that Congress is trying to overhaul. As the consulate that opened last month in Little Rock illustrates, the Mexican government is following its citizens far from the border into the growing quarters of Latino migration, much of it illegal...Previously: over two years ago I first mentioned the planning for the outpost (with a Mike Huckabee link) and a month ago I posted about its grand opening.
...Consulate officials in Little Rock acknowledge that the 6,000-square-foot piece of Mexican territory occupying a former medical clinic serves all Mexican citizens, regardless of immigration status...
...The [Matricular Consular card] is honored in the United States by many police agencies, employers and - most important - by banks, which are used by countless immigrants to send billions of dollars home every year. But it is a lightning rod for critics of illegal immigration, who see it as a demonstration of the Mexican government's helping its citizens live in the United States illegally...
...There are 539 foreign consulates in the United States, and Mexico has more than any other country. (After Mexico, Canada has 19, Japan 17 and Britain 12)...
...[Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies] said Mexico went further than other countries that issue such cards, including the United States, by lobbying banks and law enforcement agencies to recognize the cards as valid identification, knowing full well that most legal residents would not need such a card...
...The [Matricular Consular card] was "one of the major areas of activity" at consulates, he said, adding, "The point being to 'document' the undocumented and make an end run around Congress."...
Posted to Immigration_consul at 09:37 AM
Samuel G. Freedman helps show how New York Times would scuttle "reform"
Samuel G. Freedman of the New York Times offers "Immigration Raid Leaves Sense of Dread in Hispanic Students":[...Eleven highly emotional paragraphs describing the feds picking up two illegal aliens from the house of two legal immigrants...]One thing is clear: the New York Times opposes immigration raids. Can anyone see Sam Freedman changing his tune if "comprehensive immigration reform" passes? Won't he just continue to say these same things over and over about the raids that are supposedly part of "reform"? And, won't that tend to water down "reform" and continue to allow illegal immigration to occur?
Such was the triumph of Operation Cross Check, the federal raid against illegal immigrants that went on for four days last month in this community of about 18,500 people. To the Department of Homeland Security, the operation was a success, catching a convicted sex offender and several welfare cheats among its 49 arrests. In a news release announcing the toll, an immigration enforcement director for Minnesota said, "Our job is to help protect the public from those who commit crimes."
Yet more than half of those arrested had committed no crime other than being in the United States illegally, doing the jobs at Jennie-O that prop up the local economy. And, as the experience of Alex Sorto demonstrates, the aggressive, invasive style of the sweep instilled lasting fear among Willmar’s 3,000 Hispanics, many of them students born or naturalized in the United States. These young people are the political football in America’s bitter, unresolved battle about immigration.
Once again, the NYT should just come right out and admit that they want a loose borders system, where anyone who makes it over the border and can stay here for a while gets to become a citizen.
Posted to Immigration_piipps at 09:29 AM
Amanda Marcotte can't even get smears straight (Lou Dobbs, SPLC)
John Edwards' former blogging star, Amanda Marcotte, offers [1] "Lou Dobbs really, really hates Mexicans":David Neiwert has a follow-up on the issue of Lou Dobbs trotting out numbers on national TV about Mexican nationals spreading leprosy that he got from a white supremacist group that pulled the numbers out of their asses. It's fucking disturbed that this man has a national microphone to promote racism like this. And his nastiness is getting nastier.Actually, there are two smears involved here, and she's confusing them. The "white supremacist group" is the CCC, and Dobbs did use a graphic of Aztlan they supplied during his show. That was certainly a mistake, and they should have made one of their own or found it from another source. The leprosy issue is another matter entirely, and Dobbs has since issued a retraction.
I left a comment yesterday and it was moderated despite the only links it contained being in bare tinyurl format. Oddly enough - just like the last comment I left at Pandagon - it didn't show up. So, I'll post a belinked version here and send a trackback:
Meanwhile:UPDATE: The trackback didn't work since my IP address is blocked by Pandagon's servers. Gotta keep that message control in control.
1. Dobbs wife is Mexican and she not only supports his reports she thinks he doesn't go far enough.
2. The SPLC is indirectly linked to the Mexican Government.
3. The DN claim that "the whole Aztlan thing is basically something concocted by Glenn Spencer" is pretty funny. I wasn't aware the Spencer started MEChA.
4. Is that Spencer on the right, with the Aztlan map? (Make sure and check that one out).
5. Who ultimately benefits from such smears of Dobbs? (Hint: crooks who employ illegal aliens and the Mexican Government, among others).
[1] pandagon.net/2007/05/22/lou-dobbs-really-really-hates-mexicans/
Posted to Bloggage at 09:12 AM
Texas State Rep. Roberto Alonzo lies in Democratic radio address (immigration "reform")
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be crowing about Teddy Kennedy's massively successful Senate immigration amnesty bill. Rather, they're concentrating on pointing out Mitt Romney's flip-flops from when he used to support the previous version of McCain-Kennedy (link), highlighting the unimportant McCain F-you quote (link), highlighting McCain's latest quip (link), and generally acting like ThinkProgress.
