« December 2007 | Main | February 2008 »
Barack Obama misleads, does sales job on illegal immigration (CNN Democratic "debate")
At tonight's CNN/Politico/Los Angeles Times Democratic "debate" (link), per lightweight illegal immigration supporter Marc Cooper (link):
The candidates also cautiously sparred on the potentially explosive issue of immigration with Obama rejecting a moderator's question that assumed that African-Americans were suffering because of illegal immigration. America's working poor were feeling economic uncertainty "before the latest round of immigrants showed up," Obama said. "We should not use immigration as a tactic to divide," he said.
Apparently Obama lives in a fantasy world where millions of low-wage, low-skill illegal aliens don't have an impact on our own low-wage workers. If the MSM weren't completely corrupt they'd ask him to explain the large percentage of those who are permanently unemployed, especially blacks. And, the last part is an attempt to end debate about this issue by calling those who question importing millions of low-wage workers "dividers".
CNN also asked about driver's licenses for illegal aliens, something that Obama strongly supports. However, CNN's tack was just to gin up controversy regarding possible flip-flops, it wasn't to have an actual adult conversation about whether giving foreign citizens who are here illegally driver's licenses is good public policy.
In an appearance earlier in the day, Obama corrupt nature on this issue was on full display (link):
"We have to stop letting those in power turn us against each other. No place do I see this more than in our immigration debate. I am tired of people of people using this as a political football... ...My father when he came here, he didn't look like you know - he didn't look like he stepped off the Mayflower. But we have to remember the history of immigration in this country. When the Irish first came, people were anti-Irish, when the Italians first came, people were anti-Italian and so we've got to remember our own past history... And let me remind everybody that not everybody who came in through Ellis Island had their papers in order."
There are a lot of things wrong with that statement, it's too bad there wasn't a real reporter around to call him on it (instead of CBS News' Maria Gavrilovic).
1. Once again, Obama is trying to excuse illegal activity because he's a corrupt and he wants to obtain political power.
2. He plays the race card.
3. He engages in a logical fallacy: today's immigration is not like yesterday's.
4. The bit about Ellis Island makes no sense at all, since EI was an official entry point, not an unofficial entry point such as our southern border. Everyone who made it through Ellis Island had their papers in order by definition; those who arrived at Ellis Island had no official papers to begin with (other than those related to the steamship passage).
The part she doesn't mention showed even more explicitly that he's a demagogue (link):
"What I don't like are people focusing on just south-of-the-border immigrants... I don't hear about immigrants from Ireland or Poland. It's very important that we have an intelligent debate about immigration not tinged with attitudes about what people should look like."
He's not just playing the race card, he's doing it in an extremely sleazy fashion. Most of our illegal aliens do come from Mexico, and many people have commented on Irish illegal aliens, for instance pointing out that one of their advocacy groups is partially funded by the Irish government. And, needless to say, anyone who pretends the issue is what illegal aliens "look like" is not interested in an "intelligent debate".
UPDATE: Here's another report from the last event:
[BHO] quoted a woman he'd met on the campaign trail who had despaired of getting her daughter's school to remedy a problem and who told him, "schools aren't designed for people like us. Health care isn't designed for people like us," Obama continued, "the economy isn't designed for people like us. This is our country," he said, his voice rising, "America should be designed for people like us!"
Harold Meyerson was foolish enough to think "people like us" referred to people like him.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 08:10 PM
Matt Corley/Think Progress misleads about Juan Hernandez (McCain's Mexico-linked staff member)
Matt Corley, Research Associate for Think Progress (run by the Clinton-linked Center for American Progress) offers "Glenn Beck's Rants Against 'Juan McCain' Would Not Be Welcome At RedState.com" [1]. The first thing to note is that we might be getting an inkling of how the left/Democrats deal with the issue of Juan Hernandez, the John McCain staff member who's a former cabinet-level official with the Mexican government. To wit, pretend that the issue is only his ethnic background and not his former employment, his dual citizenship, and his obvious divided loyalties:
Discussing last night's GOP debate on his radio show today, Glenn Beck and fill-in host Pat Gray mocked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) by derisively calling him "Juan McCain." Beck, who considers McCain's sponsorship of a comprehensive immigration bill and the Mexican background of his national director of Hispanic outreach to be "an audacious slap in the face to the American people," proudly advertised the segment in his daily e-mail to listeners today...
Of course, the issue isn't his "Mexican background", but with the other issues mentioned above. According, I suggest reviewing everything Corley says in the future for accuracy and completeness.
The post also involves yet another set of rules at RedState, this to prevent people from using names like "Jorge Arbusto". Per Leon Wolf: "If you think you've really zinged someone by calling them by a Latino name, that's a pretty reliable (nearly infallible, in fact) indicator that you don't like Latino people." Of course, the question then becomes why Leon Wolf thinks having a "Latino name" is per se a negative. Let me suggest that Wolf is projecting.
The post even mentions the "We Can Stop The Hate" group.
[1] thinkprogress.org/2008/01/31/beck-juan-mccain/#comment-4250369
[2] redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/and_now_a_word_for_our_commenters
Posted to Immigration2008a at 07:39 PM
We Can Stop The Hate: Mexico-linked groups try silencing opponents of illegal immigration
The extremist-funding National Council of La Raza has started a new effort called We Can Stop The Hate (wecanstopthehate.org) which is attempting to silence those who support our immigration laws by highlighting what they call examples of "hate". Three of their cohorts in the effort have at least indirect links to the Mexican government. Note that that government has explicitly stated that they're going to be using U.S. non-profits to push their agenda, but whether they're involved in the effort isn't known.
The groups involved:
* Anti-Defamation League
* Center for American Progress
* Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
* Media Matters for America (has received money from George Soros)
* Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
* Southern Poverty Law Center
Their targets include Lou Dobbs, Glenn Beck, Pat Buchanan, and others, and a video from them is here.
The easy way to defeat their effort is to go to public appearances by their representatives and ask them about their constituent groups' links to the Mexican government and whether they're receiving any help from that government. And, engage them in a debate designed to show that they're lying about "hate" and just trying to use it as a smokescreen for their support for illegal activity.
UPDATE: See the related entries Ariel Alexovich/New York Times lies about Tom Tancredo, misleads about NCLR and Janet Murguia/National Council of La Raza: throw the First Amendment away to protect illegal immigration?
UPDATE 2: The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) supports the campaign (link).
UPDATE 3: See National Council of La Raza gave award to racist professor ("eliminate the gringo", Jose Angel Gutierrez)
UPDATE 4: The American Jewish Committee has joined their campaign.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:34 AM
Mark Pera: help from Mexico-linked ICIRR, money from immigration lawyers (Illinois)
Mark Pera is trying to unseat incumbent and fellow Democrat Rep. Dan Lipinski (link) (D-IL) in Illinois' 3rd district. I strongly urge voting for anyone other than Pera, due to his links to a few interesting groups. While Lipinski might have his problems (link), I doubt whether they rise to Pera's issues. Those include receiving help from a Mexico-linked group, receiving money from immigration lawyers, and receiving the endorsement of a racist linked to the Mexican government.
I'm going to send an email to Pera asking him whether he's going to reject the support of these groups, but I suspect he won't:
1. Via Howie Klein [1] we learn that the Mexico-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights has been working on his behalf. That group's president, Juan Salgado, has a few links to the Mexican government.
2. From this: ...Carlos Heredia of the Latino Organization of the Southwest criticized him for being a no-show at two neighborhood meetings called to discuss comprehensive immigration reform... the Mexicans for Political Progress yesterday announced their support for Lipinski's chief opponent, democrat Mark Pera. Members of the group --among them Juan Salgado, president of the ICIRR board; Fabian Morales, advisor of the Institute for Mexicans in the Exterior (IME); and Salvador Cervantes organizer of Resurrection Project – said MXPP endorses Pera because of his support of pro-immigrant proyects, such as the Dream Act...
The IME is part of the Mexican government, and, as discussed at his name's link, Morales said this recently:
"Because the enemy is not at home, but outside, he is of white complexion, he thinks differently than us, they are the Minuteman, and those are the ones that we should attack."
Note also that the "Mexicans" part of "Mexicans for Political Progress" should be a misnomer, in that "Mexicans" can't vote (in the U.S.), only "Mexican-Americans". Obviously, they don't see it that way. Even MALDEF uses "Mexican-American" and LULAC has "Citizen" in their name.
3. Pera has received money from Immigrants' List, a group whose board members are all immigration attorneys.
4. "ICIRR sponsored a voter's forum with over 400 Mexican and Muslim immigrant leaders that was attended by Pera and another challenger, but not by their own congressman." [1]
5. The Mexican and Muslim communities have collaborated on fundraising for the Pera Campaign, bringing in thousands of dollars locally and using the money to open a second campaign office and to hire two experienced immigrant organizers to mobilize Mexican and Muslim voters. [1] (as above, "Mexican" isn't the same as "Mexican-American", and I suspect Klein means it the way he wrote it)
6. The Campaign for Community Change (associated with the Center for Community Change) sent out a mailer attacking Lipinski. [1]
[1] downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2008/01/pissing-off-immigrant-community-in.html
Note that Klein's Blue America PAC has also collaborated with the ICIRR before on another project, and thus he and they have an indirect link to the Mexican government.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 07:27 PM
John McCain bumpersticker: "Fewer Jobs. More Wars."
While some might look on in dismay at the chance of John McCain being selected as the Republican nominee, my plan to soften the blow is to try to sell as many of the following bumperstickers and other products as possible, and then move to Australia. It reads "Fewer Jobs. More Wars", and other slogans shall be forthcoming.
Click here to purchase it from CafePress.
Posted to Temporary at 03:20 PM
Vote No on Prop 93 (bogus term limits proposition would keep Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo in office)
I urge all Californians to vote No on Prop 93, the term limits proposition. It's an obviously deceptive measure that pretends to limit term limits for legislators, but which in fact would allow people like Fabian Nunez, Don Perata, and Gil Cedillo to remain in office instead of being termed out.
In fact, if the proposition passes, Nunez could remain Speaker until 2014 and Perata Senate president until 2012. For more information, see the opposition site at stopprop93.com.
Those who will be termed out also include such worthies as Lloyd Levine, Paty Berg, Mervyn Dymally, Betty Karnette, Mark Leno, Sheila Kuehl, and Gloria Romero. A full list is in the PDF available here. Unfortunately, Tom McClintock would also be affected, but at least temporarily depriving the rest of their power is worth it.
Those who are pushing the proposition (link) include the CA Democratic Party, former governor Gray Davis, Rep. Barbara Lee, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom, and various union, business, racial power, and environmental groups such as the Sierra Club of California. Needless to say, those groups have power over many of the legislators who would be affected.
Another pusher is Arnold Schwarzenegger, who offered "Reform term limits" (link) earlier this month and even appears in an ad for the measure (link). Oddly enough, he doesn't mention that the measure is obviously intended to deceive and would keep people like Nunez and Cedillo in power.
Related to that:
But state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, the only other Republican holding statewide office in California, suggested Schwarzenegger agreed to back Proposition 93 to get concessions from legislative leaders on other issues... "That's my conclusion after looking at all the facts I have," said Poizner, a wealthy former Silicon Valley businessman who has contributed $1.5 million of his own money to the anti-93 campaign. "I'm disappointed and not too surprised that in this type of environment that the governor got pushed into a corner where he thought he had to make this kind of a deal in order to make progress with legislative leaders." ...Schwarzenegger is seeking legislative support this year for a $14 billion health care reform plan, a constitutional amendment to change the state budgeting process and massive upgrades to the state's water system.
Posted to California at 04:11 PM
Leticia van de Putte delivers Democratic SOTU response (Spanish language version)
Texas state senator Leticia van de Putte delivered the Spanish-language version of the Democratic Party's response to the Bush State of the Union address. Republicans and even most Democrats might want to pay closer attention to what Democratic leaders are saying behind their backs (example from Senator Bob Menendez), yet I don't think this will get much play. The transcript is at Nancy Pelosi's very own site here, and here's the part about immigration:
And on issues specific to our community, the President has allowed extremists to dominate the rhetoric on immigration, disrespecting our rich history, and the contributions immigrants have made to strengthen our country. Senate Democrats fought to reach a compromise bipartisan immigration reform bill and brought it for a vote 3 times, but were blocked by the anger of the far right, and Republicans who prefer to use it as a campaign issue than to actually address it. The same happened with the DREAM Act, critical for immigrant children who grew up in America to achieve their dreams of a higher education.
Needless to say, immigration isn't specific to one "community", and dividing countries into "communities" is what's done in cheerful places such as the Balkans. And, Bush has indeed allowed "extremists to dominate the rhetoric on immigration": extremists like Michael Gerson, Linda Chavez, Daniel Griswold (inspired Bush's original "guest" worker scheme), and so forth and so on. Meanwhile, Bush has tried to silence, marginalize, and lie to those Americans who support our laws, which includes many Democrats among the ranks of those who are supposedly "far right". And, as discussed here many times, the DREAM Act would allow illegal aliens - citizens of other countries - to take college discounts and slots from U.S. citizens. Addresses like this make clear that the Democrats have little regard for fundamental concepts such as U.S. citizenship.
On a related note, the English-language response from Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius didn't mention immigration at all (link).
Posted to Immigration2008a at 07:44 PM
Bush 2008 State of the Union continues immigration charades
One paragraph of tonight's State of the Union address concerned immigration:
America needs to secure our borders - and with your help, my Administration is taking steps to do so. We are increasing worksite enforcement, we are deploying fences and advanced technologies to stop illegal crossings, we have effectively ended the policy of "catch and release" at the border, and by the end of this year, we will have doubled the number of border patrol agents. Yet we also need to acknowledge that we will never fully secure our border until we create a lawful way for foreign workers to come here and support our economy. This will take pressure off the border and allow law enforcement to concentrate on those who mean us harm. We must also find a sensible and humane way to deal with people here illegally. Illegal immigration is complicated, but it can be resolved. And it must be resolved in a way that upholds both our laws and our highest ideals.
First, as with the Clinton's, it's necessary to define terms. "Securing" the borders, to me, doesn't mean completely preventing all illegal crossing since some people will always be able to get through. I believe that that's the way that Bush means that to mean, although I could be surprised.
The question then becomes: why Bush hasn't secured to borders until now? He's had seven plus years, so why are they still "taking steps"?
And, I'll bet Bush could secure the border in a few weeks if he really needed and wanted to. In that light, the third sentence above holds the U.S. hostage to some sort of "guest" worker program, otherwise Bush won't do his job. The economy would hardly collapse if we secured the borders, but some small group of people would lose some money.
And, while the great majority of illegal aliens don't "mean us harm", they do form a political power base for racial demagogues and the Mexican and other governments, and that does harm the U.S.
And, it's hardly "humane" to allow 14% of another country's workforce to move to your country and prop up the corrupt government of that country.
As for the rest, they've certainly increased worksite enforcement a bit, but I'd imagine there are even Clinton years with higher rates.
The DHS is certainly building fences, but whether they're pushing as hard as they could is definitely an open question.
