April 30, 2008

This cannot go unnoticed

The following is, I'm going to guess, NSFW: link. No doubt there are things even worse, but that's today's pick. I only watched the first part but keep what happens after that to yourself.

Meanwhile, if you can stand their style of music, the Barrel House Mamas aren't that bad: link. Someone else isn't bad but could be do with some improvement: link.

Posted to WackyHumor at 10:57 PM

Some changes ahead

In the near future, the following changes will be made in this general order:

1. I'm going to change this domain name to something that isn't stupid. I think I'm going to just redirect every current page to counterparts at the new site, so none of the URLs would 404, they'd just be automatically redirected to the corresponding pages at the new site. I may redirect the non-politics pages to hotsop.com or another site, but those URLs wouldn't 404 either. Needless to say, this is a bit risky vis-a-vis traffic from search engines, but the long-term benefits of a better name are worth it. The problem now is to find that name; even interminable names like "opensourcereporting.com" are taken.

2. More punditry, with attempts to write content for display on other sites.

3. I'm going to attempt to hit the campaign trail and ask the candidates the questions that the MSM refuses to ask. Then, I'll be uploading the answers to video sharing sites. It'd be just great if I could get some form of sponsorship for that. One possibility is a tip jar of some kind. Another is sponsorship by some form of media organization. What makes that very difficult is the general non-partisan nature of the questions, the fact that almost everyone in the political establishment does not want tough questions to be asked lest similar questions are asked of their side, and the fact that the questions would probably be about immigration, a topic that many don't want to discuss at all. And, no one in the MSM would be interested since it would reveal them to be the complete hacks they are.

Posted to Bloggage at 03:41 PM

El Paso BP chief Victor Manjarrez promotes immigration "reform", busboys-style (Alicia Caldwell)

Alicia Caldwell of the Associated Press offers "El Paso border chief urges immigration reform" (link). The person in question is Victor M. Manjarrez Jr., chief of the U.S. Border Patrol's El Paso Sector. Over several paragraphs both the AP and Manjarrez simply offer a long-winded version of the busboys canard previously employed by Barack Obama, Tamar Jacoby, Michael Chertoff, Rudy Guiliani, and more:

"Most of these people are economic migrants but we have to deal with them between the ports of entry because we have not, in terms of a legislative fix, determined what we do with these people... I think it's pretty obvious that the country has a need for economic migrants. To what degree, I don't know. That's for the country to decide and for the politicians to decide... When you look at the series of events that have happened over the last five, six years ... our mission changed... Our primary mission changed from our traditional focus. Our primary mission now is terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. That's what we should be focused on. We can't focus on that as much as we would like because of all the other issues that we deal with."

He then goes on to say there might be a "terrorism nexus." Just because his remarks are highly political and he was probably ordered to give this interview by higher-ups doesn't mean there isn't such a "nexus", but it would be more credible coming from someone else.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:32 PM

Fabian Nunez, Mexico-linked Peter Schey, American Apparel join to support illegal immigration

Yesterday, California Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez held a press conference at the headquarters of American Apparel to oppose workplace raids and thus support illegal immigration. Also on hand was AA's attorney Peter Schey, someone with at least a few links to the Mexican government. Nunez is also a co-chair of the Hillary Clinton campaign, so asking her about his activities is highly recommended. From the Tiffany Hsu report (link; like Anna Gorman she doesn't mention Schey's links):

"The last thing we need is to bring the type of disruption to our economy that could ultimately lead us into a downward spiral into a recession," Nuñez (D-Los Angeles) said.

...If American Apparel's facilities are raided because of the company's support for legalizing the workforce, Schey said repeatedly that the company would "come down like a ton of bricks" on ICE and use "the courts and other devices if possible." He did not elaborate...

...But Schey said between drops in revenue from stalled production and the dangers of suddenly losing a stable workforce, the raids could cause tens of millions of dollars of economic damage...

Although Nuñez said companies should not endorse hiring illegal immigrants, he said workers who were employed should be left alone.

Needless to say, his economics is off: fewer illegal aliens would do wonders for the California economy. And, also needless to say, he's completely corrupt.