However, they do have an example of outrageous demagoguery regarding immigration. Texas State Representative Roberto Alonzo gave the Hispanic Democratic radio address on Friday or Saturday (link), and said something that even a far-left loon like Cardinal Roger Mahony would consider a lie:
Two years ago a very different debate on immigration began than the one we see today. Under the Republican Congress, the debate began by scapegoating immigrants for political gain and even went as far as trying to criminalize clergy.
The last is quite simply a lie. And, of course, "scapegoating immigrants" is Democrat code for "opposing widespread illegal activity".
He goes on to support foreign citizens marching in our streets, making a show of force and demanding rights to which they aren't entitled. This shouldn't come as a suprise, considering the links between various Democrats and the organizers of some of the illegal immigration marches; some of those organizers are linked to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties:
The hundreds of thousands of people who marched for peace, opportunity, and hope during the last two years helped put a human face on the issue of immigration.
He does allow us one thing:
Real reform has to protect our borders. That's the duty of any country.
Then, he goes on to support massive, endless legalization for those here now and those to come:
But the reform must also protect workers, reunite families, and allow hardworking people who obey the law and pay taxes to have the opportunity to apply for the responsibilities of citizenship. This earned path to citizenship should also be available to workers who would come in the future to help meet our economic needs and help improve our communities.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:44 PM
"Immigration Bill Would Make Taxpayers Pay Legal Bills of Illegal Aliens Seeking Amnesty"
From a press release (link):[Ken Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC)] said, "If passed, this bill will make taxpayers pay the legal bills for illegal aliens seeking amnesty. Tucked away on page 317 is a provision that would allow lawyers in the federally-funded legal services program to represent illegal aliens, which they are presently barred from doing."
John Carlisle, NLPC's Director of Policy, said, "Many taxpayers will be chagrined to learn they may soon have to provide a lawyer for illegal aliens who should not be here in the first place. Activist lawyers, illegal aliens and government money are a bad mix."
The federally-funded Legal Services Corporation (LSC) supports a network of lawyers in hundreds of communities in the country to provide civil (not criminal) day-to-day legal help to poor people. This year, LSC will receive $330 million. Since it was founded in 1974, LSC has received over $6 billion...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:38 AM
Farmers Branch: Federal judge issues TRO over anti-illegal immigration ordinance
From this:The Farmers Branch city ordinance banning apartments from renting to illegal immigrants won't go into effect Tuesday as planned because a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the city from enforcing the ordinance.Previously: Farmers Branch: 68% vote for anti-illegal immigration ordinance; ACLU, MALDEF file TRO
Voters on May 12 by a 2-to-1 ratio said that they wanted the law, which requires apartment managers or owners to obtain proof from prospective tenants that they are U.S. citizens or in the country legally. But lawyers representing three groups of plaintiffs challenged the ordinance in federal court last week seeking the temporary restraining order to stop enforcement...
Now that the judge has issued the restraining order, a hearing must be held within 10 days to determine if the order would be lifted, or if a temporary injunction would be put in place to halt the city from implementing the law until the case goes to trial, attorneys on both sides said...
Both groups involved have the same, indirect link to the Mexican government.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:01 PM
Senate immigration amnesty bill: the supporters
Outside a number of Senators, there aren't too many who support the Senate's immigration amnesty/"guest" worker plan. This post will keep track of them, and I urge everyone to hold those below accountable whether the bill passes or not. I also urge everyone to keep calling Congress, but, even more importantly, follow the steps previously outlined to help stop amnesty.
The supporters:
* Of course: president Bush, Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy
* From "Few senators support the illegals bill" (link):
Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the Republicans who helped craft the deal, said it's the best they could do... "It will treat the 12 million undocumented immigrants in a constructive way. It is not amnesty. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to earn their way to citizenship," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's better than what we have now." ...in Georgia, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, one of the secret negotiators, was also booed [like Lindsey Graham] at that state's Republican convention... ...Meanwhile, Republicans' chief negotiator in the closed-door sessions, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, wrote a column for the Arizona Republic newspaper yesterday saying he won't support the bill if major changes are made during the floor debate... "If the consensus we reach is not accurately reflected in the final legislative language, or is seriously undercut by amendments in the Senate or House, it will lose support, including from me," he wrote... ...Seven Republicans, including the party's chairman, Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Kyl, the Senate Republican Conference chairman, were at the press conference announcing the bill...
* DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff meanwhile challenged critics to offer alternative solutions instead of simply saying "this isn't good enough." (link; the obvious answer is, of course, that he should do his job)
* [Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says] "I have the impression that perhaps for some people, the only thing that would not be amnesty is mass deportation... We don't think that's practical, we don't think that's logical, we don't think that's humane and that would hurt our economy. So it's not amnesty."
* [Sen. Lindsey Graham says (ibid)] "To my colleagues who have come on the floor to tear this bill down with no alternative, you're not doing this country a service and I will push back... If you’ve got a better idea and you can lead us to a better solution, I'm all for it. But if all you're going to do is embrace the status quo, I’m going to be your biggest critic.
* The Wall Street Journal editorial board offered "Immigration Opening" on Saturday (link), which was followed by several reader letters almost all denouncing the bill (link). Today, John Fund offers "Don't Run for the Border - America needs immigration reform, but not a law enacted in haste" (link), perhaps as an indirect acknowledgement of the bill's failings.
* Even deeper inside the compound, we find Tamar Jacoby, who's profiled in "An Advocate Rallies to Unify GOP" (link)
Last week after a deal was reached in the Senate, Jacoby held a conference call with 20 business owners Friday to explain the politics of the overhaul... [She's praised by] Randel Johnson, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce... ...Jacoby sat at a table in the Senate Chef last week surrounded by two Texas bankers, a cattle rancher and a guy who represents Rio Grande Valley orange growers, all of whom had flown in to put a last-minute press on their congressional representatives... "The most important thing is the temporary-worker program," Jacoby told them. Lawmakers "are going to go all out to cut it in half and unless business goes all out, like D-Day, they will surely win." ...She is willing to work with religious and civil rights groups, including the Roman Catholic Church and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, to achieve the goal... ...the leader of a Latino civil rights group tapped Jacoby on the shoulder. Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens...
* Safely outside the compound, Michael Barone phones in to say that he supports the bill, despite not having read it.
* In the basement of the compound, Captain Ed decides to be even more like Hugh Hewitt than Hugh Hewitt, saying today [1] that
"Conceptually, I think it could work -- but the bill doesn't quite match the concepts outlined in the announcement, either."
In a previous post [2], he offered this stock talking point:
Everyone agrees that the system is broken; in fact, that's about the only agreement to be found.
* In the subbasement, Dafydd ab Hugh shows how little he knows about this issue and continues to support some form of "regularization" (the same word the Mexican government uses) [3]
UPDATE: NAU apologist Michael Medved comes out in favor of it (link):
the bi-partisan Senate bill makes a point of rewarding only good behavior... ...And speaking of rewarding good behavior, and punishing the bad: those courageous conservatives (Senators Kyl, Graham, Isakson and, yes, McCain) who have worked constructively and seriously on immigration reform deserve our support, not our rage, while those politicians and media figures who have demagogued this issue in a way that only makes it worse, in no way merit our encouragement.
UPDATE 2: I knew this would come sooner or later. Instapundit says [4]:
WHY PEOPLE WHO HATE THE IMMIGRATION BILL SHOULD BACK THE IMMIGRATION BILL: Okay, I had this thought last night as I was drifting off to sleep. But the Nyquil wore off and I still think it may make sense. Lots of people think that the immigration bill stinks, and want to punish the GOP by staying home in 2008. Fair enough. But if you plan to punish the GOP in 2008, then you might want to support the immigration bill now. Why? Because if the Democrats win the White House and Congress in 2008, you'll get a bill that you like a whole lot less! So if you plan to punish the Republicans later, you should encourage them to pass their bill now... There's got to be something wrong with this analysis, I just can't figure out what it is. Anyone? Kaus? Anyone?
UPDATE 3: Here's another Chertoff quote:
"You know, Wolf [Blitzer], first, I understand there's some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty. The reality is the proposal here requires people who came in illegally who want to stay to pay a penalty. Like a fine. That's a punishment. That's not an amnesty."
UPDATE 4: Jorge Mursuli, National Executive Director, Democracia Ahora (a project of People For the American Way) offers "Senate's Immigration Proposal Needs Work, but Is Salvagable".
UPDATE 5: Dick Morris: "Republicans should back immigration compromise"
UPDATE 6: Sen. Trent Lott says:
"Is the current situation in America with legal and illegal immigration intolerable and unacceptable? Yes. Everybody would agree. Is this bill better than the current law? Without a doubt, yes. Are we going to have another opportunity to do this better next year or the next year? The answer is no. We've got to do it. We've got to do it as good as we can. We've got to do it right now."
UPDATE 7: Sen. Mitch McConnell says he'll support the bill, and also says:
"This is a divisive issue... I don't think there's a single member of either party next year who is going to fail to be re-elected over this issue."
SPECIAL HACK UPDATE: Hacks - not all of whom specifically support the Senate bill - have started their rampage of smears against those who oppose massive illegal immigration: Linda Chavez, Michael Gerson, and Robert Novak.
