« October 2007 | Main | December 2007 »

Hostages taken at Clinton campaign NH HQ; political impact

Someone with a supposed bomb strapped to his chest took hostages at Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters in New Hampshire earlier today. Indications are that he's released the hostages and that he's a local man who was known to have issues. Hopefully it will work out peacefully.

The political impact will include:

1. The mainstream media will spend days talking about this rather than talking about the issues. Certainly, they do so little of the latter that no one will notice it, but one can always hope. This event will make that even worse.

2. Certain Democratic agents will try to use this to play the victim-of-right-wingers card. For the gold standard, turn to DU where you can find things like:

I can't help but wonder if the guy might be someone who listens to right wing talk radio and has fixated on Senator Clinton.

Expect those who have actual links to the Democratic Party to make similar comments.

3. Security around the candidates will be tightened, meaning it will be even more difficult than ever for non-MSM "reporters" to ask them real questions. The candidates will use this as an excuse to avoid taking as many questions as they have in the past.

Posted to Politics at 12:39 PM

Immigration "parliament" held in Mexico, with Americans; may lobby in Washington DC

On November 16 and 17 a group of activists from Mexico and the U.S. met in Mexico City for the "First Parliament of Mexican Migrant Leaders Living In The U.S.A.". This doesn't appear to have been an official Mexican government event, but many of those attending were apparently Mexican political leaders, and some of the Americans attending serve on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad (IME, www.ime.gob.mx), an advisory council to Mexico's president.

A roundup with links to Spanish-language sources is here. The event was organized by MX congressman Jose Jacques, who earlier this year met with Congressional Democrats to jointly support "comprehensive immigration reform" (Nancy Pelosi was scheduled but had "scheduling difficulties"). Elvira Arellano spoke and appeared to - surprise - cheat. In this case it was on her hunger strike. While they made a lot of proposals, according to that the one most likely to stick is a "Permanent Parliament" which might meet next year in Washington DC.

And, from this we learn that two attendees were "Rosa Marta Zarate, program coordinator for the San Bernardino nonprofit Librería del Pueblo, and Daniel Morales, of the Riverside-based National Alliance for Human Rights". The latter group is run by Armando Navarro.

According to this, Emma Lozano was also there.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:48 AM

Instapundit highlights my comment!

This is truly a watershed mark in my blogging commentary career. Instapundit points to this Howard Kurtz entry and says (instapundit.com/archives2/012323.php):

Using Google for plane tickets is okay. But next time, try using them for . . . Googling. As a commenter at Kurtz's observes: "What should be noted about this issue is that CNN probably has a whole army of interns and low-level producers who could vet the possible questioners. They 'could spend hours Googling everybody', while the top level hacks concentrated on choosing the 'best' questions."

Well, hold on to your hats, everybody!

I am that "commenter"!

And, all those who then visit the Howie Kurtz link, provided that they remember what Insty just said, will perhaps match up my comment at the link with my name at the link ("LonewackoDotCom") and then, through the miracle of deductive reasoning, visit this site.

I would like to welcome that person, and I would like to thank Glenn "Insty" Reynolds for his shout-out.

It's been a long time, since the last "Instalanche" this site received was way back in August, 2003. That was shortly before, visiting Knoxville, I requested an audience. Insty complained of being busy, then didn't reply to my follow-up requests. That resulted in this. Since then, I occasionally sent him tips just to annoy him keep him apprised of my progress, but I stopped after no one still cared what he thinks.

Related:
Eugene Volokh referenced me once.

Posted to Bloggage at 10:04 PM

Hundreds smuggled over Canadian border (from South Korea, Pakistan, India and Central America)

From this via this:

A human smuggling operation based in Toronto and another in Montreal moved hundreds of immigrants into the U.S. [from Canada via somewhere between New York and Maine], with some paying $10,000 apiece, American prosecutors said Wednesday in announcing indictments against the groups...

[Thomas Anderson, U.S. attorney for Vermont] estimated the groups had brought hundreds of people into the U.S. from South Korea, Pakistan, India and Central America since 2004, though he did not have a specific figure. Some of those people paid as much as $10,000 for the smugglers' services, he said.

Officials said that some of the people brought into the United States had previous criminal records in this country, and that others were vulnerable to being preyed upon by the smugglers...

There's no indication of any terrorist link but one would imagine the smugglers weren't doing background checks on those they brought over.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 08:51 PM

CNN/Youtube Debate Debacle: 11/28/07 GOP version, Part 2

Part 1 is here.

At last night's debate, CNN gave Mike Huckabee so much time to demagogue college discounts for illegal aliens that they didn't give Mitt Romney enough time to make the essential point that what Huckabee supported would have deprived U.S. citizens of college discounts.

They also failed to do their research and realize that there's already an existing federal law (Title 8, Chapter 14, Sec. 1623) covering the wider issue: post-secondary benefits given to illegal aliens have to be made available to U.S. citizens. However, the DHS has apparently refused to enforce that law.

Huckabee may have also misled about the contents of the bill, although he could be refering to different versions. If CNN were a credible news outlet they would have asked him to clarify that matter.

UPDATE: Via this, there's a list of the different versions of HB 1525 (the Arkansas bill Huck supported) at this FTP page. From the first link:

Nothing about being in the school system since age 5, nothing about being drug-free, nothing about being an A+ student. Those are provisions of the existing Academic Challenge Scholarship Program [acs.adhe.edu], which HB 1525 would have given illegals access to.

Posted to Politics at 11:55 AM

CNN/Youtube Debate Debacle: 11/28/07 GOP version, Part 1

Analyzing all the ways that CNN and Youtube are trying to lead America astray with their bogus "debates" would take a tremendous amount of time. So, I'm just going to look at two of the ways (Part 2 is here).

The first is keyed to this video, the question asking the candidates to pledge to oppose any immigration bill containing amnesty.

CNN should not have selected that question because no one who supports amnesty calls it amnesty. They use euphemisms like "regularization", "legalization", "normalization", and so forth.

More on the word games supporters play here.

Posted to Politics at 11:51 AM

CNN Youtube GOP debate November 28, 2007

[UPDATE: Videos showing how CNN went wrong here and here.]

1. Huckster really showed how to demagogue, changing what appeared to be a question about giving illegal aliens college discounts into an answer generating pro-military applause. Romney made the important point that there's only so much money to go around... that is, before CNN had to move on to the next question.

2. Ron Paul just uttered North American Union on TV, answering a smear question about whether he supports conspiracy theories. His answer was fairly good given the time limits.

3. Some basic question about the national debt. It's like these people don't realize that candidates have websites where they've answered such questions.

...

4. How many and what type of guns do you own? This is a policy debate? Oh, wait, it isn't. It's CNN entertainment.

5. The issues with the question about torture should have been obvious even to CNN. People other than McCain have also been tortured, and they have divergent opinions. McCain is not the only authority on the subject.

PLANTS FOR HILLARY UPDATE: From this we learn that the Brigadier General who asked about gays in the military is a member of the "LGBT Americans For Hillary Steering Committee" (hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=2196 ; info). There's nothing about that on the page containing his question (youtube.com/watch?v=yIQTWX0bo7g), nor did he mention that in a pre-debate interview someone else did (youtube.com/watch?v=Md8Hm1LHVpI). On his Youtube profile, he lists his homepage as asknotfilm.com, which is producing a film about... don't ask don't tell. Just ordinary citizens asking questions, CNN-style.

"INVESTIGATE" "REPORTER" ANDERSON COOPER UPDATE: After the debate, he apparently said this, but only after Richard Bennett brought up the subject on the air:

"...Apparently there was a press release from some six months ago. Hillary Clinton office saying that [Kerr] had been named to some steering committee. We don't know if he's still on it. We're trying to find out that information. Certainly had we had that information we would have acknowledged that in using his question, if we had used it at all.

Posted to Politics at 05:33 PM

Lawyer Julie Pace sues Arizona over e-Verify, suggests filing late to crash system

Julie Pace and David Selden are lawyers with the Arizona firm Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, and they're representing a coalition of business groups fighting against a new Arizona law set to go in effect on January 1. The law would require employers to use the federal e-Verify system to verify the identities of new hires; if they knowingly hire illegal workers their business licenses could be suspended or revoked.

From this:

If the judge upholds the law, lawyers plan to tell employers to sign up en masse during the last two weeks of December, Pace said. The notices will be sent out by e-mail through chambers of commerce and trade associations, she said.

Even if the computer system doesn't crash, the government doesn't have enough manpower to answer all the questions that will be generated as employers try to navigate the system for the first time, she said.

"If you have 100,000 people signing up in December, how are they going to handle it?" Pace asked.

This provides a partial list of those being represented: Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation and the Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association.

This is similar to the fears some had that, under "comprehensive immigration reform", groups would encourage applicants to apply on a specific day of the week or the month in order to swamp the system and push through every application. And, her scheme is only slightly less repugnant than that of the H1-B lawyers featured on this infamous clip.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:20 PM

Non-citizens/illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections (Texas)

From this:

After the review of data from Tarrant and Dallas Counties [homes of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas], it appeared, at least on the surface, that some non-citizens were participating in U.S. elections.

Since 1976, 1,900 people have been removed from the voter rolls because of their citizenship status in Dallas County. Of those, 221 had voter histories.

Tarrant County election data from 2004 and 2005 shows 43 people have been removed from the voter rolls, but none had voter histories.

It goes on to present alternative explanations other than illegal aliens or legal visitors and immigrants voting, such as citizens not revealing their correct status in order to avoid jury duty. They also say that there's no check for citizenship status and the "only way to determine someone's citizenship is to see which box they checked on their voter registration card." State Representative Phil King tried to pass a bill requiring citizenship verification; Rep. Lon Burnam opposed it.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:13 PM

From "Vacation Resorts with Dick Van Pattten" to the "colonization" of the U.S. (Dennis Kucinich)

A running Dennis Kucinich artifact is "Campaign Updates" featuring a business-suited female anchor in a newsroom-style set (example here). Watching a couple of these in the past, my first thought was, "where's Kevin Trudeau? Will Dennis himself be showing up to try to sell us herbal supplements?"

Not only do they feature someone who doesn't look like she'd be a far-left supporter discussing things like an appearance by Elizabeth Kucinich at an event held by the International Indigenous Sacred Women's Council (and Red Nation) to commemorate the "colonization" of the U.S. and other far-left mainstays, but the host (Anne Marie Howard)... has hosted such infomercials as "Wealth Building with Donald Trump" and "Vacation Resorts with Dick Van Pattten" (link).

I'm not holding it against Howard, whether she believes in DK's ideas or whether she's just there for a pay check. But, what exactly was DK thinking? Is he trying to provide a bland veneer to his generally wacky ideas? Why not choose someone more of a stereotypical supporter? Like, for instance, Hal? (Yes, the obvious choice is at the beginning, but the others make for a better punch line.)

Posted to Politics at 11:31 AM

Michael Conlon/Reuters misleads about misleading Alexander Ortega/UC illegal alien healthcare "study"

Michael Conlon of Reuters offers "Illegal immigrants not U.S. health care burden: study". The study in question (from Alexander Ortega of the University of California's School of Public Health) was derived from thousands of phone calls in 2003 with Latino illegal aliens or their family members.

Thus we see the first issue with the study: not all of those may have been telling the truth. The second is that they may have been unaware of the costs of their care and related issues; if Ortega had gone the extra step and contacted those from whom the illegal aliens had sought their care that would probably be mentioned. The article only mentions "doctor visits" as the metric that was used. And, 2003 was four years ago.

The other issues should be clear to even a hack like Conlon:

Illegal Latino immigrants do not cause a drag on the U.S. health care system as some critics have contended and in fact get less care than Latinos in the country legally, researchers said on Monday.

1. That begs the question: how much care do "Latinos in the country legally" get? Since we're comparing, we need to know what's being compared. Oddly enough, Conlon doesn't mention that.

2. And, most obviously, illegal aliens aren't supposed to be here. If they weren't here, we wouldn't have to spend any healthcare dollars on them. Thus, Conlon can't say they aren't a drag; the most he could say (if he were an honest reporter) would be that according to the flawed study they're less of a drag than others.

In addition, articles like this promote illegal immigration as a worthy model: not only do illegal aliens have job-related upsides like working cheaper and with less safety restrictions, but they use less healthcare as well. Only serfs would be better.

And, the mainstream media refuses to look into the non-financial costs of illegal immigration, such as the costs of massive government corruption. By presenting flawed studies such as this, they give an inaccurate portrait of the issue.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:41 AM

Can we get the presidential candidates to attend policy debates?

The presidential debates so far have been a mockery of a sham, featuring shallow questions, few follow-ups, and even worse in the case of the last CNN debate.

The following video proposes a new type of debate. Each candidate - together with their policy advisors - would face off with a panel of policy experts from across the spectrum. Those experts would ask the candidate a series of detailed questions designed to reveal the flaws in their arguments. Each segment would feature only one candidate and one specific issue, such as immigration or national security.

It would be great if something like this could be arranged before the end of the year, and it doesn't have to be a major production. In fact, it could simply be uploaded to Youtube with a transcript provided. In that case, the only major limiting factors would be getting the candidates to agree and then scheduling those involved.

Please contact those who could produce something like this and urge them to get involved. That includes think tanks, C-SPAN, Youtube, and educational institutions. Or, go to campaign appearances and ask the question on the video.

Posted to Politics at 03:00 PM

Gustavo Torres/CASA de Maryland, SVREP, Ward Churchill at Venezuala "revolution in the U.S." conference

The Venezuela International Book Fair took place earlier this month, and it included a "five-day rolling panel discussion" called "United States: A possible revolution" [1]:

The 22 panelists, four or five of whom spoke each day, included political activists and writers from the United States expressing diverse political views, as well as a number of U.S. citizens living in Venezuela... The issues debated on the character of the working class and prospects for revolution in the United States sparked a political discussion that permeated the book fair...

...In addition to the forum panelists mentioned below, others included Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador to the United States; former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill; August Nimtz, a University of Minnesota political science professor; William Blum, an author who has written a number of books opposing U.S. foreign policy; ex-Maryknoll priest Charles Hardy; and Dada Maheshvarananda, yoga instructor and founder of the Prout Institute...

...Several panelists are active in work to expand rights for immigrants in the United States. These included Diogenes Abreu, a Dominican-born community organizer who currently lives in New York; Luis Rodriguez, a Chicano activist in California's San Fernando Valley; and Gustavo Torres, an organizer for the immigrant rights group Casa de Maryland...

Note: Casa of Maryland is a publicly-funded group.

Both Torres and Antonio Gonzalez, president of the Southwest Voter Education and Registration Project, said the road to "empowerment" is organizing Latinos to vote. "What does a revolutionary do in the U.S. today?" asked Gonzalez. "Take power wherever you can" by electing Latinos to city, state, and federal offices. His PowerPoint presentation highlighted the growing number of Latino voters.

The SVREP is frequently presented by the MSM as a mainstream group; now we know better.

Others on the panel or in the audience included:
* Lee Sustar from the Socialist Worker newspaper
* "ex-Marine and founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War Jimmy Massey"
* Hector Pesquera, "a leader of the Hostosiano Independence Movement of Puerto Rico"
* Amiri Baraka and Amina Baraka (the former read a poem and provides some choice quotes)

And, there was dessert after the panel ended: a "video interview with Noam Chomsky".

[1] themilitant.com/2007/7145/714503.html

UPDATE: The correct name of the group is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; it's reversed above.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:42 AM

Mike Huckabee: in-state tuition for "the children of illegal immigrants" (2005; actually for illegal aliens themselves)

An oft-repeated claim is that, as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee wanted to give scholarships to "the children of illegal immigrants". That claim has appeared in several news stories, and it's partly false:

1. The discounts were for students who were themselves illegal aliens. The immigration status of parents doesn't necessarily imply the status of their children; parents who are illegal aliens could have U.S. citizen children for instance.