And, per this:

"As Speaker of the Assembly I am announcing today that I will be introducing legislation condemning the questionable practices perpetrated by ICE," Nunez says.

He says he has seen proof agents have violated people's constitutional rights during enforcement operations.

UPDATE: I'd like to know whether Nunez has any qualms about appearing in support of ignoring our laws with Peter Schey, someone who has a joint venture with the Mexican government (vocesunidas.org), who wrote an "opposition research" paper that they commissioned, who has at least one other link, and who generally acts in a way that supports Mexico's agenda. Due to an unknown issue with my call to (916) 319-2046, I'll be sending an email to Steve Maviglio, a Nunez aide who left a comment on this earlier entry. The only email I have is Assemblymember.Nunez *at* assembly.ca.gov.

However, if anyone else wants to call or email them and find out, leave a comment.

UPDATE 2: After a day, my email hasn't been replied to. So, I'm going to assume a) that it wasn't a phone problem and Steve Maviglio hung up on me, and b) Fabian Nunez doesn't see a problem with opposing our laws in conjunction with someone linked to the Mexican government.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:51 AM

April 29, 2008

Former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack takes illegal immigration side in Swift raid; Peter Schey link

From this:

Allegations that federal officials illegally rounded up and arrested almost 1,300 Swift factory workers during raids in Marshalltown and across the country are being highlighted today at a public hearing that includes testimony from former Gov. Tom Vilsack... [Vilsack alleged various abuses and said:] "Our nation has no real comprehensive immigration policy, so instead we use scare tactics to mark the failure of our system... We're here today because it is clear that our constitutional rights have been violated during raids conducted by our government..."

Whatever the facts of the matter, he should have tempered his remarks with a statement in support of our immigration laws and their enforcement. Not only did he not do that, but he's linked in with some interesting folks...

The Mexico-linked Peter Schey has joined with the UFCW to sue the feds over the raid based on the same charge, for which he started the "Swift Raid Collaborative". And, the UFCW has started something called the "National Commission on ICE Misconduct & Violations of the 4th Amendment" (lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2008/02/ufcw-hearing-on.html).

Vilsack serves on that UFCW commission with the following:

* Joe Hansen, President, UFCW
* Dennis Hayashi, a lawyer
* Rev. Samuel "Billy" Kyles
* Maria Elena Durazo (AFL-CIO and Barack Obama co-chair)
* Bill Hing, Professor of Law, UC Davis
* Susan Gzesh, Human Rights Program, Univ. of Chicago
* Oscar Chacon, Salvadoran American National Network
* Mary Bauer, Southern Poverty Law Center
* William Spriggs, Department of Economics, Howard University

Their February 25 meeting included appearances by:

* Peter Schey
* Arnoldo Garcia, Director, Immigrant Justice & Rights Program, National Network of Immigrant Rights
* Jeanne Butterfield of the American Immigration Lawyers Association
* Monica Guizar of the National Immigration Law Center

If Vilsack runs for some future office, bring up his new wonderful friends.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:17 PM

Youtube/Google debate: September in New Orleans (Soviet Union flashbacks for Sergey Brin?)

Youtube and Google are working with local politicians to have a presidential debate in September in New Orleans, Louisiana. Here's the announcement video:

Unfortunately, based on their past history, the "debate" will be like the CNN/Youtube "debates", featuring puffball after puffball which the candidates will simply answer with their stock speeches. And, whoever the moderators are won't call them on their lies or press for a followup.

Youtube is already telegraphing what they're going to do by featuring the superlightweight James Kotecki (now of The Politico), someone who wouldn't know a tough question if it fell on his head.

Not only that, but their example of a user-generated question is someone asking "do you think your personal qualities will allow you to be an effective president"?

What does anyone expect the answer to be, "no"?

If I were Youtube, I'd watch out: the questions they're going to allow to be asked might give Sergey Brin flashbacks to the Soviet Union.