Checking how many "other than Mexicans" have been released back in to the U.S. rather than being deported immediately and whether the DHS is in line to double the numbers of agents is left as an exercise.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 07:02 PM
Barack Obama reiterates support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens (Carolyn Lochhead)
Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle offers this:Sen. Barack Obama easily won the African American vote in South Carolina, but to woo California Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.She's actually right about most of that, but she forgot to include New York governor Eliot Spitzer in her list of casualties. It also isn't clear from her article who exactly is renewing Obama's support for those who've broken our laws; no quotes from Obama or an official spokesman are provided.
It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.
It's also not entirely true that "Latinos... want them". Latinos who are here legally can already get them. As for those who put their race ahead of the best interests of their country, see page 14 of the 2007 Pew Hispanic Survey (pewhispanic.org/files/reports/84.pdf). Respondents were asked whether there should be a check for immigration status before granting a license. 85% of non-Hispanics said yes, as did 40% of all Hispanics. A majority of native-born Hispanics (56%) said yes, but a majority of foreign-born Hispanics (66%) said no. Whether any of the latter included illegal aliens isn't clear.
So, just as long as Obama goes for the foreign-born Hispanics (perhaps including illegal aliens), he's got it made. It's only the other 75%+ of American citizens he needs to worry about.
The article also quotes Gil Cedillo and former Clinton administration official Federico Pena, who's now a supporter of Obama. In 2006 he led a group that tried to thwart a Proposition 187-style measure in Colorado and the spokeswoman for that group was the vile Polly Baca, meaning that Pena is linked at least tangentially linked into the Western Union gravy train.
More on Obama's immigration issues here.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 01:58 PM
John McCain would sign his own amnesty bill as president; tries co-opting attrition
Yesterday, Tim Russert asked John McCain:"If the Senate passed your bill, S.1433, the McCain/Kennedy immigration bill, would you as president sign it?McCain replied:
"Yeah. But look, the lesson is, it isn't - one, it isn't going to come. It isn't going to come."Video here.
In other news, McCain is now trying to pretend to embrace the attrition concept, whereby we'd enforce our laws and reduce non-emergency services now to encourage many or most illegal aliens to go home voluntarily. However, he only presents it as a side-effect of an amnesty rather than suggesting it as an alternative to amnesty. And, he's discussing it as yet another attempt to fool people into supporting his amnesty:
[McCain said:] "I would propose, once the borders are secure and the borders stay government-certified, then I would have [a] tamper-proof biometric-document system so that the only people that can work are those who have that. And that would cause many more to leave this country,"In other words, he's just slightly changing tactics in order to get the amnesty that he and those he's linked to want.
...The program's host, Jorge Ramos, asked Mr. McCain if that meant no legalization program "for the first two or three years," and Mr. McCain seemed to concur.
"I am saying that in the first year or two years at the present pace we can get the border secured, and then we can address the other part of it. The American people want the border secured first, and that is what we have to do," Mr. McCain said, according to an English transcript provided by the network.
It's also quite fitting that, as described at the link above, Ramos is a Mexican citizen by choice despite having lived and worked in the U.S. for over a decade.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:06 AM
John McCain asked about Juan Hernandez, doesn't denounce his views
Via this, someone went to a John McCain appearance in Florida and asked him about his Hispanic outreach director Juan Hernandez, a dual citizen who's also a former official with the Mexican government. While she got some good information about him out there in her question, she didn't note that he's a former official with the Mexican government.
Here's McCain's reply:
He's on my staff because he supports my policies and my proposals and my legislative proposal to secure the borders first. [...] I don't know what his previous positions are or other positions are, he supports mine. I have nothing to do with his. He has volunteered to help me with outreach to our Hispanic citizenry as I outreach to every citizen in America. [...] I have no idea but I will check in to the information you've given me. [...]
According to a McCain spokesman, he was just an unpaid volunteer. However, McCain himself says he's on his staff, and there would seem to be a conflict between their descriptions of his roles. McCain also claims to be clueless about Hernandez' previous positions, something that's difficult to believe considering that Hernandez is a Senior Fellow at the McCain-linked "Reform Institute". But, if he isn't lying, that indicates a strong lack of judgment. And, I doubt whether McCain's attempts to disclaim responsibility for the opinions of a member of his staff would wash if that person held opinions that the MSM considered out of bounds.
The thing to do now is for others to hound him at future appearances, pointing out that Hernandez used to work for a foreign government that encourages illegal immigration to the U.S. and that he's now "outreaching" to U.S. citizens and voters on McCain's behalf. And, ask him whether he's had a chance to check in to Hernandez' positions, why he wasn't aware of them before, and whether he's going to request that Hernandez leaves his "staff". The MSM can also be asked why they aren't looking in to this, such as by asking them in person (noting their names) or by posting comments at MSM sites that discuss McCain.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:03 PM
Flor Crisostomo: the new Elvira Arellano (sanctuary at Adalberto United Methodist Church)
Via this we learn that Reverend Walter "Slim" Coleman's Adalberto United Methodist Church continues the struggle for in effect open borders with the announcement that they'll be giving "sanctuary" to another illegal alien, Flor Crisostomo. That church grabbed headlines recently for hosting Elvira Arellano, before she was arrested and deported to Mexico, where she remains.
Crisostomo's statement says in part:
"I am taking a stand of civil disobedience... I believe with all my heart that the United States and Mexico must end the system of undocumented labor."
Obviously, "civil disobedience" requires one to be a citizen; when foreign citizens do it it's something else. And, most Americans would also like to end the "system of undocumented labor", just not in the way she wants.
Crisostomo was arrested in an immigration raid at IFCO Systems in Chicago in 2006. More on that raid here, here, and here. In November of last year she held a hunger strike and protested in front of Rahm Emanuel's office, claiming he wasn't being "democratic" enough for her. That protest may have been the one organized by the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which is headed by someone linked to the Mexican government.
Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) offered a private relief bill for her, Arellano, and several others (H.R. 2182, link). She was part of the May 1, 2007 pro-illegal immigration march and was part of the Centro Sin Fronteras delegation that joined with the March 10 Movement to organize that march; one leader of the latter group is an official with Mexico's PRD Party (Jorge Mujica). Regarding that march:
Flor Crisostomo wants everybody to know she's in this country illegally. So does Maria del Carmen Santana... The two immigrants from Mexico share the in-your-face attitude that marks preparations for Tuesday's immigration march in downtown Chicago... "Our community is very angry, very, very angry," said Crisostomo... Crisostomo is helping to organize Tuesday's march, making signs and joining in a hunger strike. She decided to speak publicly, she said, "so the greater community can understand we're not here to live on welfare or to not pay taxes. We're part of a bigger problem that needs to be fixed." ...
It also says she had a fake ID, obviously a very common occurrence. Whether it also involved identity theft isn't known. Other reports from People's Weekly world (link) and Socialist Worker (link).
Posted to Immigration2008a at 03:14 PM
Is Barack Obama a Muslim who practices Islam and who attended a madrassa?
Is Barack Obama a Muslim who practices Islam and who attended a madrassa (madrasa) in Indonesia? Despite whatever emails you might have received, it appears that the answer to that is no. According to him, he's a "committed Christian" (link). His church is the Trinity United Church of Christ, whose pastor has made some rather questionable statements.
However, according to this:
An investigation of Mr. Obama by political opponents within the Democratic Party has discovered that Mr. Obama was raised as a Muslim by his stepfather in Indonesia. Sources close to the background check, which has not yet been released, said Mr. Obama, 45, spent at least four years in a so-called Madrassa, or Muslim seminary, in Indonesia... The sources said the young Obama was given the name Hussein by his Muslim father, which the Illinois Democrat rarely uses in public... Although the background check has not confirmed that the specific Madrassa Mr. Obama attended was espousing Wahhabism, the sources said his Democratic opponents believe this to be the case—and are seeking to prove it...
On the other hand, CNN visited the school and say they "debunked" the story, and there may be some confusion over terms (link).
The unfortunate thing about this story is that it isn't really necessary to lie about Barack Obama because the truth about him is bad enough. A new TV ad from him highlights his endorsements from Linda Sanchez and even Gil Cedillo (link). He recently named as a national campaign co-chair Maria Elena Durazo, who took part in a pro-illegal immigration media event. His campaign has pledged to avoid using the term "illegal alien", despite it being the proper legal term. He's acknowledged the possibility of terrorist infiltration over the borders, but, instead of taking actions to prevent that immediately, he's among those holding the country hostage to the slim possibility of yet another amnesty for illegal aliens. He supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens. He's also endorsed the California DREAM Act, which lets illegal aliens take college discounts from U.S. citizens. And, perhaps most disturbing of all, he marched at the May 1 2006 Chicago march in support of illegal immigration. The main organizers of that march have a long series of links to the Mexican government.
UPDATE 2: As of March 3, here's the latest on NAFTAGate. Earlier, Obama campaign co-chair Maria Elena Durazo met with Mexican president Felipe Calderon on his recent tour of that country's outposts in our country. Obama has indicated his support for Bush's SPP (spp.gov), aka "NAFTA on steroids". And, he did so in a fundamentally dishonest fashion by speaking in code. For a supposed constitutional scholar, he doesn't seem to understand the 14th Amendment. He did a sales job on illegal immigration. He wants a global tax on the U.S. And, here's even more dirt on Obama involving his links to Exelon, Tony Rezko, William Ayers, and Rashid Khalidi.
Posted to Politics at 12:33 PM
John McCain, his campaign manager Rick Davis, & the questionable Russian billionaire
From this:[Rick Davis, John McCain's current campaign manager and current or former president of the McCain-associated Reform Institute] helped arrange an introduction in 2006 between McCain and a Russian billionaire [Russian aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska] whose suspected links to anti-democratic and organized-crime figures are so controversial that the U.S. government revoked his visa...More dirt here and here.
There is no evidence that McCain did anything for Deripaska after they met at a social gathering over drinks and dinner. Deripaska was grateful for the introduction, writing a thank-you note to Davis and his partner and offering to assist them in a subsequent business deal, according to a copy of the note...
...Deripaska is one of the richest men in Russia and a close ally of President Vladimir Putin. McCain has been one of Putin's sharpest U.S. critics, calling for Russia to be kicked out of the Group of Eight industrialized nations because of Putin's anti-democratic activities. The Arizona Republican has also repeatedly complained about the negative impact of Kremlin-linked oligarchs such as Deripaska.
When Deripaska met McCain, Davis was part of Davis Manafort, a lobbying firm that was being paid to provide political advice to pro-Russian and oligarch-funded candidates in Ukraine, according to interviews and news accounts. At the same time, McCain was publicly supporting those candidates' Western-oriented democratic rivals...
Posted to Politics at 02:57 PM
Thought experiment: how was Feist protected? ("I Feel It All" video)
Canadian songstress Leslie Feist has a new music video for her Welthit "I Feel It All" (link). And, it's hard not to watch it without cringing. There are several reasons for that, but the specific one having to do with the video itself is the thought of what could have gone wrong.
The video was shot in one take, and as she ran around tapping barrels containing fireworks, all I could think of was this. So, as a retread of my much better "thought experiment" involving a 2002 Gap ad, let me present some precautions they should have taken:
1. Painstakingly paint "fireworks" into each frame of the video.
2. Dunking her in fire-retardent chemicals and hiding a fire suit under her striped shirt.
3. Include a clause in her contract stating that Canadians are well known to be resistant to fire and disclaiming all responsibility.
4. Positioning a giant fire extinguisher above the set which, at the first hint of problems, would immediately douse the entire area with fire retardant. Artist rendition of the first milliseconds after activation below.
5. Instead of using real fireworks, use miniature, self-powered, computerized laser cartridges which, acting in concert, would appear to be fireworks.
I believe the last has the most merit. The cartridges would not have to "fly", they could move along pre-positioned titanium wires that would both be strong and nearly invisible. The cartridges would move - perhaps via magnetic or electrical force - along the wires, and could even be powered by the wires themselves. The weight of the cartridges could also be used to give a fireworks style effect. Alternatively, they could be charged with a capacitor initially, and then as it lost charge the light they emit would fade as with real fireworks. I believe that Industrial Light & Magic could pull something like that off with ease.
"Ah", you're thinking: but how would Feist be protected against falling cartridges? Well, first of all, the ends of the titanium wires would contains stops. However, some might yet fly over the stops, and because of that the cartridges would be designed to be as large and light as possible so as to minimize any possible harm. In addition, Feist would wear a helmet during the filming which could be fairly easily Photoshopped out of each frame.
Posted to WackyHumor at 11:53 AM
Ask John McCain about his Hispanic outreach director, Juan Hernandez (former Mexican government official)
John McCain's Hispanic outreach director [1] is Juan Hernandez, a U.S.-Mexico dual citizen and former Mexican government official who said the following in 2001 about Mexican immigrants to the U.S.:"I want the third generation, the seventh generation, I want them all to think 'Mexico first.'"He also said [2]:
"We must not only have a free flow of goods and services, but also start working for a free flow of people."Now, he's working for John McCain.
However, what McCain knows is that no one in the MSM is ever going to question his
So, that means it's up to you. If you want to sink McCain's candidacy, go to his campaign events and read those quotes to him and ask him to renounce them and
More on this here, here, here, and here.
Hernandez was previously Director of the Office for Mexicans Living Abroad until there was apparently some sort of falling out involving him or someone else. That office then became the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, with several of their members involved in pushing Mexico's agenda in the U.S. An Illinois state senator, Democrat Martin Sandoval, even serves on their board while at the same time pretending to serve U.S. interests.
UPDATE: Jerome Corsi offers this:
McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers emphasized to WND that Hernandez is "a non-paid volunteer to the campaign, and he does not play a policy role."Let's hope he stands by him a little longer, but even if he throws him overboard you can still ask him what he was thinking.
"Juan works with us to reach out to the Hispanic community to meet with the folks in the various states," Rogers said.
Asked if the McCain campaign has repudiated Hernandez's "Mexico first" declarations, Rogers did not give a direct answer.
UPDATE 2: More on this here.
A roundup of his cable TV greatest hits is here; it includes him promoting a North American security cordon - just not a Union - as well as cheap vegetables. So-far-unwatched videos that might have something are here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. If he says something on those that can be incorporated into an anti-McCain video, please leave a comment.
You can hear his 2001 Nightline quote here.
From 2001 (link):
"I never knew the border as a limitation. I'd be delighted if all of us could come and go between these two marvelous countries," Hernandez, 45, said in a recent interview...From 2002:
"Those who don't like [my activities with the Office and his dual citizenship], I'm sorry. But there are 20 million of us," Hernandez said. "There are 20 million people that have one foot here and one foot there."
...Hernandez has lobbied to make life easier for Mexican migrants in the United States. He has worked to cut the costs of money transfers, helped win lower tuition at Texas state universities and urged U.S. states to loosen restrictions on drivers' licenses [in addition to less controversial proposals]...
Writing in National Review (October 12, 1998) Jorge Amselle (like Linda Chavez, a pro-immigration Latino Republican) warned that, "The Mexican government through its promotion of bilingual education and of dual nationality and voting is actively subverting the assimilative process of Americanization…."UPDATE 3: Someone went to a McCain event and asked him about this; the question wasn't as good as could have been but at least it might have started the ball rolling. And, Mark Krikorian raises the possibility that Hernandez could be stripped of his U.S. citizenship due to working for the Mexican government, and also quotes from the oath that Vicente Fox gave; whether Hernandez' was the same or similar isn't known (link).