2. Whether a potential college student who's 18 or older is a "child" is definitely an open question.

Whether the formulation is used as an attempt to hide what The Huckster supported or due to ignorance isn't clear. However, something like, "students who are illegal aliens" would be the more accurate description. (The bill was passed by the AR House, but failed in the Senate).

The earliest article available from the Google News archive with that formulation is "College aid for illegal immigrants bill passed by House" from Rob Moritz of the Arkansas News Bureau (link):

An emotional and teary-eyed Rep. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, buried her head in her hands Monday afternoon after the House approved a measure that would make the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas eligible for state college scholarships...

...House Bill 1525 [sponsored by Elliot], which is endorsed by Gov. Mike Huckabee, now goes to the Senate...

"House members showed courage by dismissing the shrill, misleading, often inaccurate criticisms of this bill," Huckabee said in a statement. "They voted to create true opportunity for all graduates of Arkansas schools. It's the kind of message that gives our state a very different image from the one in 1957 when we said 'no' to opportunity for children."

..."I remember ever so clearly what it felt like to have the big boot of the government on my back, and I was a mere child," [Elliot, speaking of segregation] said. "For these kids today, it is not a memory, it's a way of life. They are living with the boot of the government on their back, and it's not fair because they've done nothing wrong."

The preamble to the bill itself (PDF) does mention "children of undocumented immigrants". However, the body of it makes it clear it was intended to apply to illegal aliens themselves:

Any tuition rate that is granted to residents of Arkansas shall be granted on the same terms to all persons, regardless of immigration status, who have attended a secondary educational institution in Arkansas for at least three (3) years and who have either graduated from an Arkansas high school or received a general education diploma in the state.

They also had to file an affidavit stating that they had an "intent to legalize his or her immigration status". No penalties were indicated if they never followed through on their "intent".

Posted to Immigration2007b at 02:47 PM

Bush admin to submit new no-match rule... in March 2008

In October, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer blocked the Bush administration from enforcing a new "no-match" rule that they'd announced in August. Under "no-match", letters are sent to companies warning them that an employees' name doesn't match the Social Security number they provided. The letters have been sent out - and then ignored - for years, but the DHS was supposedly going to finally start targeting some firms for enforcement.

On Friday, the Bush administration announced that, while they still might appeal, their main course of action will be to try to come up a revised rule to meet the judge's objections, specifically relating to a survey of small businesses to determine the impact the rule would have (link). They'll try to have the survey done and issue the new rule by the end of March.

The restraining order was brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the San Francisco Labor Council, among others. And, expect those groups to continue enabling illegal immigration by suing over the revised rule:

"It's clear the government has given up defending an indefensible rule," said Lucas Guttentag, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, another group bringing the lawsuit. "But now they're hoping to rush through another half-baked rule without addressing the fundamental flaws. It's like putting lipstick on Frankenstein."

There's certainly the possibility that the Bush administration knows all this and wants the ACLU and those who profit from illegal activity to keep suing.

Related:
DHS, SDUT, Harry Reid on Charles Breyer no-match ruling (ACLU, CofC, AFL-CIO)

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:09 PM

When "kinda creepy" meets beautiful

It looks like this:

Posted to WackyHumor at 02:52 PM

NYT almost follows the money on Western Union (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ken Salazar)

Jason DeParle almost follows the money on Western Union, a company that makes almost a billion dollars per year off legal and illegal immigrants sending money home ("remittances"): link. While it's a much better job than, for instance, Jill Capuzzo of that paper would have done, he doesn't go as far as he could. However, he does uncover some interesting contributions they've made:

The company sponsored public forums to promote ["comprehensive immigration reform"] and donated $100,000 to a group unsuccessfully fighting Proposition 200 in Arizona, which requires proof of citizenship from people seeking to vote or collect certain public benefits.

As the debate moved to Washington, Western Union gave money to many groups supporting legalization plans. The United States Chamber of Commerce received "in the high six figures," a Chamber official said, while an Illinois group [perhaps the Mexico-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; see this] used some Western Union money to bring busloads of immigrants to Capitol Hill. When a bipartisan Senate bill emerged last spring, company officials flew to Washington to lobby directly, urging Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, to support the measure. He did, though it ultimately failed.

"Most companies are afraid to speak up," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which has received $40,000 from Western Union in the past three years. "When it got hot, they stayed with it."

And, more sleaze practically drips from the page:

Many of his customers are in the country illegally. [Michael Lee, 35, who owns an electronics store called World Top Communications in New York’s Chinatown], who was once an illegal immigrant, said his business fell by about 40 percent last spring after a series of nationwide immigration raids...

Salo Eduardo Levy, Western Union's Mexico director, echoed that theme at a September meeting of industry executives. "We have customers calling agents before they go: 'Is it safe? Is La Migra around?'"

A 2006 survey by the Inter-American Development Bank found that illegal immigrants made up 41 percent of the Latin Americans in the United States who used money transfer companies.

[...in 1999 they held promotions in front of a U.S. detention center for illegal aliens and held events in Central America for those deported from the U.S...]

...["former company official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity" says:] "We knew that within a week they would be back on their way to the U.S."

[WU VP Fred Niehaus says they won't do things like that anymore]

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:05 PM

Judy Woodruff/PBS lies about Romney, Giuliani ("anti-immigrant", Mark Shields, David Brooks)

On tonight's PBS News Hour, Judy Woodruff discussed political matters with Mark Shields and David Brooks [1]. And, she lied:

On the Republican side, you've got Romney and Giuliani trying to sort of out anti-immigrant one another.

Obviously, that's a false statement about both. Part of Romney's stock speech about this topic is to support legal immigration. And, Giuliani wants to "solve" illegal immigration by declaring a massive amnesty. Neither positions are in any way "anti-immigrant".

After that, David Brooks reiterated comments made in today's column (see the first link):

I think Rudy Giuliani is the most pro-immigration candidate probably running in the past 20 years, and now he's pretending to be something entirely different, to his discredit.

And, Mark Shield chimes in with this:

I would commend -- which I very rarely do, and I don't think I've ever done before -- commend David's column today in the New York Times on the subject of the Republicans, and particularly Giuliani on immigration.

Would it pain the NewsHour to have one person there who isn't a supporter of illegal activity in one way or another? Could they suggest that Judy Woodruff actually learns what she's trying to talk about and is able to use the correct words for things? If the two "debaters" and the host are all on the same side, is it a debate or something else?

Please contact both the NewsHour and the general PBS ombudsman with your thoughts:

pbs.org/newshour/letters.html
pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html

Related:
PBS NewsHour's Soviet-style immigration coverage
Anne Taylor Fleming not on immigration
PBS NewsHour: pro-illegal immigration, pro-amnesty bias
"Liberals" get "liberalism" fed back to them by the shovelful
PBS's Hypocrisy Revealed: PBS station opposes day-laborer center

[1] pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/sbcampaign_11-23.html

Posted to Immigration2007b at 06:56 PM

Why few take libertarianism seriously (11/23/07 4:24pm edition)

The 11/23/07 4:24pm (and 32 milliseconds) edition of our running feature "Why few take libertarianism seriously" features "Thanksgiving: The Producer's Holiday" from the Ayn Rand Institute (link). In case it disappears - as at least one article from that Institute has in the past - there's a cached copy here.

UPDATE: 11/23/07 4:24pm (and 73 milliseconds) edition of this feature is on display in the highly-similar "An Ayn Rand Thanksgiving - you've earned it!" And, it's even more libertarian than the other:

But, morally, we should reach for the sky. We should recognize that the corporate profits, electricity or pie was earned through our production - and savor its consumption. We should take pride in being rationally selfish - our lives and happiness depend on it.

Posted to WackyHumor at 04:20 PM

Youtube/CNN GOP debate: Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The second Youtube/CNN debate will be held on Wednesday, November 28, and I can tell already it's going to be as bad - if not worse - than the first one. They'll ask a series of lightweight questions, and throw in a few humorous entries designed to portray those on the internet of being wacky (in contrast to the "serious journalists" at CNN).

And, CNN isn't even hiding that their goal is to entertain rather than having a real discussion about important issues. See the debate previews at their "Funny, poignant questions pour in for GOP debate" article (link). In the four videos, at least two of them feature an Elvis impersonator and other wacky characters. And, almost all of the semi-serious videos they show would simply be answered with a stock speech.

One way to deal with this is to contact CNN's Political Director and suggest they have a real debate: sam.feist *at* cnn.com

Another is to help discredit CNN by pointing out their lies.

And, the questions submitted for the debate so far fall into three broad categories: a small number of worthy entries, a good number of joke entries by those seeking their 15 minutes, and a large number of entries from people who don't know how to ask questions that can't simply be answered by a somewhat related stock speech. In the second case, I suggest working to discredit them by asking them to seek their 15 minutes elsewhere. In the last case, I suggest pointing out to them that they might want to do some research first.

Posted to Politics at 04:05 PM

David Brooks pines for Rudy Giuliani's illegal immigration supporting days

David Brooks offers "The Real Rudy" (link), most of which consists of a series of now-infamous Rudy Giuliani pro-illegal immigration quotes. I half-expected him to try to explain them away, but I wasn't too surprised that he explicitly supports that side of Rudy, calling someone who supported illegal activity "moderate". And, he says that by currently at least making noises about opposing illegal immigration, both Rudy and Mitt Romney are "competing to drive away Hispanic votes". Brooks is too shallow and too much of a hack to admit that not all Hispanics support illegal activity, and that importing people who do support illegal activity out of racial solidarity reasons is not good public policy. On the other hand, those Republicans who support our immigration laws are refered to as "the narrowest slice of the old guard".

More in "David Brooks: What happened to the open-borders Rudy I used to know and love?":

...I bet if we adopt the entire Democratic platform we can make a real race of it before next year.

Perhaps Brooks is actually smarter than it might appear and he's highlighting these quotes as a way to hurt Rudy's chances. Although, I'd say the chances of him doing that are rather slim.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:30 PM

Secret Bush plan to deal with Bush/Rove "import Democrats" plan? (citizenship backlog)

Mark Kleiman - someone who is shockingly a UCLA professor - writes [1]:

The Bush Administration plans to steal hundreds of thousands of votes, most of them Democratic votes, in the 2008 elections by the simple expedient of sitting on new citizenship applications until after the elections.

He links to his site, which mostly just links to the WaPo article "Immigrant Paperwork Backs Up At DHS" (link). Neither of those back up his contention that most of those would be Democrats, but they do contain a few hints [2]. However, it's clear that the corollary to Kleiman's quote is that he's supporting immigration as a means of obtaining political power for his party. If this is an actual effort by the Bush administration, it's the opposite of what occurred in the Clinton administration, with citizenship applications rushed through in order to obtain votes (Doris Meissner was involved: link).

And, the Bush admin has sent mixed signals:

"I really want to target the elections," USCIS Director Emilio T. Gonzalez told the Associated Press in an interview published Tuesday. "I really want to get as many people out there to vote as possible." ...Aides, however, contradicted him. "We are going to process these cases as responsibly and as quickly as we can, but we're not focused on any of the election cycle," [Michael Aytes, associate director of USCIS] said. USCIS spokesman Bill Wright emphasized that political calculations played no role in agency decisions. "Any implication of that is ludicrous," he said.

Does the Bush admin think that if they push the applications through they'll get votes? If the Bush admin is delaying the process intentionally, isn't that an admission that massive immigration equals more Democratic voters and a repudiation of the Bush-Rove loose borders scheme? Does the Bush admin foolishly think that if only "reform" would have passed they'd get votes from grateful newly-naturalized citizens, but because "reform" didn't pass they would have to engage in this scheme? Why didn't George Bush and Karl Rove try to import large numbers of Republicans? The mind boggles.

[1] huffingtonpost.com/mark-kleiman/voter-fraud_b_73808.html
[2] Those condemning the backlog in the article include Crystal Williams, deputy director of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, former immigration lawyer and U.S. Representative Zoe Lofgren, a spokesman for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (a group linked to the Mexican government), and Eliseo Medina from the SEIU. The article also trots out stock verbage about the Hispanic vote.

Posted to Politics at 08:13 PM

10Questions.com is a horrible idea, here's *more* proof

10 Questions.com lets people vote on their favorite questions for the political candidates, which their MSM partners (NYT and MSNBC) will presumably try to get the candidates to answer (two have already come in: youtube.com/profile?user=10ques).

My issue with the site is that it allows those who can drive traffic to the site to propel weak questions to the top; this allows partisan hacks to avoid having difficult questions asked. I'm having a great deal of trouble seeing it as something other than a deliberate plan by some involved to avoid a real debate, i.e., a debate that would reveal the huge gaps in the policies of the various candidates as well as just how weak the questions the MSM asks are.

In October, MoveOn.org was able to get a weak question about net neutrality asked of Obama at a debate. He had already spoken out in favor of that, and when asked he spoke out in favor of it again. (Unfortunately, he didn't make the parallels to Soviet debates exact by trying to answer in Russian).

The latest example of a weak question being propelled to the top of 10Questions occured a few days ago. Patrick Ruffini asked an incredibly vague question about reducing the size of the government (youtube.com/watch?v=ko5BxgPKR5Q). By contacting various sites, and using Facebook, Digg, etc. he was able to send them at least 2600 unique visitors, who then got his question into the top 10 [1].

I'm sure there will be many more examples to come.

[1] personaldemocracy.com/blog/entry/1667/
10questions_update_did_ruffini_snipe_a_top_spot

Posted to Politics at 02:33 PM

When will the MSM pull the ball away from Mike Huckabee?

The mainstream media has been working feverishly to promote Mike Huckabee, as have various low-level Democrats. Are those completely unrelated, or is the MSM taking their marching orders from the Democratic Party? And, is The Huckster being promoted because:

1. They're simply reporting on what's happening...
2. They just need something to write about...
3. They're trying to give "them" an acceptable candidate...
4. They support him due to, for instance, his support for illegal immigration...
5. They're trying to hype him now and make him the nominee (or VP candidate), only to pull the ball away at the last moment and dash the GOP's hopes...

I'm sure there are other options as well. As for how Huck's downfall would come about, they could cover:

1. Huckabee is extremely weak on immigration matters. Oddly enough, while the MSM might mention this in passing, they haven't looked into it. Whether that's due to their support for illegal immigration or because they're holding this for later isn't known.
2. His support for nanny-state measures, due to his weight loss.
3. His strong religious conservatism. That might attract support from millions of people, but most Americans probably aren't quite that conservative.
4. His various scandals. While he has glib answers when they're brought up, I can practically see the last-minute headlines from sources like the Los Angeles Times digging up dirt.

Let me suggest getting the truth about Huck out there by, for instance, going to his campaign appearances, asking him this question, and then uploading his response.

Posted to Politics at 10:58 AM

Chase, Citibank, Laredo National Bank get desk inside Mexican consulate in San Antonio

From this:

The Consulate General of Mexico signed an agreement Monday with three U.S. banks that could make Mexican nationals more comfortable with the banking industry.

Chase, Citibank and Laredo National Bank will take turns each day manning a desk in the Mexican Consulate on Navarro Street [in San Antonio]. They will answer questions for Mexican nationals about financial services and products with the hope of eventually turning them into customers at area branches.

"In other areas of the U.S. — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago — we have had a presence in consulates for years," said Inigo Arzac, assistant vice president and relationship manager for Citibank San Antonio...

Not all of those who'll become new customers for those banks are here illegally. However, the dodge the banks will use will be that they can't check someone's immigration status, even while they realize that those who use Matricula Consular cards (available from the friendly consulate) are most likely illegal aliens. Those banks will then donate a portion of their profits to politicians, who will then ensure that the banks continue to profit from indirect illegal activity.

Related:
Bank of "America" signs up customers at Dallas Mexican consulate

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:11 AM

Rudy Giuliani misleads about "NAFTA Superhighway" (Captain Ed, amnesty)

Rudy Giuliani held a conference call earlier today, and "Captain Ed" says (captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016063.php):

Iowa wants to know about the NAFTA superhighway coming through the state -- Giuliani will not support any kind of NAFTA superhighway, anywhere.