Posted to Politics at 10:58 AM

April 28, 2008

How to make Amanda Marcotte forget all about the Patriarchy's hegemonical control

The answer is somewhere in this picture:

amanda marcotte fine malt beverage

Unfortunately, it looks like a mole or other cylindrical beast from The Vast Patriarchical Conspiracy snuck into Amanda Marcotte's publishing house and caused them to insert (as into a book) highly questionable images: link. This has caused her to issue a completely voluntary apology: pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/04/25/im-sorry

For an unknown reason I don't want to know about, there are other Amanda Marcotte pictures at these links from her book readings, ordered by how hard I laughed:

majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/amanda-reading.html
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/amanda-marcotte.html
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/tonight-amanda.html
majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2008/04/amanda-at-blues.html

UPDATE: Fellow former John Edwards intern/blogger Melissa McEwan responds to the Seal Press Scandal as follows, referring to their press release about the questionable images in the book:

Part of their apology is a promise to participate in some diversity training. It might be beneficial for them to go back and take a Feminism 101 course, too, since they've evidently not learned that dismissing concerns on the basis of humorlessness is about the oldest silencing trope in the patriarchy's book, so ubiquitous as to be positively quaint (in that Alberto Gonzales kinda way).

Another round, anyone?

Posted to Bloggage at 11:06 PM

Is U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie a corruption supporter? (downplays illegal immigration then "clarifies" remarks)

From this:

...U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie [District of New Jersey] surprised many at a Dover [NJ] church public forum [at the First United Methodist Church of Dover] when he said sneaking into the United States is not a criminal act.

"Being in this country without proper documentation is not a crime," Christie told more than 60 residents and town officials. "The whole phrase of 'illegal immigrant' connotes that the person, by just being here, is committing a crime."

Being undocumented may be a civil wrong, but it's not a criminal act, Christie said.

"Don't let people make you believe that that's a crime that the U.S. Attorney's Office should be doing something about," he added of entering the country illegally. "It is not."

After touching on the usual topics of his corruption-busting career...

While Christie told the audience it doesn't take a "genius" to see there's a "serious immigration problem" in this country, he stressed an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal unless that person re-enters the country after being deported.

If I had been there, I would have questioned his "corruption-busting" credentials, pointing out that illegal immigration is a multi-billion dollar "industry", with very power forces such as the banking industry trying to profit from money that was earned illegally and with cheap labor employers basically paying off politicians.

He was invited to speak by the Latino Leadership Alliance of New Jersey. Their president (Martin Perez) said this:

"The issue of undocumented people didn't start with the Mexicans, the Colombians and the Guatemalans... It started with the Mayflower -- none of those people had any documents."

Now, Chris Christie's office has released a "clarification" (link), saying in part:

He did not say, nor did he mean, that entering this country through any means other than the appropriate immigration channels is a lawful act. It is not.

The "clarification" needs its own clarification, because while his earlier comments noted that reentering and remaining here after having been deported is in fact a crime, the "clarification" does not.

The first link also alludes to a previous incident with Christie taking the illegal immigration side. In 2007, Morristown Mayor Donald Cresitello had called some pro-illegal immigration protesters Marxists and socialists. Christie called that "hyperbole and grandstanding and demagoguery"; the mayor says he was referring to people who had identified themselves as Communists, waving red flags and holding signs that bore socialist slogans.

Christie was appointed by Bush; whether he's just a loose borders hack, on the take for either money or votes, or just doing what his boss wants isn't clear, but it's one of those three.

UPDATE: Cresitello is now calling for Christie to resign. In the report, Rob Jennings notes only first part of the bit above about Marxists, without noting Cresitello's response.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:03 PM

San Francisco's IDs for illegal aliens plan may spread to East Bay

From this we learn that groups in the East Bay are trying to get their own version of
San Francisco's ID cards for illegal aliens plan, specifically basing their proposal on that plan.

The group pushing it is called the "Contra Costa County Municipal ID Task Force" and supporters quoted include Miriam Wong of the Latina Center, a Richmond-based organization that teaches leadership skills to women in the Latino community, Antonio Medrano of Concilio Latino, a West Contra Costa group that works to improve conditions for Latinos, and Maria Rivera, an immigration lawyer in San Pablo. They're being supported by Richmond Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, a Green and past associate of the Sanctuary Movement (CISPES) and by City Councilman John Marquez of that city.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:47 AM

April 27, 2008

Chris Wallace doesn't ask Barack Obama about immigration, one of his most vulnerable policies

Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday finally got to interview Barack Obama, and the transcript is here.