Amselle was referring to the official Mexican government policy of acercamiento ("getting closer" or "establishing a bond") to "Mexican communities abroad," meaning both Mexican citizens living in the United States and Mexican Americans who are U.S. citizens. This policy was started by the old PRI regime and has been considerably expanded by Fox. The spirit of this policy is exemplified by Juan Hernandez, a Texas-born Mexican-American dual citizen, who is Fox's cabinet minister for Mexicans Abroad...
...Two years ago, before Fox became president, his current national-security adviser, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, advocated a policy in which the Mexican government would work politically with the "20 million Mexicans" in the U.S. to advance Mexican "national interests." In El Siglo de Torreon on May 5, 2000, Zinser attacked American attempts to stop illegal immigrants from crossing the border. He declared that "Mexicans are subjected every day to mean-spirited acts and their rights are permanently threatened by ambitious politicians who are hunting for the Anglo vote." After disparaging the "reactionary Senator Jessie Helms," Zinser recommended that Mexico "find allies in the U.S. political system" particularly among "Liberal Democrats, labor unions, civil rights organizations, and social movements."
UPDATE 4: The backstory of Hernandez' office being replaced with the IME is here, including a few more quotes from him.
UPDATE 5: Even as he works for McCain, Hernandez serves on the U.S. Council of Mexico's PAN Party (National Action Party): link, link.
[1] welcome-vote-2008.blogspot.com/2007/11/fiestas-mccain.html
[2] juanhernandez.org/index-37.html
[3] Let's take John McCain's spokesman at his word that Hernandez is a "non-paid volunteer" to the campaign. Being very precise will also help avoid McCain trying to obfuscate the issue. Note that, as pointed out at the first link in UPDATE 2, Hernandez is a Senior Fellow at the McCain-linked Reform Institute, and I'd imagine he's receiving some money for that. However, if you ask McCain about this craft the question in such a way that he can't raise minor points.
Posted to Politics at 10:28 AM
Bill Clinton, Arnold Schwarzenegger promote corruption, try to fool people about "unbanked" program
Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger join forces to offer "Beyond Payday Loans". The two promote plans to help the "unbanked" (those without checking accounts), and in so doing completely mislead about the seemy underbelly of their proposals: the San Francisco program they mention is designed in large part to give banking services to illegal aliens. They don't even hint at that:...[The American dream] is harder to achieve for millions of Americans because they spend too much of their hard-earned money on fees to cash their paychecks or pay off high-priced loans meant to carry them over until they get paid at work.They also mention that the William J. Clinton Foundation's Economic Opportunity Initiative will be helping spread the San Francisco scheme to other cities.
...This year, California will become the first state in the nation to launch an effort to help unbanked residents open starter accounts -- the first step into the financial mainstream...
In coordination with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, we will partner with financial institutions to increase the supply of starter accounts that work for unbanked consumers and banks. We will form regional coalitions of financial institutions, mayors and community groups to market accounts and help the unbanked build financial literacy. And we will build on work already being done in San Francisco, where city officials, working with banks and credit unions, have already signed up 11,000 individuals who previously had no checking or savings account...
The San Francisco scheme boils down to the FDIC trying to help banks profit from money that was earned illegally. Instead of fighting against such government corruption, Bill Clinton and Arnold Schwarzenegger are promoting it. Pardon me if I have difficulty thinking of both of them as little more than crooks.
UPDATE: Please contact Arnie and let him know what you think: gov.ca.gov/interact or better yet give his office a call and select the option to speak to a live person: 916-445-2841. And, per a note here, Kevin James of KRLA AM 970 will be discussing this on his show tonight (9:00 - 11:00 pm PST).
Posted to Politics at 02:06 PM
Senator Bob Menendez floated as Hillary Clinton's vice presidential candidate
From this:John F.X. Graham, one of Hillary Clinton's National Finance Co-Chairs, thinks that... New Jersey Senator [Robert Menendez] would make a great choice if Clinton wins the Democratic primary.I shouldn't need to add that encouraging people to vote for their race is not good public policy. Those are the actions of racial demagogues, which is a defining characteristic of the modern Democratic Party.
Graham fired off an email this morning to Clinton Campaign Manager Terry McAuliffe listing politicians who would make good vice presidential material, including the choices most often brought up: Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, John Edwards and Joe Biden. But Menendez, a Clinton campaign national co-chair, would be the "most intriguing" choice, Graham wrote.
..."The name Richardson does not exactly sound Latino," wrote Graham. "The Latino voting block is becoming the most influential in this election, especially with the immigration and other economic issues confronting our prosperity. For a lack of a better term, he is the Latino Barack Obama with the experience."
Graham says the idea is his alone, and then the article is kind enough to point out that Sen. Bob Menendez is still involved in an FBI corruption probe.
On the one hand, as a couple people point out at the link, this would be a wonderful shot in the arm to the GOP candidate. On the other hand, Hillary is too smart to select him, so I suggest discrediting him at every opportunity that presents itself. You can see my attempt to do so here:
bigthink.com/policy-politics/2885
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:58 PM
Western Union store owner indicted on money laundering (human smuggling)
From this:
A Scottsdale man who ran four Western Union stores in Phoenix and Mesa was indicted Tuesday on 80 counts of money laundering and other crimes that are suspected of financing human smugglers and drug dealers [in a] ...four-year-old, $56.8 million money-laundering scheme... [it] was unraveled by the Arizona Financial Crimes Task Force, which includes ICE, the Phoenix Police Department, the Department of Public Safety and the Attorney General's Office [run by Terry Goddard].
His exact relationship to Western Union isn't known: he might have been a franchisee, or something else. However, if there's any possibility that those higher in the food chain knew about this hopefully that's being pursued. Even the New York Times has hinted at highly questionable activity by WU itself.
See also ICIRR in suit against Terry Goddard over Western Union wire transfers; the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights received donations from WU and then later, oddly enough, sued to block Goddard's attempts to pursue cases like the current one. In addition to the ICIRR, WU is deeply linked into the "illegal immigration lobby", including having a link to Hillary Clinton campaign co-chair Raul Yzaguirre.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 08:55 PM
Brave New Films immigration documentary will lie to you
Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films is apparently going to make one or more documentaries about immigration, attempting to strike at those who support enforcement of our laws. An email sent by Jorge Mursuli of Democracia USA (part of People For the American Way) says:Democracia USA has been approached with an exciting opportunity to advance the immigration debate, and I'm writing to ask for your help.They want footage, and they say the documentary will be released next month or in March. I have little doubt that it will contain several lies and misleading statements, but I won't know exactly what those are until it appears. Their past efforts have been quite popular, and when the video appears I suggest visiting the sites of those who promote the video and leaving comments pointing out the lies in the video or the lies by those bloggers. The goal is to discredit the retransmitters. The same goes for MSM reporters who mention the documentary.
The Brave New Foundation, a non-profit that specializes on producing documentaries on progressive issues, is putting together a short documentary on the virulent anti-immigrant attacks by Right Wing politicians and media personalities.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 08:45 PM
Hillary Clinton voted to grab guns during emergencies, Barack Obama voted against it
One-sixteenth of a cheer for Barack Obama! For, back in 2006 he voted for an amendment that would prevent the federal government from spending any money on gun confiscation during a declared state of emergency. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton voted against it (i.e., on the gun grabbing side).Details on the amendment that was added to HR 5441 here. Those joining Hillary on the wrong side included a constellation of worthies, such as Charles Schumer, Robert Menendez, Barbara Mikulski, Carl Levin, Teddy Kennedy, Daniel Akaka, Christopher Dodd, and the two prides of California, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein.
And, another Friend of Hillary (link):
One of its strongest opponents was Dick Durbin - Obama's fellow Illinoisan and the first senator to endorse his White House campaign.
During the debate, Durbin sharply reminded senators that the amendment would even bar police from seizing guns they believed to be used in previous crimes.
"What are we thinking?" Durbin, the Democrats' No 2 leader, asked. "Why would we do this to the men and women in law enforcement, to the National Guardsmen, or to innocent victims, which could be you or me or people we love, in a disaster they cannot even anticipate?"
Posted to Miscellania at 03:17 PM
Dov Charney/American Apparel: wrong about immigration
Dov Charney of the L.A.-based American Apparel is running pro-illegal immigration ads that are almost certianly a publicity stunt. This post gives the campaign a little help in that direction, but hopefully some in his target market will read this and decide to get clothing from some other company, whether based on his past history (see the links above) or on the current ads.
The ad can be seen here; it features two Guatemalans together with a few paragraphs of text. The latter includes a quote from our own beloved illegal immigration supporter, president Bush. The rest of the copy says that "no serious political voice calls to send them back to their previous countries"; that's a true statement as long as you ignore the plans of at least three Republican presidential contenders, dozens of House members, and, of course, our own laws. It also complains about an "apartheid" system; the only way such a comparison would be valid is if current illegal aliens were citizens or had been brought here involuntarily. Neither of those are the case. The ad also conflates all forms of immigration together. Hopefully his customers aren't as stupid as Charney appears to think.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 07:56 PM
A study in demagoguery: Chelsea Clinton, America Ferrera do Nevada
I'm afraid I'm going to have to leave a full analysis of the following video to professional media critics, but I know there's a lot of stuff there. It features America Ferrera - flash-in-the-pan star of Ugly Betty - campaigning prior to the Nevada caucuses with to-the-manor-born Chelsea Clinton. And, it features plenty of gender-based demagoguery, with various women informing us one way or another that Hillary is, in fact, a woman. Three black men and one black woman confirm that they are, indeed, voting for Hillary. It also features Chelsea speaking at a cosmotology school, with their mirror as a backdrop. Reflected in the mirror the largely non-white students seem more than a bit bored and one might imagine that that's the only occasion on which the daughter of a former president would have ever graced their school with her presence. One might imagine them not treating her as she no doubt became accustomed at Stanford if she had, for instance, just wandered in off the street to ask for directions. It also features Chelsea at a bar with a glass in front of her, matching a dream I had once. Note also that almost half the 54,000+ views are courtesy of Perez Hilton, who's now a supporter.
P.S. If you're just joining us from a foreign land or another planet, this is not a joke. This is the U.S. presidential race, 2008-style.
IT'S THE SCREENS THAT GOT SMALLER UPDATE: The Clinton 1A administration's inaugural ball in 1993 featured performances by Michael Stipe of REM, Don Henley, a Fleetwood Mac reunion (link), and the 10,000 Maniacs shortly after they had a #1 single and before Natalie Merchant left the band (link).
Posted to Politics at 10:53 AM
Allez Obama! (the blogs are alive with sock puppets)
There seem to be a large number of sock puppets (per Wikipedia an "online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community") running loose on various blog sites and leaving comments supporting various candidates such as Barack Obama, Mike Huckabee, and occasionally others. Now, certainly, many or most of those supporters might not be socks, but it's awful strange to find at least three white women around 50 years of age who suddenly showed up at a thread by Atlantic blogger Marc Ambinder about a Barack Obama speech and identified themselves by their race, gender, and age and indicated their support for the speech.An even odder example comes from September of last year at the barely-visited TAPPED (link), also about an Obama speech:
The tide is starting to swell.The coal is getting stoked. The blinders are being removed. The chant of a few is becoming a chorus of thousands.People all over this country are learning that there is still hope for our great country.Obama 2008.Odd, very odd.
All of these remind me of many things, but most of all this bit of pro-Sun Microsystems propaganda from 1997, about a developer's meeting where things (according to the account) went south for their rival, Microsoft (link):
You would not believe it but the crowd started booing and hissing [at the Microsoft presenter], granted that it wasn't a smart thing to do, and then silence again even on a bewildered stage, until somebody yelled "Go Java!" (which in french sounds like: "Allez Java!") and the whole room started cheering and applauding... the guys on stage physically stepped back and were obviously stunned that it would backfire like that.Someone from Sun also posted a doubly-forwarded tale from an unnamed student of an unnamed professor about installing Microsoft's competitor to Java on his laptop, leaving it inoperable. Despite the fact that these were clearly either outright lies or highly inflated accounts, many people seem to have bought them.
It was beautiful.
And then the people started leaving the room, at first one by one and then massively over the course of an hour. The guy on stage could not believe his eyes and the poor devil couldn't find his words, he was actually pathetic when he squirmished a "I have to finish this..." as people were leaving right under his nose.
Posted to Politics at 10:29 PM
CNN Democratic debate January 21, 2008: one weak immigration question
Tonight's CNN "debate" (link) was as worthless as all the others have been, featuring just one very basic, very weak question about immigration matters. Joe Johns - CNN "reporter" who left whatever little journalistic integrity he had back in Jena, LA - asked:
Senator Obama, we all know what universal health care is, as Senator Clinton just said, sort of the idea that everybody deserves health care. And I have not been able to sort of zero in on your position on this one question: Does your plan cover the estimated 12 million or so illegal immigrants in the country?
Obama said it wouldn't, and then replied:
Well, because I think we've got limited resources. And it is important for us that, when we've got millions of U.S. citizens that aren't yet covered, it's important for us to make sure that they are provided coverage.
How very munificent of him. He then launched into his stock speech about universal healthcare, without disclosing that he supports "comprehensive immigration reform", and under that plan millions of former illegal aliens would be almost instantly converted into legal workers and would thus presumably be eligible for his plan.
At least John Edwards was honest enough (OK, that's not a logical explanation, but there must be some sort of explanation) to include that in his reply to the same question:
And if that is married to comprehensive immigration reform, so that people who are living here undocumented actually have a chance to become American citizens, then I think they've got the opportunity to become part of the plan.
Somehow millions of low-wage workers would be magically transfored from a drain on our limited resources one day to fully partaking in both their plans the next, and the hacks at CNN aren't even willing to suggest that there might be an issue there?
If you'd like to do something about this, please go to campaign appearances, ask tough questions, and upload the responses. That will not only inject policy into the presidential campaigns, it will help show just how bad a job the MSM does.
UPDATE: Now, lightweight and biased "reporter" Soledad O'Brien hosts a roundtable on immigration featuring four political consultant types, two black, two Hispanic. Oddly enough, all of them appear to be supporters of amnesty. Why, it's almost as if CNN doesn't want a real debate about this issue or something.
Posted to Politics at 08:27 PM
Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon uses MLK speech to promote trackable 'work visas'
Intellectually dishonest illegal immigration supporter Janet Murguia of the NCLR isn't alone in trying to tie illegal immigration in to the Civil Rights movement. Another instance occurred in Phoenix, Arizona on Friday at the Martin Luther King Jr. "Living the Dream" awards breakfast, featuring appearances by governor Janet Napolitano and Phil Gordon, mayor of Phoenix. News report here, and from his speech (link)Recently, right here in Phoenix a uniformed United States marine -- a man who fought for his country -- was told by "pretend patriots", that he was a disgrace to his uniform -- and that it was a shame he didn't die in the war. Moments later, a woman and her young daughter -- both American citizens -- were intimidated by these same people. Why the anger at a United States Marine? Or a mother and daughter?Needless to say, we don't know the details of the case because Gordon doesn't provide footnotes, and there might have been other factors involved. It also goes without saying that such incidents are quite rare and if not for that incident Gordon would have had to stretch to find something similar.