What a relief! Of course, as detailed at the last link, Juliani's law firm (Bracewell & Giuliani) is involved with the Trans Texas Corridor, what many suspect to be the first leg of the "Superhighway". Guiliani is playing word games: he doesn't support something called the "NAFTA Superhighway", he's just profiting from something that looks an awful like the first leg of it. (Whether Captain Ed is just clueless or is retailing a lie is, of course, a perennial question; it could be a bit of both.)

And, while Rudy's support for amnesty is already known, it's good that Rep. Pete King reminded everyone:

No legalization without closing the border -- but that doesn't keep legalization off the table.

Posted to Politics at 12:21 PM

"Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (Jane Harman, Hillary Clinton)

The House recently passed Jane Harman's "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act" (HR 1955, link), and it's currently in the Senate. I scanned it after seeing some anti-HR1955 videos (example link), but I didn't see any bright red flags. Now comes the guest editorial "Here come the thought police" (link):

...Not since the "Patriot Act" of 2001 has any bill so threatened our constitutionally guaranteed rights.

...[Harman's] bill tramples constitutional rights by creating a commission with sweeping investigative power and a mandate to propose laws prohibiting whatever the commission labels "homegrown terrorism."

...Ms. Harman's proposal includes an absurd attack on the Internet, criticizing it for providing Americans with "access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda," and legalizes an insidious infiltration of targeted organizations. The misnamed "Center of Excellence," which would function after the commission is disbanded in 18 months, gives the semblance of intellectual research to what is otherwise the suppression of dissent...

Although they only mention the current administration, perhaps we should play the inevitable, "would we trust Hillary Clinton with these powers?" game.

And, from this we learn that a related Harman panel ("Terrorism and the Internet") had testimony conflating 9/11 Truthers with terrorists.

It would seem that we're starting down the slippery slope towards criminalizing those who disagree with the official interpretation of events, and I suggest contacting your Senators and/or those in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (hsgac.senate.gov).

Posted to Privacy at 11:07 AM

Caption this George W. Bush picture (Part #931123)

Here, I'll start:

A Connecticut Doofus in Colonial Williamsburg

"What's a 'time machine', and why does this 'Dick Cheney' hate us so?"

"No, this isn't Paraguay."

(Picture from his Thanksgiving day address: link).

Posted to WackyHumor at 10:10 AM

GAO on Custom and Border Patrol failings (just waving people through)

From this:

A video made during an investigation by the U.S. Government Accountability Office shows a stream of Mexicans strolling through the border into the U.S. as federal Custom and Border Patrol agents sit staring at "information on computer screens."

On another of the videos recorded at eight entry points across the country, an agent was reportedly waving aliens through the lane without "looking at them, making verbal contact or inspecting travel documents."

The GAO director of homeland security and justice issues, Richard Stana, testified before Congress last week and said those weren't just isolated incidents. And, while funding is part of the reason, Stana says it goes deeper:

"Emphasis is not being placed on all missions, and there is a failure by some of its officers to recognize the threat associated with dangerous people and goods entering the country."

Posted to Immigration_terror at 09:45 AM

ABC News' Political Radar edits comments without notice

Earlier today I left a comment on this post (blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/huckabees-first.html) from ABC News' Political Radar:

If I didn't know better, I'd say the ad was great. And, if I were promoting Huck for some reason, I'd say it was great too!

If that doesn't sound like me or make much sense, it's because ABC News edited my comment without notice. Here's the version that I left; this is how it appeared on the site before the edit:

If I didn't know better, I'd say the ad was great. And, if I were promoting Huck for some reason, I'd say it was great too! Thankfully, I'm actually familiar with Huck's record:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo

Maybe ABC could decide to do some real reporting about his record. (Or, perhaps they're waiting until after they've built him up.)

This isn't the first time they've done something like this, and it's not too difficult to imagine them getting into legal hot water should they edit comments in the wrong way.

Previous coverage of comments being deleted, bannings, etc. begins in this entry about Kevin Tracy.

Posted to Bloggage at 08:22 PM

Ted Kennedy, William Delahunt try blocking immigration enforcement ("Lactation Memo")

The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") has created a new, not-yet-public document called "Guidelines for Identifying Humanitarian Concerns among Administrative Arrestees When Conducting Worksite Enforcement Operations" (link). While it will be sold as a humanitarian effort, the goal strongly appears to be to be to hamper immigration enforcement and to help illegal aliens remain in the U.S.

[The document outlines] elaborate steps federal agents should follow to quickly identify detainees who have children or those who should be released for other reasons, such as pregnancy or illness. They also guarantee access to legal counsel, emergency medical care, and social workers...

[Ted Kennedy]'s spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, said that "New Bedford was the catalyst, and illustrated the need for national reform." Wagoner's statement, which accompanied a copy of the guidelines sent to the Globe [by Kennedy's office], said the document was the product of discussions among the agency, Kennedy, and US Representative William D. Delahunt.

This follows a so-called "Lactation Memo", a copy of which is available here. And, shortly before that came an Urban Institute/National Council of La Raza study opposing enforcement and even encouraging changes in favor of those charged with identity theft. Teddy Kennedy crows over his victory here. Obviously, if he really wanted to be humanitarian, he'd work to discourage illegal immigration rather than continually enabling it.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:30 PM

Sanctuary city proposed for Des Moines (Network Against Human Trafficking, Christine Hensley)

A very preliminary proposal to establish Des Moines, Iowa as a sanctuary city has been presented to Councilwoman Christine Hensley (link). It would seek to block that city from inquiring about someone's immigrations status or taking part in federal immigration raids. Hensley's position on the matter isn't clear, but she's at least naive enough to state who would profit from such a scheme:

Hensley said the impetus for the ordinance is illegal immigrants who fear raids and do not come to work, incurring costs on their employers.

She appears to have punted:

"What I suggested to them is there has to be a lot of discussion about it and whether or not there's really a problem."

The other councilmembers either couldn't be reached or said that haven't seen the plan. Two groups are pushing it, with "Alex Orozco, executive director of the Iowa-based Network Against Human Trafficking" refusing to name the other group. One might expect someone against human trafficking to oppose illegal immigration due to the fact that traffickers can take advantage of sanctuary policies and hide among illegal aliens, but apparently he has other goals.

You can contact the mayor and council here: ci.des-moines.ia.us/mayor_council/message/index.htm

11/20 FWIW UPDATE: From this:

"I absolutely and firmly oppose the concept of Des Moines becoming a sanctuary city," Hensley said. She and City Manager Rick Clark said they called the news conference to address a backlash from groups opposed to illegal immigration that began with news reports of the earlier meeting, which she said took place more than a month ago... The outcry included dozens of telephone calls to City Hall. U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Kiron Republican, said he would support efforts to limit federal money to Des Moines, according to an e-mail sent to the City Council by Lorna Davros, the council's administrative assistant... Representatives of national groups opposed to amnesty for immigration violations also called to express concern.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:12 AM

CNN lies, misleads (11/15/07 Democratic debate edition)

The following video describes how CNN failed to note the material affiliations of some of the audience members who asked questions at Thursday's Democratic debate. And, one of the audience questions included an outrageous lie. Since CNN approved the questions in advance, they're responsible for that lie.

Here's a rundown of the audience members who asked questions.

Here's a description of a setup question from Campbell Brown and a misleading answer from Barack Obama.

Here are more examples of Obama being misleading at the debate.

And, here's more on the lie about terrorists and border.

Posted to Politics at 08:15 PM

CNN, the most Soviet name in "news" (plants at Democratic debate)

Thursday's CNN Democratic debate featured more than wimpy questions and a CNN-approved lie. Some of the audience members who asked questions weren't just regular Joes and Janes. And, CNN failed to disclose those links.

From the transcript:

[Wolf Blitzer:] you're going to be hearing directly from voters here in Nevada. They're going to have a chance to ask these Democratic presidential candidates questions... [Suzanne Malveaux], you have some undecided voters who are ready to ask these presidential candidates some specific questions. Let's begin right now... [Malveaux:] ...I've had a chance to actually meet at least some of you here, and obviously I noticed when you were responding to some of the candidates you were shaking your head, wrinkling your nose. I'm not sure if they've answered your questions, and this is your opportunity to ask the candidates what you really care about.

Out of eight audience members selected, at least half had some form of undisclosed link:

* Khalil Khan (made unverified claim that he'd been racially profiled at the airport; Malveaux does say "he says" about those claims; the impression I received when watching it live was that she bought the claims)
- identified by CNN only as a "businessman"
- President of the Islamic Society of Nevada (lvmasjid.com)
- Appeared in Paula Zahn segment (transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/28/pzn.01.html)
- more

* LaShannon Spencer (asked about Supreme Court nominees)
- identified by CNN only as a member of a church
- someone with that same name was identified as director of political affairs for the Democratic Party of Arkansas (NYT, August 8, 2003, link)

* Maria Parra-Sandoval
- identified self at debate as a UNLV student
- former illegal alien (lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/text/2006/apr/02/566679250.html)
- "In high school, she was active in voter registration, volunteered in a congressional campaign, and interned for Clark County. In college, she was selected to attend the Fifth Annual Public Policy and Leadership Conference at Harvard. She is also a Fellow of the National Latina Leadership Institute Summer Program in Washington, D.C. and was selected to intern in the office of the Honorable Harry Reid in Spring 2006." (lasvegasnevada.gov/files/2005_CLA_Yearbook.pdf)

* Catherine Jackson (asked about Iraq war)
- described as an "local anti-war activist" when she was at a counter-protest in front of Harry Reid's Nevada office (Las Vegas Review-Journal, May 18, 2007, cache)

* George Ambriz (falsely claimed that "no terrorist has come from our southern border")
- Malveaux identified him as a UNLV grad student
- someone named George R. Ambriz claims to have been the president of the Western New Mexico University chapter of MEChA in 2002-2003 (link); WNMU was his former school: unlv.edu/admissions/George_Ambriz.html
- the former editor of that school's student newspaper confirms he was the president of that MEChA chapter: livefromsilvercity.com/2007/11/17/wnmu-alumnus-on-the-national-stage

* Jeannie Jackson (asked about private contractors in Iraq making more than U.S. military)
- a person with that name has left several emotional, Iraq-related comments:
thinkprogress.org/2005/06/22/halliburton-scores-a-juicy-new-contract
iraqforsale.bravenewfilms.org/blog/866-video-tour-of-blackwater-s-training-facility
motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/07/splitting_the_baby.html
cache
tmz.com/2007/09/19/marcia-marcia-marcia/8
americansunitedforchange.org/blog/entries/small_price_ad_jon_porter
link (March 09, 2007 letter to Las Vegas Review-Journal)

* Judy Bagley (asked vague Social Security and Medicare question)
- identified by Malveaux as a casino cashier
- has some involvement with the Culinary Workers Union (in response to her question, Barack Obama said: "thanks for the great work you do on behalf of the culinary workers; a great union here.")
- Whether she's just a member or an official with that union isn't yet known; if the latter, that would be yet another affiliation CNN didn't disclose.

* Frank Perconte (extremely vague question about "uniting" the country)
- identified by Malveaux as a UNLV student

And, there's more:

Eric Alterman says: CNN producers purposely ginned up the crowd to cheer over and over, as if they were pom-pommed cheerleaders at a high school pep rally. (mediamatters.org/altercation/200711160005#1)

Then, per CNN: "The audience hooted and jeered at both Edwards and Obama as attacks continued -- when Obama accused Clinton of sounding like Republican candidate Mitt Romney and when Edwards repeated charges the front-runner took money from special interests." (cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/debate.follow)

And, there was apparently some funny business involving how the tickets were distributed: here, here.

Posted to Politics at 11:49 AM

The bluebirds have yet not flown south for the winter due to the hot weather in Southern California

Just thought I'd pass on this observation: the bluebirds have yet not flown south for the winter due to the hot weather in Southern California. However, there appear to be fewer sparrows and pigeons around these days, perhaps simply because of the unseasonably warm weather. Yesterday it must have been 79 or 80, and the day before it was probably around 84. Unlike in New England, there are not only no leaves to turn, but the leaves wouldn't turn if they could. That said, at around the 5532' elevation level or so, there are indeed deciduous trees that can turn. You can see those by heading 25.3 or so miles up Highway 2. Best of luck!

Posted to WackyHumor at 01:57 PM

Campbell Brown/CNN asks simplistic question, gets stock Barack Obama answer (benefits for illegal aliens)

Last night's CNN Democratic debate is the Sovietski-style gift that keeps giving. Campbell Brown asked Barack Obama a question about immigration that wasn't specific enough, allowing him to simply give his stock reply. Should we assume that Brown is completely naive and wasn't aware that politicians have a habit of doing this? Or, should we assume that she was simply playing a setup role?

The question:

...you've supported various benefits for illegal immigrants, including driver's licenses and in-state college tuition... What do you say to those Americans who say they are losing out because you would give benefits to people who broke the laws of this country, who came here illegally?

A better question would have asked him whether it's good public policy to allow illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens, and would have included language in the question asking that he address that specific point. And, when he didn't answer the question the moderator would have interrupted his speech and asked again. (After his speech, Blitzer did to a certain extent by asking about driver's licenses for illegal aliens, which generated the Obama quote already discussed.)

If I had been asking questions, I would have continued to press that point until it was revealed that Obama is willing to throw U.S. citizens under the bus if he thinks he can get votes out of the deal.

Obama's answer contains some of the issues mentioned at the previous link:

I would say that they're justified in feeling frustrated because this administration -- the Bush administration -- has done nothing to control the problem that we have. We've had 5 million undocumented workers come over the borders since George Bush took office [see #3 at the previous link]. It has become an extraordinary problem, and the reason the American people are concerned is because they are seeing their own economic position slip away... And so what we have to do is create a comprehensive solution to the problem. [...issues stock legalization speech...]

So, his solution to the problem is to wave a magic wand and declare current illegal aliens to suddenly become legal workers, and that will fix the problem? Obviously, if Campbell Brown or Wolf Blitzer had been doing their jobs, they would have asked him to specify exactly how that would work.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:03 PM

Felipe Calderon's "League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States"

Here's the next grand plan of the Mexican government that will a) backfire, and b) reveal some in the U.S. to be little more than de facto agents of that government (link):

Mexican President Felipe Calderon has forcefully inserted himself into the U.S. presidential campaign, denouncing the candidates for demonizing Mexican immigrants and announcing that the government would finance a public relations campaign aimed at reversing Americans' negative perceptions.

...[The Mexican government] also said it would back a proposal by the immigrants agency [the Institute of Mexicans Abroad] to organize a coalition of Mexican activists inside the United States to respond to political attacks on immigrants. The coalition would be called la Liga contra la Discriminación de los Mexicanos en Estados Unidos, or the League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States.

But the most unusual initiative would budget an undisclosed amount for a campaign inside the United States to "win the battle of public opinion" by highlighting inspirational "success stories" of Mexican immigrants who had prospered in American society.

Calderon did not disclose details of the new campaign, but he said it would help the U.S. public recognize "the irreplaceable contribution of Mexicans to the United States, to its economy and its society."

A particular target will be the U.S. news media, where he said he would seek an "objective dialogue" on immigration.

"Strategies of simple confrontation and rudeness aggravate an anti-Mexican feeling," Calderon said, amplifying "the worse phobias even more."

And, I welcome this news, because we Americans love it when corrupt foreign countries try to spread propaganda inside our country. This move will also cast doubt on anyone who supports Mexico agenda from now on: are they part of Mexico's propaganda push? Are they being paid or at least directed by Mexico?

Note that members of the IME helped organize last year's illegal immigration marches, as did a former Mexican consul general. And, just recently the Blue America PAC joined with a group whose president is with the IME to push amnesty.

