« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »

Senator Mel Martinez: revive illegal immigration amnesty in the House (recall petition!)

Speaking at a meeting of the Mexico-linked National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), Republican Party chairman and Senator Mel Martinez said he wants to revive the Bush/Senate massive illegal immigration amnesty scheme, this time starting in the House.

Short answer: see this recall petition.

Longer answer:

[He] challenged [opponents of a massive legalization of illegal aliens] to come up with a solution beyond "just build a fence along the border."

"The voices of negativity now have a responsibility to come up with an answer," RNC Chairman and U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla. said.

"How will you fix the situation to make peoples' lives better? How will you continue to grow the economy? How will we bring people out of the shadows for our national security and for the sake of being a country that is just?" he demanded...

By failing to act, the Senate also tied law enforcement's hands, Martinez said...

"We're going to have a hodgepodge of local laws. We will have cities that will declare themselves sanctuary cities. And then we will have others that will make it a felony simply to rent to illegal immigrants."

Then, he yelled, "arghhhhh!" But, seriously, about the only difference between what he said and what Howard Dean would say is that Dean is marginally saner.

Note: the link is a report from Laura Wides-Munoz who, as could be expected, does not disclose that NALEO has a link to the Mexican government.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 06:51 PM

Senator Lindsey Graham: there are no votes for enforcement-only

From this:

"The only way we're going to get Ag jobs or DREAM Act" or pathways to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, [Sen. Lindsey Graham] said, "is to do it together. This idea of 'Just do the enforcement,' there are no votes for that."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:36 PM

Democrats next immigration move: pass AgJobs, anti-American DREAM Act

Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer issued the following release regarding the failed Bush-Kennedy-Senate immigratiom amnesty bill [1]:

"I decided to vote yes on cloture today because I felt that if the policies in this bill were carried out properly, the result would be a strengthening of our border security, the rescue of our agriculture industry, and the acknowledgment that hardworking undocumented immigrants should have a path to legality if they follow the tough rules we have set out... As we move forward, I hope that the Senate will work to immediately pass the non-controversial pieces of this bill such as increased funding for border security, the AgJobs program, and the Dream Act... We also need to legislate a fair way to deal with the 12 million undocumented workers who have become an important part of California's economy and the economy of the country."

As pointed out here many times, the DREAM Act is one of the most anti-American pieces of legislation ever devised: among other things, it allows foreign citizens who are here illegally to take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens. It is only "non-controversial" because the MSM continually fails to note its downsides; moreover, there have been numerous propaganda pieces printed about it.

In fact, here's Charles Babington of the Associated Press parroting the lines from not just Boxer but corrupt growers:

...A priority [going ahead] for many farm groups is the "Ag jobs" component, one of several programs now needing a new legislative vehicle. It would legalize about 1 million undocumented agricultural workers in the U.S., a key goal of growers whose crops can rot in the fields if not harvested at key times by people willing to work hard at low wages.

The program is considered relatively popular, as is another piece of the stalled bill: the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act...

...Some lawmakers said they hope Congress will enact such programs as stand-alone bills fairly soon. Others, however, said it will be difficult to pass even noncontroversial parts by themselves.

He did good work, promoting not just one but two of Boxer's themes as fact rather than the opinion of some. Note also that at her site [2], Hillary Clinton trumpets the DREAM Act:

I am proud of America's commitment to welcoming immigrants. We are all immeasurably enriched by the contributions of immigrants who have come to this country to find the American dream through their hard work. That's why I led efforts for the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, championed the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act, and co-sponsored the DREAM Act, which makes it possible for hardworking young people to attend college. These measures recognize that all America is strengthened when immigrants have access to health care and education that will enable them to become fully participating members of our society.

[1] boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=277970
[2] clinton.senate.gov/issues/immigration/

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:22 PM

NPR: "Mexican Migration Robs Towns of Youth, Future"

From NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (link):

The exodus of Mexicans across U.S. borders is depleting whole villages of the young and the able, leaving small, broken communities behind. A recent study shows more than half the municipalities in 10 Mexican states are seeing falling populations. One of them is Guanajuato, which has one of the highest rates of migration in Mexico...

An NGO is trying to reverse the trend; perhaps those who support illegal immigration out of false compassion might consider helping groups like that rather than helping Mexico avoid its responsibilities to its own people.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:21 AM

Tavis Smiley/PBS Democratic debate has no immigration questions at all

Yesterday, Tavis Smiley of PBS hosted the "The All-American Presidential Forums" featuring all the Democratic candidates:

Inspired by the book the Covenant with Black America, The All-American Presidential Forums on PBS marks the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color was represented in primetime. Many of the questions that were asked of the candidates focus on key domestic priorities that were originally outlined in the book.

And, their front page [1] includes 10 main topics, one of them being immigration. On that page [2] they post an inflammatory and false comment from Maria Elena Salinas, Univision Anchor:

"There's so many cities out there where you have thousands of people that are immigrants that are saying, 'enough is enough. We are tired of this immigrant bashing and this dialogue that seems more like a monologue instead of a debate on immigration.'"

That's followed by a no doubt hand-picked set of six comments, all opposed to illegal immigration.

Despite that, there is not a single instance of "immig*" in the entire transcript (link). I guess some topics are more difficult than others.

[1] pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums
[2] pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/issues/immigration.html

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:11 AM

Howard Dean supports failed Senate bill, blames Bush

Trotting out his stock lines, Howard Dean says:

"Today's immigration vote is a reminder of why the American people voted Republicans out in 2006 and why they'll vote against them in 2008. After using the immigration issue to inflame people with divisive rhetoric, the Republican Party, led by President Bush, had neither the capital nor the political will to work with Democrats on a reasonable compromise that would have delivered on the promise of immigration reform. The Republican election year strategy to scapegoat immigrants to win elections not only backfired in 2006 but today reveals a fractured party in disarray.

"Senator Reid and the Democratic leadership in Congress deserve a lot of credit for listening to the American people, for listening to the experts, and after participating in countless hearings, fighting to work in a bipartisan manner to deliver a comprehensive immigration reform package that would be tough and restore order to the border, but would also be smart and practical. Today's vote doesn’t end the immigration debate. It’s an issue that won’t go away. It was, however, a failure to address what’s needed at our borders, and it fails to address 12 million immigrants, most of whom are hard working and law abiding, and who will not go away by virtue of Republican obstructionism. Democrats will continue to look for ways to address the issue. The American people deserve better, and America is capable of better."

He is, in essence, blaming Bush and the corrupt GOP Senators who supported the bill of the same things they blamed the GOP base for. And, he's supporting a bill that less than a quarter of Americans supported.

Obviously, the only way to face up to people like Dean is to take them head on and point out their lies and misleading statements. Bush and the GOP leadership tried to make nice, and we see where that got them.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:10 PM

"Brownback Scrubs Website of Earlier Immigration Vote"

From this:

Eleven minutes after voting in favor of cloture on the Senate immigration bill, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback changed his mind—and his vote—to oppose cloture, MSNBC reported earlier today [link]. Now it seems that the Brownback campaign has changed its mind again, this time on a press release it produced just days ago. On Tuesday, June 26, the campaign released a statement after Brownback voted in favor of cloture. The statement originally appeared here. It's now gone, but was cached and can be seen here.

In a press release that still does exist [link], Brownback explained his vote today against cloture: "I became convinced along with many of my colleagues on the floor that this version of the immigration bill was not, and would not become the vehicle that would fix our broken system as I had hoped."

The deleted June 26 release is not in the list here: brownback.com/s/NewsRoom/PressReleases/tabid/89/Default.aspx

It said in part:

Senator Brownback voted in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed to the immigration bill today. That means he voted to bring the bill back to the floor for debate and for amendments to be offered.

This does NOT mean that Senator Brownback supports the immigration bill itself – he feels the bill needs to be improved.

Brownback opposes amnesty, and believes first and foremost in securing our borders and ending illegal immigration. Brownback voted to debate the bill in the Senate but is withholding support for the bill until the amendment process is complete...

Posted to Politics at 03:05 PM

Sen. Chris Dodd: go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions

Senator Chris Dodd has stolen my idea! But, I don't mind, and he may or may not have developed the idea himself. He wants citizen journalists to attend campaign appearances by his competitors for president and ask them tough questions:

Call, visit, or find your Senators while they're home on break this weekend and videotape yourself asking them to support the "Dodd Amendment" to end the war in Iraq -- upload those videos to YouTube... It's time to talk about energy choices, not song choices; troop cuts, not haircuts; Baghdad, not Paris.

I've concentrated on suggesting that we ask tough questions about immigration; back in February I posted Can Barack Obama answer this? about a video question for that Senator; I've also posted questions for John Edwards and a question for John McCain. There are more questions in the videos here.

I don't expect most of his target audience to be interested in asking questions about immigration policy, but perhaps this might spur a "question race", where Dems asking GOP contenders questions about his amendment encourages those contenders to encourage their supporters to ask Dems questions about other matters.

Posted to Politics at 12:52 PM

Bush/Kennedy/Senate illegal immigration amnesty fails; what now?

The Bush/Kennedy/Senate illegal immigration amnesty has gone down to ignominious defeat, a major victory for the - dare I say it - American side. Bush's brief remarks are here: whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070628-7.html

Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress's failure to act on it is a disappointment. The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find a common ground -- it didn't work.

However, to get the full flavor of his disappointment, you need to see him say that. I'm sure he feels bad, but at least he can take solace in the fact that he did fulfill his pledge to the Mexican government to work as hard as he could.

The final roll call is here. I wouldn't necessarily take someone voting No to mean that they're on the right side: they might have just decided to be on the winning side.

What might happen now is that the same forces behind the Grand Compromise might decide to push the Flake-Gutierrez plan in the House; expect that to be even tougher for them.

Expect this to be spun as a defeat for a legacy-seeking Bush. If we work hard at it, it might be possible to present it more accurately as a victory of the American people against a corrupt elite composed of both the GOP and Democratic leadership as well as the media, racial power groups, religious leaders, and others.

And, as always, I urge everyone to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions designed to reveal the facts about this matter.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:53 AM

Jeff Zeleny/NYT: Conservative talk radio listeners menace Senate over immigration

Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times offers the sleazy "Immigration Bill Prompts Some Menacing Responses", an attempt by that paper to portray those opposed to an illegal alien amnesty as violent thugs. It discusses how a few pro-amnesty Senators have received what they claim to be threats, but it only provides one excerpt from such a message and hearsay on another and it provides no count of the number of threats. And, based on their past statements it's hard to trust what these Senators (or the NYT) say. It also discusses how the volume of calls has greatly increased due to this issue but fails to note that statistically speaking the more calls, the more threats. And, it fails to note the strong possibility that Senators have been threatened on other occasions; in fact there is probably a steady stream of such threats regardless of what legislation is being considered. Everything supposedly told the "reporter" is presented at face value; I might say that he completely fails to wonder whether these Senators might actually be selling him a bill of goods, but the fact of the matter is that he's a shill who's in on the game.

It also falsely implies that all the calls against the bill came from conservatives:

Republicans who support the immigration bill are facing unusually intense opposition from conservative groups fighting it. This is among the first times, several of them said, that they have felt the full brunt of an advocacy machine built around conservative talk radio and cable television programs that have long buttressed Republican efforts to defeat Democrats and their policies.

Then, of course, Senator Lindsey Graham gets a chance to play the martyr:

"There's racism in this debate... Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally... One of the requirements of public service in modern America is dealing with a few voices that are full of hate... And our discourse and the way we politic, the way we engage each other, brings that out."

Oddly enough, the piece doesn't mention blogs, concentrating on TV and, especially, talk radio:

Several senators said Wednesday that they did not care to be identified speaking critically of the broadcasters, fearing the same conservative backlash that befell Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, this month when he declared: "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:35 AM

Brooks Jackson of FactCheck, fact checked (Newt Gingrich on Senate amnesty)

Brooks Jackson, Emi Kolawole & Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org offer "Gingrich Distorts Immigration Bill". It needs its own fact-checking, which I'll be happy to provide; this isn't the first time I've noticed that FactCheck.org tends to distort immigration matters, although I don't appear to have posted about the past instance.

In the current case, FactCheck has at least two issues: a) strictly and thus incorrectly defining amnesty, and b) failing to note that they and Gingrich are discussing different versions of the bills and failing to read the bill in its entirety.

Regarding b), they say:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made false claims about the Senate immigration bill in a TV ad for a conservative group. He said it "will put...potential terrorists and gang members on a path to U.S. citizenship," which is contrary to the language of the legislation... Actually, the bill grants authority to deport any alien who "at any time has participated in a criminal gang." And as for terrorists, the measure also gives the government authority to deny temporary visa status to an illegal alien if "there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States."

First, they're discussing apples and oranges, in this case different versions of the bill. They link to S.1639 (PDF), dated June 18. The Gingrich commercials were almost certainly made before that date and were based on the previous version of the bill.

For instance, from this June 1 post:

In Section 601 (g) (2), it states that gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty if they sign a statement that renounces their gang membership.

And, from June 5, one of Senator Jeff Session's "20 Loopholes" was this:

the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they "renounce" their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].

Their second paragraph above is a reference to this from page 121 of the new bill; see if you can spot the gigantic loophole:

Unless the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General waives the application of this subparagraph, any alien who a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows or has reason to believe participated in a criminal gang, knowing or having reason to know that such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or supported the illegal activity of the gang, is inadmissible.

Somehow I see a lot of "waiving" ahead. Consider also this:

The application form [for Z nonimmigrant status] shall request such information as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate, including but not limited to, information concerning the alien's physical and mental health; complete criminal history, including all arrests and dispositions; gang membership, renunciation of gang affiliation; immigration history; employment history; and claims to United States citizenship.

As with the previous version of the bill, the renunciation is still in there, strongly implying that it intends to be used to, in fact, allow gang members who've renounced their membership to receive the Z visas.

As for FactCheck raising issues with the Gingrich claim that "potential terrorists" can be legalized, obvious to everyone except them that means that someone who is not known (or shown by a cursory check) to be a terrorist could be legalized, as has happened before.

FactCheck also says that calling the Senate bill amnesty is misleading, relying on the dictionary definition of the word. Are the millions of prospective illegal aliens going to rely on the dictionary definition? Of course not. They're going to concentrate on the implicit U.S. policy of legalizing anyone who can live here long enough. Those millions of prospective illegal aliens will come a-running for what they perceive to be amnesty, whether Brooks Jackson, Emi Kolawole & Lori Robertson are standing on the border pointing to the Merriam-Webster definition or not.

Please contact Editor *at* FactCheck.org and let them know what you think.

UPDATE: The points made above about the new bill apply to the "clay pigeon" amendments as well. The pigeon has a similar waiver (link) and a similar mention of a "renunciation" (link).

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:18 AM

Adam Nagourney spins his way into 30% of young adults sharing NYT loose immigration policies

Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee of the New York Times offer "New Poll Finds That Young Americans Are Leaning Left":

Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion... And 30 percent said that "Americans should always welcome new immigrants," while 24 percent of the general public holds that view...

As you might have already surmised, this latest poll is simply yet more propaganda from the NYT designed to support massive immigration. Here's the actual question:

54. Which comes closer to your opinion: 1) America should always welcome all immigrants, OR 2) America should always welcome some immigrants, but not others, OR 3) America cannot afford to open its doors to any newcomers?