Because all three were Hispanic. That's the only reason. This wasn't about citizenship it was about color. This wasn't about green cards. It was about brown skin.
Then, he goes on:
So in the spirit of Dr. King, let us make our voices heard.And, if local laws allow it, I urge resident of Phoenix to start a recall campaign. If not that, go to his public appearances and point out any lies and misleading statements he makes, and then publicize that on video sharing sites and similar.
Let Congress know that reforming immigration in this country IS their responsibility. Tell them to enact a practical and effective immigration policy that provides new, trackable "Work Visas" for millions of honest, hard-working people who help strengthen our country -- and grow our economy.
Tell Congress NOT to wait another year. Tell Congress not to wait another day.
That's what I'm doing. I'm getting on a plane next Tuesday and I'm walking the halls of Congress. And whether I have an appointment or not -- I'll be knocking on as many doors as I can -- and telling every Member of Congress I can find:
DO NOT WAIT.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:27 AM
Janet Murguia/NCLR: keynote speaker at Martin Luther King Unity Breakfast (+AP spin)
Janet Murguia, president of the extremist-funding group National Council of La Raza, will be the keynote speaker at Monday's Martin Luther King Unity Breakfast in Birmingham, Alabama.
Part of the story involves some spin from the Associated Press. An AP story that says at the bottom "Information from: The Birmingham News" contains this paragraph:
Organizers said they chose [her]... because of her message of unity and her opposition to a resurgence of hate speech in the immigration debate.
Now, let's take a look at this paragraph from Erin Stock of the Birmingham News itself (link):
Janet Murguia... is speaking Monday morning at the 22nd annual event. She is bringing a message of unity and denouncing what she said is a resurgence of hate speech in the immigration debate.
Clearly, the AP lifted the "resurgence" bit from the Birmingham News. However, BN's Stock made it clear that that "resurgence" was only Murguia's opinion. The AP article gives the impression that it's an accepted fact.
And, from the NCLR's press release [1]:
Murguia will urge members of the Hispanic and the Black communities to renew their commitment to realizing Dr. King's dream of civil rights for all Americans. She will challenge the two communities to confront injustice, specifically the recent rise in hate speech in the media and in the presidential primaries surrounding the issue of immigration.
It should be obvious to anyone that there has been no such "hate speech" in the media (unless she considers obscure talk radio personalities "the media"). And, none of the presidential candidates have engaged in "hate speech". Some supporters who are unaffiliated with the campaigns might have engaged in something that a far-left panel at a far-left university might consider "hate speech", but I suggest that we don't make that our gold standard. And, I'm sure that if we looked into the supporters of the NCLR we'd find a lot of interesting people, and not just in the U.S.
So, her complaints about "hate" won't wash. She's just trying to hide the NCLR's support for illegal immigration behind the dodge of calling those who support our laws "haters".
And, I wonder exactly how she defines "Americans". In the Civil Rights era that only meant U.S. citizens, yet I'd imagine that in her view the definition is a bit broader and her goal is bringing civil rights to those who are neither citizens nor here legally.
[1] nclr.org/content/news/detail/50151/
Posted to Immigration2008a at 03:59 PM
Did Latinos vote for pro-amnesty candidates in Nevada?
Here's a chart showing the differences between the entrance poll percentages for the Republican candidates in the Nevada caucus for whites and Latinos (link) vs. the percentage of the vote they received with 95% of reports in (link).Each number is the entrace poll percentage minus the near-final result. Those who can be described as "pro-amnesty" are bolded: McCain and Giuliani.
On the one hand, McCain and Giuliani did better among Latinos than whites; on the other, Duncan Hunter - someone associated with not just immigration issues but also military issues - did better. Romney, Paul, and Thompson did worse for an unknown reason. Huckabee did slightly better. If there were a large pro-amnesty vote one might expect McCain to walk away with it and for Huckabee to do worse; despite being horrible on immigration in the past he recently signed on to NumbersUSA pledge.
Spin away!
| Romney | McCain | Huckabee | Paul | Giuliani | Hunter | Thompson | |
| Whites | 0 | 0 | -1 | 1 | 0 | -1 | 0 |
| Latinos | -11 | 11 | 2 | -6 | 4 | 5 | -6 |
Posted to Politics at 03:18 PM
Julia Preston/NYT whines (mixed-status families; doesn't realize NYT is part of problem)
Julia Preston of the New York Times offers yet another in the very long line of NYT articles designed to make people feel bad about enforcing immigration laws ("Facing Deportation but Clinging to Life in U.S.", link).
It begins:
She is a homeowner, a taxpayer, a friendly neighbor and an American citizen. Yet because she is married to an illegal immigrant, these days she feels like a fugitive...
That and the other situations would never have arisen if people had not ignored our immigration laws expecting it to somehow work out OK. The NYT's implied solution is "immigration reform", i.e. a massive amnesty. Yet, that will encourage more illegal immigration, leading to more such issues. And, that will lead to the New York Times' hack du jour writing weepy "news" reports designed to set us up for yet another amnesty. The only way to prevent such unfortunate situations is to either stringently enforce our immigration laws, or declare completely open borders and let anyone come here at will. The NYT does not support the former, working overtime to block even minor enforcement efforts.
Perhaps the NYT should be honest enough to admit that they support something akin to open borders rather than trying to wheedle their readers into supporting amnesty over and over.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 02:16 PM
Occasional Cable TV Liberal Talking Head Babe of the Week: Alexandra Acker
Whenever I spot the smiling visage of Alexandra Acker of the YDA (Young Democrats of America, not to be confused with Students for a Democratic Society, Young Pioneers, or related groups) out of the corner of my eye I immediately lunge for the remote, unmute the sound, and gaze in rapt attention. I don't believe anything she says, but I do enjoy the view:
Posted to WackyHumor at 01:21 PM
New York Times editorial mind reads the "immigrant vote", gets it wrong
Earlier today, the New York Times offered "The Immigrant Vote" [1], promising wrath and ruin upon those who dare stand in the way of corrupt businesses profiting from illegal activity:
Nevada is the first state on the election calendar with a sizable Hispanic vote, and among them will be a substantial number of immigrants. We don't know who they'll choose, but we do know they are anxious. They have endured the racially tinged rhetoric used to sink immigration reform; they have witnessed Republican candidates exploiting the xenophobic nastiness. Families have been torn apart as illegal immigrants have been deported, leaving their citizen children behind.
According to the exit entrance polls from the Nevada caucuses (link), among Republicans identifying themselves as Latinos: Mitt Romney got 41%, followed by Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee with 9% each, Rudy Giuliani with 8%, Duncan Hunter with 6%, and Fred Thompson with 1%. The only openly pro-amnesty candidate, John McCain, got 25%. Rudy supports an amnesty, he just doesn't push it that much. But, to be fair let's add them together and come up with around a third selecting someone who's in favor of amnesty. And, other factors may have come in to play with that third.
Meanwhile, over on the Democratic side, among Latinos Hillary Clinton got 64% vs. Barack Obama's 24%, and he's slightly more pro-illegal immigration than She [2] is. Unlike Her, he supports driver's licenses for illegal aliens, and he also marched at 2006's pro-illegal immigration march in Chicago, the one that was organized by several people linked to the Mexican government. Of course, other factors which are not to be discussed may have played a role with some number of those who voted for Hillary. And, Bill Richardson is apparently still on the ballot and got 0%.
UPDATE: Numbers are crunched here.
[1] Generally speaking, there should be no such thing as the "immigrant vote", since anyone who can vote (at the federal level at least) must be a citizen and thus, even if they're a naturalized citizen they're no longer an "immigrant". A minor point? Well, yes. But, it goes to the already abysmal credibility of the New York Times.
[2] I'll be using the royal capitalization from here on out.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:54 PM
Sorry, Robert Nix: Judge Correale Stevens cleared (expressed opinion on immigration)
From this:The Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board has dismissed an ethics complaint filed against a state court judge for publicly stating that local authorities need more power to deal with illegal immigrants.The complaint was filed by Robert Nix, chairman of the Pennsylvania Hispanic Republicans and also on the board of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania. Previous issues involving him here and here.
The Superior Court judge, Correale Stevens, also said that county judges should be given deportation authority. Judge Stevens made the comments during a September 2007 event, sponsored by several Pennsylvania legislators, at the state capitol in Harrisburg...
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:30 PM
"Amnesty Truth Express" follows John McCain around South Carolina
White vans festooned with "Amnesty Truth Express" signs have been following John McCain and his "Straight Talk Express" to his appearances in South Carolina. It's sponsored by the "American Council for Immigration Reform" (link), which says:Vans outfitted with Amnesty Truth Express signage will serve as mobile offices and as props to attract media coverage. Volunteers will be identified by their T-shirts that say "Amnesty Truth Squad." The volunteers will fan out and offer an information packet to those coming to the candidate's events. Some will carry protest signs and others will talk to the press.Obviously, their strategy hasn't worked, at least as far as the last is concerned. There are only three MSM reports with the "ATE" name, and they've already been doing this for a few days. Leonard Doyle of the Independent calls them a "hit squad" and lumps them under the "sharp end of the anti-immigrant movement" banner (link).
And, Charles Hurt of the New York Post says:
Supporters of the Arizona senator listen to the rant [from someone from ACIR] before heading on in.Now, certainly, handing out flyers with background information might sway some small number of voters, and those might sway others. However, if they want to have a real impact they need to expose McCain's lies and misleading statements by asking him tough questions and then uploading his response to video sharing sites.
These die-hard loyalists have heard it all before, and most don't disagree with man on the sidewalk.
They're convinced that McCain has seen the error of his ways, yet also admire him for sticking to his positions.
Do that enough times and not even his "die-hard loyalists" will be willing to support him, nor will "reporters" be willing to lie or mislead on his behalf.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 07:58 PM
Mexican legislators worry about their citizens repatriated due to Arizona illegal hiring law
From our "Irony on the Border" file comes this:A delegation of nine state legislators from Sonora traveled to Tucson to make the case against Arizona's new employer sanctions law,They apparently met on Wednesday with AZ state Hispanic legislators, but no names are given.
The lawmakers say it will have a devastating affect on the Mexican state.
At a news conference Tuesday, they said Sonora cannot handle the demand for housing, jobs and schools it will face as illegal Mexican workers in Arizona return to their hometowns without jobs or money...
"How can they pass a law like this?" asked Mexican Rep. Leticia Amparano Gamez, who represents Nogales. "There is not one person living in Sonora who does not have a friend or relative working in Arizona," Amparano said in Spanish...
Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:44 PM
Lionel Sosa/MATT.org, corporations to collaborate with Mexico on multimillion dollar pro-amnesty ad campaign?
From this transcript:
[Casey Wian reports] Lobbying groups for the U.S. construction, agriculture and other industries with large illegal alien work forces are funding a series of pro-amnesty TV ads scheduled to air after this year's presidential conventions. And Mexican funding for the ad campaign is quote, "a very, very strong possibility", says the executive director of matt.org [Lionel Sosa], Mexicans and Americans thinking together. It is hoping to raise $100 million for the ad campaign.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:39 PM
Scared New York Times tries scare-mongering attrition
Apparently "attrition" - the plan to enforce our immigration laws and thereby encourage many or most illegal aliens to go home and discourage future illegal immigration - has the New York Times scared, namely because they think it would work. And, they're ratcheting up the scare-mongering about it in the NYT editorial "One Argument, 12 Million Holes" (link):
Making it work would require far more government intrusion into daily lives, with exponential increases in workplace raids and deportations. It would mean constant ID checks for everyone — citizens, too — with immigration police at the federal, state and local levels. It would mean enlisting bureaucrats and snoops to keep an eye on landlords, renters, laborers, loiterers and everyone who uses government services or gets sick... Worst of all, it's weak on law and order. It is a free pass to the violent criminals we urgently need to hunt down and deport. Attrition means waiting until we stumble across bad people hiding in the vast illegal immigrant haystack. Comprehensive reform, by bringing the undocumented out of the shadows, shrinks the haystack.
Sheesh. Did Tamar Jacoby write this for them? It sounds like something she'd try to sell. While what attrition means obviously depends on how it's implemented, it certainly doesn't have to be done in that fashion, and were it done as described I'd think that something else was going on: either it was being done that way as just an expression of authoritarianism, or it was being done that way in order to generate opposition and scuttle the plan. An honest implementation of attrition would involve things like strongly discouraging mayors from having sanctuary policies, fighting against laws that would give illegal aliens non-emergency benefits, several high-profile prosecutions of those who employ large numbers of illegal aliens, and so forth.
And, attrition doesn't mean that we'd stop sending teams out to arrest fugitive and criminal aliens. And, "comprehensive reform", in addition to being an unworkable mess, would simply temporarily reduce the size of the "haystack"; it would quickly begin growing again as new illegal aliens arrived here because they wanted to take part in that or future amnesties.
Unfortunately, there's more:
Even if you accept the Republicans' view of immigration policy as warfare against illegal immigrants, their tactics are the rejects of history, starting with that Vietnam-evoking "attrition." The border wall is right from Monsieur Maginot's playbook — fortifying just one of two international borders even though at least 40 percent of illegal immigrants arrive perfectly legally and then overstay their visas.
Obviously, the NYT is lying about the "warfare" bit, and while the last part is true the solution to that is not "comprehensive reform" but to stop giving visas to people who have a strong risk of overstaying them.
They also falsely state that the "attrition fantasy is now, by default, the national immigration strategy". Our default policy is to allow almost anyone who makes it over the border to stay here, and that's been brought to us thanks to corrupt politicians. They also decry the SAVE Act and mention that "Mike Huckabee one-upped [Fred Thompson] by signing the "No Amnesty" pledge of the nativist group NumbersUSA". Then, they end with this:
The Republican stance on immigration leaves an opening that opponents could drive a truck through. The Democratic candidates have the better position but approach the subject with eggshell timidity. They should stand up for a real debate, and a better country, by forcefully challenging the Republicans on this issue.
Bring it on. After seeing them in debates, I'm not exactly comfortable with Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson being able to decimate the Democratic position on this issue, but I'm sure that others who might be brought in to the debate could do so.
Desperate New York Times immigration editorial plays race card; afraid attrition might work?
NYT editorial: supports illegal activity; acknowledges attrition; "pest control"
Julia Preston/NYT admits: border fencing, attrition works
Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:14 AM
Mayor Mike Bloomberg wails against xenophobia strawman
In yesterday's State of the City speech, New York City mayor Mike Bloomberg stood on stage with five immigrant families from Flushing, and said:
I wanted to invite these families today, and a number of others in the front rows, because the diversity they represent is what makes our town special. This is New York City... Their presence is a two-way street. New York gives them unlimited opportunities and these families help make New York the nation's economic engine, its financial hub, its fashion center, its media mecca, and its cultural capital. And that's one of the messages I've been speaking out on, to those who are wailing against immigration, to those politicians who, all of a sudden, have embraced xenophobia, I say: open your eyes... "Take a look behind me. This is what makes America great. This is New York City. This is Freedom. This is Compassion, and Democracy, and Opportunity.