In other news, Mexico is lowering the banking fees on remittances to Mexico City. Surely it was just a humanitarian move.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:59 AM

American Jewish Committee collaborates with Mexican government to support illegal immigration

Dianne Solis of the Dallas Morning News - someone not unfamiliar with downplaying meddling inside the U.S. by the Mexican governmnt - offers this:

Leaders of a national Jewish group say the hate being directed at Mexican immigrants resonates with their own experience. So they've taken up the cause and convened a series of meetings and workshops with immigrant and Mexican-American leaders, including some from North Texas.

Of course, an unbiased reporter would put "hate" in quotes or would say something like, "what they call hate". Solis is, of course, not a real reporter; she's pushing "the cause".

Laura Gonzalez, a Dallas college professor, and Jacobo Kupersztoch, a Dallas biologist, were among about three dozen Latinos from around the country who made the trek to Washington for sessions on organizing, fundraising and advocacy.

The American Jewish Committee co-sponsored the three-day workshop with Mexico's Institute for Mexicans Abroad, which includes an advisory council established by the country's Foreign Relations Ministry.

In other words, they're part of the Mexican government: www.ime.gob.mx Later in the article it's revealed that both Kupersztoch and Gonzalez served on that board between 2003 and 2005, and that Gonzalez is "active in the League of Women Voters of Dallas". Kupersztoch wants to establish "phone trees" of retirees to contact Congress.

Question: are both subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (usdoj.gov/criminal/fara)? Even if they aren't required to register under that Act, should the reader consider them de facto agents for the Mexican government? And, likewise with the AJC should they continue to associate themselves with the Mexican government.

Also mentioned:
* Dina Siegel Vann, AJC director of the Latino and Latin America initiative
* Jeffrey Sinensky, AJC's director of domestic policy
* Jorge Navarrete, "who served on the advisory board of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad"

They met with with Rep. Howard Berman; no word is provided on whether the IME was among those who attended that meeting. They also met with Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:42 AM

Barack Obama supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, misleads about incentives

On this video from tonight's CNN Democratic debate (youtube.com/watch?v=UQXYYIdjjFg via this), Barack Obama does a partial Hillary Clinton on driver's licenses for illegal aliens, before unequivocally supporting them (followed only by, "but, I am going to be fighting for comprehensive immigration reform"; the "but" part generated peals of laughter from the audience).

In addition to his chances being damaged by the fumbling, it would be nice if the other statements he made were damaging as well:

...the problem we have here is not driver's licenses. Undocumented workers don't come here to drive... they're not coming here to go to the In-N-Out Burger [1]... that's not the reason they're here, they're here to work. And, so, instead of being distracted by what has now become a wedge issue, let's focus on actually solving the problem that this administration, the Bush administration, has done nothing about...

There are at least five - yes, five - things wrong with that statement that I, had I been moderating, would have called Obama on:

1. First and most minor, they're illegal aliens, not "undocumented workers".

2. Isn't Obama actually welcoming the current situation? Doesn't he actually want those illegal aliens to remain here, and does he actually consider it that important an issue that millions of foreign citizens have come here illegally? Isn't he an apologist for the current situation?

3. The Bush administration hasn't just "done nothing about" illegal immigration, they've actively encouraged, enabled, and promoted it. And, the Democrats have done the same. Perhaps Obama would like to enumerate all the steps that Democratic Party leaders took to try to prevent the current situation from developing (here's an eighth-page of paper where he can write it down).

4. Just because they aren't coming here for driver's licenses and other goodies doesn't mean that those don't play a part. If, for instance, people in foreign lands knew that they wouldn't be able to work here, get welfare benefits, get educations, get driver's licenses or even get library cards, very few would try to come here. The more incentives are offered to illegal aliens, the greater their ability to live here. So, while driver's licenses might not be the main draw, they do play a role in increasing illegal immigration, at least to those states that offer them. Obama is being intellectually dishonest (assuming he can even figure that out in the first place).

5. The solution to the problem offered by Obama will only make the situation worse through things such as discouraging respect for our laws, encouraging even more illegal immigration, giving even more political power to racial demagogues and to foreign governments, and so on.

It's good that Wolf Blitzer's questions resulted in Barack Obama being derided, but it would have been even better if he had helped end his political career by pointing out how misleading he is.

UPDATE: See also Campbell Brown/CNN asks simplistic question, gets stock Barack Obama answer (benefits for illegal aliens).

[1] In-N-Outs are only in CA/AZ/NV; Obama's doing a shout-out and in Texas he would have said "Whataburger" (sadly there are none of those in CA).

Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:18 PM

CNN Democratic debate November 15, 2007

Just started watching, and so far both questions CNN has gone to the audience for had major issues.

First, the claim that the questioner was racially profiled is just that: a claim, not a fact.

Second, the question about immigration contained a lie: terrorists have indeed crossed our southern border, as have tens of thousands of people from Special Interest countries like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and more [1]. CNN's Suzanne Malveaux then tossed it to Bill Richardson, who simply launched into his stock legalization speech.

CNN is wasting your time and allowing unfounded claims and lies to be spread.

From the transcript (link), here's the question:

It seems that many political commentators such as Lou Dobbs are guiding the debate and strongly shaping U.S. policy on immigration by insinuating a linkage to terrorism. As many people know, no terrorist has come from our southern border. Do you consider fighting terrorism and slowing the flow of illegal immigration coming from our southern border as intrinsically related issues?

About the second question, Katharine Q. Seelye of the New York Times says:

Really smart question from a voter who asked whether fighting terrorism and slowing immigration were intertwined.

Such "journalism"!

Ben Smith at the Politico (politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1107/Terrorism_and_the_border.html) chimes in, saying it was a "very good question".

You don't want to know what I thought of the "diamonds or pearls" question.

Please, please, please:
1. Go to campaign appearances.
2. Ask tough questions.
3. Upload and promote the response.

CNN isn't a news source, they're propaganda mixed with entertainment. We need to completely disintermediate them.

UPDATE: The "diamonds or pearls" student has issued a statement (link):

"Every single question asked during the debate by the audience had to be approved by CNN... I was asked to submit questions including "lighthearted/fun" questions. I submitted more than five questions on issues important to me. I did a policy memo on Yucca Mountain a year ago and was the finalist for the Truman Scholarship. For sure, I thought I would get to ask the Yucca question that was APPROVED by CNN days in advance."

CNN's Sam Feist (sam.feist *at* cnn.com) says it was because that question had already been asked earlier. Now that we know that CNN had to approve each question, we know that CNN allowed a lie and an unverified claim to be broadcast. Please contact Feist with your thoughts.

UPDATE 2: See also "Campbell Brown/CNN asks simplistic question, gets stock Barack Obama answer (benefits for illegal aliens)" and "Barack Obama supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, misleads about incentives".

UPDATE 3 (POTTED PLANT EDITION): How prescient of me! The "racial profiling" person (Khalid Khan) is president of the Islamic Council of Nevada. He apparently has a link to Harry Reid. The "pearls" girl is apparently a former illegal alien who used to work for... Harry Reid. See the comment from Jenny Bea here.

[1] From this (or this):

Texas' top homeland security official said Wednesday that terrorists with ties to Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaida have been arrested crossing the Texas border with Mexico in recent years.

See also "[45,000] Illegals From Terror-Sponsoring Nations at Large in US", "FBI warns of 'special interest' aliens", "Terrorists at The Border?", "Illegals from terrorist nations are crossing the border into Arizona", "FBI's Mueller: Hezbollah Busted in Mexican Smuggling Operation" (March 2006), "Terror-Linked Migrants Crossing Into U.S.", Bush "cognizant" of border terrorism risk, but won't do anything about it and, from this PDF file:

Members of Hezbollah, the Lebanon-based terrorist organization, have already entered to the United States across our Southwest border. On March 1, 2005, Mahmoud Youssef Kourani pleaded guilty to providing material support to Hezbollah. Kourani is an illegal alien who had been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border after bribing a Mexican consular official in Beirut for a visa to travel to Mexico. Kourani and a Middle Eastern traveling partner then paid coyotes in Mexico to guide them into the United States.

Posted to Politics at 06:38 PM

Ramos/Compean drug smuggler arrested (for 2005 case)

From this:

Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, the drug smuggler who was shot in the buttocks by El Paso Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in 2005, was arrested on drug charges at the Zaragoza Bridge this morning, officials with the U.S. Attorney's office said.

Aldrete was arrested by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General on a sealed indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in September and October 2005.

That was both after he was shot (February 2005) and given immunity, and if he had been charged earlier it might have changed the outcome of the case. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton says it was because he'd been working with the DEA to get new evidence (link).

Posted to Immigration2007b at 04:27 PM

AP: 'HuffPost "Worst Post" selection committee suffers group seizure'

This story just crossed the wires. Neurologists speculate it has something to do with all the possibilities simply "overloading their circuits" due to all the entries from Dave Johnson and many, many others, combined with this recent post being thrown on the pile:

Posted to WackyHumor at 03:12 PM

National League of Cities awards New Haven's IDs for illegal aliens scheme

New Haven, Connecticut is handing out ID cards to illegal aliens, and not only does their mayor John DeStefano have a possible financial incentive, but the city worker who pushed the plan through previously headed a non-profit that is/was collaborating with the Mexican government.

Now, the Washington DC lobbying group National League of Cities and their partner CH2M Hill have given them one of their "2007 Awards for Municipal Excellence":

The Elm City Immigration Project in New Haven is a series of innovative, comprehensive and far-reaching policies and initiatives aimed at strengthening the relationship between the city and its immigrant community while improving public safety... The award winners were selected by a panel of judges, including Karen Anderson, former president, National League of Cities; Janet Areson, Virginia Municipal League; Cy Behroozi, Brookings Institution; Jacqueline Byers, National Association of Counties; Del D. Borgsdorf, Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce; Saul Ramirez Jr., National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials; Carol Rhea, American Planning Association; and Toni Samuel, American Society of Public Administration.

Please let the president of the NLC (Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson) know what you think of the NLC giving their imprimatur to NH's corrupt scheme: indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/contact.htm

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:54 AM

Nutroots: Blue America PAC joins with Mexico-linked group to support illegal immigration (anti-Rahm Emanuel)

The Blue America PAC - a nutroots/netroots group composed of Firedoglake, Down with Tyranny (run by Howie Klein), Crooks and Liars, and Digby - has apparently decided to make Rahm Emanuel look mainstream by comparison. They're launching a campaign to "fight for the soul of the Democratic Party on immigration issue", i.e., to support massive illegal immigration and an amnesty [1]. Their first ad accuses Emanuel of "betraying" "immigrants" by not opposing the deportation of someone. While her case isn't explained - they usually aren't, at least factually - it sounds like she entered the U.S. illegally. [It gets even worse, see the UPDATE]

Further, Blue America is joining with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a group whose president is linked to the Mexican government.

I've left a total of three comments (one on FDL, two on DWT) pointing that link out, so clearly the fact that those bloggers are now in turn indirectly linked to the Mexican government isn't considered that big of an issue. I suggest pointing out their new link when they alone or together issue future pronouncements on this issue.

UPDATE: For completeness' sake, I'll point out that the comment I left at downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/11/rep-gutierrez-re-rahm-and-steny-we.html appeared and then disappeared; I added it again and it remains there as of 11/15. However, a similar comment I left at the later post downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/11/rahm-emanuel-il-05-accountability.html appeared but isn't there now.

As for Blue America's victim of our immigration policies, she was using someone else's identity. Even Mark Brown's hugely sympathetic plea can't avoid the basic facts (link):

[Teresa Figueroa is] a convicted felon awaiting probable deportation... Two years ago, the real Lucia Peraida [the name Figueroa was using] complained to Elmhurst Police that somebody at Micron was using her name and Social Security number. Peraida, of Chicago, had learned this when the Internal Revenue Service accused her of failing to report income from Micron that left her with a $3,566 tax liability...

Oddly enough, the Blue America gang don't disclose that she was convicted of identity theft and that there was a victim. I'd suggest pointing that out to their readers if the opportunity presents itself.

[1] firedoglake.com/2007/11/14/blue-america-holding-rahm-accountable-on-immigration

Posted to Immigration2007b at 08:04 PM

Communist Party Pride! (TV ad)

You might be a Communist and not know it! We support things like a woman's right to vote, Social Security, and environmentalism. If you support those things too, you're a Communist and welcome to the Party. (We can worry about those other things we support later on).

Note: this isn't a take-off on the Center for American Progress "progressive" ads (like youtube.com/watch?v=qnktauTeIeg). It just looks a lot like it.

(While I prefer to let my art speak for itself and let others interpret it, I should point out that I'm not comparing "progressives" to Communists, only highlighting that CAP is being misleading about not disclosing everything that today's "progressives" represent.)

Posted to WackyHumor at 03:03 PM

Center for American Progress misleads about "progressive" label

One unremarked note about the topic of Hillary Clinton's weakness is that some of her minions, while effective, are also lightweights. Media Matters has been able to get a few of their smears into the wider sphere, but they've also damaged what little reputation they had by failing to contextualize or misinterpreting remarks.

Another example is the Center for American Progress, a group that can't seem to get anything right. A misleading study from them is at that link, and here's another from Meredith King, and some propaganda from Ruy Teixeira. And, via Senior Fellow Henry Fernandez, they have an indirect link to the Mexican government.

The latest example comes from television ads they're running in Columbus, Milwaukee, and Indianapolis and want to make nationwide. The ads attempt to "begin defining progressivism in the public's mind". Oddly enough, this coincides with Hillary Clinton now assuming the "progressive" label. You can see the ads here: thinkprogress.org/2007/11/14/progressive-and-proud

Summary: the Communist Party could run ads discussing only some of their policies - such as their environmental stance - and then tell people they might be Communists. [UPDATE: I did just that at the link.] For another example, see the "World's Smallest Political Quiz", something that usually informs people - surprise! - that they have libertarian leanings.

The ads fail to note that the rise of "professional administrators" also led to Democratic Machines and their associated corruption and a massive, inefficient, entrenched bureaucracy. They fail to note that some "progressives" such as Mike Gravel explicitly support the formation of a world government. They fail to note that few "progressive" leaders support the enforcement of our immigration laws.

They discuss Teddy Roosevelt's environmentalism, without noting that he would almost certainly be aghast at someone who doesn't support enforcing our borders. They fail to note the "progressive"/Gramscian role in unnecessary forms of affirmative action, speech codes, racial divisiveness used to obtain political power, racial demagoguery, and on and on. They fail to note that many "progressives" have a proclivity towards being useful idiots or collaborateurs. They fail to note that many "progressives" don't seem clear on the concept of free speech, with some engaged in Stalinesque attempts to silence those who disagree with them.

Due to those factors and more, today's "progressives" strongly differ from the ones depicted in the old footage on the videos. If they discussed everything that "progressive" means nowadays, many fewer people would be proud to wear that label.

Posted to Politics at 12:54 PM

Enrique Morones chickens out of Jim Gilchrist debate

Enrique Morones - a far-left, loose borders loon linked to the San Diego Democratic Party - "debated" Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project at California State University, Long Beach yesterday (link). What actually happened is during Morones' opening remarks he encouraged everyone in the auditorium to walkout in protest, and he followed leaving Gilchrist alone on stage speaking to a few dozen attendees.

"We cannot tolerate this kind of behavior. What they're doing is a hate movement," Morones said, while objecting to the format of the debate, which had a friend of Gilchrist's as moderator...

Outside, students and professors gave speeches from a podium set up on the green about human rights and respect for diversity on campus – the message of the Campus Coalition Against Hate, which formed in the last two weeks in response to Gilchrist's visit...

"We didn't come together around immigration," said Norma Chinchilla, a professor of sociology and women's studies. "We came together around human rights and keeping our campus a place where hate does not take root."

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:57 AM

San Francisco approves ID card; corruption in plain sight; Tom Ammiano?