SPECIAL "LIBERAL" HACK UPDATE: Eleanor Clift offers "Bush Is Right—On Immigration, Anyway". She and the preceding hacks aren't that much different. Let's count the lies:
Just as [Pete Wilson]'s anti-immigrant [lie] policies turned California into the bluest of Blue States [misleading if not wrong], the angry, racist and xenophobic rhetoric emanating from the Republican right [smear and largely false] is turning the fastest-growing voting bloc in America against the GOP... Seeing a way to rally the base and respond to the growing anti-immigrant sentiment [lie], House Republicans pushed and passed legislation that was racially divisive and punitive [lie], cracking down on those who aided illegal immigrants - even church groups [lie]. The bill sparked massive rallies across the country against the Republican Congress [some of the organizers of those rallies were Mexican political parties and those linked to the Mexican government]. Rosenberg's New Democrat Network monitored ads in 25 states picturing a Mexican immigrant side by side with an Islamist terrorist. [Chuck Schumer created a similar TV ad]
[1] captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010025.php
[2] captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010020.php
[3] biglizards.net/blog/archives/2007/05/regularization.html
[4] instapundit.com/archives2/005448.php
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:40 AM
NYT editorial: Senate bill bad; "Know-Nothings" hate illegal aliens
The New York Times offers the editorial "The Immigration Deal". Summary: they're going even further around the bend.
They divide provisions of the bill into "good", "bad", and "awful", with the "guest" worker provisions in the latter camp. If the bad parts aren't removed, they say that no bill is better than the current one.
And:
It is painful, for many reasons, to oppose this immigration deal. It is no comfort to watch as this generation's Know-Nothings bray against "amnesty" from their anchor chairs and campaign lecterns, knowing that it gives hope to the people they hate.
Truly a sleazy paragraph, implying that those "anchors" (presumably Lou Dobbs) and politicians (presumably Tancredo, Hunter, Paul and maybe others) oppose illegal immigration because they're "Know-Nothings" and motivated by hatred.
They also take a swipe at Lou Barletta and others:
Congress's dithering has encouraged the rise of homegrown zealots: mayors, police departments, county executives and legislators who take reform into their own hands, with cruelly punitive measures.
Of course, pulling a business' license when that business fails to follow the laws isn't exactly cruel, and being closer to the people those local officials realize the impact of the policies that the NYT espouses.
And, it's interesting that they'd put amnesty in quotes, since just last month they seemed to acknowledge that "comprehensive immigration reform" is in fact amnesty:
Americans want the immigration issue solved, and they strongly favor "amnesty," whether you call it that or not.
And, of course, their editorial contains the seeds of its own destruction:
The millions without documents live in constant fear: a campaign of federal raids has spread panic and shattered families.
But, isn't tough enforcement a part of the current and past amnesty bills? And, won't that mean raids in order to prevent future illegal immigration? And, won't any amnesty encourage even more illegal immigration, resulting in even more mixed-status families? If an amnesty bill passes, won't the NYT simply use the same line against enforcement mandated by that bill?
Shouldn't the NYT be honest enough to just come right out and admit that what they really want is a loose borders system, where anyone who makes it over the border and can stay here for a while is allowed to become a citizen?
Related:
NYT hides behind "terrorized" illegal aliens to support massive immigration
Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:15 PM
LULAC, Raza radicals: Senate bill "unworkable", "this is our land!", "border crossed us"
A couple days ago, Mickey Kaus suggested one way to scuttle the Senate's amnesty bill: get radicals to support an even worse version, and perhaps even utter "reconquista" style statements. It looks like he's got his wish. From this:[Jaime P. Martinez, national treasurer of the League of United Latin American Citizens] preached from the podium of a small chapel at Primera Baptist Church flanked by U.S. and Mexican flags, his message one of defiance - not of turning the other cheek.The latter may or may not be true: under the Flake-Gutierrez version, they only have to go to a "Point of Entry", which could be in Canada or Mexico. I don't know what's in the Senate bill, but I'd imagine that eventually any tough provisions would get whittled down to going to a local major airport inside the U.S. Apparently the person who said they'd have to return to their home countries is U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, who was also at the meeting.
"We must not sell out, and we must fight for the rights of our people that have been here!" he shouted, a crowd of 50 or so cheering and applauding as the short speech closed. "This is our land and we're going to fight for just and humane comprehensive immigration reform!... ...We did not cross the border, the border crossed us."
...Most of those at the town hall meeting hosted by LULAC, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union oppose the bill, in part because of provisions to fine each head of household $5,000 and require them to return to their home countries before seeking permanent residency.
Those at the church, almost all Hispanic and some of them immigration activists, weren't in the mood to compromise. La Raza, LULAC and the union issued a news release announcing the town hall meeting that was an ultimatum. They said U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were