Note that the poll says "all immigrants", but Nagourney said "new". What exactly does Nagourney's "open door" claim mean? What exactly does part #1 above mean? Is Nagourney trying to claim that they support literally open borders? Do the 30% who answered yes to part #1 want literally open borders? Or, could some of them think we should only allow a reasonable number of immigrants per year, but we shouldn't be mean to them? Or, could they mean that we should allow a reasonable number of people to come here from a wide variety of backgrounds? Could some percentage of the 30% be supporting a reasonable immigration policy that isn't weighted towards one country or region or one type of immigrant? If so, isn't Nagourney simply a lying hack?

If they mean literally open borders, isn't it more a sign of stupidity than anything else if someone would support allowing, say, Pakistani extremists to come here? What percentage of those who answered yes to part #1 had open borders in mind, and shouldn't someone besides me point out the issues with open borders?

Shouldn't a real reporter go into things like that, instead of simply using this highly-flawed poll to support his bosses' desire for massive immigration? Yes, a real reporter would do that, which leaves Adam Nagourney out.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:59 PM

Senate immigration amnesty bill amendments ("clay pigeon")

The "clay pigeon" amendments to the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl/Senate massive illegal alien amnesty scheme have been released.

I can't copy from the PDF file at the link, but I note on page 344 that "fish roe processors and fish roe technicians" have been specifically included in the list of those eligible for H-2A visas. That's a relief!

And, right below that, those with probationary Z visa status - after name and fingerprint checks - are eligible to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Even worse, the feds only have one day to declare them ineligible:

...that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible shall be eligible to serve as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.

And, just below that is a section authorizing a CIS office in Fairbanks, Alaska, which for all I know might be a hotbed of fish roe activity. Hmm...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:51 PM

Senate votes for amnesty cloture: what you can do

Cloture on the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill has passed with 64 Yes votes. There are other votes ahead, but the large number of votes for cloture don't bode well.

Apparently all those phone calls had an effect, but not enough of an effect.

What we need now is a series of Macaca moments, but about immigration policy.

What I urge everyone to do is to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions about immigration that are designed to reveal flaws in the candidates' arguments. Not rants, and not questions that will generate a predictable response. They need to be specific questions that are designed to prevent the candidates from being evasive. And, they don't have to be about the Senate bill specifically, just about amnesty in general.

Then, the videos of those responses can be put on Youtube and promoted in other ways.

If this is done enough times, it will have an impact on candidates' political careers, and that will send a loud message to those in the Senate and the House. Plus, it will have the side effect of showing just how corrupt the MSM is.

Here are questions for John Edwards, here are some for McCain, and see the videos with more questions for Hillary, Obama, and Richardson here.

UPDATE: How they voted here, those who switched from one side to another listed here, and from this:

The second, and final, cloture vote is coming Thursday (that will be to end debate and proceed to a final vote on the bill itself), and only five votes need to shift from Yes to No to stop it. That seems like a good bet, with good candidates for switching including Brownback, Bond, Ben Nelson, Ensign, Burr, and Gregg.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:35 AM

First Amendment in Los Angeles: illegal aliens, lefties keep Ted Hayes, Minutemen out of park

From Walter Moore:

Activist Ted Hayes went to the trouble of getting a lawful permit to stage a peaceful protest, against illegal immigration, in a park. But laws meaning nothing to the City of L.A., because we don't have rule of law here. Instead, we have mob rule, driven largely by people who aren't even in the country legally...

Villaraigosa's and Bratton's police department refused to protect the rights of Hayes and his followers to assemble peacefully and protest, in accordance with their rights under the First Amendment and their City-issued permit.

Instead, a mob of pro-ILLEGAL alien protesters, WITHOUT A PERMIT, were allowed to occupy the location specified in the permit. Rather than ordering the illegals to disperse for assembling without a permit, the American citizens who had a permit were ordered to go away. After all, we mustn't have any TV pictures of the police ordering "immigrants rights" protesters to disperse. That would be too "May Day Melee."

Hayes and others were later arrested after his permit expired and he refused to disperse. As could be expected, the news media is on the side of those who kept Hayes out of the park, with no less than three reports portraying this as "anti-immigration" forces against those who are "pro-immigrant".

From a "shared" report (link):

Police handled the situation carefully, mindful of the May Day clash in which officers used rubber bullets and batons to clear immigration reform demonstrations, Harding said. Officers, some in riot gear, some in shorts and on bicycles, kept the two sides apart.

From KTLA (link):

Los Angeles police were a picture of restraint today as they kept screaming pro- and anti-immigration activists apart at Leimert Park and maintained order without another "May Day melee" breaking out.

The head of the anti-immigration group and about four others were arrested when they were denied access to the park by pro-immigration protesters and the police, but no injuries were reported.

...[Hayes] was joined by a couple hundred anti-immigration and mostly white Minutemen members and a few blacks demanding reparations for slavery.

When pro-immigration activists heard about the march, they assembled about 400 people of various races who milled about the park carrying pro- immigration signs and blocking the other group from entering.

..."In the balancing act that we got into here was the issue of allowing access to the park," LAPD Deputy Chief Mike Hillman told ABC7. "Mr. Hayes' group had a permit to go into the park. The park was occupied by, literally, children between 5 and 12 years of age and their parents, plus about 250 to 300 individuals that were community members who obviously took issue with Mr. Hayes being here in their community, so they blocked access to the park."

...Although Hayes had a permit to enter the park, "government interests far outweighed the permit," Hillman said, noting that the clashing protesters could have put children in the park at risk.

In other words, he's defending anarchy, mob rule, and the denial of First Amendment rights. And, one wonders whether those "government interests" include the interests of mayor Tony Villar in allowing Mexicans to move here at will and the interests of others who profit from illegal immigration.

The KABC report (link) from Wendy Burch is oddly similar:

When people heard of Hayes' march, a counter protest was planned. A number of people showed up from various coalitions, of all different races. They were determined not to let Mr. Hayes and his group into Leimert Park. When police, supervising the march, saw what was transpiring they had to weigh all the issues. Police decided public safety was a larger priority than first amendment rights.

Various lefties chimed in here:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201486_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201474_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201498_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201503_comment.php

More updates here, with pictures here and video here.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:32 AM

Eddie Murphy sighting

la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/200054.php

I kid, I kid.

Posted to WackyHumor at 11:28 AM

Sergio Bendixen: 83% of illegal aliens would comply with new, better-suiting laws

A Sergio Bendixen poll [1] contacted 1,600 "undocumented immigrants" in Spanish and discovered that 83% said they'd apply for the "Z" Visa, with 14% prefering to maintain their present status as illegal aliens.

However, 27% said they wouldn't apply even for the "Z" Visa if there are touchback provisions that would require them to receive that visa and without a guaranteed "right to return". It should be noted that, AFAIK, the touchback provisions in both current Senate and House bills only require them to leave the U.S. for a minimal amount of time and only to get on the "path to citizenship", not for the visa specifically.

Hopefully that will help them in their decision as to which of our laws they would prefer to follow.

[1] news.newamericamedia.org/news/
view_article.html?article_id=5f47289d59c786e1f07c3eb69707b8a4

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:14 AM

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, cheap labor pimp (Pat Buchanan, Meet The Press)

Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Democrat from Illinois, debated the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill and illegal immigration with Pat Buchanan on today's Meet the Press (transcript link). It cast Pitchfork Pat in the role of the defender of the American workingman, with Gutierrez in the role of the Wall Street Journal-style cheap labor pimp. Not only that, he supported foreigners working in unsafe conditions that wouldn't be acceptable if they were performed by Americans:

The fact is that [illegal aliens] do jobs. Every time you go to the grocery store and you get grapes, any agricultural... product, we know who is in those pesticide-ridden fields across this country... ...and, many times, inhumane conditions... ..picking the fruits and the crops that are necessary and vital to our economy, doing the kinds of work that, that truly other Americans won't do... [later] ...But I suggest to you that I want to keep the vast majority of them that do the kinds of labor that sweat and toil and that make America a better place for all of us to live in.

Rather than trying to end working in "pesticide-ridden fields" as liberals of the past would have done, Gutierrez takes steps that will allow such abuses to continue. And, rather than supporting offshoring or automating inefficient, 19th century "industries" such as strawberry production, he wants to help those "industries" out.

In addition to cribbing the "jobs Americans won't do" line from Bush and Chertoff, he swiped another trick: playing the "why aren't you offering a civil discourse" game:

You know, the tone and the texture of the debate that Pat has brought here to MEET THE PRESS is really what is wrong with this debate. We need to have a debate that doesn't chastise people, that doesn't criminalize people, that doesn't cast a shadow over everyone. The fact is, the vast majority - the vast, the overwhelming majority of immigrants who come here to this country come here to work hard...

That followed this not necessarily controversial Buchanan statement:

But if she walks across the border, as many of them do. I think something like two thirds of the babies in Los Angeles born, women come into the country, cross the border, they have a baby, the baby's an anchor baby, entitled to a lifetime of social welfare benefits and citizenship. That's not what citizenship should mean in our country.

I haven't been able to determine whether his statistic is correct, but Gutierrez wasn't raising that as an issue. Then, Gutierrez plays the demographic hegemony card, conflating illegal immigration with all Hispanics and even borrowing a line about the Vietnam Memorial from John McCain during the last GOP debate:

But Republicans are going to become a party of the past and irrelevant in national elections... ...and in the Congress of the United States... ...if we don't change the texture and the tone of this debate and stop blaming immigrants... ...and specifically Latinos for every ill that exists in this society... They are good contributors. They are faithful Americans... They die in Iraq. Their names are etched in the Vietnam Memorial, and to make us all be criminals, I just think is wrong, unfair, and it is what is going to cost the Republican Party dearly in the future.

Democrats might want to look inward and decide whether what Gutierrez in effect supports is consistent with their past goals.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:53 AM

Teddy Kennedy sings... en Espanol! (for the Senate amnesty)

Appearing on the Piolin radio show in support of immigration "reform", aka a massive amnesty for illegal aliens, Senator Teddy Kennedy broke into song... in Spanish.

Please distribute widely.

Related:
America empty boxed: Kennedy immigration press conference

UPDATE: I should have mentioned that this was played on KFI's John & Ken Show on Friday, and it was presented as a real clip and not a parody. Its authenticity is further shown by it appearing here, with this caption:

During an appearance on the wildly popular Piolín in the Morning radio show in Los Angeles, Sen. Ted Kennedy broke into lively rendition of "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes (Don't Give Up On Me)." They also discussed immigration reform.

That clip has a little more from the beginning.

I also posted this to FreeRepublic's news section on Friday, and it was quickly moved to the much less popular chat section (freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1854932/posts) and put in the "Music/Entertainment" topic rather than the "Crime/Corruption" topic where I'd originally placed it. Another thread that just mentioned that this had been played on John & Ken was immediately locked (freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854927/posts). Note that FR also deleted the post I made about Teddy's empty boxes (link above) because I linked to RawStory, which was the only site with a non-subscriber-only copy of the story. While both stories are basically trivial, it's these types of stories that have some salience and symbolism. I note also that the Youtube video has been stuck on 587 views for a few hours, when I'm pretty sure it's gotten several past that amount. That might just be a technical issue, since sometimes it takes them a while to update that value.

6/24 11:30AM UPDATE: Despite currently being the #22 most-linked video of the day, with over 1700 total links being shown, the view count is still stuck on the magic 587 figure.

Posted to Politics at 07:38 PM

7 to 10 more votes against cloture on Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill needed

According to this message from NumbersUSA, they think they have "solid commitments" from 32 Senators to vote no on cloture on the Bush/Senate massive illegal alien amnesty, but 41 no votes are needed.

They suggest contacting the following in order to try to get them to vote no:

Bond (R-Mo.)
Bingaman (D-N.M.)
Burr (R-N.C.)

Boxer (D-Calif.)
Cochran (R-Miss.)
Conrad (D-N.D.)

Ensign (R-Nev.)
Levin (D-Mich.)
Gregg (R-N.H.)

Nelson (D-Neb.)
Hatch (R-Utah)
Webb (D-Va.)

Posted to Immigration2007a at 05:20 PM

Clark Hoyt New York Times Public Editor: disingenuous, shill, hack

A couple weeks ago, Julia Preston of the New York Times offered "As Immigration Plan Folded, Grass Roots Roared". It included a picture of someone that - while he might be a great person - would be characterized by many New Yorkers as a toothless yokel. Their intent was clear: only hicks oppose the Senate illegal immigration amnesty. Compare, for instance, the photo at the last link with the one here:

Now, the new NYT Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, shows that he's even worse than his predecessors with the extraordinarily disingenuous "The Ugly Part Wasn't His Face". Rather than considering - or correctly characterizing - complaints made about the NYT's propaganda, he defends it. And, he does it in a sleazy, passive-aggressive way by accusing those who complained about the NYT story of stereotyping the photo subject.

However, the fact that he's a hack and a shill is revealed by his own comments. First, he relies on the protestations of innocence from NYT employees rather than, for instance, discussing the matter with John & Ken, the two Los Angeles talk show hosts who encouraged their listeners to send in their own photos (they aren't mentioned by name in the article). I guess if an NYT employee says it it must be true. Then, there's this:

[I asked why the NYT would] choose to run a picture of a man missing a tooth when they had to know it could contribute to stereotypes about the kinds of people opposing the immigration bill.

What stereotypes? Outside of Manhattan, the Westside of Los Angeles, and the Beltway, are there large numbers of people who believe in or try to promulgate such stereotypes? By admitting that some hold such a view, isn't Hoyt more or less admitting guilt?

More on the "perhaps" side of things, Grassfire.org is described as a "conservative citizens' coalition". What other organizations (besides Conservatives of Kern County) have similiar initials? Is Hoyt speaking in code?

Then, there's this ludicrous statement:

He came to the attention of The Times because Julia Preston, a reporter whose beat is immigration, believed that his side of the story wasn't being reflected enough in Times coverage of the bill.

Even if the NYT ran a hundred non-biased immigration articles, it wouldn't begin to make amends for all the pieces by Nina Bernstein, Samuel Freedman, David Brooks and all the rest. Certainly, anyone who's familiar with the NYT's coverage of this issue realizes just how disingenuous his statement is.

UPDATE: From this:

Clark Hoyt has now pubished three columns about the Times' behavior, and in each instance, has given the Times a perfect bill of reportial health... Hoyt is the perfect stooge for the Times. He is, to steal from Lenin, a Useful Mediocrity...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:51 PM

Innovation, not serf labor: growers fund fruit picking robot

From this:

Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.

The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa.

At first, they wondered whether such a machine was possible. Then, they got the bright idea to use two robots: one to locate the fruit, and another to determine the best way to pick the pre-located fruit. The California Citrus Research Board will spend about $1 million on this, with a projected cost of $5 million to get to a finished product. Obviously, that's an extremely small amount compared to some of the figures involved in legalizing millions of illegal aliens, not to mention the non-financial costs.

Related:
"In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines"

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:23 AM

CNN/Youtube debates: tough questions for Hillary, Obama

As previously discussed, CNN and Youtube are soliciting questions for their upcoming Democratic debate. My entry is a question for Hillary Clinton concerning her support for the anti-American DREAM Act.

Unfortunately, a glance through the other entries reveals only one other person who asks similar questions, and he's got some questions for Hillary and Obama. Certainly, I might have missed a tough question here or there since I didn't look at all the videos, but the ones I did watch were basically just a chance for candidates to launch into their talking points. Hopefully others will submit questions that will actually put the candidates on the spot.