There is one mention of "immigration" in the entire transcript, and it's only an aside:

Over the years, John McCain has broken with his party and risked his career on a number of issues, campaign finance, immigration reform, banning torture. As a president, can you name a hot button issue where you would be willing to cross (ph) Democratic party line and say you know what, Republicans have a better idea here.

It's certainly odd how Wallace forgot to bring up Obama's weakest policy issue, the one he continually lies and misleads about. You know, the one that could be used to show that he's not entirely clear on the whole concept of citizenship and borders, the one that could be used to sink his candidacy if anyone pressed him on his statements.

The only way to do that is for regular citizens - not Fox News hacks - to go to Obama's appearances and ask him real questions, then upload his response to video sharing sites.

Posted to Politics at 12:00 PM

Barack Obama "worked" for Bill Ayers for eight years?

From this:

In 1995, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge.

And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help select as the new director of the board for this program? Barack Obama. Barack Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. This appointment came at a crucial time in Barack’s life. He was on the verge of challenging longtime state Senator Alice Palmer for her job. When Barack decided to run, it is no surprise that he turned to William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn for help in organizing the campaign and in hosting his first fundraiser in the district.

Obama served on the board for eight years until the Challenge ended in 2003. Bill Ayers was intimately involved in the Challenge over this same time period.

There are additional links about this here.

UPDATE: More here.

Posted to Politics at 11:57 AM

April 26, 2008

Mexico-linked Peter Schey sues over immigration raid; Anna Gorman/LAT fails to note his links

Immigration lawyer Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law is suing the feds over a recent immigration raid in Van Nuys, California. He also has at least a few links to the Mexican government, yet Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times yet again fails to inform her readers of that fact in her report "L.A. civil rights attorney files claims over federal immigration raid" (link). Per her, he's just a "longtime Los Angeles civil rights attorney" who's "trying a new strategy to push federal immigration authorities to change the way they conduct workplace raids" when in fact there's probably a bit more that he wants.

He claims that constitutional rights were violated because ICE agents locked down the building and didn't allow people to leave until they showed that they were citizens or legal immigrants:

"That group detention is completely unconstitutional... They have no individual probable cause, yet they come in like the Gestapo."

The article quotes two other immigration lawyers on the case: Carl Shusterman says it's a long shot, but John Ayala of the American Immigration Lawyers Association disagrees. And:

[A citizen who was detained] said immigration authorities could have handled the arrests in a more diplomatic and less theatrical way.

Unfortunately, there's the possibility that "drama" might have been the point. Micheal Chertoff of the DHS has hinted at conducting raids in order to inflame the left, and the whole raid might have been designed to generate outrage and lawsuits from the usual suspects, such as those mentioned above. If that's the case, Chertoff's goal would be to generate a backlash in order to get what Bush wants: a massive amnesty and a "guest" worker program. Note that ICE called the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles - a group that's allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government - shortly before the raid.

Needless to say, Gorman doesn't look into that possibility.

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

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:41 PM

April 25, 2008

Stephen Fuller/George Mason University: are you sure you're a professor of public policy?

[The money followed in the update.]

Stephen Fuller/Stephen S. Fuller of George Mason University - supposedly a professor of public policy - is featured on the latest video from 9500 Liberty. On the video (called "IMMIGRATION Crackdown HURTS Our Economy", link) he discusses the dire consequences of Prince William County in northern Virginia trying to do something about illegal immigration in their county. Oddly enough, for the several minutes that Fuller basically says the same thing over and over, he only discusses direct economic effects and certainly doesn't sound to me like an intellectually honest public policy expert.

He doesn't, for instance, discuss how businesses profiting from illegal activity isn't good public policy. Yet, one might expect a real professor of public policy to do that, no?