For those who are new to this issue, Mayor Mike was engaging in a strawman argument. No one is "wailing against immigration" in general; many are concerned about massive illegal immigration or massive immigration from one country or region. Being concerned about, say, giving the Mexican government even more political power inside the U.S. is not "xenophobia". I wonder whether Mayor Mike would have dared give his speech at a popular illegal crossing spot on the Mexican border; perhaps if there's video available someone could make something like that. And, perhaps the "two-way" street is a little nod to reality, such as avoiding allowing people in mean us harm or who have divided loyalties or none at all (link, copy here).
He also, of course, mentioned a few of his nanny state proposals.
Related:
Michael Bloomberg, DHS against Spitzer illegal aliens driver's licenses plan
Bloomberg links illegal immigration "crackdown" to tourism
Michael Bloomberg: possible illegal alien taxi drivers isn't dangerous
Mayor Mike Bloomberg, "The Open Borders Mayor"
Mayor Mike Bloomberg's "Immigrant Muddle"
Mayor Mike has an immigration plan for you, Citizen
Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:55 AM
Barack Obama's extremist church? (Trinity United Church of Christ)
Does Barack Obama belong to an anti-white, far-left church? Rev. Dr. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ certainly appears to have made some interesting statements (link, link, link). The last includes excerpts from Obama's book. The candidate to a certain extent responds here, for instance saying that the "Black Values System" of the church "Must Be Understood as a Whole". He also lets us know that his middle name is not Mohammed (thanks, MediaMatters!) In fact, it's Hussein.
Needless to say, if he were a Republican or he were white, there would be many more MSM articles on this issue than the NYT's from last April.
Posted to Politics at 01:53 PM
Mike Huckabee signs Numbers USA no-amnesty pledge
Mike Huckabee has signed Numbers USA's no-amnesty pledge; news report here, and background here. What he signed is this:I pledge to oppose amnesty or any other special path to citizenship for the millions of foreign nationals unlawfully present in the United States. As President, I will fully implement enforcement measures that, over time, will lead to the attrition of our illegal immigrant population. I also pledge to make security of our borders a top priority of my administration.Prior to the news conference, his aids signed on to the details:
1. The 12 million illegal aliens now here will have to go home.Obviously, this is a strong point in favor of Huckabee and somewhat nullifies my prior strong criticism of him. However, many's the slip and one wonders exactly what recourse anyone would have if he became president and then violated the pledge. Would anyone in the MSM even ask him about it? Could he use other issues to mitigate any damage violating the pledge would do? Is it really possible for someone who's said so many very questionable things about this issue to then follow through? And, there are of course other reasons to oppose a Huckabee candidacy, such as his various semi-theocratic notions and his "FairTax" plan.
2. They will not get any legal status while here that allows them to remain long-term.
3. Once in their home countries, they may apply for re-admittance to the U.S. as immigrants, visitors or temporary workers through normal channels.
4. But they will not receive any special privileges on the basis of their having been in the U.S. illegally, such as being put to the front of a line.
5. There will be no new categories or programs through which they may re-enter.
6. There will not be an expansion of green cards in any existing categories that will speed up their movement to the front of the line.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:19 PM
Fabian Nunez has healthcare activists arrested at California Capitol?
I haven't researched this, but Jamie Court of the "Foundation For Taxpayer and Consumer Rights" (and founder of an anti-Arnold Schwarzenegger site) says:Even I was shocked to hear that California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez directed the California Highway Patrol to prevent our consumer group and an uninsured Massachusetts teacher from speaking out inside the Capitol against mandatory health insurance. The Capitol's famous rotunda is routinely used for press conferences by lobbyists and politicians...UPDATE: Nunez spokesman Steven Maviglio - or at least someone using his name - posts in comments an alternative view of the incident. This doesn't appear to have been covered by the MSM, and no video is provided by Jamie Court.
Though they complied with the California Highway Patrol's order to leave the building, my colleagues Jerry Flanagan and Carmen Balber were later informed they are being written up for misdemeanors. They were also told our consumer group would not be able to speak to the press in the rotunda in the future. Nunez and the CHP will be hearing from our lawyers soon...
Posted to California at 05:38 PM
Lou Dobbs for President?
I'm not 100% completely a fan of Lou Dobbs for various reasons, mostly because he doesn't seem that willing to end the careers of some of those he interviews by relentlessly hammering them on their lies. On the other hand, he still has to get guests so I can understand why he might not go for the jugular each time. Nevertheless, a Lou Dobbs candidacy is probably something I would support. And, at the very least, the foaming at the mouth from both "liberals" as well as cheap labor conservatives would be something to see.
Now, ALIPAC has launched a new, unofficial site designed to encourage him to run: loudobbsforpresident.org. It includes a form you can sign pledging how much you'd donate to his campaign should he decide to run.
Posted to Politics at 01:17 PM
Mexico to roll out biometric ID cards for migrant workers in Mexico
Louis E. V. Nevaer offers "Digital Immigration Card Shows Mexico's Progressive Views on Immigration" [1]. As one might expect, it extols the Mexican government, but the larger issue is that in March 2008 that government will be handing out digital identification cards containing biometric information to migrant workers from other countries who are working in Mexico. The cards will contain at least their fingerprints and also some form of RFID chip (see also "RFID implants for "guest" workers?") I'm not familiar with any related or similar U.S. programs [2], but I would expect that Mexico would add selling the ID card for migrants from that country to their push for "reform" or some form of "guest" worker scheme, probably with the assistance of Fifth Columnists (why beat around the bush?) inside the U.S.
The article also contains this:
Mexican officials, for more than a quarter century, have been frustrated by the recalcitrant attitude taken by U.S. authorities. American companies take out ads on Mexican radio telling Mexicans of "high paying" jobs waiting for them in the meat packing plants in the Midwest and Southeast, while the American government takes out other ads warning them of the dangers of attempting to make desert crossings. That the United States is incapable of implementing a coherent policy is another matter. While Mexico is rolling out 21st century technology in the first quarter of 2008, the United States - after spending tens of millions of dollars on similar cards - cannot use them, since U.S. border inspectors are not equipped with the scanners necessary to read them.
If anyone can upload one of those ads with or without a translation that would be most helpful. And, have a bag ready for this:
Mexicans believe that the United Nations can similarly help the United States. Mexicans argue that the time has come for the United Nations to begin a process of bringing the estimated millions of people living in the shadows of American society into the light. There is no reason why the United Nations cannot be brought in to assist Homeland Security and the Census Bureau to complete the years-long task of securing the United States's broken borders, and regularizing the millions of immigrants who have, one way or another, managed to find their way to the United States.
It'd be great if some of our leaders would propose such a plan, because I'm sure it would end their political careers.
[1] news.newamericamedia.org/news/
view_article.html?article_id=083e0b4728d31cd23a57533cf02c46c5
[2] See travel.state.gov/visa/temp/types/types_1266.html or the Real ID program.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:58 PM
Brian Williams/Tim Russert/MSNBC puffball Democratic debate (1/15/08 edition)
Yet another Democratic debate was held yesterday on MSNBC, featuring Brian Williams and Tim Russert as moderators (transcript link). It was as ripped-from-the-Soviet-archives as we've come to expect from such debates, only this featured even more questions solely about process and horserace and even fewer about issues. It also featured three extremely lightweight questions about immigration, with the first not being necessary at all. Brian Williams asked:
Senator Edwards, in touching on immigration here, let's go to something that a lot of people have found to be a disconnect between the Democratic Party and majorities of voters in a lot of states. What would be the problem with English as an official language, as a bedrock requirement of citizenship?
There's a huge difference between "an official language" and "the official language", and I suspect that Williams and Edwards know that. And, knowing English is in most cases already a citizenship requirement. And, the major "disconnect" is because all the Democratic candidates support amnesty
Edwards simply responded with his stock speech about "immigration reform"; Williams briefly interrupted him before Edwards continued and made the extremely brave comment that "I think that [learning English] should be a requirement for becoming an American citizen." Such fortitude! Neither moderator pointed out that he'd come out for a policy that, except for certain minor exceptions, is already the law.
Then, Tim Russert tries baiting:
Senator Clinton, one of your pollsters was quoted in The New Yorker magazine as saying this: "The Hispanic voter has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates." Does that represent the view of your campaign?
Parsing her reply is left as an exercise, but it started with "No, he was making a historical statement" and ended with everyone working together towards a progressive future or something.
Then, Barack Obama lends some credibility to the John McCain campaign:
I think that John and myself and Hillary may agree on the broad outlines of where we need to go [i.e., amnesty], but two years ago I stood with Ted Kennedy and John McCain and took on this tough issue, and have consistently been involved in making sure that we've got the kind of comprehensive plan that makes us a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants.
Then:
That's the kind of leadership that I've shown. And when Latino voters read or hear about that leadership, then they know that they're going to have an advocate even if it's politically tough.
Except, he wasn't really advocating for those who were at the time Latino voters; he was advocating for foreign citizens who are here illegally. There are certainly large numbers of mixed-status families containing both voters and illegal aliens, but supporting illegal family reunification isn't good public policy. And, there are other Hispanics who support illegal activity due to racial solidarity, but granting their wishes is not good public policy either.
If Russert and Williams weren't corrupt hacks they would have made those or similar points, and they would have asked better questions to begin with.
Please go to public appearances by the candidates, ask them the questions that MSM hacks won't ask, and then upload the responses.
Links to previous coverage are in the post about the Charlie Gibson/ABC/ WMUR/Facebook/USSR Democratic/Republican debates.
Posted to Politics at 10:53 AM
San Fran Nan brings gourmet touch to Congress (Nancy Pelosi, comrades grab baguettes on way to barricades)
While John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama tour the countryside telling prospective voters just how bad things are, some people in Capitol City are living it up: those lucky few who get to dine at the U.S. House of Representatives' own eating establishments. Thanks to Nancy Pelosi's "Greening the Capitol" plan (link), plucky leftwingers can fight for peace and freedom while dining on such staples as:
Peruvian Purple Potatoes, apple wood bacon, champagne vinaigrette, and shallots... vine ripe tomatoes, mozzarella, and basil... Sustainable Seafood dish: pan seared Chesapeake Rock Fish, sweet potato fennel hash, and yellow pepper relish [a steal at $6.95!]... fruit and cheese side dish with two small wedges of brie and cheddar, six grapes, two saltines and one strawberry [just $4.95!]... pan-roasted Chesapeake rockfish with sweet potato fennel hash and yellow pepper relish. Pears with Stilton cheese and watercress. Cumin-scented leg of lamb with almond couscous. There are vegetables with funny names, like bok choy, arugula and jicama. There are baked goods with Italian names, like biscotti, focaccia and frittati.
No one ever said the revolution didn't have to be scrumptious.
In 2004, I highlighted what John Kerry and John Edwards pretended to eat at a Wendy's in Newburgh, New York. I was a bit confused why Tuh-ray-zuh's plate was so empty, until I figured it out. Then, I made fun of them even more. And, if the GOP had any sense they'd try the same tack with San Fran Nan's Grand Plan.
Posted to Politics at 12:45 PM
Mexico-linked Peter Schey tries blocking border fence, may sue
Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law is an immigration lawyer with at least a few links to the Mexican government. His latest gambit involves trying to block the border fence; whether the Mexican government is involved or not isn't known, but then again reporters almost never mention his links to that government.From this:
Lawyers for landowners and descendants of original settlers along the border in South Texas claimed Monday [January 7] that a new federal law could result in changes to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's plan to build a border wall there this year.He may be referring to Section 564 of the spending bill as described here. That was brought about by Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison; in this she's "defensive" about the amendment she pushed through. She says that critics such as Duncan Hunter and Peter King knew she was going to offer the amendment and that the amendment doesn't jeopardize construction of the fence. The DHS agrees, for what that's worth. She also implies that she intended it simply as window-dressing: hold a few townhall meetings, get local input, and then build the fence. Needless to say, Schey doesn't see it that way, saying:
"It's really a new ballgame at this point," said Peter Schey with the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, a nonprofit group that says it works for civil and human rights of minorities, including immigrants. "We think that means having serious consultation with private landowners, Native American tribes, land grant descendants and private property owners."
Schey said language in an omnibus spending bill approved by Congress in late December and signed by President Bush not only mandates public consultation about the fence but also gives the federal government discretion in determining the best means to gain control of the border. It also says alternative infrastructure can be considered.
"We plan to see the Department of Homeland Security in court... Building the fence is back to square one."The Texas Border Coalition is quoted also; whether they have links to him isn't known.
In this, Schey reveals that his goal is to completely block construction of the fence:
Schey said Chertoff should have to start over with his border fence plans because of that law and first hold "serious consultation" with possibly effected landowners and others who may be affected.For the far-left view, see americas.irc-online.org/am/4884 and infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20080106224220807
"By then Chertoff won't have his job anymore and we will have a new administration and the new administration will take a look at the need for this wall," Schey said.
The last is written by someone Schey is representing or one of her relatives and uses phrases like the "US Apartheid Wall and militarized borderzone" and similar. The first uses a similar phrase and has Schey referring to the fence as a "Berlin Wall".
The last promoted a conference call held last Monday featuring various Indian representatives such as Jose Matus, "director of Alianza Indígena Sin Fronteras, Tucson, AZ" and someone from the "O'odham Voice Against the Wall". Arnoldo García of the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights had some involvement in that.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:00 PM
Andres Oppenheimer's five "myths" of the "anti-immigration movement"
Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald - previously featured here for warning about a "Latino Intifada" unless we give millions of illegal aliens an amnesty - now offers "Five myths of anti-immigration talk", such as:
Myth No. 1: ''We are only against illegal immigration. Undocumented immigrants should get in line for visas.'' That's deceptive because you can't demand that people get into line when, for the most part, there is no line to get into... While the U.S. labor market is demanding 1.5 million mostly low-skilled immigrants a year -- and will demand many more in coming years, as the U.S. population becomes increasingly educated -- the current immigration system allows into the U.S. an average of one million legal immigrants a year, and most of them are already here... ''There is a huge mismatch between what the U.S. labor market needs and the supply of immigration visas,'' says Frank Sharry, head of the National Immigration Forum, which advocates both secure borders and a path to legal residence for many of the 12 million undocumented immigrants in the United States.
Perhaps there's a reason why there isn't a line for massive numbers of low-skilled workers and/or massive immigration from Mexico, yet AO doesn't go into that. And the "market" demands are based on a crooked market, where employers have been able to obtain labor thanks to corrupt politicians who refuse to enforce our laws or try to subvert them. Perhaps it's bad public policy to import massive amounts of low-skilled workers while the rest of us sit on our verandas watching them toil in the fields. And, Sharry isn't exactly as moderate a voice as AO tries to portray him. In another "myth", AO references "studies" from the Anti-Defamation League and the Southern Poverty Law Center. Both "studies" are riddled with holes and the second group has an indirect link to the Mexican government.
He also quotes Michelle Waslin, previously with the National Council of La Raza and now with the Immigration Policy Center.
"Anybody who is Hispanic-looking or has an Hispanic last name is being treated as an undocumented immigrant."
To the extent that that's true, those groups and pundits who support illegal immigration are partially responsible. They've helped to racialize illegal immigration, turning it from an issue of law into an issue of ethnic identity. And, they've continally tried to blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration.