The San Francisco Supervisors have approved a city ID card for everyone, including illegal aliens (link). While this will be sold as either a wacky plan from the far-left or a common-sense solution, the more likely reason this was pushed through is hiding in plain sight:

[Bill author, supervisor Tom Ammiano] said banking institutions in San Francisco have signaled their willingness to accept the municipal ID card for the purpose of setting up accounts. He noted that people without bank accounts are frequently more vulnerable to theft and robbery.

Officials with the city's Bank on San Francisco program, which helps people obtain bank accounts, said institutions such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Washington Mutual and US Bank had expressed interest in accepting the ID cards.

Bank on San Francisco is a city partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank. Although criteria for opening bank accounts are set in part through the USA Patriot Act, "to our knowledge that law is not a bar to a municipal ID," said David Augustine, spokesman for the city treasurer's office, which oversees the program.

At least the first two banks listed as well as the Federal Reserve have in the past taken steps to profit from indirect illegal activity: the money that illegal aliens earn by working illegally. And, in fact, the Bush administration fought to allow banks to accept Mexico's ID card which is only of use to illegal aliens. And, from the Bank on San Francisco page (sfgov.org/site/bankonsf_index.asp?id=46628):

Accept alternative forms of identification, such as consular identification cards. For many immigrants, the barrier to opening an account is having the proper documentation.

The banks aren't going to earn that much off this; I'd imagine that due to the cost of living in Frisco they don't have a high illegal alien population (except for those living 20 to an apartment in shifts). However, this could be used as an entree to other cities, such as Los Angeles.

As for Ammiano, I'm not familiar with him and I don't know whether he's just a soft-brained far-leftie or whether he's trying to get a piece of the pie. However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's received donations from those banks or he has some sort of other link. Those who live in the area are strongly encouraged to follow the money. His fellow supervisor Gerardo Sandoval is a strong supporter of illegal immigration.

Note that New Haven, CT has their own municipal ID. Their mayor John DeStefano has a possible financial interest and the person in his office who pushed the ID (Kica Matos) previously headed a group (Junta for Progressive Action) that is/was collaborating with the Mexican government.

UPDATE: The "Case Study" PDF at the sfgov link above has some interesting nuggets on the Bank on San Francisco program. First, they've got a section for those "thinking about starting something similar to Bank on San Francisco in your community", and I'm sure some are. As for how it all started:

Anne Stuhldreher, a Fellow at the New America Foundation, approached staff of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Treasurer Jose Cisneros with the initial concept. The Treasurer’s Office convened a working group of the staff of the Mayor and Treasurer, the Mayors Office of Community Development, New America Foundation, and EARN, a citywide nonprofit that helps low-income residents build assets. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco joined the group soon after hearing about the program.

To participate in the program, banks have to accept those foreign IDs which are of use only to illegal aliens. And:

From further research, the working group learned that Latinos who are un-banked often don't realize that you do not need a social security number to open an account and that they can open accounts with Mexican or Guatemalan Identification cards.

In other words, you don't have to be here legally to have a U.S. bank account.

As for government corruption at the federal level:

[at a meeting] Michael Frias, of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation [sic], discussed how the New Alliance Task Force is helping banks learn about how they can accept the Matricula Consular Card and develop products and services to help Latino immigrants, save, send money to their home countries, and buy homes... The New Alliance Task Force is a partnership between the FDIC, the Mexican Consulate, banks, community-based organizations, federal regulators, the secondary market, and private mortgage insurance companies. The partnership has opened 50,000 new bank accounts totaling $100 million.

In other words, something akin to a federal agency is collaborating with a foreign government to help nationals of that government who are here illegally get home loans, and is assisting banks to profit from money that was earned illegally.

Related:
Pro-illegal immigration performance art (funding by Bank of America and Wells Fargo)
Wells Fargo and illegal activity
remesamex.gob.mx features Bank of "America", Wells Fargo, and Western Union
Citibank "recruiting" illegal aliens for home loans

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:26 AM

Democrats: soft on terrorist infiltration

Based on the response to Rep. Tom Tancredo's ad about terrorism, one thing is clear: the nutroots/netroots (like Crooks and Liars, Raw Story, etc.), supposed mainstream bloggers/pundits (like Matt Yglesias), and the MSM just don't take border security that seriously. Some Democratic politicians might not go that far, and some might truly support border security, but most of them - including the top-tier Democratic candidates - simply talk a good game.

Hopefully Frank Luntz or similar is working on rhetoric that would expose this abject failure to protect the U.S. and that could be used by various candidates when it applies. In the meantime, here's my first attempt:

The Democrats just don't see terrorist infiltration of the U.S. as an important issue and would prefer to concentrate on more important things.

It needs a bit of clean-up; I use "important" twice.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 08:33 PM

Eliot Spitzer drops driver's licenses for illegal aliens (Hillary updates position)

Presumably not wanting to join Hillary's List, New York governor Eliot Spitzer will announce tomorrow that he's shelving his unpopular plan to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens (link):

The governor's office signaled to New York lawmakers Tuesday that the morning of the meeting, he will say he is shelving the plan and that immigration is a federal issue to be handled by Washington, according to congressional aides who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity because no formal announcement had been made.

I'd say it worked out quite well: he not only made immigration a factor in the presidential race, he damaged both Hillary Clinton's chances and his political career.

UPDATE: Fire up your Clintonian Parsing Machine! Per this she's now come out against the licenses, when it seemed to me that she was for them despite her claims to the contrary. From her statement:

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal... As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

Of course, as pointed out before, there will be many illegal aliens not covered under "reform" as well as many additional people who will come here illegally, leading to a continuation of the issue of unlicensed drivers. And, while she might not support giving illegal aliens driver's licenses herself, I wonder whether her statement would allow her to support governors who want to give them licenses. Or, whether she'd change her mind should "reform" fail yet again.

Posted to Immigration_dls at 06:53 PM

Thanks, Huckabee: business at Little Rock Mexican consulate is booming

Former Arkansas governor and current presidential candidate Mike Huckabee arranged for a Mexican Consulate to be built in Little Rock. And, business is booming! Per Jon Gambrell of the Associate Press (link):

...In its first six months, the Mexican consulate based in Little Rock has seen the number of citizens it serves a day rise from 50 to 120, said consul Andres Chao. Now, Chao said the consulate plans to hire three or more new staffers in the coming year, anticipating demand will only grow [to as much as 300 per day].

...Most seek matricula consular identity cards or passports, while others come for legal protection or other needs.

So far, Chao said consulate employees have issued more than 10,000 documents since April...

Please go to The Huckster's public appearances, ask him this question (youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo), and then upload his response.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 03:49 PM

More on Mike Huckabee's questionable Mexican consulate deal

From this:

An Arkansas commercial developer confirmed his role in a no-cost "incentive deal" packaged by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to attract a Mexican Consulate to Little Rock.

...Bruce Burrow told WND his commercial real estate company acquired the land and developed the Mexican consulate building in Little Rock at the request of Huckabee [and at no profit in a "public-private" deal], in a deal the then-governor engineered to make sure he snared the Mexican consulate away from other states.

...Arkansas Republican state legislator Rick Green objected to Huckabee using taxpayer funds in the scheme.

...Green told WND that two legislative study groups he helped organize this past summer concluded Arkansas has more illegal immigrants per capita than any other state and that its Hispanic illegal immigrant population is the fastest growing of any state in the nation.

..."We estimated that $410 million per year from Arkansas is sent back to Mexico alone, just in remittance payments," Green noted.

Much more on the questionable nitty-gritty of the deal at the link.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:19 PM

Rick Sanchez/CNN lies to support illegal immigration (illegal aliens in military)

On this clip from Rick Sanchez of CNN (youtube.com/watch?v=amMV36RUhFo), he and William Gheen from ALIPAC (link) discuss illegal aliens and legal immigrants serving in the military. After a long cutaway report discussing a legal immigrant with a green card who was fast-tracked for citizenship, Sanchez falsely claims that he was an illegal alien. Sanchez also expresses confusion over the term "illegal alien", implying that it doesn't apply to those who've overstayed their visas. He also can't see the issue with foreign citizens who are here illegally serving in the military; Gheen's response discusses how some of those who were trained in the U.S. military have returned to their home countries as paramilitaries and similar.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:05 PM

Leftists scared about consequences of own policies (Tancredo ad)

Some largely unimportant lefties are up in arms (link) about the following ad from Tom Tancredo that depicts a 24-like scenario with a backpack bomb being left in a shopping mall. After a quick walk, I believe I've stumbled upon the reason why: the loud bang at the end shocks them into a sudden realization of the consequences of the loose border policies that they've supported and/or enabled.

UPDATE: Youtube has flagged the video (youtube.com/watch?v=LZBjXr5CWUI) as "inappropriate for some users" and requires you to sign in and verify that you're 18 or over before viewing it (related: see "We're all going to regret giving Youtube so many links"). Please contact them and let them know what you think: google.com/support/youtube/bin/request.py

I've switched the video to chbn.com.

As for the "interesting" comments, this post is about those on the left/Democratic side of things who've gotten the vapors over this ad. When those on the right/Republican side weigh in it will be updated. This site is well aware of the negligence of both Bush and the Democrats, and has been discussing that for several years.

UPDATE 2: Youtube has locked away one version of the ad; the version from TeamTancredo itself is still available for anyone: youtube.com/watch?v=rBK7bWh1m04

Posted to Immigration_terror at 06:49 PM

Progressive States Network fighting the "Anti-Immigrant Movement" (Nathan Newman)

A little known group called the "Progressive States Network" is launching "The State Immigration Project" (progressivestates.org/content/714) and offers "Fighting the Anti-Immigrant Movement in the States" - authored by their policy director Nathan Newman - as their first artifact. They intend to support "state legislators and advocates working to promote a smart, humane immigration policy in the states". You can read the full version here: progressivestates.org/files/immigrationstrategy.html

As one might imagine, the summary (progressivestates.org/blog/716/fighting-the-anti-immigrant-movement-in-the-states) contains the seeds of its own destruction. First, of course, almost no one is "anti-immigrant"; that's simply a smear. Then, we find out who they're associating with:

We will also be holding a conference call on immigration this Thursday at 4pm EST to bring together both legislators and advocates to share their insights on progressive strategies on immigration for the 2008 session. The call will feature as speakers California Senator Gilbert Cedillo, Illinois Representative Cynthia Soto, Flavia Jimenez of the National Council of La Raza, Stephanie Luongo of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Nathan Newman, Policy Director for Progressive States Network.

Then, they discuss a feel-good campaign, including these points:

Emphasize the political costs of anti-immigrant political positions and the long-term political gains from humane, inclusive immigration politics

In other words, support identity politics and falsely imply that all Hispanics support illegal activity when it's engaged in by those of their race, and that the only way to get the mythical Hispanic vote is to support massive illegal activity.

Stress the facts that counter anti-immigrant lies

How ironic, considering that "anti-immigrant" is a lie in almost all cases.

Then, discussing their strategies:

If wage enforcement bills end up being attached to anti-immigrant bills, many in the business lobby will break their current alliances with anti-immigrant politicians.

Of course, what they fail to note is that the business lobby funds both the GOP and the Democrats, and that that lobby is a key part of the push for "reform". In fact, companies that profit from illegal activity fund groups like the NCLR, so perhaps this might not work out so well for some of their allies.

While state leaders and advocates need to highlight the studies that show that undocumented immigrants actually pay more in taxes than they use in public benefits, they also need to demand studies of the lost benefits to citizens and the costs to taxpayers from onerous anti-immigrant enforcement rules.

In brief, they're going to highlight studies that don't tell the whole cost of illegal immigration and they're going to try bribing the voters into supporting illegal immigration.

Despite the complete lack of evidence that non-citizens have illegally voted in US elections

That's a false statement; see the Dornan/Sanchez race.

Progressive leaders can highlight this reality by promoting policies that protect undocumented immigrant victims and witnesses of crime when they contact the police and encourage community policing efforts involving undocumented immigrant communities.

Ah, the sanctuary cities plank.

Elected leaders can build on traditional support from many African-American leaders to labor unions to forge alliances with forward-looking business leaders and religious leaders, including many evangelicals, who recognize that smart, humane immigration policies for our communities is a source of both moral and social strength.

Of course, those business leaders aren't "forward-looking" so much as they're corrupt and want to profit from illegal immigration. Likewise with the religious leaders who want to increase their flocks.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:58 PM

Peter Applebome/NYT: the horrors of unmowed lawns in Brewster, New York

Peter Applebome of the New York Times offers a slab of pro-illegal immigration propaganda called "When an Election Becomes a Forum on Immigration". It's even more explicitly biased than their standard fare; that might be because articles in their "Our Towns" section are exempt from their oh-so-rigorous standards on news "reporting".

The tale is set in Brewster, New York, which is enclosed by the Town of Southeast and is just north of Westchester County. Michael Rights, John Degnan, and an unnamed third person were vying to be supervisor of the Town, with Rights opposing the presence of Central American day laborers in Webster. Because the election was close, the absentee ballots will be recounted. It was a "loud, angry race"; Rights conducted a "high-decibel, high-dollar campaign" and issued "dark mailings and urgent robo-calls". In 2006, someone named Greg Ball ran a "virulently anti-immigrant State Assembly campaign".

Applebome's "local guy on the side of the New York Times who says the things they want to hear" is the "village historian", Denis Castelli. One of the quotes they give him ends with this:

"No one who speaks English wants to mow my lawn."

Oh, the horror. Now, some might say, "mow your own [expletive deleted] lawn." But, taking the high road, I'll suggest that if those day laborers left town tomorrow, Castelli's lawn would be mowed one way or another, either by himself or by an English speaker who now realizes that, absent competition from desperate foreigners, one can make a living or at least pick up college money by mowing lawns. Plus, it's more than a bit irresponsible of the town's historian to support all the financial and non-financial costs of those day laborers so that he can have a manicured lawn. Oddly enough, while Applebome has a quote from Rights discussing the "vast multibillion-dollar underground untaxed black market in human labor", he doesn't question those who support that market.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:21 AM

Howie Klein/FireDogLake promotes Josh Hoyt/ICIRR

Howie Klein at FireDogLake is welcoming Josh Hoyt (aka Joshua Hoyt), executive director of the ICIRR (Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights) to discuss matters with their visitors [1]. That group is a virulent supporter of illegal immigration, and they and their president Juan Salgado helped organize the major Chicago illegal immigration marches last year. Salgado also serves on an advisory committee to Mexico's president, and wrote this letter to Vicente Fox. By promoting him, the FireDogLake crew are in effect being useful idiots for the Mexican government. However, things might sort themselves out, with FDL being much more extreme than even the Democratic Party is willing to pander to:

Two weeks ago [Rahm Emanuel] sent a DCCC-connected candidate training a video of himself haranguing congressional candidates to "move right" on immigration or risk defeat at the hands of Republicans... While walking the picket line at the WGA strike at Fox today Jane and I came up with the idea of inviting Emanuel over to FDL to ask him why he thinks adopting Tom Tancredo's immigration ideas is a good idea and why he's unleashed Heath Shuler to do just that...

[1] firedoglake.com/2007/11/10/
blue-america-welcomes-josh-hoyt-lets-not-put-the-republicans-in-charge

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:13 PM

Cynthia Tucker: Democrats should put immigration "reform" front and center

Cynthia Tucker has a laugh-a-line column called here "Democrats must take immigration reins and ride the high road". She plays the race card, saying among other things that the Republicans are "scapegoat[ing] foreigners", compares legalizing foreign citizens who are here illegally to the civil rights movement, and offers the stock false choice between a massive amnesty and mass deportations. And:

Still, here's some counterintuitive advice for the Democrats: Don't hedge. Lead. Do the right thing. Come out clearly and forcefully for putting illegal immigrants already in the country on a path to citizenship. This is no time to trim or triangulate. Show some spine. America is ready for reasoned leadership on this issue.

I have to agree: the Democratic Party should be even more explicit about their support for massive illegal activity. Of course, my thinking is the opposite of hers: that way it would be even easier to discredit them on this issue.