He doesn't discuss how massive illegal immigration is a symptom of massive government corruption, something one might expect a real professor of public policy to do.

He doesn't discuss the social welfare costs of massive illegal immigration. He doesn't discuss other non-financial costs, such as the cost of giving even more political power inside the U.S. to foreign governments and to homegrown racial demagogues like Walter Tejada or extremist groups like Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. Those are costs, and based on his bio (link), one might expect him to be honest and knowledgeable enough to factor them into the equation.

Not only that, but - believe it or don't - he says this:

The state makes transfer payments to the schools based on the number of school children. Start losing schoolchildren, you qualify for less money.

That's Homer Simpsonian in its stupidity, considering that those transfer payments have to come from somewhere.

He offers that argument, and he completely fails to point out any of the public policy negatives related to illegal immigration or even massive immigration. So, is he really a professor of public policy, or is he something else?

Please send him a polite email asking him what he is exactly: sfuller2 *at* gmu.edu

Note also that GMU is home to other intellectual superstars like Bryan Caplan, Donald Boudreaux, Tyler Cowen, and Alex Tabarrok of Open Letter on Immigration fame.

UPDATE: Fuller is back in yet another video, this called "Immigration Myths with Dr. Stephen S. Fuller, PhD" (link). He doesn't discuss any myths and he still doesn't discuss any negatives of what he supports.

And, 9500 Liberty doesn't disclose that in 2007 he was named Chief Economist of Cardinal Bank, which also agreed to sponsor the Metropolitan Washington Economic Index from the George Mason University Center for Regional Analysis. Fuller is the Director of that Center (policy.gmu.edu/people/Fuller.html).

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:37 PM

Steve Grove/Youtube still promoting 9500 Liberty's pro-illegal immigration propaganda

Filmmakers Eric Byler, Annabel Park, and Jeff Man run "9500Liberty", a pro-illegal immigration online documentary project discussing issues in northern Virginia (youtube.com/user/9500Liberty). In the past they've resorted to re-re-re-repurposing supposedly controversial comments from an older white gentleman in an attempt to racially demagogue the issue, but now they're back with a new video called "IMMIGRATION Crackdown HURTS Our Economy" (link) featuring the thoughts of supposed professor of Public Policy at George Mason University, Stephen Fuller.

Like their other efforts, the video is being promoted by Youtube for an unknown reason. I'm going to assume that they haven't paid Youtube for the promotion and the latter company is doing it for free for one reason or other, possibly even related to their corporate goals of increasing skilled immigration (Laszlo Bock; link). And, I'm going to assume that their hack political editor, Steve Grove, is at least partly responsible for the promotion. I don't think that's an unfair assumption, considering Grove posts like this:

One of the most poignant examples we've seen of the immigration debate on YouTube has come from 9500Liberty, a channel started by Eric Byler to highlight the immigration battle taking place in Prince William County, Virginia. 9500 Liberty is the address of an intersection where immigration protests became heated after local policy makers debated an ordinance denying certain rights to local immigrants.

Those "immigrants" are actually illegal aliens, and the ordinance involved trying not to give them rights to which they aren't entitled. The quote above follows Grove using the intentionally misleading euphemism "undocumented workers".

Related:
We're all going to regret giving Youtube so many links (note that I put nofollow tags on the Youtube links above)

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:11 PM

April 24, 2008

Earth Day was two days ago and I forgot to recycle

To make it all better, I offer the following flashback to 1995's Earth Day celebration on the National Mall in DC. Wave your Recycle flag high:

Posted to WackyHumor at 08:44 PM

Nancy Pelosi opposes immigration enforcement, says agents are kicking in doors

Responding to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus complaining about the House leadership not supporting "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty, Nancy Pelosi said the following today:

"I am frustrated, too... And as I have said since the day we took over here, we're not going to have an immigration bill unless the president takes the lead on it. There is no way to have a partisan immigration bill. And we saw what happened in the Senate on it... [the CHC's concerns are] very legitimate... In homes across America, people's homes are getting kicked in and families are being split and so I understand their frustration with this... In order, though, to have any compromise, even something that falls short of comprehensive, which is what I support, we're going to have to have presidential cooperation and more than that, leadership... The principles of the Hispanic caucus are the principles of the [House Democratic] Caucus: secure our borders, enforce our laws, keep families united. Even his holiness, the holy father when he was here, Pope Benedict, spoke about unifying families. To have some kind of insistence that people who are here be here legally."