The other "myths" could be taken apart, but it's not really worth it.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 09:37 AM
Elisabeth Bumiller and John Broder of the NYT mislead for McCain (heckled over immigration)
Elisabeth Bumiller and John Broder of the New York Times mislead on behalf of John McCain in their story "McCain and Romney Tangle Over Job Losses in Michigan" (link).Mr. McCain was loudly heckled at an appearance in Livonia when he said that the nation's 10 million illegal immigrants had to be treated humanely and not deported en masse. The catcalls eventually died down.That paragraph implies that those heckling him were doing so because they wanted illegal aliens to be treated inhumanely and they wanted mass deportations. I don't know any of the people at the event, and I've so far been unable to find video or a non-MSM first report from the event, but I think it's safe to say that at least the first is not true. The second might also be false as well: those who booed may support an alternative to a massive amnesty and mass deportations, such as attrition. Of course, the MSM has a habit of ignoring that option.
I think it's also safe to say that those New York Times "reporters" misled on John McCain's behalf in an attempt to portray those who support our laws as inhumane yahoos. And, the implication is that deporting someone is "inhumane" is an attempt to block enforcement.
And, there are more than 10 million illegal aliens here; McCain himself says that there are 12 million, and that the "two million of them who have committed crimes have to be rounded up and deported immediately" (GOP debate, link). So, McCain himself supports mass deportations.
While waiting expectantly for video, here's a CBS report from Dante Higgins (link), which makes up for the possible lie by the NYT with a lack of specificity and an example of the MSM's complete failure to ask follow-ups to audience questions:
"Maam, you've got to be polite, I'll be polite to you. I'll even call on you next," McCain said. He then continued his response when someone yelled out again.Hopefully it'll be even funner when he loses. Note that his unique example is similar to a trick he played during the last debate (transcript link above):
"Ahh come on give it a rest," he said before explaining how he would address 10 million people left in the country after 2 million were deported automatically. More voices shouted back from the crowd, "How many taxes do you want to spend?"
McCain stopped and said "I will secure the border... I am not going to call up a soldier and tell him I am deporting his mother... I'm not going to do it. You can do it," he said to applause before moving on to the next question.
On the bus after the event McCain told to reporters, "That was fun!"
The three G.I.s who were missing last year in action, one of them was still missing in action, his wife was about to be deported from this country. I'm not going to deport the wife of a fighting serviceman who's missing in action. I'm going to handle it in a humane, compassionate fashion.Todd Spangler of the Detroit Free Press is apparently trying for a job at the NYT (link):
Many in the crowded auditorium were clearly upset when McCain said some 10 million illegal immigrants would have to be dealt with fairly and humanely and not shipped wholesale out of the country...Hugh Gallagher of the Detroit Hometown Weekly says:
He said the president must first secure the borders, deport any criminals here illegally and develop some kind of temporary guest worker program. Then, those here illegally would have to apply to stay--but would go to the back of the line for applications.
One person yelled about the tax costs of allowing illegal immigrants to remain. Another shouted, "what about your culture and language?" In the end, McCain simply repeated what he has said before, that he won't deport some people--like the mother of a soldier fighting in Iraq, for example.
It was during a question on immigration that McCain received the most negative reception. Several people booed and shouted against his support for a guest worker program, even as he told the audience that he believed securing the borders was the first priority.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 02:37 PM
CNN Jesuit Babe of the Day: Mary Snow
CNN's political coverage for the last hour or so is eerily remiscent of ESPN coverage of some novelty sporting event, like the 2002 Caber Tossing Championship from Nampa, Idaho. One just-one-level-above-weatherman "reporter" tosses it to another, who - speaking in hushed tones as if it were the 1994 Miniature Golf Championships from Tallahassee - gives a stock speech about the stock speech from Rudy Giuliani.
Meanwhile, all the questions that those "reporters" should be asking the politicians remain competely unasked.
And, in fact, there's only one good reason to watch both CNN and Fox, and one of them has just won our Jesuit Babe of the Day. The lucky recipient is Mary Snow, graduate of NYC's Fordham University from which she earned a BS in Political Science, which she's certainly put to good use as one of Ted Turner's foot soldiers on CNN.
Related:
Croatian Olympics Babe of the Day
Posted to WackyHumor at 02:31 PM
One Bill Gil Cedillo brings back illegal aliens driver's licenses (January 2008 edition)
From this:Saying Friday's release of final regulations in the U.S. REAL ID Act clears the way, a Los Angeles Democrat said he will move ahead with a bill that would let illegal immigrants obtain driver's licenses.Unlike Gray Davis did shortly before being recalled, Arnie has vetoed past attempts, and, in addition to the security standards, a spokeswoman appears to be using another objection as a dodge: waiting for "comprehensive immigration reform". And, the California DMV has its own objections to Real ID. And, even Cedillo has admitted that three-quarters of Californians oppose his scheme.
State Sen. Gil Cedillo has previously proposed such legislation, but it has been vetoed repeatedly by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has noted that federal officials have not yet adopted security standards to make licenses more tamper-proof.
Cedillo plans to use his bill, SB 60 - which has been parked on the Assembly floor since last year - to relaunch his effort.
More on Cedillo at his name's link above or here:
National Latino Congreso: "No Human Being is Illegal", Nativo Lopez, Gil Cedillo, Kucinich, Cuban Five, Fairness Doctrine, and more!
Gil Cedillo's SB 1 would create "Office of Immigrant Affairs"
Gil Cedillo, Peter Schey, LULAC, MALDEF, more at Migrant March II
Posted to Immigration_dls at 01:19 PM
Dave Neiwert/Sara Robinson/Orcinus/ Virginia Heffernan/Ron Paul/Jonah Goldberg
Or, when lefties attack. Back on December 24, Virginia Heffernan of the New York Times offered her Christmas gift to Ron Paul, desperately mainstreaming allegations from a U.S. Nazi leader (link):[The Nazi leader claimed that] Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Va., usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.Now, the post is prefaced with a correction (also in this December 26 entry), ending with this:
The post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.Two days later on the 28th, Alternet published "White Supremacist Leader Insists Ron Paul Is Racist" (alternet.org/blogs/election08/71834/), which is bylined (literally) "Sara Robinson, Orcinus". The first links to her profile page at Alternet, the second to the site of David Neiwert. It contains similar charges to the New York Times post. Only at the very bottom is this:
UPDATE II Ron Paul's campaign spokesperson has refuted White's claims.And, that update links to the NYT 12/27 post, i.e., a post with an earlier publication date. And, the NYT post makes it clear that it's an apology; the Alternet blurb does not. Even if the Alternet smear was written before the NYT post, it should never have been printed. And, the update should have been more detailed and placed in a more prominent position.
The extent to which Dave Neiwert himself was involved in the smear isn't known, but here's one definitely involving him directly.
In trying to debunk Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" book, he says (dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/buck-stops-here.html) that "[e]ach of these positions today is largely a tenet of the political right, and has been for some time":
-- Anti-SemitismIs there some reason why anyone besides a complete Kool Aid drinker takes him seriously? A couple years ago I caught him trying to pretend that a bill that would block birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens was retroactive, but trying to smear those on the right side of things with that laundry list is even more disreputable.
-- Racial separation
-- The quashing of civil rights for minorities
-- The destruction of federal government power
-- Anti-welfare
-- Anti-public education
-- Anti-homosexual
-- Anti-abortion
-- Anti-immigration
Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:08 PM
Anna Gorman/LAT on Mexican adult schools operating at U.S. public schools
If Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times were a real reporter she would look into all the circumstances of the Mexican government operating adult schools inside U.S. public schools. And, she'd look into what's being taught and whether it's being used as a way of encouraging Mexican partisanship. Of course, she's just a propagandist and not a real reporter, so this is what we get ("Mexican education comes to U.S./Adult immigrants can complete their basic education in Spanish at one of 13 centers across L.A. County.", link):...The Mexican government opened its latest Plaza Comunitaria, or Community Plaza, Thursday at San Fernando Middle School... There are 13 such centers throughout Los Angeles County, aimed at helping Mexican nationals complete their basic education. The centers offer free classes, in person or through video and the Internet, to Mexican nationals living in the U.S.Teaching someone in Spanish out of Mexican textbooks assists their assimilation into the U.S.? Is Anna Gorman completely stupid, or does she think the Los Angeles Times' readers are? Note also that San Fernando Middle School is part of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
...More than 40% of Mexican nationals over age 25 living in the U.S. had less than a ninth-grade education, according to 2005 data compiled by the Pew Hispanic Center.
Consular officials said the Spanish-language classes improve immigrants' self-esteem and enable them to help their children with schoolwork. The education in their native tongue also better prepares immigrants to learn English and encourages their assimilation. Hundreds of Mexican nationals have taken classes since the first local center opened in 2003. There are similar programs elsewhere, including San Jose and San Bernardino.
[One of the article's two protagonists (both are legal residents)] said he was interested in learning about the history of his country so he could pass that culture along to his children.That could be benign, or it could be something else.
Space for the program is provided by schools and community centers, and the Mexican government supplies the textbooks. Students work at their own pace with the help of mostly volunteer teachers or tutors.At least part of the bills are thus picked up by the U.S.
Related:
Esmeralda Bermudez spins Mexican textbooks in Oregon public schools
Mexico joins hands with LAUSD, inserts tentacles
Posted to Immigration2008a at 09:53 PM
Michael Chertoff: Real ID will lead to "reconfiguring our society"
From thisSecretary Michael Chertoff, head of the Department of Homeland Security, announced a set of final revisions to the controversial Real ID Act in a press conference this morning. It's not clear at this point how extensive those revisions truly are, but it is clear that DHS feels that the rules are now in their final form and that the period for discussion, revision, and dispute is now over...I hate to side, even slightly, with the ACLU on this, but it would certainly be nice if there were no Real ID. It's unfortunate that "civil libertarians" from the ACLU have worked to both enable illegal immigration and try to undercut other ways to fight terrorism.
Chertoff first addressed privacy advocates by declaring, "We are not going to have a national database." Rather, Real ID will link databases together with a unified query service, in a manner that enables them to function as a de facto national database. (See the difference?)
"This is a great teaching moment on the challenges of really reconfiguring our society so that we can take reasonable steps to secure ourselves in a way that is nevertheless consistent with our civil liberties and our prosperity," Chertoff said in the Q&A session following the announcement.
Posted to Immigration_dls at 09:49 PM
Catholic Church runs shelters in Mexico that assist in illegal immigration
Robin Emmott of Reuters says:Weary migrants on their journey north often recharge their batteries at a network of [Catholic Church operated] shelters run by the Roman Catholic Church -- a lifeline sanctioned by the Vatican, despite increased U.S. efforts to keep out illegal immigrants.It's apparently too complicated for them to consider feeding people and then encouraging them not to cross the border and, instead of concentrating on assisting illegal immigration concentrating on encouraging reforms in Mexico and other countries. The article does point out that, oddly enough, millions of illegal aliens from Latin America have done wonders for church attendance in the U.S. Note also that Church activities in Mexico are more circumscribed than they are here (example).
"Migration is a human right and migrants are some of the world's most vulnerable people. It is the church's obligation to help them," said the Rev. Francisco Pellizzari, an Italian-Argentine missionary who runs the Nazareth migrant shelter in Nuevo Laredo.
...The Nuevo Laredo shelter has been granted a papal blessing in a Vatican certificate that hangs proudly on the wall.
...The church denies any wrongdoing and says it is stepping in to fill the void created by the lack of a U.S. immigration policy and the failure of Latin American countries to create more jobs for their people.
"While the governments of the United States and Latin America fail to provide workable policies, the church will do what it must to help the migrant," said Rafael Romo, Archbishop of Tijuana on Mexico's border with California. "We can't let these people be treated like animals."
Posted to Immigration2008a at 09:41 PM
Yet another very questionable Hillary Clinton/Democratic Party donor
Details here.
Posted to Politics at 11:40 AM
Hillary Clinton: "no woman is illegal" (campaigning in Vegas to people who aren't citizens)
Hillary Clinton visited a neighborhood in Las Vegas yesterday that just happens to be home to many members of the Culinary Workers Union, which recently endorsed Barack Obama. And, she showed that, despite being a lawyer, she doesn't understand or support our immigration laws. She also campaigned to people who aren't citizens and might be illegal aliens. She was accompanied on her journey by Nevada state Assemblyman Ruben Kihuen.
Molly Ball gives us our first clue that many were not citizens when she says that some "didn't speak English or weren't old enough to vote." (She also gets quite flowery, referring to "tableaux of adorable multicultural children"; I wonder how she'd describe various varieties of monochromaticism. Of course, by "multicultural" she could have meant "monochromatic", which in her mind might be the same).
Then:
A man shouted through an opening in the wall that his wife was illegal... "No woman is illegal," Clinton said, to cheers.
"Legal", of course, refers to someone's status and can apply to other things as well, such as "illegal pharmacist", "illegal lawyer", etc. The last, of course, would be pretty sweet.
Then, always willing to go native, she said:
"We treat [different issues relating to home foreclosures] as if one is guacamole and one is chips, when ... they both go together."
Needless to say, "reporter" Molly Ball simply wrote down her remarks and didn't call her on anything.
J. Patrick Coolican of the Las Vegas Sun has this:
Many of the neighborhood residents either weren't citizens or weren't registered... Clinton must have been a bit baffled, for instance, when Kihuen took her to visit Esperanza Solorio, who's not a citizen. Kihuen explained her importance: She is a community activist who can move voters.
Whether Kihuen and Clinton are involved in breaking the law in some way would certainly be a good thing to look into, but don't expect either of the Las Vegas papers to do that. And, even if no laws were broken no politician should be trying to find helpers who aren't even citizens.
UPDATE: "Reporter" Molly Ball must have gotten a lot emails, because she offers a follow-up here. She points out that her story was mentioned on Rush Limbaugh's and Lou Dobb's shows and was linked from Drudge and got almost 1000 "angry" comments. And:
To put the remark into context, Clinton did add, after a pause, "... and no man, either." She then explained her position on immigration... Clinton, a spokeswoman said [afterwards], meant that she "believes you can be tough on the issue of illegal immigration without being mean-spirited about the human beings involved." The spokeswoman, Hilarie Grey, noted that Clinton's position is to secure the border in addition to treating current illegal immigrants humanely.
I guess, as always, it boils down to how you define things. "Humanely" in ClintonSpeak means granting a massive amnesty that will encourage even more illegal immigration. In the real world, "humanely" means enforcing our laws in a legal fashion using humane techniques, i.e., no long marches or anything like that. As could be expected, "reporter" Ball didn't point that out to the Clinton spokeswoman.
Also, the Washington Times offers the editorial "Hillary's illegals":
In its pre-Hillary incarnation, a very similar phrase first surfaced widely three years ago thanks to Los Angeles Cardinal Roger Mahoney, who said, "No person is illegal" to parishioners in 2004 amid a denunciation of a state bill to secure drivers' licenses. Cardinal Mahoney's imprimatur, which lent a stamp of Catholic social-justice approval in many eyes, gave the phrase resonance beyond what mere partisans and hardcore activists could provide... ...Via this nonsequitur, and by imputing meanness or hatred, "No woman is illegal" and "No person is illegal" help open-borders, pro-amnesty politicians evade an honest consideration of the nation's illegal-immigration conundrum. Don't be fooled.