And, of course, in the meantime please go to campaing appearances, ask tough questions, and publicize the response.

Related:
A tough question for John McCain
Questions for John Edwards

Posted to Politics at 11:17 AM

Stopped calendar: Bill Richardson wants to be frank with Mexico

As long as you don't look at the year, a calendar stuck on February 31 is almost close to being on the right track every four years. Bill Richardson is a lot like that, saying yesterday at a town hall meeting in Phoenix that we should tell our friends to the south:

"Hey Mexico, why don't you help your people and do something to give them jobs. Maybe we will do something with you to help create jobs at the border. Maybe joint projects, but at the very least don't give people maps in the easiest areas to cross."

He said some other standard things as well, but, needless to say, CNN Assignment Editor Marissa Muller didn't call him on those stock talking points.

Posted to Politics at 12:13 AM

Bush representative posted to FreeRepublic (overt propaganda)

Back on the 14th, Nicholas Thompson of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives posted a comment on a FreeRepublic post, as described here. In two previous posts I've discussed the very strange circumstances associated with published reports describing how the White House has been reaching out to blogs. So far, no one else to my knowledge has investigated or even shown any interest in this matter, despite the possibility that the White House has done some of its outreach covertly.

As discussed at the second link, the NYT said that the WH had "posted defenses" on both conservative and liberal sites, yet I have so far been unable to find a single liberal site containing an overt defense. And, the Politco said that the WH had posted on a "wide range" of sites, yet so far the only possibilities I've found are FreeRepublic, RedState, Townhall, and The Corner.

Needless to say, those four sites are neither liberal nor would anyone consider that number a "wide range".

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:30 PM

Teddy Kennedy posts on immigration "reform"

I first saw the guest Hill post "Failure Not an Option on Immigration Bill (Sen. Edward Kennedy)" a few hours ago. Since it was only a couple sentences long, I immediately refreshed the page thinking everything hadn't loaded, but, oddly enough, that was it. I've now given it several hours for the rest to appear, and I am now safe in believing that this is the entire, no doubt Grand Marnier-soaked post:

Failure is not an option — our national security demands it. This is a tough, practical, fair bill.

Yes, that is, aside from the title, the entire post. We pay him to repeatedly sell out the U.S., and he can't even give us more than two sentences?

Why, that post is even more empty than the boxes he falsely claimed contained hundreds of thousands of letters in support of his bill.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:28 PM

Canadians, others to protest SPP meeting in August (oil, water reserves)

From this:

Activists already are preparing to protest the third summit meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [scheduled for Aug. 20 and 21 in Montebello, Quebec, at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort], a trilateral initiative between the U.S., Canada and Mexico seen by critics as a major step toward a North American Union, according to WND columnist Jerome Corsi, author of a new book on the subject, "The Late Great USA."

...Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scheduled to host the Quebec summit, which will be attended by Mexican President Felipe Calderon and President Bush.

...The first SPP summit was held in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005. The second took place in was held in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006.

...The Council of Canadians held a March 30-April 1 "teach in" titled "Integrate This! Challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." A brochure on the Council of Canadians website says SPP "is moving Canada quickly toward a continental resource pact, a North American security perimeter and harmonized military and security policies."

...Canadian activists have argued a major goal of the CSIS study is to identify Canadian oil and fresh water as continental "North American natural resources" which, under SPP, could be diverted to U.S. cities without fair compensation to Canada.

Posted to NAU at 10:24 PM

Bryan Caplan/George Mason University: a true "economist" and "intellectual"

Bryan Caplan is an Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University. His "thinking abilities" as well as his "economic" skills are on full display in the Economist guest post "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem". Let's take a look at this public "intellectual":

Every blogger I know tells me the same story: The fastest way to provoke angry comments is to post a kind word about immigration. In the blogosphere, as in real life, complaints about immigrants abound.

Of course, those complaints aren't usually about "immigrants" either in general or about "immigrants" personally. Usually, the complaints are about illegal immigration or large concentrations of illegal aliens, such as in our cities.

The funny thing, though, is that the complaints are diverse, but the cure is almost always the same: Cut immigration quotas, reinforce the border, and deport the illegals.

The last is, of course, quite close to - and probably meant as - the usual false choice offered between a massive amnesty and mass deportations.

Suppose, for example, that the complaint about immigrants is that "They take advantage of the welfare state." If that's the problem, the simplest solution is not the get rid of immigrants, but to make them ineligible for benefits. Make them pay the usual taxes, but make it clear that welfare, unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, and the like are only for native-born citizens.

Yeah, what if. What if I could build a time machine? Wouldn't that be great? What people like Caplan are too ignorant to understand is that there's a great deal of pressure placed on local governments and even the federal government to continue such benefits. Some of that comes from racial power groups, others comes from corrupt businesses that enjoy corporatism. When Caplan does things such as offer false choices or conflates illegal and legal immigration he plays right into the hands of such groups. And, of course: no one wants to "get rid of immigrants".

What if the complaint is that immigrants endanger our political culture – in short, that they vote the wrong way? I'm sympathetic to this concern, but it's easy to tailor a solution: Don't let immigrants vote.

At this point, I'm laughing. It's easy to state such a supposed solution, it's not so easy to carry such a thing out. Unless we want think South Africa or Saudi Arabia are good American models.

In brief, Caplan is truly an "intellectual", and he's truly a top-tier "economist".

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:43 PM

White House listening to pork producers, La Raza, Mexico-linked NALEO, NRA... just not you

The White House offers a PDF entitled "What They're Saying: Border Security And Immigration Reform Agreement" and subtitled 'Business And Agriculture Groups Say "It Is Critical That The Process Moves Forward"' (PDF) [1]. It's just a collection of quotes from press releases from those few groups that support the Bush/Senate massive illegal immigration amnesty, and it contains no accompaning text other than the titles.

As simply a collection of quotes, it's not that shocking. However, it's interesting that these are the special interest groups that the White House chooses to use to bolster their bill, rather than acknowledging the other 99.99% of Americans. And, at least two of the groups are certainly interesting. Let's lead with those two:

* National Association Of Latino Elected And Appointed Officials (has a link to the Mexican government)
* National Council Of La Raza President And CEO Janet Murguia (funds extremists)
* The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce
* National Restaurant Association
* Business Roundtable
* National Association Of Manufacturers
* National Federation Of Independent Business
* Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
* American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman
* Associated Builders And Contractors Chairman David Meyer
* National Milk Producers Federation President And CEO Jerry Kozak
* National Pork Producers Council President Jill Appell
* American Subcontractors Association President Stephen Rohrbach
* Agriculture Coalition For Immigration Reform
* American Health Care Association President And CEO Bruce Yarwood
* Poultry Federation President Marvin Childers
* Georgia Farm Bureau
* Tyson Foods, Inc.
* Western Growers President And CEO Tom Nassif
* Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
* California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
* National League Of Cities President And Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson
* Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
* MANA President And CEO Alma Morales Riojas
* U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce Board Of Directors Chairman David Lizarraga
* Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
* Esperanza USA President Rev. Luis Cortes

[1] The PDF is described here: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854324/posts. It was posted to RedState by Robert Bluey, so it's probably for real. However, I've cached it locally to avoid linking to that site.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:10 PM

"Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11"

From this:

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released new documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") related to the "expeditious departure" of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, from the United States following the 9/11 attacks. According to one of the formerly confidential documents, dated 9/21/2001, terrorist Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the Saudi flights.

The document states: "ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND."

...Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI's investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the "Bin Laden Family Flight"). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight...

Posted to Terrorism at 04:09 PM

Diana Chi: have you no shame? (Some will dare call it treason)

MSNBC has recently released a list of some journalists who've made political contributions. Shockingly, 1 out of 9 of them have donated to Republicans or conservatives. Let's take a look at these people that I - at least - shall dare call traitors.

There are the expected reactionaries: Joe Scarborough, a couple Forbes editors, and a Bill O'Reilly producer.

However, there are some others we might not suspect, such as 19 year old Diana Chi, a so-called "news writer" at KTLA right here in Los Angeles. She's donated $8,025 to the Republican National Committee... since she was 14! Clearly, these must have been sham transactions. Either that, or she was brainwashed at an early age.

Perhaps even more shocking are the contributions from Rafael Roman, a Thirteen/WNET host ("New York Voices"). Instead of, for instance, donating to The Nation or ANSWER as you might expect from a PBS host in New York City, he gave $250 to Bush in 2004.

Moles don't just live in gardens, they live in the very heart of our most cherished edifices.

Moles also seek to subvert our cherished culture: Charles Perry, food writer for the Los Angeles Times, gave to the RNC. Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter gave to the NRCC. Robin Gaby Fisher, feature writer for Newark's Star-Ledger, gave to both Bush and the RNC. Harry Broertjes, a "copy editor/page designer" for the Miami Herald is a serial offender, donating to both Bush and the RNC. Reactionaries to the south of me: San Diego Union-Tribune graphic artist Joe Cline gave to the RNC, as did Barbara Bradley, fashion editor of Memphis' Commercial Appeal. Even Beth Hudson, a self-descript "sports reporter" with Allentown's beloved Morning Call gave to the RNC.

There are other moles, covert agents, Fifth Columnists, and other traitors listed... but even more importantly there are many yet to be uncovered.

Posted to WackyHumor at 04:03 PM

Interests writ tiny: Nina Zagat, Tim Zagat want influx of Chinese chefs

Is the New York Times guest editorial "Eating Beyond Sichuan" by Nina Zagat and Tim Zagat - co-founders of the Zagat restaurant survey - a joke? I think it's a joke, but maybe I'm not educated enough. Let's find out:

If Henry Kissinger could practice "Ping-Pong diplomacy," perhaps Condoleezza Rice could try her hand at "dumpling diplomacy"? China and the United States should work together on a culinary visa program that makes it easier for Chinese chefs to come here. With more chefs who are schooled in China’s dynamic new restaurant scene, we would see a transformation of the way Chinese food is served in this country.

Yes, I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Either that, or they're very very confused about immigration matters and think that anyone beyond them and a few others have any concern about their pressing issue at all. Of course, perhaps Chuck Schumer could take up their cause and provide an amendment to the Senate's massive illegal alien amnesty bill specifically mentioned amnestying illegal aliens who can pass a culinary exam.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:02 PM

Harry Reid revives Senate amnesty bill; "clay pigeon"

From this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced an updated immigration bill Monday, launching one more attempt to conclude debate on the contentious issue and approve the measure in the Senate before Congress breaks for the 4th of July holiday.

...Revived as new legislation, the redrafted immigration bill reflects the substance of the 14 Democratic and 13 Republican amendments approved during the first two weeks of Senate debate, including a phaseout of the temporary guest worker program.

The new bill also includes a proposal by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to establish a $4.4 billion fund, paid for by fees and fines collected from undocumented immigrants, exclusively for financing border security.

...Though senators and advocates supporting reform are being careful to avoid calling any measure a "poison pill," the list appears to be problematic enough that Senate leaders are at least considering employing the rare tactic of packaging amendments to avoid losing critical support and votes.

Under the procedure, Reid would introduce a single, 22-part amendment, divisible into component parts for debate. Known as a "clay pigeon," it would offer the bill's supporters a means of staging the debate more or less free from interference, with the objective of keeping enough senators together to maintain the 60 votes needed to thwart a filibuster.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:20 PM

Environmentalists: Illegal aliens burning down Coronado National Forest

From this:

U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.

The wildfires also have resulted in the destruction of valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according to federal law enforcement authorities and others.

In the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, with 60 miles of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Forest Service firefighters sent in to battle fires or clear wild land fire areas are required to be escorted by armed law enforcement officers...

The response to this from many or most environmental groups would no doubt be similar to that from the Defenders of Wildlife in a related matter: blame the U.S. for not having an open border. Then, some of those same groups would go on to cash checks from those who support massive immigration. In fact, if anyone ever spots a single major environmental organization trying to reduce illegal immigration through border control in order to prevent the borderlands from being trashed, let me know.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:10 PM

America empty boxed: Kennedy immigration press conference

An old scam is to sell someone something and then to send them a box full of bricks or even an empty box. Along those lines, Ron Brynaert of RawStory finally has a story with which I don't disagree:

Lawmakers were pointing to "empty boxes" at a press conference last Thursday, a Capitol Hill newspaper reports.

"At a pro-immigration rally Thursday, a group of politicians including Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) addressed reporters while picturesquely standing in front of an impressive tower of boxes they said contained letters from a million supporters of comprehensive immigration reform," Emily Heil reports for Roll Call's 'Heard on the Hill.'

According to a press release, the letters were part of the "Por la Reforma Migratoria con Piolín" campaign launched by Univision radio personality Eddie 'Piolín' Sotelo, and was touted as marking "the first time that a letter writing campaign has generated such a large number of letters in support of immigration reform."

"As the Members repeatedly referred to the letters and gestured toward the boxes allegedly containing them as evidence of the support for the immigration bill that is struggling in the Senate, a crack Roll Call photographer on hand at the event began to grow suspicious," Heil continues. "He could see light shining through the handles of the boxes, indicating that they weren't full."

On a sidenote, I tried to post this to FreeRepublic, but I got the message "RawStory not welcome" when I put the URL above in the URL field. So, I removed that URL and put it in the body of the entry. It posted OK, but the thread was pulled immediately with the same message. Hopefully others will not be so dunderheaded; while this is a very minor story if promoted it could help further demonstrate what "reform" is all about. Hearts, minds, and symbolism, you know.

Posted to at 03:12 PM

Lindsey Graham: opposition to amnesty like anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic bigotry

Senator Lindsey Graham was interviewed by George Stephanapolous on Sunday and said lots of interesting things (link, via this).

Near the end, he says this about the opposition to the Senate's massive illegal alien amnesty:

We've been down this road before: no Catholics, no Jews, Irish need not apply

He also said that Republicans should realize that the Senate's bill is the "best [they're] going to get". He also blackmailed the U.S., claiming that if "reform" isn't passed "the 12 million [illegal aliens] become 20 million... the borders continue to be broken". Of course, that would not happen if our laws were enforced.

He also wondered whether we're "going to let the union halls and the talk radio take over this debate".

He also said the following which, were he not on Teddy Kennedy's side might have resulted in outraged leftists:

our culture is under attack... we're not going to give our culture away [under the bill]...

And, finally, he made an outrageous lie:

[the bill says to "illegals"] you stay here on our terms

Obviously, the bill caves in to illegal aliens and validates their attempts to make shows of force across the U.S. by marching in our streets. Of course, he's not the first person to try to sell a massive capitulation as a victory.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:53 PM

CNN/Youtube debates: user video submissions

Youtube wants their users to submit videos with questions for the upcoming Democratic debate to be held on CNN on July 23rd and moderated by fluffball Anderson Cooper. I just watched a few of the current submissions, and boy is my spirit tired.

While one of them features the attractive "Resident", and at least two of them involve illegal immigration (1,2) all of the ones I looked at are questions that will make the candidates very happy, because they'll simply be able to go into their talking points playback mode. There is one somewhat funny one with an interesting question, and another with a question that either tries to be funny or is sad, and another asking whether Bill will be the real president.

However, none of the questions attempt to call the politicians on what they have stated or supported, and none of them attempt to make them defend their policies. I'll be repurposing a couple of my longer videos to fit under the 30 seconds running time, but I suspect that - even if they're allowed into the contest - they won't be asked because, well, "boxers or briefs" is so much more entertaining and easier to answer, right?