Then, if you haven't laughed at her enough she says:

But Americans also want to be assured that this is the last time a broad legalization option is offered to illegal immigrants. Democrats ought to make it clear that they'll enforce the borders and crack down on employers who hire illegally...

Based on the long history of both the GOP and the Democrats and their linked groups of supporting illegal activity, no claims that this would be the "last time" are in any way credible.

The major reason the Dems support illegal immigration is because they see the opportunity to pick up a lot of votes, and they're corrupt enough to encourage or enable illegal activity in order to get even more votes. Giving an amnesty would only reward the Democratic Party's corruption, and it would encourage more of it. Rather than fixing the Democratic Party's corruption, it would make it worse.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:43 AM

Rudy Giuliani + UN + David Rockefeller + CFR + Trilateral Commission + Bilderberg Group

Holy Globalism! It was like a tinfoil festival as sometime in the 90s (perhaps July 16, 1994), Rudy Giuliani presented an award to David Rockefeller at a meeting of the Business Council for the United Nations [1]. In his laudatory introduction, he mentioned all the globalist groups with which DR has been involved: "he helped found the Trilateral Commission... for fifteen years he served as the Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations... [among others he's] a member of the advisory council of the Bilderberg Group..." Certainly, Rudy could have just been playing the good mayor rather than kissing DR's ring as it appears. However, can one imagine Rudy ever defying the wishes of DR or one of his linked groups?

[1] sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Business_Council_of_the_United_Nations

Posted to Politics at 09:21 AM

Clinton campaign admits planting question for Hillary (townhall in Newton, Iowa)

From this:

Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.

Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.

"On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum," Elliethee said.

"However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again."

I am, at this very moment, literally begging everyone to go to such events and ask real questions, and then upload the response. If you aren't able to do that, please contact local bloggers and activists and urge them to do it. "Unique" blunders like this show that the candidates are extremely scared of real questions.

Here's a question for Hillary and here are questions for John Edwards and John McCain. There are more questions in the videos here.

Posted to Politics at 09:05 PM

NY Sun: illegal alien day laborers leaving due to economic downturn

From our "FWIW" department comes this:

More than a dozen immigrant day laborers interviewed by the Sun say work has sputtered to a near halt in the past few months, and that making ends meet is becoming a more difficult task... Many of the immigrant day laborers came to the New York area to earn money and send it back to their native countries - transfers known as remittances. Now, many say they can no longer afford the transfers and some are reporting hunger and bouts of homelessness... Some immigrants interviewed by the Sun said they would return to their homeland as soon as they earned enough money for a one-way plane fare.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:04 PM

Michael Luo/NYT: Something stirring at Huckabee's (immigration mentioned!)

Michael Luo of the New York Times offers "From Back of G.O.P. Pack, Huckabee Is Stirring" (link):

[horserace... process... horserace... stuffing... blather... padding...]

He talks tough on securing the borders and refusing amnesty to illegal immigrants, but he championed a bill in Arkansas that would have made illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition and scholarships.

In short, he is difficult to categorize politically, even as he has sought to play up his conservative credentials for the primaries.

[horserace... process... horserace... stuffing... blather... padding...]

He would be more easy to categorize politically if New York Times reporters would take advantage of the access they have to him to ask him tough questions about his positions, specifically his extremely weak positions on immigration. Perhaps Luo should have held off on writing this until he'd actually had the chance to ask Huck the questions it would take to clarify his positions.

UPDATE: Luo claims he talked to The Huckster twice, and there are excerpts here. I left the following comment:

Huck didn't answer any real questions, he was just asked questions that allowed him to make a speech. I understand that reporters can't be familiar with everything, but at least try to keep up.

1. He says he opposes "amnesty", but that's just a word game. He supports something that millions of people in foreign countries will see as amnesty, and they'll try to come here. Point that out to him. If he says we'll have border security, point out that we don't have it now and point out all the forces - including those linked to Huck - that fight against such security.

2. Point out to him that giving ed. discounts to illegal aliens is an incentive for more illegal immigration and is thus bad public policy. He could just as well encourage those illegal aliens to go home and encourage their home countries to repatriate them. It's not like returning to their home countries is like they were being put in jail.

3. Also point out that there are only so many discounts, and giving discounts to illegal aliens takes them away from U.S. citizens.

His position is so weak that anyone who's familiar with these issues could drive him out of the race.

So, why isn't the NYT doing a public service (and its supposed job) by asking him real questions?

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:59 PM

Robert Nix tries nixing Judge Correale Stevens' thoughts on immigration

From this:

A state appeals judge has been accused of violating judicial conduct rules for advocating changes in immigration law.

Superior Court Judge Correale Stevens "deliberately insinuated himself into the very middle of a high-profile, emotionally charged and highly divisive political debate on the issue of immigration reform," according to a complaint to the state Judicial Conduct Board...

...Stevens declined comment on the complaint Thursday, saying he had not been served with it, but defended the comments he made in September.

"What I spoke about is to encourage debate on the issue of illegal immigration as it affects the court system," he said...

The person who filed the complaint is Robert Nix, identified by the Associated Press only as a "Philadelphia attorney". Readers will not be surprised to learn that there's much more: he's also chairman of the Pennsylvania Hispanic Republicans, he's on the board of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania, and he testified on the pro-illegal immigration side to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:54 PM

Kevin Tracy deletes anti-Mike Huckabee comment (immigration)

I have no real idea who Kevin Tracy is, but the many widgets on his site lead me to suspect that he's a strong fan of Mike Huckabee (it's just a feeling I get). Yesterday he posted "Huckabee Immigration Facts" (ktracy.com/?p=587), which almost entirely consists of a Huck-supplied list of his current positions on the matter.

I left the following comment, and it appeared on the page without anything indicating that it was held for moderation. Now, for one strange reason or other, it's not on the page. Obviously, Tracy has the right to delete comments at this site, and no one cares what he does in any case, etc. Now, all The Huckster and his supporters have to do is extend that to every other site that discusses his record. (Comment linkified).

-------------
Bush, the NCLR, the AILA, the ACLU, and all their friends also "opposes and will never allow amnesty." They just want an "earned adjustment of status" (link).

As for the DREAM Act, he supported the state version of it.

As for the rest, come on. This guy is **even worse than Bush** on this issue. And, he even manages to be more sanctimonious than Bush.

Here's the 38-second introduction to just one of Huck's liabilities on this issue.

Note that everything in there is fully sourced, with links in the description and cites in the video itself.

I suggest switching him to independent and seeking the endorsement of the above-named groups on a platform of a Tyson's chicken in every pot.
-------------

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

Sister Toldjah edits, deletes comments

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:33 AM

Washington Post: "How to Hire a Day Laborer" (Gary Jacobsen)

The Washington Post explicitly supports illegal immigration, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that on October 7 they printed a short article called "How to Hire a Day Laborer" by Gary Jacobsen, who's also a columnist for the Potomac News, a former Marine Corps colonel, and a former low-level college professor (mysite.verizon.net/resqxf3p). Chris Core from Washington DC radio station WMAL proceeded to discuss the column on the air, apparently accusing Jacobsen of hiring illegal aliens. Now, Jacobsen is suing for defamation:

On the show, Core said that, in his column, Jacobsen "admitted to breaking the law concerning the hiring of illegal immigrants," Jacobsen said...

"I never said 'illegal aliens;' I said 'day laborers.' A day laborer could be a college kid trying to earn extra money," Jacobsen said...

He's right about that. On the other hand, the location where he picked them up is apparently a famous day laborer hangout (the 7-Eleven at Prince William Parkway and U.S. Route 1), and they seem to have conducted their entire conversation in Spanish. Now, certainly they could be Spanish-monolingual people who are here legally, and they could be among the 25% or so of day laborers who are not illegal aliens. But, someone who's familiar with his "work" says:

However, Gary rarely refers to "illegal" when discussing illegal immigrants. He accuses his opponents of being "anti-immigrant," or "anti-Hispanic." Last week he claimed the Board voted to "withhold services from immigrants," rather than "illegal immigrants." Last month he said calling illegal immigrants criminals was false.

The last also points out that what he obtained was a false bargain, for instance if his workers had been injured or had botched the job. A contractor in the comments on the WaPo story makes a similar point, ending with this only slightly over the top comment:

Too bad for Mr. Jacobsen slavery was abolished; he might have only been out the paint and the lunch.

We probably are never going to find out whether those he hired are here illegally (and he might not have been required to ask them or file other paperwork), but one thing is clear: the Washington Post is trying to mainstream acceptance of wide-spread illegal activity and trying to encourage short-sighted folks like Jacobson to profit from it.

Related:
Judi Hasson/MSNBC: how to hire (most likely illegal) day labor

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:28 AM

Is Kos right? Can the Democrats continue to support massive illegal activity and not pay for it at the ballot box?

Leader Kos offers "Yup, immigration not the GOP's savior", saying "the demonization of scary brown people -- has been a flop" and linking to this WaPo article. While I didn't read the latter, the Washington Post explicity supports illegal immigration, so there's a very good chance they put their own special spin on things.

However, it's obvious that Kos is wrong because there's no good argument for massive illegal activity. In fact, about the only "argument" those who support illegality can muster is that which Kos uses in his post: playing the race card. If the Dems were unable to play that card, their corrupt schemes would be evident and they wouldn't be able to push them. And, some in the GOP play that card as well.

Obviously, it's a very strong card and many people are cowed by it. And, some make things worse by giving legitimacy to childish "arguments" like Kos' by reflexively claiming they aren't racists (see the bit about LBJ here). The way to deal with it is to acknowledge that some opposition to illegal immigration may be racist, but to claim that opposition is per se racist is a logical fallacy. Kos is being illogical.

And, we can point out that by hiding behind the race card, Kos is in effect supporting everything that illegal immigration involves and entails, ranging from being an indicator of massive government corruption to giving foreign governments more political power inside to the U.S. all the way to border deaths. By enabling illegal immigration, Kos is helping - in his own small way - encourage more people to try to cross the desert, with some of them dying along the way.

And, what Kos fails to note (and probably doesn't realize) is that those who support illegal activity have been able to succeed in large part because they've been able to fix the debate. If the mainstream media were doing their jobs, they would have asked the presidential candidates about the huge glaring gaps in their immigration policies and would have revealed that almost all of the front-runners just can't think things through or are corrupt. That carries over to the presidential "debates"; some of those haven't featured any questions about immigration at all, and at the ones that did the questions were extremely lightweight.

And, what Kos doesn't mention is that the leadership of the GOP supports illegal immigration just as much as the leadership of the Democratic Party. In the past, that's caused them to work against members of their own party who oppose illegal immigration, even if it means losing a seat.

In summary, it's fairly easy for someone who's familiar with these issues and who's familiar with scoring points against an opponent and who isn't afraid to do that to discredit those who support illegal immigration and force them to lose support. However, the GOP leadership isn't about to push for that, and the corrupt mainstream media isn't going to do it either. That means that we need to do it by going to campaign appearances, asking tough questions about this issue, and then uploading the response.

The Democrats - and many Republicans - are extremely vulnerable on this issue. We just need to point it out to enough people.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:34 PM

Vicente Fox wants "open work force" in Americans (flat, open spaces)

I'll bet George Bush wishes he'd just keep his mouth shut. At an appearance in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania:

[Vicente Fox] called for shared agreements between countries in the Americas, creating an open work force...

...Fox referenced New York Times' columnist Thomas Friedman, calling "the world flat" and saying that NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement) worked well for the U.S., Canada and Mexico to create jobs, even if American manufacturing jobs were exported. He told the audience that open borders would create economic prosperity for the U.S., an "aging nation" that will need workers.

I'd really like a transcript to find out whether he said literal "open borders".

He called for Congress to handle immigration reform, because without reform it left "open spaces" that would be filled by people preying on hate. He didn't mention Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta or that city's illegal immigration act directly during the speech or his 20-minute news conference before the event, but he discussed "local communities" forced to handle the immigration issue...

"I am not for illegality, but these people came here because someone offered them a job," Fox said. "They love this nation, they contribute to the betterment of this nation."

Ten minutes into his speech Fox referenced plans in the U.S. to build a wall along the Mexican-American border. He would use the term "wall" at least 20 times during his speech and called such actions deplorable...

Groups protested outside; per this:

Several of our patriots actually did go to the speech by Vicente Fox. They walked up, bought tickets and went in. Bruce DeCell of 9-11 Families for a Secure America was quickly singled out by those at the speech and he was told he had to leave or he would be arrested, even though he didn't say or do anything.

It'd be great to know more about that. More links about his whirlwind tour in "Mexico's Fox openly calls for North American Union"

Posted to NAU at 12:24 PM

Hillary Clinton opposes mass deportations, promotes illegal immigration (AP malfeasance)

I've been unable to find out which Associated Press "reporter" wrote this:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that illegal immigrants are "everywhere in America" and that comprehensive immigration reform - not mass deportation - is the solution to the problem.

If the "reporter" had been doing their job, they would have pointed out to Hillary that no national figure is calling for mass deportations, and she's engaging in a strawman argument.

Clinton said the issue is a complicated one that has become distorted by politicians seeking electoral gains. "They are decent people," she said of illegal immigrants. "They're everywhere in America."

And they might vote! Oh, wait, she didn't say that, even if she might have been thinking it. While it's acceptable to say that most or almost all illegal aliens are "decent people", it's not acceptable to say that all are as she did. Unless we're talking about saints, every group of people has both good and bad members. And, unless she's going to follow statements like that with a statement like, "most of them are good people, but we have to support our laws and encourage them to return home", she's promoting giving them amnesty and is thus selling illegal immigration.

If you know someone in Iowa, please urge them to go to her appearances, ask her tough questions designed to reduce her credibility, and then upload the response to Youtube.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:18 PM

Sharon Pandak, Washington Post, illegal immigration losing in Prince William County, Virginia

With about 17% of the votes counted, Corey Stewart is ahead of Sharon Pandak for chairman of the Prince William County board of supervisors in Virginia (pwcgov.org/voterweb/UnofficialResuts.pdf). Things could change, but at this moment it looks like a win for Stewart.

Pandak, a Democrat, was the choice of the WaPo because they appreciated her "pragmatic" approach to illegal immigration. Stewart pushed through a resolution trying to reduce it; Pandak's approach would have allowed it to continue. Other parties who are no doubt upset with this news are Eric Byler and the other racial demagogues from 9500 Liberty.

UPDATE: The WaPo lost. Other elections were mixed, with illegal immigration supporters winning some, losing others.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:45 PM

Dianne Feinstein drops AgJobs amnesty, doesn't have the votes

According to this, Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday decided that she didn't have the votes to add the AgJobs farmworker amnesty to the Farm Bill:

"When we took a clear-eyed assessment of the politics of the farm bill and the defeat of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, it became clear that our support could not sustain these competing forces... [because of this] we will continue to see labor shortages far into the future. Fruit will rot. Crops will go unharvested. Operations will be forced to cut back or move to Mexico."

Oh well. Perhaps that's for the best. Alternatively, she could push for farm mechanization rather than trying to import serf labor. The article also quotes Craig Regelbrugge, co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, saying that he's been "working with Feinstein on the Ag Jobs effort". He says that in 1999 we became a net food importer.

Amnesty supporters take heart:

But Feinstein said she isn't giving up. She will ask Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule floor time for Ag Jobs either later this year or early in 2008... When the comprehensive immigration bill failed in June, Reid promised Feinstein he'd allow Ag Jobs to come up for a vote on its own.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:35 PM

Andres Oppenheimer threatens "Latino intifada" without massive illegal alien amnesty

Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald threatens the United States and gives the strongest argument yet made for never giving amnesty and for working to completely stop further illegal immigration in what's called here "Pressure on immigrants could erupt in anger":

The rapid escalation of U.S. anti-immigration hysteria - fueled by ratings-hungry cable-television hotheads and leading Republican presidential hopefuls - is a dangerous trend: It may lead to a Latino intifada with the potential to rock this nation in the not-so-distant future.