It would have been a bit better if they had accurately described Hillary and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership as "loose borders"; only the most lunatic libertarians and far-lefties support literally open borders.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:14 AM
Deval Patrick: sneak attempt to give tuition breaks to illegal aliens
From this:[Massachusetts governor] Deval Patrick said he's researching whether he can take unilateral action to allow illegal immigrants to pay in-state tuition at state colleges.UPDATE: More on the process side of things here:
...Patrick, who has long supported the idea, said his legal team is looking into whether the change can be made without approval from the Legislature.
House lawmakers soundly rejected in 2006 a bill that would let undocumented immigrant students pay in-state tuition.
Shannon Jenkins, an assistant professor of political science at UMass Dartmouth, said the governor might be considering issuing an executive order. Executive orders are a "customary precedent" at the national level that U.S. presidents such as George W. Bush and Bill Clinton have used to bypass Congress.
Dr. Jenkins said she did not know if a Massachusetts governor had ever issued an executive order. If Gov. Patrick chooses to do so, the Legislature could overturn the order by passing a law, she said.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 02:13 PM
Pakistan given nuclear secrets by U.S. officials? Foreknowledge of 9/11? (B-52 nuke "mistake")
From this:A whistleblower has made a series of extraordinary claims about how corrupt government officials allowed Pakistan and other states to steal nuclear weapons secrets.Whether this and the following are tinfoil or not isn't known. What is clear is that the U.S. mainstream media isn't rushing to look into this. While Edmonds has been featured on 60 Minutes and the NYTimes ran several articles mentioning her, the last article was in January 2005 (link). This article tries to tie this in to last year's case of the B-52 which was mistakenly/"mistakenly" loaded with live nukes last year (link); more by that same author here and here. As with another field, there appear to be a statistically-improbable number of deaths of those from Minot AFB; see the last link.
Sibel Edmonds, a 37-year-old former Turkish language translator for the FBI, listened into hundreds of sensitive intercepted conversations while based at the agency’s Washington field office.
She approached The Sunday Times last month after reading about an Al-Qaeda terrorist who had revealed his role in training some of the 9/11 hijackers while he was in Turkey.
Edmonds described how foreign intelligence agents had enlisted the support of US officials to acquire a network of moles in sensitive military and nuclear institutions.
Among the hours of covert tape recordings, she says she heard evidence that one well-known senior official in the US State Department was being paid by Turkish agents in Washington who were selling the information on to black market buyers, including Pakistan...
UPDATE: Ahem. Moving on, one of the suicides mentioned at the baltimorechronicle link is that of Captain John Frueh, who was reported missing and then found ten days later in an apparently remote area of Skamania County, WA. Someone visited the area to check it out here. Unfortunately, that person isn't a hiker, and I'd like the input of someone who is. Because, after doing a little research (link, link; news reports here) I can find no conceivable reason why I would ever be interested in visiting the peak that he appears to have been going for. Of course, my main interests are things like state and county highpoints or hikes involving various challenges. This doesn't appear to involve many challenges and, while they say it has a good view, there are probably plenty of other peaks with good views in the area as well. It doesn't appear to be a major destination. There are certainly many options available here: he might not have been going for the peak and that's just a circumstance, he might have gotten lost (although he was found near his car), if he was going for the peak he'd probably have at least done a little planning and would have a book or printouts or have asked rangers or others about it, etc. Perhaps someone in the area would like to shed some light on this.
Posted to Miscellania at 02:07 PM
Will Wilkinson/Cato openly promotes North American Union
A tactic used by those who seek to deny that powerful forces are pushing for a North American Union is first to deny that such a plan exists, and then to say something like, "but, if it did, would it be such a bad thing?"One of those trying to retail the idea of a NAU is Will Wilkinson of the Cato Institute, who, speaking on the radio show Marketplace, says:
There are some who believe a grave threat to American sovereignty looms over the horizon. A shadowy cabal, they say, is planning a massive "NAFTA superhighway," a new North American currency, and a common market in goods and labor. It will all culminate in an E.U.-like North American Union.Obviously, all the arguments against the NAU scheme apply, including the fact that subjecting U.S. citizens to decisions by Mexican and Canadian bureaucrats, undermining the U.S. Constitution, and giving the corrupt Mexican government even more political power inside the U.S. are the opposite of freedom.
It turns out this is mostly fantasy. But the fantasy is more dream than nightmare. Because some aspects of a North American Union would leave Americans and our neighbors both richer and freer.
...The best solution to America's immigration problem is not a wall or a new crackdown on the hiring of undocumented workers. It's NAFTA's unfinished business: a common North American labor market. It's illogical and impractical to create a single North American economy that integrates markets for goods, capital, raw materials, services, and information but tries to keep labor markets divided...
Click his name above to read about a Reason Magazine article written by Wilkinson that closely tracked a satire I'd written a couple weeks earlier and sent to that magazine as a real proposal.
Posted to NAU at 10:44 AM
Intellectually dishonest James Kirchick
James Kirchick of the New Republic - home of the odious Jason Zengerle - offers "Angry White Man/The bigoted past of Ron Paul", an attempt by the Beltway establishment to sink his candidacy by revealing excerpts from his old newsletters. Apparently much or all of it was ghostwritten, and the campaign tries to portray him as a (per Kirchick) "naive, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf". To a good extent that doesn't wash, and many of the quotes provided are indeed very questionable in and of themselves. (The Ron Paul campaign responds to the TNR piece here. See also the response from Thomas DiLorenzo (not Lew Rockwell as previously stated), in which he implies he might sue Kirchik for libel; the article implies that DiLorenzo is a neo-Confederate due to a conference he spoke at, when the conference actually dealt with the pre-Civil War northern secessionist movement.)
However, other quotes from the TNR piece beg for context, and others are craftily spun in order to make Paul look as bad as possible. Consider this:
That same year [1990], citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that "the AIDS patient" should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that "AIDS can be transmitted by saliva," which is false.
There are at least three things wrong with that.
1. Per the Red Cross (link):
There are no known cases of saliva by itself spreading HIV... However, because there could be a risk of blood contact during prolonged open-mouth kissing, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends against doing this with a partner who has HIV.
So, outright calling it "false" isn't exactly honest, not that TNR has much familiarity with that concept.
2. In 1990, how many studies had been done on transmission via saliva? In 1990 - when the excerpt was written - was it still a very open question? [UPDATE: a search of the contemporaneous NYT and medical literature at pubmed.gov shows mixed results, with some saying it could be transmitted via saliva and some saying it's very unlikely; one HIV+ person was convicted of attempted murder after biting someone.]
3. Just because someone "cites" something doesn't mean that they agree with it.
Did Kirchick make a "mistake"? Or was he intentionally trying to deceive by confusing what we (mostly) know now with what was known in 1990?
Kirchick goes on:
The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills. They contain frequent and bristling references to the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, and the Council on Foreign Relations--organizations that conspiracy theorists have long accused of seeking world domination. In 1978, a newsletter blamed David Rockefeller, the Trilateral Commission, and "fascist-oriented, international banking and business interests" for the Panama Canal Treaty, which it called "one of the saddest events in the history of the United States."
I guess that reasonable people can disagree on whether the CFR and other Rockefeller-linked groups are just friendly social groups or whether they do attempt to run matters, but I suggest being very suspicious of hacks who try to claim the former. As for the Treaty, consider this:
...the White House in late 1977 directed the well-connected former chairman of the finance committee of the Democratic National Committee, S. Lee Kling, to set up the "Committee of Americans for the Canal Treaties, Inc." (COACT). To anyone not aware of Kling's past or his mandate from the White House, COACT seemed like a grassroots, nonpartisan effort on behalf of the treaties... the list of COACT members included David Rockefeller (chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank)...
DR was also there in 1999 when Carter officially handed the Canal over (link), and he has a link to the co-negotiator of the treaty (link).
And:
What's more, Paul's connections to extremism go beyond the newsletters. He has given extensive interviews to the magazine of the John Birch Society, and has frequently been a guest of Alex Jones, a radio host and perhaps the most famous conspiracy theorist in America.
Being interviewed by someone doesn't mean you agree with everything they say. And, while Alex Jones is a bit of a showman and does have some far-out-there ideas, others are not. And, unlike someone like Kirchick, he's willing to buck the establishment.
Note also this email he sent to a RP supporter a few weeks ago:
I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist.
The recipient goes on to call Kirchick a "muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite"; as for the part about "dishonoring" TNR with his presence, I'd say he fits right in.
UPDATE: John Gibson of Fox News did a radio interview with Kurchik here. It contains this absolutely incredible statement:
"When someone mentions the Trilaterial Commission in nefarious terms, you know that they're a little kooky... ...The Bilderbergers, that's a real out there conspiracy theory..."
Then, he pretended that Bohemian Grove was just a "men's social club in Northern California".
This guy is a complete establishment suck-up and apologist. While some of the theories about those groups are indeed out there, pretending they're just happy friendly social groups is something that no one who isn't just trying to suck-up should engage in. Also, he appears to be a fan of Rudy Giuliani; at the last link Rudy gives an award to David Rockefeller and mentions all the groups with which he's been associated, including the CFR and the Bilderbergers.
TNR has released some scanned copies of the newsletters here. I'm going to leave it to others to look through all of them but the first one in the "Conspiracies" section is from 1978 - well before some of RP's supporters were born - and it contains highlighted sections that apparently we're supposed to shocked at, such the fact that David Rockefeller is linked to politicians and the news media or that the true owners of the Panama Canal are not just the supposed owners. So? Another one in that section, a solicitation letter, is so over the top that I'm almost positive that Ron Paul himself didn't write it, and I don't think too many politician write their own solicitation letters.
UPDATE 2: This has got to be a joke. Little Green Footballs - added as a show of support to this site's "blogroll" after some incident a few years ago and just now removed - offers "Ron Paul's Personal Details in Racist Newsletter" (link). Apparently the fact that whoever wrote a paragraph knew that Ron Paul had grandchildren strongly implies that the author was Paul himself and not a surrogate.
UPDATE 3: Andrew Sullivan - someone who wouldn't last more than a week as a pundit if he allowed open comments - flees the ship for USS McCain:
After the awful news about Ron Paul's ugly, repellent past newsletters, I find myself rooting again for the man who was my second choice.
UPDATE 4: Via this guy in the comment here consider this from their documents page:
A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier.
The 1989 PDF (link) only "compares" their cases and points out liberal hypocrisy, calling out TNR by name (probably why they highlighted it; bolding added):
Would the New Republic, which has been sickenly pompous on Rushdie and in its hymns to secular humanism, defend things it would find heretical? The answer is no. This liberal magazine has past defended Canada's "anti-hate" law, which was used to fine and jail a Canadian author, Ernst Zundel, who questioned the historical reality of the Holocaust. Liberal newspapers like the Washington Post and the Boston Globe have also praised the Canadian law and this prosecution. I'll believe Establishment liberals are really committed to free speech when I see Norman Mailer and his cohorts wearing "I am Ernst Zundel" buttons and holding readings of his works. I personally am offended by writings advocating fascism, socialism, Communism, and other forms of special-interest big government. Many people understandably find Zundel's writings offensive. But his case is no different in principle from Rushdie's except that Zundel is poor and in jail, and Rushdie is rich and protected.
Posted to Politics at 01:21 PM
Mexico worried that "migrants" not receiving public services (in the U.S., of course)
As Felipe Calderon and other Mexican government officials have done recently, Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa Cantellano spoke out today in defense of "migrants" (i.e., illegal aliens that Mexico has more or less sent us) and threatened to ramp up the pressure for an amnesty.
Bearing strongly in mind that she said this first in Spanish, and then it was filtered by the Washington Post and their reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, this is still an interesting thing to read:
Mexican officials have said they are concerned that migrants are being treated unfairly in workplaces and, in some cases, being denied public services. The presidential campaign has frequently inflamed tensions on issues related to immigration.
It would be great to learn which public services they have in mind; while illegal aliens are eligible for various services, the fact that their government would highlight that helps show that our generous program of services factors into that government's calculations.
She also said:
"Being effective in the defense and support of the migrants implies treating them the same way whether they are in Mexico or outside of the country... Given the adverse climate that prevails for the Mexican community in the United States, aggravated by the electoral debate in that country, we also have to give particular attention to the problems confronted by our migrants..."
Related:
Mexico's PRD Party to establish "migrant houses" in the U.S.
Felipe Calderon explicitly wants Mexican consuls to meddle in U.S. immigration debate (non-profits)
Felipe Calderon's "League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States"
Posted to Immigration2007b at 09:29 PM
Donate a penny for RedState! (needs $25,000 to move from Drupal to Django)
Our friends at RedState have issued an urgent plea [1] for $25,000 so they can upgrade their site from Drupal to Django. In the spirit of helpfulness, I urge everyone reading this to donate a penny if PayPal allows it. But, only if the transactions costs exceed the amount you donate.In the plea, Erick Erickson implies some sort of liberal conspiracy that's prevented them from getting help or something; at least one person calls him on it in comments, and Kos says he offered to conduct a "technology swap" when they had previously used the Scoop system:
...they could have all of our improvements if their developer helped with some patches and whanot. I saw this as a way to spread out the costs of improving the platform amongst various sites.(Other "liberals" weigh in here and here). I'll also add that Drupal is an open source system, and it has a very active user community. In the Drupal forums, no one knows you're a dog, a liberal, or a GOP hack. If they needed help, there was nothing preventing them from asking questions in those forums, and I don't think they'd find too many people who'd turn down money as long as it was coming from at least a semi-reputable source.
But that doesn't fit their narrative of being "censored" by those crazy liberals.
So in other words, as ludicrous as their charge was -- that they were being censored because no liberals offered to help them -- IT'S NOT EVEN TRUE!
Furthermore, Drupal is written in PHP, a very widely used language. And, it's infinitely extensible. It's very easy to completely change everything Drupal looks and acts like simply by writing add-on modules and themes. And, while it would be almost never needed, the core code can be modified at will since it's open source. Any server issues can be handled as discussed at the RedState thread, and Erickson admits that that wasn't even the issue. While Drupal isn't by any stretch of the imagination as well-designed (in an object-oriented fashion) as other APIs (such as as some of the Java APIs), much of that can be mitigated by writing your add-on code in an OO fashion. (If you're reading this as an individual post, some of the sites to the left are Drupal together with custom modules I developed.)
In other words, there's no reason I can see for them to switch from Drupal. While Python is an attractive language, and Yahoo has used it for years, and Django may be less kludgy than Drupal, switching over rather than simply writing a few add-on modules doesn't seem all that necessary.
But, don't let that stop you from sending a penny, just as long as it costs them money.
[1] redstate.com/stories/miscellanea/redstate_has_a_real_need_for_your_help
Posted to Bloggage at 04:59 PM
Illegal aliens and social security
John McCain has recently complained that a Mitt Romney ad was misleading about his record in regards to illegal aliens receiving Social Security benefits. From the ad, as discussed on Fox News Sunday (link):
McCain pushed to let every illegal immigrant stay here permanently. He even voted to allow illegals to collect Social Security.
As Chris Wallace points out, that's misleading. However, it's only misleading in the temporal sense, and the ad should have said something like:
"McCain would wave a magic wand, rapidly convert millions of former illegal aliens into legal workers with a massive amnesty, and then give them Social Security benefits."