LIGHT A CANDLE UPDATE: Here's my entry in their contest. It's a cut-down version of the other video from me that you might have seen concerning Hillary Clinton's support for the DREAM Act. It's currently at #74 on their list of contest entries, although I think my neighbor in the list might attract more views.

Posted to Politics at 11:08 AM

Harry Reid: unprecedented trick to pass illegal immigration amnesty?

Via this we find this description from a "knowledgeable Senate source" as to the procedure Harry Reid might use to push through amnesty. After a few days of "ripening",

we expect Reid - with the help and support of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers - to do something that we believe has never been done in the history of the Senate... he will use an arcane Senate procedure that allows a single amendment to be divisible into many - in this case, into the 20-odd amendments the Grand Bargainers are trying to cobble together to keep 60 votes in support of the bill. Traditionally, that amendment has been used to protect minority rights - but in this case, it will be used to PREVENT the minority from getting additional amendments called up and from being able to fully debate the amendments in question. It is, to our knowledge, unprecedented... If Reid does this, with the help of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers, they will shut off the ability of Senators with concerns of the bill to offer additional amendments and to debate the amendments in question.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:50 PM

A tough question for John McCain (let's block amnesty)

If you want to block an illegal alien amnesty, calling Congress is only going to go so far; many of our elected officials just aren't listening. That doesn't mean you shouldn't call, but an additional, even more effective way is to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions, and then publicize the response. The goal is to discredit politicians and have an impact on their careers. That's something that will get their attention.

Here's one possible question for John McCain:

Senator McCain: You've previously stated that not passing some form of illegal alien legalization could lead to civil disturbances [1] such as have occurred in Paris. Who's responsible for putting the U.S. in such an extremely dangerous situation? (Pointing at McCain while saying the last part is optional).

Alternative second sentence:

Shouldn't elected officials have prevented such an extremely dangerous situation from developing in the first place?

Or:

If president Bush had done his job and enforced the immigration laws across the board [2], and if Congress had done its job and made sure the president was enforcing the laws, would the U.S. be in such an extremely dangerous situation?

Here are some questions for John Edwards; at least one of those could be asked of McCain as well.

If you decide to go out and ask questions, have these footnotes handy on flyers to be passed out:

[1] McCain said the following on June 2, 2007 at a campaign stop in Mars, IA:

"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France... They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America."

[2] From this June 22, 2005 AP story:

Under the Clinton administration in 1999, federal officials formally notified 417 employers that they would be fined for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants or improperly completing employment verification forms... But only three employers received the notice of a fine in 2003, GAO auditors found... Similarly, immigration officials arrested 2,849 individuals at workplaces in 1999. By 2003, the GAO noted, the number of workplace arrests had fallen to 445. This is a trivial number compared with the roughly 5 million unauthorized workers now estimated to be in the United States.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:21 PM

Your road map towards understanding "liberals"

I kid, I kid.

Posted to WackyHumor at 01:49 PM

Randal Archibold fails to note Peter Schey Mexico links (+MAPA)

In an article about the Dreams Across America tour, Randal C. Archibold of the New York Times ("With Immigration Bill Stalled, Advocates Push Forward") says:

"Nothing will be worse in terms of the millions of individuals and families that will be criminalized in perpetuity by the proposed Senate legislation," said lawyers for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, an advocacy group, in a statement.

What Randal forgot to tell you is that that group is collaborating with the Mexican government as described at the link, and either through the organization or through Schey has other links to that government as well.

However, it doesn't appear that Schey's quote is related to the Crazy Train. In fact, it comes from a June 7, 2007 letter from Nativo Lopez' Mexican American Political Association (lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/06/mapa_analysis_o.html) concerning the Senate bill and not mentioning the train trip.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:12 PM

Dreams Across America: all aboard the pro-illegal immigration train

"Dreams Across America" [1] is the latest stunt from supporters of a massive illegal alien amnesty, consisting of about 100 people taking a train Washington DC to lobby for "reform". You can read the MSM's take here.

They have at least one minor, indirect link to the Mexican government: when they arrive in DC they "will join hundreds of immigrant children and their families at an event organized by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement" [2]. One of the latter's member groups is the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, headed by the Mexico-linked Juan Salgado.

However, in a deft move, it appears that all of those on the train are either native-born or naturalized citizens rather than illegal aliens as was the case with 2003's "Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride". That is, needless to say, simply a ploy: what they support involves giving illegal aliens amnesty; any additional rights for legal immigrants are a minor part of what they want.

In addition to the fun vacation, they're also sharing their heart-warming stories in a series of web videos. There certainly aren't enough heart-warming stories about struggling immigrants in the MSM, right?

And, in another move indicating that they continue to learn how to hide what they really want, not all the videos are from Hispanics. One of the videos even features "Rusty Hicks tell[ing] the story of his migration from Texas to Los Angeles" [3]. Such internal migration is hardly any different from someone sneaking across the border and then buying fake documentation to work here illegally, right?

And, in an ironic twist, one of the participants appears to be a beneficiary of the 1986 amnesty.

One of the movers behind the current group is the Catholic Church including the "Pedophile Protector" himself, Cardinal Roger Mahoney. Another is sol-california.com, which appears to be a pan-union effort with board members from the AFL-CIO (Maria Elena Durazo), SEIU Local 1877 (Mike Garcia), President, SEIU United Healthcare Workers - West (Sal Roselli), and UNTIE HERE State Political Director Jack Gribbon. Contact persons for SOL are Javier Gonzalez and Elda Martinez.

Another person involved is HuffPost contributor and former Howard Dean CA chair Rick Jacobs; he heads the "Courage Campaign" [4]. The CC has some interesting indirect links to George Soros [5]; whether they have direct links isn't known. For some reason the CC's Youtube icon [6] is of Fabian Nunez. Their most-watched video only has about 1300 views (thanks largely to Crooks and Liars): youtube.com/watch?v=qs63p3_IdNs . It features a landscaper (Cathy Gurney) whining about not being able to find labor. While I don't endorse the words used in the following comment left on that video, the underlying spirit is accurate:

this bitch is a liar....she cant get legal employees because she wont offer a living wage...she is the epitomy of the evil employer....booohooohooo...i cant find legal employees....hey cathy, offer 20 bux an hour and legal employees will come out of the woodwork

[1] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org
[2] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org/dreamtrain/about
[3] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org/story/video/2007/06/11/rusty-hicks
[4] couragecampaign.org/pages/who_we_are
[5] Their "partners" include: MoveOn.org, Democracy For America (both Soros linked), New Progressive Coalition, Powerpac.org, CalPIRG, California Nurses Association, Common Cause, Brave New Films and Progressive Majority.
[6] youtube.com/profile?user=CourageCampaign

Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:39 PM

Fox: Harry Reid to revive Senate immigration amnesty next week

From this:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will approve a new deal on immigration on Thursday and move to bring the once-dead legislation back to the Senate floor next week, Democratic sources told FOX News.

Details of the immigration compromise remain to be finalized, but top Democratic sources say Reid has closely monitored the behind-the-scenes dickering over policy changes and a finite list of amendments due for consideration. Based on the latest updates on the policy and amendments, Reid will approve the compromise and move late Thursday to put the bill back on the calendar for Senate consideration in the middle of next week.

"He's going to bless it and he's going to get the Senate back in the business of dealing with immigration," said a source in the Democratic Senate leadership...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:51 PM

Bush upbeat; $4bil for border security; amendments probably just ploy

Bush is still upbeat and thinking positively about the possibility of the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill passing. And, in fact, this morning he said he wants to spend $4.4 billion on border security. Unlike the supplemental proposal which would be spent even if the bill doesn't pass, this would be part of the "comprehensive" solution and would only be spent if the bill passes. On a fantastic note:

The $4.4 billion would be spent immediately and then repaid out of fees and fines collected through the path to citizenship program and the guest-worker program, Mr. Snow said. He did not know where the money would originally come from.

And, Sen. Trent Lott is publicly saying that any amendments that are added to the bill don't really matter: they'll get stripped out in committee. So, bear in mind that any "tough" amendments may simply be ploys or at least may never be in the final bill:

Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said those amendments will simply disappear when the House and Senate go to conference. "No big deal -- you pitch those before you get to the Rotunda," he said.

A similar point is made by an apparent Senate source here:

My source also noted that the cloture vote to end debate will be the "real" vote on the bill because if debate is closed off, the bill is sure to pass. Then, what will happen is that the votes for the bill will be counted, and a few Senators who are afraid that their election prospects will be jeopardized by a "yes" vote, will be allowed to vote against the bill. This enables those Senators to tell their constituents that they voted against the bill, but it will still allow them to collect campaign contributions from lobbyists who have a better understanding of how things work, and know that the bill couldn't have been passed without their support. Put another way, they get to reap the rewards of supporting amnesty while telling the voters in their home states that they opposed the bill.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:27 AM

Unreanimate: Only 20% want Senate amnesty bill revived (Rasmussen)

Here are the results of the latest Rasmussen poll asking "Should Senate Try and Pass the Same Immigration Bill Again?"

* Try and Pass Same Bill Again: 20%

* Take Smaller Steps Towards Reform: 51%

* Wait Until Next Year: 16%

Meanwhile:

Senior GOP senators are embracing an eleventh-hour plan to pass an emergency supplemental bill for more border security money as a strategy to win over Republicans who have balked at the bipartisan immigration bill languishing in the Senate...

I suggest keeping up the phone calls and - even more importantly - get out there and discredit some politicians.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:25 PM

Raul Grijalva wants to secure border ecologically soundly (Defenders of Wildlife)

From a Defenders of Wildlife press release (link):

Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) yesterday introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would secure America's border with Mexico while reducing the negative impact on local communities and resources, including national parks, wildlife refuges and monuments that are home to several critically endangered species. H.R.2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act of 2007, would amend existing immigration and border security laws, including the recently-passed Secure Fence Act and REAL ID Act, to help alleviate the devastating impacts of undocumented immigration and border enforcement activities on public lands, wildlife and borderland communities...

It seems like you can't turn around these days without bumping into someone who wants to secure the border. What's that you say, I really should put that in scare quotes? OK, Raul Grijalva wants to "secure the border". Now, it all makes sense.

These are the supposed bill provisions:

* Provides the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the ability to decide whether fences, vehicle barriers or virtual fences would be most effective in securing the border.

* Gives land management agencies, Native American tribes and local communities a voice in border construction decisions.

* Requires compliance with laws meant to protect the air, water, wildlife, culture and the health and safety of people in borderland communities.

* Funds initiatives that help mitigate damage to borderland wildlife and resources.

Raul Grijalva is not just a former member of the racial separatist group MEChA, he's proud of having been a member. He also appeared with the Mexican government-linked Derechos Humanos at a forum last year.

Likewise, some of the leaders of those "local communities" will probably be little more than Mexican partisans. And, the leadership of the DHS hasn't exactly shown an interest in enforcing our laws. And, consider this quote:

"The Border Patrol needs to follow the current (environmental) law, which right now they're ignoring," counters Jenny Neeley, southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation advocacy group, adding that "the damage is being caused by border policy." Tougher border enforcement near portals such as San Diego and El Paso, she says, funnels traffic into more remote and environmentally sensitive regions...

Obviously, DoW isn't exactly strong on the enforcement side of things either.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:01 PM

White House Senate bill outreach: just RedState, The Corner, and Townhall... or?

Continuing the post "Covert White House propaganda for Senate immigration amnesty bill?", we now learn this:

The White House has done outreach to liberal religious and Hispanic groups and, at the suggestion of chief political strategist Karl Rove, made more use of the blogosphere on immigration than it has on any issue since President Bush took office, aides said...

...Aides said it was Rove's idea to focus on blogs. After vetting by policy experts, responses have been posted on a wide range of blogs under the names of Kerrie Rushton and Nicholas Thompson, both associate directors in the Office of Strategic Initiatives, which falls under Rove's domain.

"We had to be nimble," said White House Communications Director Kevin Sullivan, who is coordinating the administration's public relations strategy. "The idea was to not let inaccurate or misleading statements become part of the conventional wisdom."

However, the only sites mentioned in the article are RedState and The Corner, and a search for the two aides' names through technorati and a google blog search doesn't turn up much I could see except references to those two sites. That's especially odd, since the NYT said that the White House said they'd been "posting defenses" on liberal sites, and one would think that the latter would be up in arms. And, of course, two or three sites is not a "wide range".

Unless, of course, there are other sites where they aren't using their real names and disclosing their affiliation. And, it would also be interesting to find out what communication they've had with, just as an example, those bloggers who remain administration stalwarts or at least are encouraging their readers to keep an open mind. It would seem that any such communication would be part of the public record and obtainable through an FOIA request.

UPDATE: To make this clearer, the first link in this post links to a June 3 New York Times article that contained this:

White House officials said [the backlash to their amnesty plan] had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.

Yet, as discussed above I've only seen three possible sites where they've posted defenses, none of them liberal sites. And, if they've been overtly posting defenses on such sites, I'd imagine I would have heard about it. Obviously, both the NYT ("liberal sites") and the Politico ("a wide range of blogs") could have made similar mistakes. Or, something else might be going on. This is, of course, just speculation, but it would be great if someone would look into it.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:38 PM

Why Donald J. Boudreaux, George Mason University, is a fool

Becky Akers ("writing a book about the Transportation Security Administration") and Donald J. Boudreaux ("chairman of the economics department at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.") offer the hilariously sad (literally) open borders screed "Why restrict immigration at all?/The Constitution and the laws of economics compel us to welcome all immigrants." (link)

While it would be possible to demolish every point they try to make, let's just take a look at the last section, which is called "Illegal immigration: a false concept":

Laws labeling some people legal and others illegal aren't just divisive, they're unconstitutional... Defending America's integrity doesn't mean more rules and stronger walls; it means seeing foreigners as free agents with all the dignity and autonomy we demand for ourselves... Quota-wielding bureaucrats should not define the country's demographic destiny. It's time to let the free choices of millions of individuals determine America's complexion.

Playing the race card is the least of their sins. The greater sin is that - like pacifistic tribes who end up being another tribe's lunch - they have absolutely no clue how the world works. If we followed their advice, stronger, more cohesive countries such as China would take advantage of their foolishness to send us people in order to obtain power inside the U.S. Their proposal would allow other countries to colonize parts of the U.S. and obtain effective co-dominion or worse. No one should take anything either says seriously.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:40 AM

welcometousa.gov: the U.S. commodified and reduced to a possible convention location

Emilio Gonzalez, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced welcometousa.gov:

The administration launched a new Web site to be a central clearinghouse of federal information that may be useful to immigrants. The site provides a range of information including a link to help immigrants find English classes and steers them to providing tips on building a resume and finding a job.

Administration officials also said they are going to try to use the site to enlist people to volunteer to assist immigrants and to enlist immigrants for volunteer work in their communities.

Also, the administration is hoping to provide libraries, adult educators and community groups with training and resources to teach civics and citizenship classes.

While the front page of the site says "[a]s a permanent resident, you have made the decision to call the United States your home", I would not be surprised to learn that some parts of the site don't assume that "permanent resident" is just a shortened version of "legal permanent resident", but includes any resident.