Remember the Palestinian intifada of the early 1990s, when thousands of frustrated young Palestinians took to the streets and threw stones at Israeli troops? Remember the French intifada of the summer of 2005, in which disenfranchised Muslim youths burned cars and stores in the suburbs of Paris?

If we are not careful, we may see something similar coming from the estimated 13 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, most of them Latino, who are increasingly vilified in the media, forced further into the underground by spineless politicians and not given any chance to legalize their status by a pusillanimous U.S. Congress.

We are creating an underclass of people who won't leave this country and, realistically, can't be deported. They and their children are living with no prospect of earning a legal status, no matter how hard they work for it. Many of them will become increasingly frustrated, angry, and some of them eventually may turn violent...

In effect, Oppenheimer is saying that we've been invaded and settled, and we must capitulate to avoid bloodshed. If we do capitulate, that will only lead to more and greater capitulations in the future. The only way out of this situation that preserves the structure of the U.S. is to back away slowly by gradually deporting illegal aliens, encouraging those here now to leave, and discouraging any more illegal immigration.

Related: John McCain: no amnesty for illegal aliens could lead to France-style riots
Holly Ramer, AP "reporter", helps John McCain spout massive immigration propaganda

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:56 AM

Lawsuit claims Tyson Foods conspired with LULAC to hire illegal aliens

From this:

The plaintiffs in a lawsuit accusing Tyson Foods Inc. of hiring illegal aliens to work at poultry plants are focusing on the meat producer's relationship with the League of Latin American Citizens. [Note: the two are also linked with Mike Huckabee]

The class-action suit in U. S. District Court in Eastern Tennessee [Trollinger v. Tyson] claims Springdale-based Tyson Foods knowingly hired illegal aliens to work for wages below what American workers would take. It was filed in April 2002 on behalf of former Tyson workers in several states, not including Arkansas.

..."We believe Tyson has used its relationship with LULAC to help carry out a 'willful blindness' policy of hiring illegal workers," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Howard W. Foster of Chicago. "Tyson is very close with LULAC, especially in Springdale, and we're alleging that the groups have agreed not to investigate workers who are suspected illegal aliens."

Of course, both Tyson Foods and LULAC deny the claims, but let's hope for the best.

Related:
Arkansas Friendship Coalition: ACLU, Tyson Foods, ACORN join to support "immigration"

2/14/08 UPDATE: A suit against Tyson has been tossed; it may be the same or a different one.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:50 AM

James Pinkerton, Mark Potok, Doris Meissner oppose citizen action against illegal immigration

James Pinkerton of the Houston Chronicle offers "Taking border battle to the streets" about a local group (U.S. Border Watch) that protests in front of day laborer sites. While it's not as bad as other similar articles, he takes his lead from LBJ: he doesn't call them racists, he just makes them deny it. [see the update]

Far from the halls of Congress and the front lines of the Southwest border, the divisive immigration debate is being played out in local neighborhoods, including the Houston area. A number of groups have upped the ante by moving from debate to confrontation, attempting to take immigration duties into their own hands.

The latter is somewhat of a questionable statement: if they were unlawfully trying to enforce the laws they probably still wouldn't be doing what they're doing.

Then, it's time to roll in Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government. His group "monitors such organizations."

[The head of USBW]... repeats claims that 25 Americans citizens are killed each day by undocumented immigrants. Islamic terrorists are slipping across the Southwest border, he says, camouflaged as illegal immigrants.

''There have been reports of Spanish-speaking schools popping up in the Middle East and teaching people in that part of the world to speak Spanish so they can blend in easily," Collier said.

Potok, with the poverty center, said those claims are common to this new breed of anti-illegal immigration activists. ''These are the paranoid fantasies of people with difficulty handling reality," he said.

First, the 25 per day claim would have illegal aliens committing more than half of all murders, so that's obviously too high. Rep. Steve King says it's 12 per day, however an article I put more faith in says it's somewhere between about 4 and 6 (humanevents.com/article.php?id=10663). See also this. As for the Mideast schools, I haven't heard anything about that, but I certainly have heard about terrorists - or at least those from "Special Interest" countries learning Spanish in order to masquerade as Latin Americans. And, there are several reports about those from such countries - including at least two Hezbollah members - coming across our borders in this category. And, both Democratic and Republican House members have warned about terrorists infiltrating over the borders, including disguised as Mexicans and others from Latin America.

Adding everything together, I'd have to say that the head of USBW - despite his incorrect figures - is more credible than Potok. Perhaps if Pinkerton wanted to do a better report he would have called both of them on their statements.

Then, we're treated to this:

Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton era [and is now with the Migration Policy Institute when not attending secret NAU meetings], said groups such as Border Watch have proliferated due to frustration over the government's inability to control illegal immigration. And while Meissner characterized the groups as ''spot outbreaks," she considers them a threat.

I'm not going to suggest reflexively considering what she considers to be a threat to be a blessing, but given her extremely poor history that's something to consider. See "Meissner's Gift to Criminal Aliens" (humanevents.com/article.php?id=323) and "Thwarting Homeland Security" (humanevents.com/article.php?id=238).

Then, Pinkerton tries to portray citizens doing their duty as a bad thing:

[After local religious leaders tried to start a day laborer hangout] Border Watch volunteers marched on the Chamber of Commerce, and scores of members dominated a September meeting on the proposed center.

Oh, the horror of U.S. citizens - rather than citizens of other countries - protesting.

"All we wanted to do was get a place for day laborers to be safe, to get out of the sun and rain, to get a drink and go to the bathroom," [pastor Franklin Moore] said.

Aww. Of course, he doesn't mention that most day laborers are illegal aliens, and the church is facilitating illegal activity.

Then, Pinkerton quotes one of the opponents; at least he mentions that he's worked with the "International Socialist Organization and the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, among others".

MINOR UPDATE: According to this, what I refered to above about LBJ was actually an anti-LBJ satire from Paul Krassner.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 11:43 PM

Rasmussen poll: 77% oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens

Thanks Hillary Clinton (and Eliot Spitzer)! A new Fox 5/Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll says that 77% oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens, with only 16% supporting the idea. Opposition is at 88% for Republicans, 75% for independents, and 68% for Democrats.

Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:33 PM

Janet Murguia/NCLR misleads to support illegal immigration (Kansas City, Minuteman issue)

The National Council of La Raza ("The Race") is an extremist-funding group that in turn is funded by large corporations [1] that profit from illegal activity. Senator Chris Dodd even wants to give them millions of dollars.

They recently pulled their 2009 convention out of Kansas City, MO because a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps was appointed to that city's Parks Board. Local Hispanic leaders even went as far as trying to deliver a letter to that board member's house in what appears to be an attempt to intimidate her.

Now, their president, Janet Murguia, offers "La Raza left because it objects to extremism". She objects to the "extremism" of the MCDC and pretends it isn't about policy. Since her group continually supports illegal immigration, and the MCDC opposes it, that's highly questionable.

Here's the only thing she has to say about everything that's been involved in this issue, including the letter:

While I can't address every issue raised since the controversy erupted, the views and passion expressed - on both sides of the issue - deserve a response.

Obviously, someone else would address a possible act of intimidation, but I guess that's more than we should expect from her.

Then, she brings up a quote from MCDC leader Chris Simcox; I don't know the context, but it appears to have been originally reported by Gustavo Arellano, someone who has a clear agenda and, even if he got the quote accurate, doesn't provide any context [2].

Then, she discusses an original member of the Minuteman Project who was sending messages to a Nazi group... "privately". It should be obvious to anyone that none of the Minutemen groups want such connections, and I'm not going to even bother to verify that after her extra-curricular activities were discovered she was tossed from the group.

Then, she delves into the ADL's "Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream." The problems with part of that report are discussed at the link, and she helps point out yet another problem:

The founder of the Dustin Inman Society, D.A. King, said in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that immigrants are "not here to mow your lawn — they're here to blow up your buildings and kill your children, and you, and me."

Bolding added. And, in fact, that's similar to what's in the ADL's report [3]:

Speaking at a Newton County (Georgia) Republican Party meeting in April 2007, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, King reportedly told attendees that undocumented immigrants are "not here to mow your lawn – they're here to blow up your buildings and kill your children, and you, and me."

Now, here's the kicker (which everyone knew was coming). The Southeast Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Bill Nigut, says [4]:

In a speech to a handful of Georgia Republicans in Covington earlier this year, King cleverly intertwined our legitimate fears of the threat from Islamic terrorists with a rant against undocumented Mexicans. At one point, according to a report in the Rockdale Citizen newspaper, he displayed a mock-up of a Mexican photo ID card, filled in with the name supplied by King: "Al Qaida Gonzalez." ...When he told the gathering that "They're not here to mow your lawn - they're here to blow up your buildings and kill your children, and you and me," King says he was speaking of the Islamic threat. But since Muslim yard services tend to be few and far between, his intentional mixing of images seems clear: He is out to create fear about all illegal immigrants, be they Islamic terrorists or Mexican gardeners.

So, now we see that King wasn't refering to "immigrants" (Murguia's word) or "undocumented immigrants" (the ADL's report's words), but to Islamist infiltrators. In other words, Murguia and the ADL report are highly misleading, and that was obviously intentional. (Further, the only "reporting" from the AJC that I could find is in a blog post, but I didn't check their archives.) At the last link, King says he was refering to this government report (PDF). (The Rockdale Citizen doesn't appear to have online archives: rockdalecitizen.com)

Obviously, both Janet Murguia and the ADL aren't just sloppy, what they say can't be trusted.

[1] discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=153
[2] ocweekly.com/news/news/see-tombstone-nab-a-mexican/21117/
[3] adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/da_king.asp
[4] mdjonline.com/content/index/showcontentitem/area/1/section/17/item/97577.html

Posted to Immigration2007b at 04:45 PM

Greg Siskind compares illegal alien harborers to Dutch in WWII, underground railroad

Greg Siskind [1] is a leading immigration lawyer (and AILA member). For someone who appears to be bright he writes some awfully stupid blog posts, such as the latest called "Hero or Harborer?" [2]:

[...discusses a Dutch woman who sheltered Jews during World War II as well as the Underground Railroad...] So what does this have to do with immigration? Because a lot of anti-immigrants are totally focused on the fact that unauthorized immigrants have broken the law and are also going after anyone who tries to help them. In the last Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would have imprisoned people acting in a humanitarian capacity. Feeding or giving water to someone who has just walked through the desert - jail. Giving them a ride to the hospital? That would be unlawful transportation. Providing housing to a homeless unauthorized immigrant - that's illegal harboring. You get the picture.

Obviously, comparing those who are at the most economic refugees and who've paid smugglers to bring themselves here - or who've ignored the terms of their visas to stay here - to slaves and Jews during WWII should be beyond the pale. Just as obviously, for Siskind it isn't.

I'd also like to assume that he knows the details of HR4437 better than I do, however:
DNC radio ad lies about HR4437
Cardinal Roger Mahony admits to exaggerating about HR4437
Sensenbrenner to Catholic Bishops: please stop lying
CNN immigration poll misleads about HR4437
The Catholic Church's anti-HR4437 smokescreen (no soup kitchens here)
Soup Kitchen Watch
Churchmen, coyotes, and HR 4437
Will HR 4437 cause humanitarian groups to be prosecuted for giving emergency aid to illegal aliens?

UPDATE: Siskind himself leaves a comment. First, the part he quotes seems highly similar to current law, although there are probably differences. Second, Cardinal Roger Mahony said that under HR 4437 he might require documentation before giving Communion. However, he also said that was only "if you tease it out to its extreme". Indeed. In fact, I'm absolutely positive that about the only cases in which those who gave emergency aid would be charged would be if they did something else (like gave someone a lift to Chicago afterwards) or if an official was looking for a sneaky way to scuttle the law by creating public outrage against its application (see Chertoff's comments implying he would enrage the left.) Third, Sensenbrenner told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that he would work with them to mitigate their concerns (of course, I'm assuming they were just being disingenuous). Fourth, there's the matter of always asking for more than you want in negotiations: the final bill would have almost certainly have looked different from the original version. Fifth, a recent case that comes close to the scare tactics employed by Mahoney was thrown out, and in that case they appeared to go beyond just offering someone a glass of water:

nomoredeaths.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=31

And, finally, if the law were applied to innocent religious leaders who were only providing humanitarian aid, there would be so much public outcry that the law would be repealed. Concerns about this are completely baseless.

[1] visalaw.com/gsiskind.html
[2] blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/11/hero-or-harbore.html

Posted to Immigration2007b at 01:11 PM

On puppets

I don't have much patience for novelty acts, and I have even less for the almost-completely-unknown-Canadian-cult-artist folk singer type, however, I do like the way she rolls the puppet here:

On the other hand, this video from about 18 years ago is the real deal:

Posted to WackyHumor at 11:08 AM

NYT: Tom Tancredo has no teeth

Would you put it past the New York Times to try to subliminally program their visitors to think ill of those who oppose their support for illegal immigration? (All five of you who think the NYT wouldn't stoop that low should read NYT: Toothless yokels against Senate immigration grand compromise! and its follow-up about Clark Hoyt).

The latest possible attempt comes in the candidate pictures at The Caucus (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com). Alone among the pictures, that of Tom Tancredo makes him look like a) he's missing teeth, and b) he's a village idiot:

While most of the rest have big, toothy smiles, Kucinich does come a bit close. However, his picture makes him look more jolly than idiotic.

Posted to Politics at 04:25 PM

Henry Rollins: how ashamed of himself should he feel?

Consider this clip from the aged punk's show before answering:

Is he putting some of the profits from the show aside in order to get her the treatment she obviously needs?

If his viewers get tired of JG, perhaps he could show bum fights or make fun of the retarded instead.

Posted to WackyHumor at 02:05 PM

Sharon Pandak, illegal immigration supporter

Sharon Pandak (D) is running against Corey Stewart for chairman of the Board of County Supervisors in Prince William County, Virginia. Stewart is locally famous for pushing through a Prop. 200/187-style anti-illegal immigration ordinance, and the vote will be on Tuesday.

The Washington Post - an explicit supporter of illegal immigration - gives her their endorsement in "Detoxifying Prince William" (link):

...She would also deal more effectively with the valid concerns raised by the presence of illegal immigrants, particularly in the Route 1 corridor and around Manassas -- not by posturing but by being serious about enforcing zoning codes...

That implies to me that the WaPo knows that she'd keep the cheap labor and potential votes flowing, and that's confirmed in this interview from 9500 Liberty (youtube.com/watch?v=rEvo8g9Z8Gk). While she doesn't come out directly for illegal immigration - and in fact says she opposes it - reading between the lines shows where she really stands.

She wants to "deal effectively with the federal government to address these issues"; that's code for "punt it to the feds and then watch as they do nothing".

She says "illegal immigration will only be solved when our borders are secured and employers quit knowingly hiring illegal aliens". That's yet another punt to the feds, and she - and the residents of PWC - might be waiting a long time for those to happen.

Then, she claims that the costs of engaging in citizenship checks for services is greater than the costs for the services themselves to all Hispanics in that county, saying:

So, what have we achieved by doing that?

One obvious thing - obvious to the rest of us but not to her - is that that county isn't countenancing illegal activity and is discouraging the additional illegal activity that would follow if the current activity is ignored. And, that's assuming that her figures are correct. And, of course, there are non-financial benefits from making sure that the law is followed, such as reducing political corruption and discouraging private corruption.

Please send her - and the Washington Post - down to defeat.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:30 PM

Nick Miroff promotes 9500Liberty pro-illegal immigration documentary (Eric Byler)

A documentary about the immigration situation in Northern Virginia from independent filmmakers Eric Byler, Annabel Park, and Jeff Man is currently being serialized on the web: youtube.com/9500Liberty. Nick Miroff of the Washington Post promotes it in "Raw Look at Immigration Crucible". Both he and a member of the local Minuteman Civil Defense Corps say they're balanced. However, a glance at the videos casts a great deal of doubt on that, and Miroff admits that both Byler and Park volunteered for the James Webb campaign. In fact:

"Watching George Allen look into the camera and point and say you are not the real Virginia, the real Virginia is the people who are laughing with me at you, reminded me of this whole thing that was never resolved," Byler said.