Kaus' rounds up the effects of the McCain-Kennedy scheme here:
illegals wouldn't have to pay fines and wait to become citizens to get Social Security. They'd qualify for Social Security almost immediately, as soon has they got their quickie "probationary" Z-visas. But most might not get credit for earlier work done here illegally, at least immediately. That depends on whether you're talking about the 2006 McCain or the 2007 McCain.
He also has a long excerpt from an email Mark Krikorian sent him with the details; he also briefly mentions the separate issue of the Mexico-U.S. Totalization Agreement.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:02 AM
The Charlie Gibson/ABC/WMUR/Facebook/USSR Democratic/Republican debates
Last night, Charlie Gibson of ABC News moderated two debates sponsored by WMUR and Facebook, featuring the Republican candidates and then the Democrats. Like all the preceding debates, it was like something ripped from the pages of the Soviet Union.
First, the Democrat version (transcript link) does not feature a single instance - not even one - of immigration or any related words. That's the Democrats' weakest spot, the one that could be used to show that none are qualified to be president, and Charlie Gibson and ABC News decided not to ask about it. There's no excuse for that. Whether the Dem base is as concerned about the issue as everyone else is immaterial: those candidates want to run the entire country.
Second, the GOP version (transcript link), as with recent news reports, allowed John McCain to continue to mislead about whether his immigration scheme was amnesty. The moderators should know enough to call McCain on his use of misleading language, but did not for some reason.
Third, one of Rudy Giuliani's answers illustrates just how pathetic the structure of the debates has been:
What do I stand for? I laid out 12 commitments to the American people. I wrote them out. The first one is the most important -- keeping this country on offense in the Islamic terrorist war against us. The rest of them lay out what I believe this country has to do over the next four years. That would be my guidepost. If I'm elected president, I'll put that card on my desk, and every day I will try to accomplish it -- end illegal immigration, solve health care through private options, reduce taxes, reduce the size of government on the civilian side, expand the military, appoint strict constructionist judges.
In almost any setting other than running for president, those to whom Rudy presented his twelve committments would grill him on how exactly he intends to follow through and would point out all the possible downsides and ask him how he intends to deal with contingencies. Imagine, for instance, Rudy going to investors seeking money to implement his plans. They wouldn't simply hand him a billion dollars, they'd do extensive due diligence first.
Not so with the presidential debates or with MSM coverage in general. Candidates are allowed to utter completely fantastic claims such as proposing to "end" illegal immigration and all the MSM can do is dutifully write it down or allow it to be broadcast to millions of potential voters.
One solution is to encourage the candidates to attend policy debates. Another solution is to encourage people to go to campaign events and ask tough questions. If you can't do that, please post messages to local forums or contact local bloggers encouraging them to get out there and do the job the MSM won't do.
Related:
CNN/Youtube censored video replies on CNN debate
NPR Democratic debate: weak questions on immigration, logical fallacies
Black and Brown debate features childish race card tricks (Richardson as Hillary's VP?)
CNN Youtube GOP debate November 28, 2007
CNN lies, misleads (11/15/07 Democratic debate edition)
Why the debates are like Soviet puppet shows, Part #3832 (John Edwards, Democrats, Drexel)
Fox GOP October 21 debate had only two offhand immigration questions
Tim Russert/MSNBC Democratic "debate" features journalistic incompetence
Democratic Spanish-language Univision debate September 9 transcript
Fox September 5, 2007 GOP debate live coverage
CNN/Youtube Democratic debate July 23
Tavis Smiley/PBS Democratic debate has no immigration questions at all
Live coverage, GOP presidential debate, June 5, 2007
Worse for democracy: Chris Matthews or Wolf Blitzer? (Democratic debate)
GOP 5/15 debate live coverage
Chris Matthews is a Beltway Hack (Ron Paul, "Oh, God", Lou Dobbs as moderator)
Democrats debate features largely worthless immigration question
Posted to Politics at 11:03 AM
Bennett Roth/Houston Chronicle helps John McCain mislead about amnesty (New Hampshire, save us!)
Bennett Roth of the Houston Chronicle offers "Immigration isn't setback for McCain/Polls show he's rebounding after his earlier stance on volatile issue". The article merges two MSM memes: a) allow John McCain and others to make misleading statements about their positions and b) discuss voter questions without asking the candidates any follow-ups.The first was on display from Anderson Cooper at the CNN/Youtube debate and from both Ron Claiborne of ABC News and Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe.
As for the current article:
When John McCain opened up a town hall meeting here for questions on Friday, someone immediately asked if he favored pardoning illegal immigrants.It would be a "major liability" if MSM hacks like Bennett Roth would do their job by pointing out that McCain is playing word games. Whatever he wants to call his scheme, it would have been perceived by millions of prospective illegal aliens as amnesty, with predictable results. All the other downsides of McCain's past and present plans could then be pointed out. When faced with tough questions from those who are familiar with this issue, McCain's popularity would plummet.
The GOP presidential contender, who has been harshly criticized for backing a comprehensive immigration plan that was rejected by Congress last summer, denied he supported an amnesty. He said he first would secure the country's borders, then create a temporary workers program for illegal immigrants.
With that answer the audience, comprised of employees of BAE Systems, a military contractor, quickly moved on.
While the hot-button immigration issue had threatened to sink McCain's campaign six months ago, it still dogs him but no longer appears to be a major liability in the final days before Tuesday's first-in-the-nation primary here.
Hopefully those in New Hampshire will ask better questions that can't simply be answered by his stock speech. If you're in the area, ask him a question like this. If you're not in the area, please encourage those who are to ask better questions.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:46 PM
Arizona: name of illegal alien hiring-business not disclosed in court; Mexico will "intervene"
Arizona has a new employers sanction law that took effect on January 1. It's being challenged in court by lawyers such as Julie Pace and David Selden. The latest twist in that case:A federal court will keep secret the identity of an Arizona business owner who admits in a sworn statement to hiring illegal immigrants.Meanwhile:
The business owner, who remains anonymous, has filed an affidavit in federal court saying he was employing people not in this country legally last year when the lawsuit was filed, and he intends to continue to do so even with the new state law that took effect Jan. 1.
That law allows a judge to suspend or revoke any state licenses of firms that knowingly hire undocumented workers.
The Mexican government promised Friday to defend any Mexicans affected by an Arizona law that punishes employers who hire undocumented migrants.I expect them to use proxies such as "human rights" or "immigrant rights" groups and lawyers such as Peter Schey.
..."Measures like the one approved in Arizona do not contribute to solving the issue of migration by workers between the two countries, and ignore the contributions that migrants make to the U.S. economy and society," Mexico's Foreign Relations Department said.
The department said it will "intervene, through its consulates, in any situation in which the rights of Mexican workers are affected, regardless of their immigration status."
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:06 PM
Huckabee, Obama: what happens when no one asks tough questions
Barack Obama and Mike Huckabee have won the Iowa Caucuses.
Neither are qualified for any elected office, and for the same reason: their strong support for illegal immigration. However, the good news is that should they continue on they'll be extremely vulnerable on that issue and it might lead to a third-party run by someone like Lou Dobbs.
The only reason either of them have political careers is because the mainstream media refuses to do their job and ask them questions about their policies and past statements and actions. If the MSM had looked in to Huckabee's Mexican consulate deal or Obama acting as a useful idiot for those linked to the Mexican government I don't think that we'd see this same result.
The thing to do now is to a) work to shame the MSM into asking real questions, and b) go to campaign appearances and ask those tough questions yourself, and then upload the responses to video sharing sites.
Questions for:
* Mike Huckabee (search for his name here for much more)
* Barack Obama (also this)
* John Edwards
* John McCain
* Hillary Clinton
* Rudy Giuliani (also ask about his incipient national ID card)
* Bill Richardson
* also see the videos here.
Clinton, Giuliani, and Obama take certain steps to avoid being asked difficult questions, but even asking someone more accessible like Bill Richardson a series of tough questions would work wonders: it would send a message to the others as well as to the MSM.
Posted to Politics at 08:10 PM
Barack Obama knuckles under to demands of illegal immigration lobby (IIIC, "illegal aliens" term)
At the end of the article about the Iowa Interfaith Immigration Coalition there's this:
Following the news conference, held at the First Christian Church near Drake University in Des Moines, teams visited the offices of Democratic and Republican candidates, delivering copies of the petition... Most of the Democratic contenders were engaged in a debate sponsored by National Public Radio. One group, however, was able to visit with Sen. Barack Obama and members of his campaign staff. During that conversation, representatives of the Obama campaign pledged to stop using the term "illegal aliens" and to examine their literature and remove offensive language.
"Illegal alien" is the correct legal term and the alternatives such as "undocumented worker" are Orwellian doublespeak. And, needless to say, expunging "offensive language" is Orwellian as well. If he'd knuckle under to faux humanitarians who are trying to hide their support for illegal activity behind euphemisms and a selective reading of the Bible, how would he stand up to even tinpot tyrants from other countries?
Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:19 PM
Iowa Interfaith Immigration Coalition, Anti-Defamation League try sugercoating illegal activity
The Iowa Interfaith Immigration Coalition and the Anti-Defamation League are trying to sugarcoat illegal activity, swing the "debate" about immigration even more in the favor of those who don't support our laws, and accuse some of the presidential candidates of vilifying "immigrants".First up is the ADL (link):
The Anti-Defamation League asked presidential candidates to refrain from anti-immigration rhetoric... The anti-bias group sent a letter to the major party presidential candidates requesting that they refrain from using language that demonizes and dehumanizes minorities, particularly Hispanics.Of course, if we asked them for examples of those Bad Thoughts their interpretations would be as faulty as their "report", discussed at the first link. The claim that the candidates are "demonizing" and "dehumanizing" anyone is simply a smear.
Then, it's on to the Iowa Interfaith Immigration Coalition, which offers a petition called "Creating A Welcoming State". They're trolling for suckers (link):
We pledge ourselves as people of faith and goodwill to stand with our immigrant neighbors who have come to the United States from throughout the world. Recognizing the moral imperative to welcome the stranger in our midst, we commit ourselves to support laws that affirm their dignity, preserve their families, and acknowledge the value of their presence among us.First, by "immigrant neighbors" they mean illegal aliens, so they're lying to the signatories. Second, it's odd that they support some laws but not others; would that we all could choose. Third, their desire to "preserve their families" would lead to a loose borders system where anyone who managed to have a child in the U.S. could not be deported. Fourth, the last sentence supports massive corporate welfare, where crooked companies can import a foreign serf class and pass the full cost of that labor on to the rest of us.
Please go to public events by members of the IIIC and point out their lies, videotape it, and upload the exchange to video sharing sites.
More on the December 4 press conference where they unveiled their petition here:
Members of the Iowa Interfaith Immigration Coalition are urging presidential candidates of both parties to conduct the debate over immigration policy in a civil manner "that respects human dignity."In other words, it's not going the way that those who support illegal activity would like it, so smear the other side. Also quoted: "Dr. Rich Pleva, conference minister of the Iowa conference of the United Church of Christ" and "Imam Ahmed Elkhaldy, Iowa president of the Muslim American Society in Cedar Rapids".
In a Dec. 4 news conference, Connie Ryan Terrell, executive director of The Interfaith Alliance of Iowa, led a group of speakers who gathered to "change the negative, public attitudes and rhetoric which demonize and dehumanize our immigrant friends and neighbors."
Ms. Terrell said this "destructive attitude has permeated our nation," making the discussion about immigration a more "complex and difficult debate."
Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:02 PM
DNC lies; reminds us that they support amnesty (McCain's immigration flip-flops)
The Democratic National Committee (DNC) offers a press release (link) called "DNC: The Five Sharpest Turns of the Double Talk Express: Immigration" about supposed flip-flops on the issue by John McCain. By chiding McCain for flip-flopping on his "principles", they remind us that the Demcratic Party supports "immigration reform", aka a massive amnesty. And, in general, there's little difference between the position of the Democratic Party, John McCain, and George W. Bush on this issue: they all want a massive amnesty, the only question is how they're going to get it. The DNC press release tries to pretend that they aren't on the same page as Bush:
"John McCain's double talk express has taken more turns on immigration than a carnival tilt-a-whirl," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Luis Miranda. "Nobody wants a third Bush term, but that seems to be all McCain is offering with his lack of candor on issues like immigration."
Bush has, of course, been quite candid about his support for illegal immigration and a massive amnesty; instead of vilifying him, the Democrats should be quite grateful to him for allowing millions of potential Democrats to come here.
There's also at least one lie:
In August McCain co-sponsored "a scaled-down proposal" that would not "include a path to citizenship," and even more stunningly, would criminalize immigrants. [AP, 8/2/07]
Later in the press release, they indicate that it wasn't intended to apply to "immigrants" but to illegal aliens:
AUGUST 2007: MCCAIN BACKED CRIMINALIZATION. McCain backed criminalization to save his struggling Presidential campaign. According to the AP, "Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Thursday backed a scaled-down proposal that imposes strict rules to end illegal immigration but doesn't include a path to citizenship... Among other things, the bill makes being in the country illegally a criminal misdemeanor and toughens penalties for re-entering after being deported." [AP, 8/2/07]
Thus, that's not just a minor point, it's a lie. They also quote from the Ron Claiborne/ABC News article recently discussed here without, of course, discussing how Claiborne allowed McCain to mislead.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:01 PM
Jonathan Weisman/Washington Post misleads on Huckabee immigration stance
Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post offers "For Republicans, Contest's Hallmark Is Immigration":
...And just days after he delivered a passionate defense of the humanity of undocumented children in a Republican debate, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee presented one of the most punitive immigration platforms seen in this campaign season, rejecting legislation to provide the children of illegal immigrants a path to citizenship if they finish high school, attend two years of college or join the military...
The "humanity of undocumented children"? Would deporting them to their home countries deprive them of their "humanity"? Does allowing them to remain here illegally boost their "humanity"? Weisman is implying that enforcing our laws against illegal activity deprives people of their "humanity", an outrageous claim.
And, of course, instead of trying to sell illegal immigration in that fashion, a real newspaper would follow the money, and it would lead back to the corrupt Mexican government and corrupt chicken processors and other low-wage employers.
Maybe we should look back in their archives and see if they tried to spin this in a similar fashion.
And, Huckabee's "punitive immigration platform" is anything but. Other than the trip back, the revolving door is punitive neither to the workers nor their employers. His plan is, however, unworkable, but don't expect the WaPo to ask him about that.
In the second part of that sentence, Weisman misleadinginly states that the bill Huck has now come out against (the DREAM Act) is for the "the children of illegal immigrants"; in fact, it's for those who are themselves illegal aliens irrespective of their parents' status(es).
In his first paragraph, Weisman says:
The imagery of the mailings is designed to pack a wallop: a Mexican flag fluttering above the Stars and Stripes, the Statue of Liberty presiding over a "Welcome Illegal Aliens" doormat, a Social Security card emblazoned with the name "Juan Doe," a U.S. passport proclaiming, "Only one candidate has a plan to STAMP out illegal immigration."
I don't know about the rest, but the first may be this picture. A Mexican flag was also raised over the U.S. Post Office in Maywood, CA. And, there was a recent incident where a vet cut down a Mexican flag that was flying over a U.S. flag in Reno, NV.
Posted to Immigration2008a at 09:45 AM