I also find the site disturbingly similar to generic Chamber of Commerce sites promoting people to relocate to Dubuque, Milwaukee, or Piscataway, or to convention sites such as choosechicago.com or lacclink.com, with George Bush as the president of the local Chamber of Commerce. Such commodification of the U.S. is probably not that jarring to a committed globalist like Our Leader.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:29 AM

Pollaganda: LAT says 63% support "path to citizenship"

Ah, pollaganda. Janet Hook screams "Large majority supports path to citizenship" about a new LAT/Bloomberg poll (link). Not only is that highly misleading, the Los Angeles Times is... wait for it... acting as a cheerleader for Bush:

Only 23% of adults surveyed opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to gain legal status. That finding bolsters the view, shared by President Bush, that the bill's opponents represent a vocal minority whereas most people are more welcoming toward illegal immigrants.

Now, let's take a look at the questions that were asked (PDF at first link):

Q50. One proposal would allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?

I don't know which proposal that refers to, but it's not the Bush/Senate plan. That would give virtually every illegal alien who'd been here since January probationary status and almost all of those would then go ahead to get on the "path to citizenship". The previous Senate bill had different plans for those who'd been here varying amounts of time, but not so with with current Senate bill. And, of course, "a number of years" is extremely vague; did they mean 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Whatever they meant, "a number of years" isn't the same as "before this January". And, they don't have to actually learn English, they only have to sign up. And, just because someone doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean that they haven't committed crimes such as identity theft. And, of course, "undocumented immigrants" is so much more of a comfy phrase than the legally accurate "illegal aliens".

Q51. One proposal is to create a "guest worker" program that would give a temporary visa to non-citizens who want to work legally in the United States. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?

As discussed here many times, those "guests" would be here permanently, either as permanent temporaries, or as former "guests" who would eventually be put on the "path to citizenship".

Bottom line: the Los Angeles Times is lying to you.

UPDATE: Heidi Przybyla of Bloomberg offers the falsely-titled "Most Americans Back Stalled Senate Immigration Bill, Poll Shows". It leads with a false statement:

Most Americans support central elements of the legislation overhauling U.S. immigration laws the Senate shelved last week after it failed to gain sufficient support from lawmakers.

That isn't just misleading, it's a lie for the reasons outlined above.

Posted to at 09:33 AM

Steven E. Landsburg is a complete idiot

Steven E. Landsburg (armchair *at* troi.cc.rochester.edu) is apparently an "economist" who writes the Everyday Economics column for Slate magazine. His latest is called "How much is an immigrant's life worth, exactly?" Read an excerpt and a partial discussion here, and the following is adapted from a comment I left at Slate's Fray:

---
Obviously, it's extremely sleazy for him to use loaded phrases such as "three-fifths of a full-fledged citizen" and his reference to hunting Mexicans. But, let's ignore all that and concentrate on how his economic analysis is at the grade school level.

Landsburg completely fails to note other issues involved in this matter, such as the fact that there are billions of people poorer than Mexicans. He fails to ask what their lives are worth, implicitly assuming that there are only two countries on Earth.

He also completely fails to note the other economic issues involved in this matter, such as Robert Rector's estimated net retirement cost of $2.6 trillion if the Senate bill passes. How much would you have to save on lettuce to pay your share of that?

And, he also completely fails to note non-economic factors, such as massive immigration from Mexico leading to increased political power not only for far-left racial demagogues (e.g., Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo, Tony Villar), but also increased political power inside the U.S. for the Mexican government. In fact, many non-profit orgs in the U.S. have direct or indirect links to the Mexican government, including well-known orgs like the ACLU and the SPLC. Doesn't such a spectrum from useful idiots to Fifth Columnists have a price?

What of increased political corruption? Massive illegal immigration is a strong indicator of political corruption, yet Landsburg left that out of his "analysis".

Like the title says: Steven E. Landsburg is a complete idiot.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:03 PM

David Brooks: only uneducated nativists oppose massive immigration

David Brooks shows that he's a complete tool:

...What's shaping the immigration debate is something altogether deeper and more interesting. And if you want to understand what it is, start with education. Between 1960 and 1980, the share of Americans enrolled in higher education exploded. The U.S. became the first nation in history with a mass educated class. The members of this class differed from each other in a thousand ways, but they tended to share a cosmopolitan approach to the world. They celebrated cultural diversity and saw ethnocentrism as a sign of backwardness.

...Liberal members of the educated class celebrated the cultural individualism of the 1960s. Conservative members celebrated the economic individualism of the 1980s. But they all celebrated individualism. They all valued diversity and embraced a sense of national identity that rested on openness and global integration.

...And if you want to predict which side a person is likely to be on, look at his or her educational level. That'll be your best clue.

As the sociologist Manuel Castells generalized, "Elites are cosmopolitan, people are local." People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation.

...It's not the '60s versus the '80s. It's - to mimic Mark Lilla - between the people who have absorbed both the '60s and the '80s, and everyone else.

It's between open, individualistic cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists. It's between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they're destroying the best compromise they will get.

UPDATE: His column is one of those self-evidently wrong things, but, in addition to the many comments, I nonetheless feel the need to point out:
1. The reason I bolded the first "cosmopolitan" is because it's a bit of a loaded word. Did he know that?
2. At the first link, I compared him to Tokyo Rose, and I hereby renounce that comparison as unfair (to her that is, since she was eventually pardoned).
3. Brooks is lumping all forms of immigration into one whole, yet almost every American would not object to moderate levels of legal immigration from a wide range of countries as long as those immigrating were not a danger - in any way - to the rest of us.
4. Safely sheltered in Manhattan, Brooks' idea of "immigration" is probably something along the lines of having as wide variety of take-out as possible.
5. Brooks is coming out against assimilation and favoring a form of multiculturalism that even most Canadians would oppose. Even Europe is starting to realize the dangers of such multiculturalism.
6. Like most other sheltered pundits, Brooks fails to note things like the Mexican government and racial demagogues obtaining political power and the delitirious impacts of that power.
7. And, the bottom line: Brooks is writing junk like this for the educated fools who subscribe to Times Select; the bigger question is what they intend to do about it. What tactics will those in his target audience who support massive legal or illegal immigration use to educate we the great unwashed?

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:43 PM

WFMOJALI: New Haven's John DeStefano to file complaint over ICE raid

The fourth edition of WFMOJALI ("Working for Mexico, or just acts like it?") features New Haven, Connecticut mayor John DeStefano, who's affiliated with the former leader of an organization that's collaborating with the Mexican government. ICE recently conducted raids in that city, and now DeStefano says he'll file a complaint with the DHS (Department of Homeland Security):

He said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents failed to notify local authorities of the operation and lacked search warrants. "They pushed into homes without warrants," DeStefano said. "This was just very aggressive intervention." The city plans to forward witness statements to federal officials describing how parents were arrested in front of their children. Agents refused to identify themselves and told those in the houses to shut up, according to the statements... "I just can't see how you can't view them as frightening in terms of respecting the rights of people, whether they're documented or undocumented," DeStefano said. DeStefano... also said the operation raised concerns of racial profiling. Most of those arrested were Hispanic...

After other raids, both Deval Patrick and Tom Vilsack said they hadn't received proper notification; both claims were since debunked. No doubt that will be the same in this case:

Bruce Chadbourne, field office director for ICE, said officers had permission to enter the homes from those present and acted professionally. He said the agency did notify New Haven police weeks before the operation about executing warrants and denied engaging in racial profiling.

Others involved: Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman and state Rep. Rosa DeLauro want "clarification". And:

"You can't use an arrest warrant to go into a home to arrest whoever happens to be there," [Michael Wishnie, a Yale law professor who is representing most of those arrested] said. "They lacked consent and the lacked a search warrant. These home invasions were unlawful."

Previously:
"Smiley" Jeff Flake, WFMOJALI Luis Gutierrez promote their amnesty
WFMOJALI: Gil Cedillo wants driver's licenses for illegal aliens, again and againWFMOJALI: Kyrsten Sinema (Minutemen as "domestic terrorists")

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:25 PM

Newt Gingrich: Bush administration is blackmailing U.S. (won't enforce laws unless gets amnesty)

Welcome Newt Gingrich to the Clue Crew:

The Attempt to Blackmail the American People by Threatening to Refuse to Enforce the Law Without a New Bill Is Disgraceful: A number of powerful figures in the Bush Administration and in the Senate have been saying that if we do not agree to pass this destructive bill, they will never enforce the law. Tell your senator that this is an extraordinary effort to blackmail the American people by having officials state that they will fail to perform their sworn duty, and we won't stand for it.

My first relevant mention of the word "blackmail" was in regards to statements from Michael Chertoff in December 2005. A few days later, Pat Buchanan refered to a Bush speech using the word "extortion". I refered to Mike Johanns blackmailing the U.S. in July of last year. In November I posted again about Chertoff refusing to do his job, and again last month.

It's good to see Newt coming around and calling the current situation what it is, and hopefully others will now realize just how bad the Bush administration has been.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:42 PM

Chambliss, Isakson want "emergency supplemental" for border security (and their jobs and amnesty too)

In a desperate bid to save their jobs and their hopes for the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty, Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have sent a letter [1] to president Bush urging him to:

send an emergency supplemental spending bill to Congress to fund border security. Chambliss and Isakson believe emergency supplemental funds to secure the border will go a long way towards restoring the confidence of the American people in the federal government’s commitment to border security.

This is apparently because of the heat they've been receiving; their admission is duly noted:

As we travel around Georgia and continue to hear from our constituents, the message from a majority of Georgians is that they have no trust that the United States Government will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and secure the border first. This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986 and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws.

Their thinking is clear: a years-late dollop of border security - done in a bright, flashy manner - will make the amnesty go down. But, somehow I don't think they want to try this for a few years and then get back to us, so I suggest keeping up the phone calls and get out there and discredit some politicians.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:32 PM

Democratic - but not GOP - candidates to appear at Mexico-linked NALEO gathering

The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials has at least one link to the Mexican government: they nominate persons for Mexico's highest award to those outside Mexico, the Ohtli award. That's certainly not as objectionable a link as other groups have, but it's a link nonetheless.

At the end of the month they'll be holding a shindig in Miami and all the Democratic candidates have announced they'll be there. However, all of the Republican candidates can't make it for some reason. That's despite other supposed Republicans who'll be there: U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio.

Details in this report from Beth Reinhard; note the ethnically-oriented sales job:

All of the Republican presidential contenders have turned down an invitation to speak in Orlando to the nation's largest gathering of Hispanic elected officials, at a time when their constituents are poised to be a powerful force in the 2008 election.

...About 1,000 Hispanic leaders, representing the fastest-growing part of the electorate, are expected at the conference. Hispanic voters could be particularly influential this year because of their strong presence in big states that have scheduled early presidential primaries, including Florida and California.

..."The Republican presidential candidates turning their back on this event is kind of shameful,'' said [Republican state Rep. Juan Zapata of Miami], who represents a heavily Republican Cuban-American district. "Politically, it could have been huge for us. I want to know why they're not coming."

Maybe they read somewhere that NALEO has a link to the Mexican government or something? At least, that's what I'd hope.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:04 AM

NYT: Toothless yokels against Senate immigration grand compromise!

Previously I discussed how Julia Preston of the New York Times had gone to Michigan and discovered that the Senate's immigration bill isn't playing too well in the heartland, with the heartland striking back. However, I missed the photo to the right; it appears on the second page of the NYT's online report.

I don't want to call him a toothless yokel, but his facial expression makes him look a bit like a yokel, and he obviously is missing a few teeth. John and Ken are suggesting mailing in photos of yourself (assuming they're better as I'm no doubt sure).

As indicated at the first link, the NYT featured someone who supports mass deportations; combined with the photo, I think what they're getting at is clear. Note also that in the same article Preston uses some rather forceful words ("assault", "relentless", etc.) to describe the opposition; see another example here.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:09 PM

Arnold is back: KFI's John & Ken supporting Rudy Giuliani

Apparently KFI AM 640 Los Angeles hosts John & Ken - frequent opponents of illegal immigration - want Rudy Giuliani to be president. Or, at least John Kobylt does. He seems to think that the amnesty that Rudy supports isn't amnesty. He is, of course, wrong.

This is oddly similar to a previous situation: John & Ken were one of the major forces behind the Gray Davis recall and have supported Arnold Schwarzenegger. Unfortunately, we see how well that worked out, with Arnie since revealing himself to be little more than a Democrat when it comes to matters like illegal immigration. They've since wised up to a certain extent on the Arnie front.

Of course, Rudy would almost certainly be an even worse president than the Governator, combining support for illegal immigraiton with strict authoritarianism. And, if you think Bush has unjustly milked 9/11 and terrorism for every political advantage he can get, just wait.

If you'd like to help them see the light, send an email to johnandken *at* johnandkenshow.com

Posted to Politics at 04:02 PM

Janet Napolitano: no to "silent amnesty", yes to immigration "reform"

Arizona governor Janet Napolitano offers the guest editorial "The Myth of Amnesty/The Senate Immigration Bill vs. a Disastrous Status Quo". She has a "plea" to Congress:

You can't quit now. Last week the Senate was on the verge of addressing our broken immigration system. No, the compromise bill wasn't perfect. But our current system is a disaster. I implore lawmakers to go back to the table, iron out their differences and give us an immigration system that is enforceable, and the resources to enforce it...

Echoing the Wall Street Journal editorial board, she says that opponents 'merely yelled "amnesty" in place of reasoned opposition. They were -- and are -- just plain wrong.'. While the first part is certainly true of some, it's certainly not true of most. And, it's also false that the Senate bill isn't amnesty. Illegal aliens will be given immediate legal status, and the government will only have 24 (or 48?) hours to disapprove their applications. And, both that and the bill in general will be perceived as a massive amnesty by millions around the world. So, it pretty clearly is amnesty.

Then, she says: "No one favors illegal immigration." That's also obviously wrong. Many businesses prefer illegal aliens. And, many people - including Janet Napolitano herself - take steps to ensure that illegal immigration continues unabated. And, there are others who don't really favor illegal immigration per se, they just support massive immigration of any kind, including from specific countries such as Mexico.

She also accuses opponents of supporting a "silent amnesty", a phrase she uses no less than four times.

But, wait, there are more questionable statements:

Don't label me soft on illegal immigration. As a U.S. attorney (predating the Gonzales Justice Department), I supervised the prosecution of more than 6,000 immigration felonies. I govern a state where, in 2005, there were 550,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants. I declared a state of emergency at our border that year, and I was the first governor in the nation to call for assistance from the National Guard. I have also established task forces on vehicle theft and the manufacture of fraudulent identification to complement federal law enforcement efforts.

She's also taken steps to encourage illegal aliens to live in her state, so her record is mixed at best.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:05 PM

Sister Toldjah edits, deletes comments

Reaching very, very low into the barrel, one of the comments I left on a post [1] by "Sister Toldjah" was edited, and another was deleted. Almost all comments forms have a box where you enter your URL, and I entered this site's URL in that field; she edited the first message to delete that URL (there were no URLs in the comment body itself). Since I used the name "TLB" as I am wont to do, that URL helps people understand who's responsible for the comment. Note also that, like most other clueless bloggers, she has nofollow tags on those links so there's no real benefit to me from such a link. She also inserted her own comments in my comment; since it was clearly delineated, I'm not objecting to that.

The second comment I left under the name "LonewackoDotCom" and it didn't contain any links in the comment body, only that provided by her form. It was deleted entirely.

Both comments in the extended entry.