What a creative retelling of events. Whatever the issue with Macaca, the "real" statement wasn't directed at the cameraman: it was meant to draw a contrast between where Allen was and where Webb was at that moment, namely in Hollywood. Since Byler can't get that right, don't expect the videos to be much better.

A sample video is at: youtube.com/watch?v=k_Dw1ioGPGY Someone who might be refered to as an old coot objects to people speaking Spanish and has other old cootish concerns. For this the commentors on the video call him a racist. The overall impact of this segment is to portray Hispanics as oppressed victims of people like him.

However, the issues on that segment go much deeper, and both the filmmakers and Miroff appear to be too steeped in leftwing ideology to recognize those issues. Here's his first paragraph, refering to this video:

In one video, a man furious about hearing Spanish at a hardware store berates a group of Latino families with a lecture on American history, telling them "my ancestors were here before the Constitution." A little girl shyly reminds him: "The Indians were here before the Americans."

And, someone else says that the Europeans came here illegally. What Miroff and Byler don't pick up on is that we're importing people who think they have a race-based claim on our land. And, they're expressing that claim and using it as justification for coming here contrary to our laws.

That theme is also included in a clip called "Hispanic Children Will One Day Rise" (youtube.com/watch?v=HyzMOcjITvI); that's a quote from a black high school teacher (Patrick Garland) who spoke at a meeting of the Prince William County board after which they passed a Proposition 200-style ordinance (link). He spoke against the ordinance, and, on the video, he also says that, because we're a nation of immigrants, we're "in no position to say that this is our country."

Obviously, if we can't say who can come here, then we've not only got open borders we have no control over our country and in fact we no longer have a country.

Bearing in mind that YT is pretty much at the AOL level when it comes to political debate, the comments left on the videos show the dangers inherent in allowing mass immigration by those who can pretend to have some race-based right to come here at will. A few examples from different people are in the extended entry.

UPDATE: They've re-edited the old coot's episode here: youtube.com/watch?v=29WTKbpYhag

With that, they've revealed their hand: their goal is engaging in base racial demagoguery, not fostering debate.

"America is the land of immigrants" who has the right to say "this is our country" the Native Americans are the one who should be able to say it, not Anglo-American.

coming from an half african and mexican male.i love my people and this land was ours and don't tell me my people had nothing to do with building this country.we built this country.

by-the-way. that old man has no more claim to live here than any of thoseb legal hispanics, his people came to America and persecuted my ancestors [the filmmakers posted a reply saying they wanted to interview that poster]

That old white guy needs to go to school. Every race here except for the Natives shouldn't be here. It was rightfully their land before the white people.

BTW I am not hispanic but I feel for them.some parts of Mexico was forcefully taken in violence hence California,Colorado,Texas now U.S.A..

you said it, this land is stolen... so, Mexicans are just recovering it

the fact that europeans have been illegal in this country since 1492 doesnt seem to cross anyone's mind

They think they own the land that they are on right now, and think it always belonged to them. When in all actuality it belonged\belongs to the Indians.

The Native Americans were in the country first until a pack of people from another country decide to take it over. Some Hispanics (primarily Mexicans) are mixed of European and Native American blood, so technically his "we were here first" argument is completely invalidated by that fact alone.

When each group(Irish, German, Italian) came to this stolen country they had their languages they spoke and if you were in a deli or store you heard it. We slaughtered the Native Americans and as far as this side of the world Natives of South America were here first. We shot and killed and stole land from them. I dare you to find me a spoiled white kid who is willing to leave their ipod or X box to work when their parents hand them everything.

If that american guy actually studied HIS history he would know that the americans as we know it today KILLED all the natives and claimed this land as theirs.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:41 AM

Ayuda Business Coalition selling Virginia on profiting from illegal immigration

Virginia is holding elections on Tuesday, and a group called Ayuda Business Coalition will be running local ads on CNN which will in effect attempt to sell Virginians into supporting illegal activity:

The centerpiece is an ad that claims to show what happened when Riverside, N.J., passed a resolution penalizing employers who had hired illegal immigrants. Images of empty buildings and signs of shop liquidations and closures flash across the screen. The ad explains that Riverside rescinded its measure one year later.

"The moral: Virginia, let's be careful what we wish for," a narrator warns.

In other words: support illegal activity, and profit. Members mentioned include Mariano Claudio, their executive director Mauricio Vivero. Other members include the head of the Salvadoran American Chamber of Commerce and Carlos Castro, the owner of Todos Market. This may be the same group mentioned in Pamela Constable/WaPo on Latinos who lose money when laws enforced.

As for Riverside, see Ken Belson/Jill Capuzzo/NYT: corruption, illegal activity are great! Since I have no first-hand knowledge I can't definitively say that the New York Times was overselling the impact of that town's ordinance, I just highly suspect it.

While there's probably little payoff, it might be helpful if someone in Virginia could forward the ad to someone else in Riverside to see whether they've taken any "creative license" with their choice of storefronts and the like.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:28 AM

Hillary Clinton Chinatown contributors: to influence pro-PRC or immigration policies?

The article "NYC Chinatown Donorgate Under-Covered" has a roundup of the coverage that Hillary Clinton's large donations from dishwashers and other low-wage Chinese immigrant donors - some who can't be found - has received, then says that some of the missing donors come from an area known for immigrants from China's Fujian Province. That's apparently a hotbed of illegal alien smuggling by the snakeheads:

It's not unreasonable to suspect that the missing donors directed by community "associations" to give to the Clinton campaign are illegal Chinese immigrants smuggled into the U.S. by snakeheads who continue to wield control over them.

Did all the donors use their own money, or were some straw donors who were given money to donate? What do those who may have facilitated the violation of federal campaign laws hope to gain? Is their motive connected to the emerging struggle between Pro-PRC and Pro-Taiwan influences in major Chinatowns across the U.S.? What sort of influence might the unnamed "associations" hope to leverage concerning immigration policy?

These, and other questions, remain under-covered by the major newspapers who reported the Chinatown Donorgate story.

Posted to Politics at 02:00 PM

Fabian Nunez: corporate donations to a charity funneled to his events

For an unknown reason, the Los Angeles Times is trying to get rid of Fabian Nunez. While I welcome this, I can't help but wonder why. The latest is here (via this):

Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez used a small charity as a conduit to funnel almost $300,000 from companies and organizations with business in the Capitol to events that helped him politically.

By giving to the charity, the donors whom Nunez solicited earned tax deductions for which they would not have qualified had they given directly to Nunez's campaign accounts. They were also able to donate more than the $7,200 maximum allowed under California's campaign fundraising rules.

Those donors include Zenith Insurance Co., AT&T, Verizon Communications Inc., the California Hospital Assn., the state prison guards union, Pacific Gas & Electric Co. and Blue Cross of California -- all groups with high stakes in legislation.

The money was used for events including "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's Toy Drive," "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's Soccerfest 2006," "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's Inaugural Legislative Youth Conference" and airplane flights for 50 children from Nunez's district for "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez's Sacramento Student Summit," according to state documents...

Posted to California at 11:30 AM

National Council of La Raza hides behind children to oppose immigration enforcement (raids, trauma, identity theft)

The extremist-funding National Council of La Raza ("The Race") has worked with the Urban Institute (info) to release a report entitled "Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America's Children" [1]. Reading it is to be transported into another universe.

It makes the claim that immigration raids result in harm to the children of the detained persons, but that's not all: they downplay the crime of identity theft and they appear to want anyone who's a parent to not just be released, but to be released from custody as early in the day as possible. And, while I didn't read every page, it doesn't appear that they ever point out that the persons responsible for this situation are the parents themselves: if they hadn't come here illegally or had children while here they would not have put their children in this situation. They also don't appear to discuss that there are hundreds of thousands of persons in jails and prisons whose actions have resulted in similar situations. However, if you don't believe in our immigration laws, everything in the report makes sense.

The overall goal of this effort is to hide behind children in order to tie the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement with so much red tape that they're unable to do their job. If NCLR really cared about the welfare of children, they'd work to discourage illegal immigration rather than strenuously encouraging it as they do now.

As ICE spokesman Tim Counts says:

"This report takes the bizarre position that ICE is somehow responsible for family disruption caused by parents who make poor decisions... Everyone understands that parents are responsible for their actions and the resulting impact on their families."

The cover features a weeping child from the Michael Bianco raid; not mentioned is that almost everyone agrees that was a sweatshop. From Page 4:

After the arrest or disappearance of their parents, children experienced feelings of abandonment and showed symptoms of emotional trauma, psychological duress, and mental health problems. Many lacked stability in child care and supervision. Families continued hiding and feared arrest if they ventured outside, increasing social isolation over time. Immigrant communities faced the fear of future raids, backlash from nonimmigrants, and the stigma of being labeled "illegal." The combination of fear, isolation, and economic hardship induced mental health problems such as depression, separation anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts.

Is it any surprise that they'd put "illegal" in quotes? From their recommendations for Congress:

Congress should revise the rules concerning release, deportation, and banishment of noncitizens charged with nonviolent offenses such as identity theft, so that arrested parents can be reunited with their children in cases where children face hardship.

I'm sure those citizens who are charged with identity theft wish the NCLR was on their side.

From the section where they try to tie ICE's hands:

ICE should consider how the show of force and treatment of arrestees affect children psychologically – including older children who may witness enforcement activities – and plan operations accordingly.

And, perhaps the looniest idea:

ICE should develop a consistent policy for release of parents arrested in enforcement operations. Single parents and primary caregivers of young children should be released early enough in the day so that school children and children in child care do not experience disruptions in care; they should not be held overnight. Parents should be released quickly even when there are two parents in the home because the second parent often cannot function alone.

Other advice for various agencies and non-profits follows; they want to build up a network designed to deal with the aftermath of raids but which in effect would serve as a massive support group for illegal activity.

Once again: if the NCLR wants to prevent such situations, they can start by supporting our immigration laws and discouraging illegal immigration. The fact that they don't do that shows that what they really want is no immigration enforcement at all. Note that Senator Chris Dodd wants to give this group millions of dollars; contact him and let him know what you think.

[1] PDF available here: nclr.org/content/publications/detail/49166/ Press release here: nclr.org/content/news/detail/49170/

Posted to Immigration2007b at 10:57 PM

Arkansas Friendship Coalition: ACLU, Tyson Foods, ACORN join to support "immigration"

The Arkansas Friendship Coalition (arfriendshipcoalition.org) is a new group formed by business and religious leaders, and their goal is to ensure that Arkansas doesn't establish Prop. 200/187-style laws as Oklahoma and Missouri have or are trying to do.

They're led by Rev. Steve Copley, and their members include the local American Civil Liberties Union (other locals are indirectly linked to the Mexican government), ACORN (far-left group; three members recently pleaded guilty for fraudulent voting registration), a Tyson Foods senior vice president (Archie Schaffer), two people from the Clinton School of Public Service (Skip Rutherford and Penelope Sur), and the publisher of the Arkansas Times (Alan Leveritt).

Now, I know what you're thinking: this is yet another group designed to support illegal immigration and make sure that Arkansas' cheap labor industries have workers. Banish that thought! [1]

In answer to critics, the Arkansas Friendship Coalition stresses that it is not putting out a welcome mat for illegals. It just wants federal immigration law to be overhauled, before state governors like [Mike Beebe] take it into their own hands.

Despite the pro-"immigrant" sales job AFC does on their home page, they're all about following the federal laws, and not about encouraging illegal immigration. Not at all!

There's a full list of their members here, and it includes several religious leaders. If you're in the area, the most effective thing you can do about groups like this is to work to publicly discredit those leaders by asking them tough questions (not just rants) about their support of the group and their goals. Find out whether they're receiving any form of payment from that group as well; even if they aren't, when they speak out in favor of illegal immigration tear their statements apart and show their congregation that they haven't thought this through all the way or that they're simply corrupt.

[1] economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10064271

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:31 PM

AgJobs amnesty: on Farm Bill next week?

Dianne Feinstein might try to attach the AgJobs amnesty (info) to the Farm Bill, which apparently will be voted on next week. The estimates are that 1.5 million workers and 1.8 million of their family members would be legalized under the bill, and in order to take part they'd have to apply for citizenship.

The California Strawberry Commission and others are pushing for it, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund sent out an alert yesterday. Please help counteract their efforts by contacting your Senators; even if its chances are questionable this will help remind them of where most Americans stand on amnesties.

Posted to Immigration2007b at 12:05 PM

Marie Cocco's thinking abilities on full display (Washington Post WG)

Marie Cocco writes for the Washington Post Writer's Group, i.e., syndicated articles that apparently even the WaPo is afraid to print. An example of the latter is offered in "The Willie Hortons of 2008" [1] about Hillary Clinton's support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens. After initial race-baiting, she shows us her knowledge of this issue and her thinking abilities:

What, exactly, would conservatives do with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who are now here? Would they round them up and deport them all? Who would execute the raids?

This is the standard false choice between amnesty and mass deportations; even the New York Times has admitted a third choice: attrition (even if they lie about it). And, with Fred Thompson coming out for attrition, one has to wonder whether she's been paying attention.

What would this mass deportation cost? One think tank estimate, based on deporting 10 million, puts the price as high as $230 billion. How would this expense be met? Does the candidate favor a special, anti-immigrant tax to be paid by law-abiding Americans? (Now that would prompt some intriguing responses.)

Of course, it goes without saying that "anti-immigrant" is a false term. And, the "think tank estimate" was a joke study from the Center for American Progress a group linked to not just the Clintons but indirectly linked to the Mexican government. And, it used an extremely flawed methodology to arrive at its estimated cost.

And what of the estimated 3.1 million children of illegal immigrants who have been born in the United States? They are American citizens, entitled to every protection enjoyed by those whose hot rhetoric so excites the airwaves. The options are for these children to leave and live in a country that is not theirs, or break up families so children may remain here. So much for the family values of the family values crowd.

As for "family values", what exactly were the parents of those children thinking when they decided to put their children into such a situation? Surely, even Cocco can see it's bad public policy to further encourage illegal aliens to put even more children into such a situation.

[1] postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc071101.htm

Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:30 AM

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)

• Hostages taken at Clinton campaign NH HQ; political impact
• Immigration "parliament" held in Mexico, with Americans; may lobby in Washington DC
• Instapundit highlights my comment!
• Hundreds smuggled over Canadian border (from South Korea, Pakistan, India and Central America)
• CNN/Youtube Debate Debacle: 11/28/07 GOP version, Part 2
• CNN/Youtube Debate Debacle: 11/28/07 GOP version, Part 1
• CNN Youtube GOP debate November 28, 2007
• Lawyer Julie Pace sues Arizona over e-Verify, suggests filing late to crash system
• Non-citizens/illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections (Texas)
• From "Vacation Resorts with Dick Van Pattten" to the "colonization" of the U.S. (Dennis Kucinich)
• Michael Conlon/Reuters misleads about misleading Alexander Ortega/UC illegal alien healthcare "study"
• Can we get the presidential candidates to attend policy debates?
• Gustavo Torres/CASA de Maryland, SVREP, Ward Churchill at Venezuala "revolution in the U.S." conference
• Mike Huckabee: in-state tuition for "the children of illegal immigrants" (2005; actually for illegal aliens themselves)
• Bush admin to submit new no-match rule... in March 2008
• When "kinda creepy" meets beautiful
• NYT almost follows the money on Western Union (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ken Salazar)
• Judy Woodruff/PBS lies about Romney, Giuliani ("anti-immigrant", Mark Shields, David Brooks)
• Why few take libertarianism seriously (11/23/07 4:24pm edition)
• Youtube/CNN GOP debate: Wednesday, November 28, 2007

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