Previously in this long series of bloggers not being able to face the Lonewacko heat:

Washington Monthly desperate enough to edit comments without noting they were edited
Should you drop your links to Washington Monthly and Calpundit? (the answer is: yes)

[1] sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/06/08/
the-immigration-debate-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-and-suggestions/

FIRST COMMENT:
I stopped reading shortly after you falsely stated that Tancredo is "against legal immigration as well". He wants a timeout with very limited immigration, which is not the same as being opposed to immigration in toto.

I note also that George Bush pledged to work for immigration "reform" to both the Mexican people and the Mexican government, so if people have been saying bad things about you due to your support for him, perhaps they were right.

SECOND COMMENT:
That's odd: I left the first comment ("TLB"), and I included a link to my site in the "Website" field on the comments form. Now, the link is not there. I guess some people are afraid of providing access to the other side of the argument.

And, of course, we've had long periods in our history with little immigration, and I doubt whether the Founding Fathers ever envisioned that we'd absorb 14% of Mexico's workforce, so the reply doesn't square with the facts.

Posted to Bloggage at 12:10 PM

Citizen video: "McCain: Can't Explain Why We Didn't Build The Fence"

For a while now, I've been urging people to go to campaign appearances and ask candidates tough questions and then promote their answers. In the following citizen video (transcript), John McCain is asked why the border fence hasn't been built yet... and he doesn't have an answer. While I would prefer asking candidates questions about their past statements and actions in order to help reveal them to be liars, this is a good start:

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:55 AM

Open letter: no race preferences for naturalized former illegal aliens

From this:

Ward Connerly, Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, along with 25 national and local leaders in the movement to end race preferences, signed an open letter for publication in the Washington Times calling on Congress to exempt immigrants that might be naturalized by the immigration legislation currently before the United States Senate from receiving preferences based on race, sex, national origin, or color.

In addition to friendlies like Heather MacDonald and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, signatories include Grover Norquist and... Linda Chavez. Needless to say, this call won't go over too well among those who are counting on those former illegal aliens to help them add to their power base.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:42 AM

Latino, Irish Catholics in illegal immigration march (Archdiocese of San Francisco, Irish government)

It's not just the Mexican government that meddles in our internal politics in order to support illegal immigration. The Irish government partly funds a group called the "Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform" [1], and yesterday some of their affiliates organized a march in San Francisco featuring 300 Latino and Irish Catholics demanding immigration "reform" (the falsely-titled "Irish, Latino Catholics march for immigrant rights" by Jill Tucker, link).

The sponsors of the event: the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Catholic Charities CYO, the Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Irish Immigration Pastoral Center and the San Francisco Organizing Project. After the march a mass was held by Archbishop George Niederauer, and Rev. Brandon McBride spoke at the march.

The IIPC is linked to the ILIR; from sfiipc.org:

As many of you will know, we have also in 2006 become involved in the national campaign for comprehensive immigration reform for our undocumented Irish and indeed all undocumented immigrants to the US. Through our involvement with the US Catholic Conference of Bishops' Justice for Immigrants campaign and the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, we have been in a position to keep our community updated and educated on the progression of the legislation through government.

And, from a news release at the site of California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma:

Fr. Brendan McBride from the Irish Immigration Pastoral Center (IIPC) introduced State Assembly Member Fiona Ma, who cancelled a prior engagement in Sacramento to attend the ILIR event. After donning a "Legalize the Irish" shirt, Ma thanked everyone for their attendance and pledged her commitment to immigration reform.

She's proud of being a useful idiot for a group linked to a foreign government?

[1] The ILIR is run by Niall O'Dowd, publisher of the Irish Voice newspaper. They've enjoyed access to politicians that other groups only dream of; at their site there's a picture of them with John McCain (irishlobbyusa.org/people.php), and they've also met with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. And, here's a picture of Frisco mayor Gavin Newsom wearing one of their "Legalize the Irish" t-shirts. That link includes audio (cached) of ILIR vice chair Ciaran Staunton joking about working under a fake SSN:

Someone told you, you wouldn't get a job without a Social Security number. You made one up. You got your job.

Maybe we should take that recording to campaign appearances by Clinton or McCain and see whether they appreciate the joke by the group they've supported in the past.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:29 AM

Natalie Merchant/10,000 Maniacs video (Hey Jack Kerouac)

Showing once again that there's occasionally some good stuff on the 'tube, here's a video of Hey Jack Kerouac and Eat for Two by the 10,000 Maniacs from some time in the early 90s. It even includes a brief interview with the ever-stunning Natalie Merchant between the songs:

Posted to Celebrities at 04:20 PM

New York Times compares Senate bill opponents to George Wallace

I was previously considering tearing apart the New York Times editorial "A Failure of Leadership", then I decided that just watching them crash and burn from the sidelines was the better option.

However, it's now come to my attention (link) that they're comparing those who opposed the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill to George Wallace in this sentence:

The anti-immigrant hard-core - no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty forever - must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage.

That appears to be derived from a George Wallace speech which included "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Obviously, this is scurrilous even for the NYT, and it probably won't be too long before they offer an editorial vioting Godwin's Law.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:55 PM

Shailagh Murray/Jonathan Weisman/WaPo insert infomercial into immigration coverage

Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post offer "Talk of Resurrecting Immigration Bill Begins as Autopsy Goes On". I see that Mickey Kaus has also pointed to this paragraph:

Within policy circles, immigration reform is viewed as vital, addressing both the growing demand for workers and the social costs of an illegal underclass. The public also generally supports the idea. In last week's Washington Post-ABC News poll, a narrow majority of voters -- 52 percent -- said they supported allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, as long as they are penalized, while 44 percent opposed the idea.

Certainly, some policy experts - particularly those funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros, and the like - see "reform" (aka amnesty) as vital, but there are others who do not. Some of the latter are even suggesting simply enforcing the current laws! I guess Murray and Weisman need to either get out more, or stop misleading people. And, the idea that the "public also generally supports the idea" is based on misleading polls that fail to include all the downsides of the subject or offer false choices.

I also can't figure out whether he's being disingenuous or not (I suspect the former):

[Harry Reid] bristled when he was asked why he gave Dorgan a second chance. "This is a killer amendment? After five years, you'll take a look at how the program is working? I can't fathom why this is a bad amendment," he said.

And, showing surprising self-awareness as to what everyone else thinks of him and the Bush administration:

Chertoff rejected the suggestions that the administration had not hustled. "They are going to have to fumigate the room because we were basically living there. Anyone who says we weren't engaged is ignorant of the facts."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:05 PM

Julia Preston/NYT discovers: natives are restless over immigration bill

Julia Preston of the New York Times - last seen here promoting a misleading poll - goes to Michigan and comes back with "As Immigration Plan Folded, Grass Roots Roared". The main subject of the article is a housewife from the suburbs of Detroit. Speaking from her "neatly maintained home" she says:

For Mrs. Thibodeaux and others on her side, the immigration debate was a battle for the soul of the nation because it seemed to divert taxpayer-financed resources to cater to foreigners who had not come to this country by legal means.

Yeah, I guess there's that $2.5 trillion estimated net retirement cost, huh? But, perhaps in the NYT's universe that money would only "seem" to have to be spent.

"A lot of our American people in Detroit are hurting," Mrs. Thibodeaux said, noting that she has often done volunteer work in poor neighborhoods here. "It's just not right."

If she weren't a Republican and didn't oppose massive illegal immigration, the NYT would be portraying her as a saint instead of giving the impression that they feel like they're visiting another planet. And, it's curious that they focus on her; could it be because she's a supporter of mass deportations, and they're attempting to portray all opponents as supporters of such efforts? Something to ponder, as are the rather forceful adjectives Preston uses:

...The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless... supporters conceded that they were outmaneuvered by opponents who boiled down their complaints to that single hot-button word, repeated often and viscerally on talk radio programs and blogs... But many of these Republicans are enraged at their party leaders... they feel betrayed by Mr. Bush... Opposition to the Senate bill brought together many Americans in states where immigration was not traditionally a fervor-inspiring issue, but where illegal immigration has become more visible in recent years.

Other groups mentioned include Let Freedom Ring, Grassfire.org, and The John and Ken Show.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:47 PM

Amanda Marcotte: "Break something. Set something on fire."

I think I was the first to point out that John Edwards hiring Amanda Marcotte as his Head Blogger showed how clueless he was. As Exhibit #84214592A-39124, I present to you her new post [1] called "If Paris Hilton makes you mad...". It links to a music video by some nobody, and says:

Ignore the sexist origins of the word. "Cunts"=assholes.

Break something. Set something on fire. Tonight you can find a way to resist. That asshole with a Bush bumper sticker? It can be removed.

The first comment on the post is today at 1:22am, leading me to suspect that this was posted very early this morning... Perhaps I could write a Wordpress plugin that would prevent such "early morning blogging".

Once again I ask: what was John Edwards thinking when someone there surely must have known that she posts things like this. Should he undergo an MRI to make sure his hair hasn't grown into and taken over his brain?

[1] http://pandagon.net/2007/06/09/if-paris-hilton-makes-you-mad/

UPDATE: It was all just a dream! She's added this update at the top of the post:

To all the people linking to this post, if you gave half as much a shit about the lives of our troops as about the fate of a hypothetical bumper sticker in a very silly joke, then this war would already be over. How hard your life must be if the very idea of finding that someone has vandalized a bumper sticker that proclaims your asshole status would make you freak out. Having imagined a bumper sticker removal, perhaps you can imagine rebuying the “I’m An Asshole” bumper sticker.

Posted to Bloggage at 12:23 PM

AVWatch: Antonio Villaraigosa, wife separate

This is usually the type of stuff we don't cover, but, from earlier this year:

Apparently responding to blogger Luke Ford’s allegation that the Villaraigosas had split up, the mayor told the Times last night that the entire family — himself, Corina and the two teenage children — is living at Getty House. "Absolutely not true," Villaraigosa said of the gossip. "We are not separated."

He also said he hadn't been wearing his wedding ring... because he'd lost weight.

Now:

After several months of intense speculation amount his marital status, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa announced Friday that he and his wife, Corina, are separating after more than 20 years of marriage.

While some - including some very socially conservative Hispanics - will be upset about the divorce itself, the more relevant issue for our purposes is that, once again, Villaraigosa is shown to be a dissembler.

UPDATE: Someone here asks:

Will he go back to his maiden name?

(For those who haven't been following the life and times of one of the former leaders of the racial separatist group MEChA, he was originally called "Tony Villar".)

Posted to Los_Angeles at 04:56 PM

Illegal aliens disappointed over Senate bill; boycott threatened; Tara Burghart

Always willing to do their part to support illegal immigration, the AP offers "Immigrants Disappointed Over Defeat" by Tara Burghart. That appears to be the AP-supplied headline and, of course, "Illegal Aliens" would be the more accurate subject group. It quotes two disappointed illegal aliens, then this:

Jorge Mujica, a spokesman for Chicago's March 10th movement, said one possibility is a boycott by illegal immigrants and their supporters against certain companies — perhaps national restaurants — to demonstrate the community's economic might.

"It's not that we want to radicalize the movement," he said. "But we have marched and lobbied and made phone calls and written letters, and nothing has come out of those strategies."

What the reporter forgot to add is that Mujica is an official with Mexico's PRD party. In other words, a representative of a foreign political party is agitating their citizens inside our country and even threatening an economic impact unless we change our laws to suit the citizens of that country.

The article also includes a quote from Tom Nassif of the Western Growers Association saying that growers will be forced to cut back plantings. Oh well.

Please write feedback@ap.org with your thoughts.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:30 PM

Kennedy, Graham, Reid, Kyl, Bush to try to revive Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill

Like Jason or Michael Myers, the "Grand Bargainers" behind the Senate's illegal alien amnesty bill are promising to bring it back within a few days or a few weeks. If you want to prevent this from happening, it's within your power to do so. All we need is one well-known amnesty supporter to be roundly discredited and that will send a loud and clear message to the rest.

[Sen. Edward Kennedy says] "We are not giving up. We are not giving in."

..."When it is recognized by the American people that the Senate has not acted (on immigration), I believe there is going to be a wave of support for what we have been trying to do," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who also is on the negotiating team.

...But Republican Sens. Specter, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and Mel Martinez were all upbeat after a vote to end debate failed 45-50, failing to reach the 60-vote threshold to move toward final passage.

...Graham said he talked extensively with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and is confident the bill will return...

..."There are ways we can do this," Reid said later. "There can be an agreement on the number of amendments. Hopefully we can do that in the next several weeks. We're very close."

Kyl, the chief Republican negotiator, told reporters on Friday that he believed a list of about 10 amendments would satisfy the concerns primarily on his side of the aisle, and that those could be considered in no more than three days on the Senate floor...

More here, including sports analogies and this Kyl quote:

"Both sides can point fingers as to who was to blame for not allowing enough amendments to get up... I don't think we should engage in that blame game. I'll take the responsibility myself. I didn't do a good enough job of either working with the Democratic leader or my Republican colleagues to get everybody together and get it done. But that is the weakest of excuses given the historical significance of what we're talking about. If all we're talking about is 12 or 13 amendments and a couple of days of work in the Senate, think about it. Who would allow that opportunity to be wasted, to dissipate, to wash away?"

White House adviser Dan Bartlett says Bush wants the bill to come back too.

UPDATE: Sen. Ken Salazar says it might come back next month, that if it doesn't it might be five more years, and:

"Failure on immigration reform is not an option...For this Congress and Washington not to deal with immigration reform is an abdication of responsibility."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:58 AM

Senate illegal immigration amnesty: cloture or defeat. And: what you can do.

[6/7 8pm UPDATE: The bill has ceased to exist... for now. The final try at cloture failed, but the bill might come back later in the year. Please read the original entry below if you'd like to help prevent future tries at amnesty.. Like Business Week predicting a bull market just before the stock market crash, the cover of Time's June 18, 2007 issue - apparently released today - intones "Why Amnesty Makes Sense".]

[6/7 3:30pm UPDATE: On the floor right now, Harry Reid is disclosing that last Saturday he met with Cardinal Roger Mahony, and the latter called him an hour ago...]

[6/7 Noon UPDATE: The bill failed the first couple cloture votes, and there might be one later this afternoon. Harry Reid says: "It's daylight hours in Europe. Maybe [White House chief of staff] Josh Bolten can make some calls... The headlines are going to be, 'The president fails again.' It's his bill.". I'm outsourcing CSPAN-watching to Michelle Malkin and The Corner; if you want to prevent this and future amnesties, please read and act on what's below.]

I haven't concentrated on the Senate bill for various reasons, not the least of which is that I don't think it's going anywhere. And, even if it makes it out of the Senate, it will sink even more under its own weight in the House, and will also put many Senators on record as having supported one of the worst, most anti-American bills in history. And, even if Bush ends up signing it, its disastrous impacts will be known immediately. At that point, there is to a great extent no going back. However, the newly legalized former illegal aliens will not have the vote immediately, and there will still be time to take action, and there will no doubt be such a groundswell of public opinion (among those eligible to vote) that something is bound to happen, and that won't be favorable to any of those who pushed or voted for the bill.

I'm also more concerned with the larger issue of preventing future amnesties and encouraging politicians to support our laws. I have already outlined what you can do to block this and future amnesties. While that's more difficult than making phone calls, it will also be much, much, much more effective. One of the keys to this issue is that politicians feel they can get away with things like this even if they have to weather the storm of hundreds of angry phone calls for a few days.

On the other hand, if trying to push bills like this has a measurable impact on their political careers, many will think twice. Business and racial power groups can only do so much harm if politicians are afraid to carry their water. Our goal should be to make supporting illegal immigration or amnesty radioactive, something that politicians would no more do than they would support other things which are widely considered radioactive. There will always be extremists who'll keep pushing the issue, but our goal should be to make supporting illegal immigration something limited to that group rather than something that's considered mainstream.

Unfortunately, my plan has not met with much support, but that doesn't mean I won't keep pushing it. If you want to help out, here's the plan.

In any case, here are some news items related to the bill:

It's apparently been dealt a significant blow, with an amendment from Sen. Byron Dorgan passing that would end the "guest" worker program after five years. See that link for other amendments that passed and that didn't.

Later today (Thursday) Harry Reid will apparently call for a cloture vote on the bill.

Racial demagogue Robert Menendez tells a constituent that it would cost "as much as $250 billion" to deport all illegal aliens; he appears to be using an overstated figure from the Center for American Progress' "study" which used an extremely suspect methodology.

Sens. Barack Obama and Lindsey Graham traded words on the Senate floor, with the latter complaining about an amendment from the former which would have favored chain vs skilled migration.

Twenty-six Arizona state legislators, together with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, have signed a letter urging Senator Jon Kyl to back off the bill.

Monkey Boy goes to Washington.

There's an apparent list of non-committal Senators here: robertbluey.com/blog/2007/06/06/amnesty-opponents-making-progress-in-senate

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:17 AM

Google: jabs at Lou Dobbs; testifies for more H-1B

A few days ago, Google's entertainment channel (?) at current.tv had an episode with a lightweight mocking (in both senses) of Lou Dobbs: current.tv/pods/google/GC03275 . This was contemporaneous with the David Leonhardt smear.

Today, Laszlo Bock, Google's "Vice President of People Operations" testified before Congress today expressing their wish for more H-1B visas, including a warm welcome from former immigration lawyer Rep. Zoe Lofgren. [1]

Related? Just part of the general Google "Zeitgeist"? Completely unrelated? Who knows, but even if there's no seepage of the business and editorial side of Google into the search side, it's always worth taking their search results with a grain of salt, especially since they (as well as Yahoo) tend to place Wikipedia entries near or at the top of search results for a wide variety of terms despite none of the entries at that site being trustworthy.

[1] googleblog.blogspot.com/2007/06/what-us-immigration-policies-mean-to.html

Posted to Miscellania at 07:04 PM

ICE raids New Haven (John DeStefano + Mexico)

Drudge is linking to the story about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arresting dozens of illegal aliens in New Haven, Connecticut earlier today. This is apparently part of their occasional sweeps of fugitives and criminal aliens. And, it comes not long after that city voted to create their own ID card which would be available to anyone, whether illegal aliens or here legally. Mayor John DeStefano and his aide Kica Matos [1] - the latter is the designer of the cards program - are, needless to say, up in arms.

Now, for the stories that won't be discussed.

First, last month DHS head Michael Chertoff promised to conduct raids which he strongly implied would be highly emotional affairs and would inflame the left. If you start hearing stories about how the raid tore families apart or see crying babies being waved about, blame him.

Second, those who support immigration "reform" - which is being sold based on its stricter enforcement - will come out against this instance of stricter enforcement and will show once again that they aren't really in support of "reform" so much as they're just opposed to enforcement.

Third, Kica Matos is the former head of a group called Junta for Progressive Action, and that group is collaborating with the Mexican government. She's married to DeStefano's campaign manager from his gubanatorial run, so the mayor is tightly affiliated with those willing to collaborate with a foreign government.

[1] newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/06/fed_sweep_fair.php

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:17 PM

Life during the Rudy Giuliani administration, a preview

The following video shows a "truther" reporter (Matt Lepacek) from Alex Jones' group trying to ask Rudy Giuliani pollster Ed Goeas some questions about 9/11. (h/t Dave Weigel) After much back and forth, the reporter is arrested and led away, and Goeas says, "would the real media like to ask some questions?" The "real media" is, of course, a euphemism for "the corrupt press that won't ask tough questions."

Obviously, it's pretty stupid to expect someone to walk over and watch a Google video; Lepacek should have been prepared with handouts. And, whether you agree with them or not, this wasn't a Mike Stark-style case, with pushing and shoving and with a sleazy question. And, he had a press pass. And, this is to a certain extent similar to the message control that the Bush administration has engaged in at their public appearances. It's also a preview of what life would be like if Rudy becomes president.

Posted to Politics at 10:01 AM

U.S. military, National Guard go North America wide; usable for wide range of domestic issues...

From this:

Under the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America, or SPP, the military of the United States and Canada are advancing NORTHCOM into a domestic military command structure, with authority extending to Mexico, even though Mexico has not formally joined with the current United States-Canadian NORTHCOM command structure.

Connecting a number of recent developments, President Bush appears to have positioned the U.S. military and the National Guard acting under presidential authority to intervene in a wide range of domestic incidents that could occur anywhere in North America...

...Section 1076 of the John Warner Defense Appropriation Act for Fiscal Year 2007 grants the president the right to commandeer federal troops or state National Guard to use them domestically. The language of that legislation allows the president to use federal troops or the National Guard in federal service in a wide range of emergencies, including natural disasters, epidemics or other public health emergencies, terrorist attacks, insurrections, or domestic violence, including conspiracies to commit domestic violence...

...On May 16, Gen. Victor E. Renuart, commander of NORAD and USNORTHCOM, told the press AS-NE 07 "allowed us to validate the incredible amount of planning that has gone on since Hurricane Katrina, not only to respond to things like a hurricane, but also to ensure that the agencies responsible for homeland security and homeland defense really can work together under a series of demanding scenarios."

Posted to NAU at 10:45 PM

Hillary co-chair Fabian Nunez gets $2 million to keep him in office

From this:

A California legislator who is national co chair of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign has secretly exceeded contribution limits by having special interests - with laws before him - donate hefty sums to a ballot measure that will keep him in office longer.

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a Democrat and well-known figure of the La Raza pro illegal immigration movement, has found a creative way to violate state laws that restrict political donations to $7,200 by instead having millions contributed to his top cause; a bill that will actually rewrite California's term-limit law to allow him to serve another six years in the legislature.

If the law doesn't pass, Nunez will be termed out of office in 2008 and if it does he will serve another six years. This is why deep-pocketed special interest groups—including corporations, unions, utilities and gambling enterprises--have bankrolled his coveted ballot measure by donating nearly $2 million to help it succeed...

Posted to California at 10:34 PM

Live coverage, GOP presidential debate, June 5, 2007

11: I'm going to go practice my track-standing. Back later...

10: Three minutes with Larry King commence now...

9: Hunter mentioned pardoning Ramos-Compean, and even bringing back the Reagan Democrats.

8: John McCain warns that having 12 million illegal aliens - 2 million of them being criminals - is dangerous. His solution is his bill, which would give them a wave-of-the-wand legalization, with the government having only 24 hours to deny an application.

7: Ron Paul is pointing out that massive illegal immigration is subsidized... alert Reason Magazine!

6: Hunter is - thankfully - objecting to a "reporters" premise that there are "jobs Americans won't do". Booyah: "The Bush Kennedy McCain bill".

5: McCain says that amnesty is a matter of national security. Of course, he fails to note - and Wolfie fails to discuss - that the Z-visas Romney mentioned would almost certainly allow terrorists to become legal.

4: Once again, Wolf Blitzer is showing how much of a puffball he is by failing to ask tough questions that would reveal flaws in the arguments of those who promote massive and/or illegal immigration

3: Rudy Giuliani is now promoting his national ID card which would start just for foreigners but would expand to everyone in the U.S. (In a followup comment, Giuliani shows once again that he's obsessed with "knowing who's in the country").

2: Wolf is already wasting our time. It's good to know candidates can't go off-topic, no matter how marshmallow Wolf's questioning will no doubt be... Did McCain's pacemaker just short out or something?

The Huckster - a strong supporter of illegal immigration - starts it out with a joke...

Champion of the Constitution! Does he have a uniform? I kid...

1: The "I'd rather be riding my bike" coverage will commence shortly...

Posted to Temporary at 03:28 PM

Letter: last 100 conservatives who support Senate amnesty bill must band together!

A group of about 30 conservatives have sent an open letter to the rest demanding that they band together and support the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl massive illegal alien amnesty bill. The letter itself is full of half-truths, such as their claim that "it will make sure that the law is enforced first, before any other provisions of the legislation take effect". Actually, the semi-legalization would occur immediately, and the government would only have 24 or 48 hours to turn down someone's application.

Here's a list of some of the signatories, with the rest in the extended entry:

* Jack Kemp, former New York congressman

* Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida

* Ken Mehlman, former chairman, Republican National Committee

* Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute

* Michael Gerson, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations

* Hector Barreto, chairman, The Latino Coalition

* Lawrence Kudlow, economics editor, National Review Online

* Linda Chavez, chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity

Two others are open/loose borders "economists", Gregory Mankiw, professor of economics, Harvard University; Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman, Economics Department, George Mason University. You can see an example of the latter's thinking abilities on display in this post. The first was a signatory to the similarly childlike Open Letter on Immigration. As previously discussed, some of the first picking up the recent David Leonhardt smear of Lou Dobbs were similar "economists", although not those two.

Another is Robert de Posada, president, The Latino Coalition. He also has a link to First Data/Western Union, a company that profits from illegal immigration.

James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy, Pepperdine University

Bill Paxon, former New York congressman

Ken Weinstein, CEO, Hudson Institute

Charlie Black, chairman, BKSH & Associates

Mike Murphy, Republican strategist

Francis Fukuyama, professor of political economy, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies

Max Boot, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations

Richard Gilder, partner, Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co., LLC

Jeff Bell, principal, Capital City Partners

Steven Wagner, former director, Human Trafficking Program, Department of Health and Human Services

Philip I. Levy, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute

Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies, American Enterprise Institute

Jerry Bowyer, chairman, Bowyer Media

Clint Bolick, senior fellow, Goldwater Institute

Gary Rosen, managing editor, Commentary

Joseph Bottum, editor, First Things

John McWhorter, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute

Larry Cirignano, Catholic activist

Pancho Kinney, former director of strategy, White House Office of Homeland Security

Posted to Immigration2007a at 01:47 PM

Arizona: 24% for Senate bill, 14% think it will work; McCain unfavorable at 51%

A couple days ago, Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post gave corrupt legislators a pep talk ("Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic").

Now, let's take off the rose-colored glasses and read about a new Rasmussen Reports poll:

Just 24% of Arizona voters favor passage of the bill while 50% are opposed. Nationally, figures released last week showed 26% in favor and 48% opposed... Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Arizona voters say that is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." However, just 14% believe the Senate bill will actually reduce illegal immigration... Forty-two percent (42%) believe that if the bill is passed, illegal immigration will actually increase. That is very similar to the national reaction... Just 22% of Arizona voters believe it is Very Important for "the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States." However, 60% would be willing to accept a compromise providing illegal aliens with a path to citizenship provided that it truly reduced levels of illegal immigration... Kyl is still viewed favorably by 55% of Arizona voters. That’s little changed from his ratings before the election. However, the number with a Very Favorable opinion has fallen ten points to 26%. Last October, 36% had a Very Favorable opinion of Kyl... The impact is even more noticeable on McCain who is now viewed favorably by just 47% of Arizona voters. Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable of their state’s Presidential hopeful. Just 15% now have a Very Favorable opinion of McCain while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:09 PM

CBO: Senate amnesty would only reduce flow of illegal aliens by 25% a year

This joke would be funnier if it were on some other country:

The Senate's immigration bill will cut annual illegal immigration by just 25 percent, and the bill's new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal aliens within a decade, Congress' accounting arm said yesterday.

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its official cost estimate that many guest workers will overstay their time in the plan, with the number totaling a half-million in 2017 and reaching 1 million a decade later...

...In a blow to President Bush's timetable, the CBO said the security "triggers" that must be met before the guest-worker program can begin won't be met until 2010. Mr. Bush had hoped to have those triggers -- setting up a verification system, deploying 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents and constructing hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers -- completed about the time he leaves office in January 2009...

UPDATE: The CBO analysis doesn't include several costs, as detailed here.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:51 AM

Epistle to The Nation, in re: Eric Alterman arrest

I have sent the following "bletter" to The Nation in regards to their article "Alterman's Arrest" about the momentary arrest of the famous Nation columnist who is also a paid Media Matters hack. Perhaps it will be printed:

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's thinking this must have been a coordinated attack. What better way to draw attention away from the devastating points the Democratic contenders were making... other than to hijack the conversation by having a well-known and highly-respected journalist arrested! My beliefs are further strengthened by this appearing on the Drudge Report which, as everyone who's "in the know" knows, is controlled by the RNC Central Committee.

No, this was no random arrest. This was planned well beforehand, with the very strong possibility that Mr. Alterman was corralled into that room with the free drinks, perhaps through a series of room dividers and the like being placed surreptitiously in his way in order to force him to arrive where he did. Then, there's the matter of the "policeman". I put that in quote because I imagine he was something else entirely. Yes, quite something else.

Fly low, Brother Eric, avoid the radar, and keep on keepin' on!

Posted to WackyHumor at 09:42 PM

Will Howard Kurtz be my friend?

Howard Kurtz of the WaPo has joined Facebook. Will he be my friend?

On my undisclosed Myspace page, I'm friends with Phil Angelides (remember him?), RawStory, and Hillary Clinton, so hopefully Howie will want to be my friend as well.

Posted to WackyHumor at 12:10 PM

John McCain: no amnesty for illegal aliens could lead to France-style riots

Senator John McCain snowed them in Le Mars, Iowa on Saturday:

...The man wasn't satisfied with McCain's answer. He asked McCain why the U.S. couldn't execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries.

The question seemed to pique McCain.

"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France," McCain said. "They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America."

On the one hand, one might think he's saying that mass deportations would lead to mass rioting. Then again, he's refering to being "relegated to ghettos", which is similar to the talking point of "illegal aliens in the shadows". So, I don't think he's saying we'd only have rioting if we tried mass deportations, but that we could have that if we have large numbers of people living in "ghettos" of some kind.

Obviously, when you have to make such calculations as McCain is, you're admitting that your country has been invaded and settled. It's good to see McCain come right out and admit that, but it'd be even better if we started to hold those who are responsible for the current situation, including McCain. And, it's imperative that we avoid making the situation even worse, which the Bush/Kennedy/McCain bill would do.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:55 PM

Worse for democracy: Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer? (Democratic debate)

I thought the performance of Chris Matthews in the GOP debate was horrific, but Wolf Blitzer is trying to in effect outdo him by asking a series of puffball questions and then just letting the candidates blather on. This is extremely unhealthy for our political system; instead of letting them give speeches, Blitzer should be calling the candidates on their past statements and actions, and asking them tough follow-up questions designed to reveal the flaws in their arguments.

More later when a transcript is available...

UPDATE: It's good to see Arianna Huffington showing a little skin, but couldn't CNN find people who are a bit less mainstream, establishment (in the Dem universe that is)?

UPDATE 2: Free Eric Alterman! Free Eric Alterman! No Justice, No VanDen Heuvel! The Nation columnist - and paid Media Matters shill - was arrested at the debate. He tell his side of the story here.

UPDATE 3: The transcript (link) shows just how much of a lightweight Blitzer is. He asked Richardson a couple times why the Senate bill wasn't amnesty. Of course Richardson isn't going to call it amnesty. If Blitzer wanted to do a public service - instead of pushing his or someone else's agenda - he might have asked how it would be perceived by the millions and millions of prospective illegal aliens around the world. Or, he might have asked about the $2.5 trillion net retirement cost projected by Robert Rector. Instead, all he did was ask them puffball questions and then stand there while they gave their speeches; he might as well have simply asked them to read their websites to the audience.

Then, he asked about English as the official language, prompting some of the Dems to only support making it a national language. Obama calls him on "the kind of question that is designed precisely to divide us" and that serve as a "distract[ion]". Puffball Blitzer could have followed up with a discussion of language ghettos, far-left multiculturalism, and so forth but he did not. And, such questions are indeed a distraction in a way other than how Obama meant it: it helps hacks like Blitzer avoid discussing things like a $2.5 trillion net retirement cost or the political power the Mexican government has in the U.S. or how massive illegal immigration is indicative of massive political corruption or all the other things that a lightweight, establishment hack like Blitzer wants to avoid discussing.

Posted to Politics at 05:54 PM

Covert White House propaganda for Senate immigration amnesty bill?

The previously mentioned NYT article about the backlash against the Bush/Senate amnesty bill contains a very interesting paragraph which, naturally, the NYT didn't follow up on:

White House officials said [the backlash] had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.

One would think that if White House representatives had been engaging the blogosphere, I would have heard about it. I know that Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tony Snow, and I make a habit of never visiting RedState, but that's the only two possibilities I can think of. And, one would think that if they had outreached to "liberal" sites they would have posted about that; I doubt whether DailyKos has been allowing Karl Rove to post a diary there under his own name.

Note also that the White House has been "posting defenses", which might imply that they've been posting comments. Did they identify themselves as being with the Bush administration?

Or, did they (just as an example!) get a cheap-o dial-up account or use a proxy to disguise where their comments were coming from? That's certainly something worth looking into, especially if any laws were broken by doing so.

I note also the furious nature with which the David Leonhardt smear of Lou Dobbs spread around the internet (partial list of sites discussing it here). Call me paranoid, but to me it seemed a bit like a coordinated attack. I note also that according to technorati, the first major sites linking to it, in addition to mediabistro.com and the usual smear merchants like ThinkProgress and puffballs like andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com, were academics: poliblogger.com, brendan-nyhan.com, marginalrevolution.com, and economistsview.typepad.com, with the last three being open borders, "free" trade "economists". I note also that economist.com followed up with their own smear, as did the Columbia Journalism Review. There are also at least five dupe links to the same NYT article at digg.com, a fairly large number.

Obviously, this is all just speculation, but if the White House has been spreading propaganda on the federal government's dime, then perhaps someone should look into it. Especially if it's been covert.

UPDATE: Someone like Les Kinsolving should ask Tony Snow for a full list - including URLs - of the defenses they've posted. An enterprising citizen journalist could even file an FOIA request looking for a list of websites visited by White House staff filtered by blogs and forums and any information on dial-up accounts or proxies used.

UPDATE 2: Based on comments, we've got The Corner as another possibility and there are apparently White House posts at RedState (as if you could tell the difference). But, where are the liberal sites the NYT mentioned above?

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:55 PM

Rep. Ruben Hinojosa wants millions for the National Council of La Raza

U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) wants the feds to underwrite the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") to the tune of $5 million per year for 2008. In 2009, that would double, with the National Council of The Race receiving $10 million from the federal government thereafter. They already receive $5 million per year from the Feds, and Harry Reid might have been involved in that.

The NCLR is a considered-mainstream group that actually works to support illegal immigration and which has links to and funds extremists.

The bill ("Hope Fund Act of 2007", HR 1999) is co-sponsored by Rick Renzi, Barney Frank, and Silvestre Reyes, and it's also race-specific:

The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent amounts are made available pursuant to subsection (b), make a grant to the National Council of La Raza for the purpose of providing technical and financial assistance to local non-profit organizations to undertake community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low- and moderate-income households, particularly through organizations located in neighborhoods with substantial populations of income-disadvantaged households of Hispanic origin.

Needless to say, this will help consolidate La Raza's power, as well as those linked to them: the Democratic Party. It's also open-ended, allowing them to "conduct such other activities as may be determined by the Secretary and the National Council of La Raza."

Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:16 AM

Is the Bush administration insane? (will keep pushing immigration amnesty bill)

If a presidential administration keeps doing the same thing over and over but somehow expects a different result, are they sane or insane? Jim Rutenberg and Carl Hulse of the New York Times offers the somewhat unique* "Bush's Push on Immigration Tests His Base":

President Bush's advocacy of an immigration overhaul and his attacks on critics of the plan are provoking an unusually intense backlash from conservatives who form the bulwark of his remaining support, splintering his base and laying bare divisions within a party whose unity has been the envy of Democrats...

[...muliple examples of the backlash...]

...[Karl Rove] and Dan Bartlett, the White House counselor, said officials would continue trying to persuade critics...

Past "persuasion" has consisted of calling the GOP base "nativists" or worse, president Bush saying that those opposed to the Senate scheme "don't want to do what's right for America", and Bush and others simply repeating the same lies over and over (and over again). And, they no doubt intend to continue that effort, because I cannot see an administration that has repeatedly lied and misled suddenly offering a real argument for what they support.

* It's somewhat unique because there's no obvious gloating, and also because it discusses internet opinion, even quoting a poster at FreeRepublic by name.

UPDATE: See this completely speculative follow-up: Covert White House propaganda for Senate immigration amnesty bill?

Posted to Politics at 11:06 AM

Mahalo.com: Hawaiian for "propaganda"

mahalo.com is a new "search engine" from Jason Calacanis, formerly head of Weblogs, Inc. It's actually more like a cross between Wikipedia, dmoz.org, about.com, and Squidoo, or something like that. Rather than trying to answer all requests, they're only concentrating on the top 10,000 searches, and then providing pages that supposedly will provide a guide to that topic. Each page is written by a paid "guide". The effort has already been panned, to a good extent because it's not a good idea, and to a good extent due to hard feelings over comments Calacanis previously made about SEO.

Never fear: there are other ways to pan it as well, because it's already starting to mislead those few who visit the site.

The "Mahalo Top 7" at mahalo.com/Immigration_Debate (your about.com mahalo.com guide is "Bill", and he doesn't provide any other clues to his identity) consists of the Geraldo Rivera vs. Bill O'Reilly "debate" (which gets a thumbs up from the Guide), together with articles by NPR, the WaPo, Wikipedia, the BBC, the Christian Science Monitor, and... the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). While the CSM has had some good reports, they've also published some bad ones. The problems with Wikipedia have been presented here many times. And, the other sources are not exactly known for their honesty about this issue. And, as long as I had several minutes and was able to overcome his filibustering, I'm pretty sure I could do a much better job of debating Geraldo than O'Reilly did, especially since both of them are supporters of "reform" and they only differ on how bad they want it to be.

Most of the rest of the Guide's selections are just as bad, including a section falsely entitled "Immigration Opponents" and a link to Jim Gilchrist under the false title of "Anti-Immigration Activism". While it does link to a few opponents of illegal immigration, that's outweighed by the number of supporters and the text descriptions aren't accurate as indicated above.

There's also something strange about mahalo.com/Barack_Obama. Namely, there is not one single piece of negative information I could find. Your guide is Rupak Ginn of rupak.com. In addition to being a Harvard graduate, he's an... actor. Nothing wrong about that, but perhaps someone who's not an actor might be better suited to writing a fair portrait of the candidate.

Our next guide is Nicole Gustas, also a Harvard grad, and she offers mahalo.com/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton In contrast to the Obama article, it includes two negative links in the "Top 7". But, aside from a "Hillary Rodham Clinton Criticism and Controversy" section with three links (one being the "Vote Different" ad), most of the other links are positive.

Then, we turn to this: mahalo.com/Tom_Tancredo, written by Jonathan, a "graduate of UCLA's School of Theater, Film, and Television." (Maybe he could direct Rupak in something.) The page includes two links to tancredowatch.blogspot.com, including one in the "Top 7" section. It wouldn't be so bad if there was just one link, but what makes it worse is it includes a link to Tim Dickinson's highly misleading short article on Tancredo, which included at least one lie. It also includes a link to "Tancredo Speaks Before Pro-Secessionist League of the South" (irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2006/09/13/tancredo-league-of-south/), which is little more than a summary of a Southern Poverty Law Center smear and which in turn links to the SPLC. This smear has been debunked, yet the SPLC has not issued a correction. Mahalo - the trusted name in search - is linking to a debunked smear.

Note also that you can submit your own suggestions, but two I saw both had nofollow links on them.

Whether the site is intentionally pushing an agenda or that's just a natural function of those who they've selected as guides isn't clear, but the bottom line is that those few people who visit the site aren't receiving a balanced view of at least the topics discussed above.

Posted to Politics at 09:45 AM

Charles Krauthammer on biased NYT/CBS poll

One of the few remaining (previous?) Bush supporters offers "It Doesn't Take Einstein to See What's Wrong with This Bill". The bill is the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill, and he starts with a discussion of the VIP visas, followed by points covered here days ago:

...But the campaign for legalization does not stop at stupidity and farce. It adds mendacity as well — such as the front-page story in last Friday's New York Times claiming that "a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status."

Sounds unbelievable. And it is. A Rasmussen poll had shown that 72 percent of Americans thought border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration to be very important. Only 29 percent thought legalization to be very important. Indeed, when a different question in the Times poll — one that did not make the front page — asked respondents if they wanted to see illegal immigrants prosecuted and deported, 69 percent said yes.

I looked for the poll question that justified the pro-legalization claim. It was question 61. Just as I suspected, it was perfectly tendentious. It gave the respondent two options: (a) allow illegal immigrants to apply for legalization (itself a misleading characterization because the current bill grants instant legal status to all non-criminals), or (b) deport them.

Surprise. Sixty-two percent said (a). That’s like asking about abortion: Do you favor (a) legalization or (b) capital punishment for doctor and mother? There is of course a third alternative: what we’ve been living with for the last 20 years — a certain tolerance of illegal immigrants that allows 12 million to stay and work but denies them most of the privileges and government payouts reserved for legal citizens, and thus acts as at least a mild disincentive to even more massive illegal immigration...

Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:10 PM

Bush: Senate bill isn't "risky"; no more "name-calling and finger-pointing"!

From president Bush's comments today, this is the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit I spotted (a difficult choice):

I say -- I don't think this is risky, frankly. I don't view this as risk reward. I, frankly, view it as doing what you ought to do. See, people ought to be running for office to do what's right for the United States of America. That's what I believe people run for office for. And so I want you to know that you've got an administration that looks forward to working with people. I will do my best to make sure that this debate [see update 3] does not denigrate into name-calling and finger-pointing. And we'll spend energy and time and effort to help you advance a really important piece of legislation for the good of this country.

First, I don't think denigrate can be used intransitively. Second, it's good to know that we've got a "people administration". Third, Bush is a complete Quisling.

Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:14 PM

John Edwards: live, work here for five years and citizenship is a "right"

Youtube's political editor Steve Grove has been interviewing the presidential contenders, and I've left comments pointing out how lightweight the interviews are. However, they appear to at least be making baby steps towards asking slightly more difficult questions.

In the latest, they interview John Edwards and ask him a series of "is this a right or a privilege" questions. Near the end, he states that he doesn't think that those who've lived and worked in the U.S. for a year have a right to U.S. citizenship, but... he does think they have that right if they've lived and worked here for five years.

That indicates to me that he's either a loose borders loon, or he's unable to think on his feet (note the long pauses), or he's confused about what a "right" is.

Needless to say, his policy would result in millions and millions and millions more people coming here illegally, laying low for the five years, and becoming citizens. His position would result in unheard of levels of illegal immigration.

Please go to John Edwards' campaign appearances and ask him about that or his other statements, then publicize his response.

Posted to Politics at 12:56 PM

Friday Fun Link

Who knew Youtube would actually have a few things worth watching:

Posted to Miscellania at 12:55 PM

Non-"liberal" coverage of immigration, Iraq, terrorism, multiculturalism, Los Angeles, California, privacy, and occasionally celebrities and wacky humor...

Main

Atom feed · RSS 2.0 feed · RSS 0.91 feed · WML

Immigration 2008a · Immigration 2007b · Immigration 2007a · Immigration · Immigration (6/05 to 12/05) · Immigration (1/05 to 6/05) · Immigration (8/04 to 12/04) · Immigration (before 8/04) · Immigration & Terrorism · Immigration & Driver's Licenses · Immigration & Consuls · Immigration & Media Bias · Immigration & Europe · North American Union

Blogging Across America

MultiCulti Madness · General Politics · Privacy · Miscellaneous · The "Peace" Movement

Los Angeles · California · Outdoors and sports · Celebrities · Wackiness · Inside Blogging

Iraq · Beltway Sniper · Terrorism & Extremism · The Saudis · Warblogging · War On Drugs

• 2008: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10 
• 2007: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2006: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2005: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2004: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2003: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12 
• 2002: 9  10  11  12 

All Posts(links to each post by title)

• Senator Mel Martinez: revive illegal immigration amnesty in the House (recall petition!)
• Senator Lindsey Graham: there are no votes for enforcement-only
• Democrats next immigration move: pass AgJobs, anti-American DREAM Act
• NPR: "Mexican Migration Robs Towns of Youth, Future"
• Tavis Smiley/PBS Democratic debate has no immigration questions at all
• Howard Dean supports failed Senate bill, blames Bush
• "Brownback Scrubs Website of Earlier Immigration Vote"
• Sen. Chris Dodd: go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions
• Bush/Kennedy/Senate illegal immigration amnesty fails; what now?
• Jeff Zeleny/NYT: Conservative talk radio listeners menace Senate over immigration
• Brooks Jackson of FactCheck, fact checked (Newt Gingrich on Senate amnesty)
• Adam Nagourney spins his way into 30% of young adults sharing NYT loose immigration policies
• Senate immigration amnesty bill amendments ("clay pigeon")
• Senate votes for amnesty cloture: what you can do
• First Amendment in Los Angeles: illegal aliens, lefties keep Ted Hayes, Minutemen out of park
• Eddie Murphy sighting
• Sergio Bendixen: 83% of illegal aliens would comply with new, better-suiting laws
• Rep. Luis Gutierrez, cheap labor pimp (Pat Buchanan, Meet The Press)
• Teddy Kennedy sings... en Espanol! (for the Senate amnesty)
• 7 to 10 more votes against cloture on Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill needed

My trip to Alpine County What not to do, again (September 1-2, 2002)

Boston Market Cornbread Temperatures Please help contribute to this important study (August 28, 2002)

Did The Gap Put Celebrities at Risk? An Open Web Letter to The Gap (May 20, 2002)

Humphreys Peak Arizona's highest point (May 19, 2001)

Go Heavy, Go Slow, Get Lost Bay Area highpoints (December 14, 2000)

Hubris in New England The highpoints of RI, CT, and MA (October 8, 2000)

Let's go to Utah Zion, Bryce, and Grand Canyon (August 14, 2000)

Your host, climbing Monkey Face (5.14d)

Your host's arm (circled)

Your host's hopelessly outdated conditioning progress

BigMediaBlog.com : "Comments for sites that don't have comments."

BoreAmerica.com: monitoring Air America Radio

tolstoy.com : my business site

Drudge
The John and Ken Show (KFI-Los Angeles)
The Stein Report
Sam Zamarripa
RedState
Res Ipsa Loquitur
PCWatch
Natalie Merchant
Samizdata