Not to put too fine a point on it, she's basically portraying legitimate ICE enforcement as the Gestapo, something usually reserved for non-lawmakers. I'd imagine that very few attempts at arrest of criminal aliens even involve kicking in doors, and I'd imagine that in almost all cases that was justified. If she were complaining about individual cases that would be one thing, but to have a lawmaker oppose enforcement of our laws in this way should be beyond shocking.

Statements like this are part of a pattern for Pelosi; in 2003 - speaking in Mexico - she accused ICE of "terrorizing" people.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:44 PM

Raul Grijalva, Congressional Hispanic Caucus: lack of immigration "reform" is "spineless"

Yesterday the Congressional Hispanic Caucus complained about the failure of other Democrats to support "comprehensive immigration reform", aka a massive amnesty.

...Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona called the Democratic caucus "spineless."

"Today my party wants to do what is easy, not exactly what is right," said Rep. Luis Gutierrez of Illinois. "The leaders in our party who are arguing for consideration of helping just a few immigrants are risking the future of all immigrants."

Rep. Joe Baca, D-Calif., who chairs the Hispanic Caucus, said the visa and other bills under consideration were "nothing more than a Band-Aid being used to cover up a gaping wound."

One factor in provoking their outbursts was the SAVE Act from fellow Dem Heath Shuler:

If a Democratic majority can allow such a hearing [on the SAVE Act], "then we are no better than the Republican majority we replaced," Gutierrez said.

The lawmakers refused to identify names but said the piecemeal approach wouldn't be happening without the consent of top House Democratic leaders...

Nancy Pelosi blamed it on president Bush and the GOP, then said yet another stupid thing today.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:33 PM

Canada's moves against skilled immigration sparks outrage

From "Canada's immigration minister threatened for blocking stripper visas" (link):

Canada's immigration minister is being threatened by criminal gangs opposed to her government's efforts to halt foreign strippers from working in this country, media said Thursday...

Canada has long had a shortage of homegrown strippers, and club owners, some of whom are alleged to have ties to organized crime, hotly opposed the bill.

According to Tim Lambrinos, head of the Adult Entertainment Association of Canada, there are currently 700 foreign strippers in Canada, and more are needed.

He told the Globe and Mail that the Conservative government's crackdown on his industry will force foreign dancers underground where they will be more prone to exploitation...

Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:01 PM

April 22, 2008

ACLU now working with Mexican government

The San Diego chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is now working with directly with Mexico's Human Rights Commission, a quasi-governmental group that's independent from but funded by the Mexican government. The ACLU is a very strong supporter of illegal immigration but in the past the only known link between them and the Mexican government was indirect. Any future news report on the ACLU's efforts regarding immigration should mention their new direct link, and if it doesn't please contact the news source's editor. They should also be asked about this at public meetings or whereever else they discuss these issues

This also follows Mexican president Felipe Calderon stating that they're going to use U.S. non-profits to push their agenda inside the U.S.

The release from aclusandiego.org/news_item.php?article_id=000383 is in the extended entry; note that they incorrectly blame border deaths on attempts to enforce our laws, when the actual culprits include those like the ACLU who take every step possible to encourage and enable illegal immigration. They'll be working together to "explore legal actions" against Operation Gatekeeper. They also say that the "ACLU of San Diego is not receiving funding from any Mexican source for its work", hinting that even they know what they're doing is wrong.

Related:
Humane Borders *did* distribute border maps in Mexico
Gil Cedillo, Peter Schey, LULAC, MALDEF, more at Migrant March II
Mexican official on Democrat Enrique Morones' "Migrant March II"

The release follows.

In a historic agreement to pursue joint strategies to protect the human rights of migrants moving across the Mexico-United States border, the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties and the Comision Nacional de Derechos Humanos today signed a document declaring common goals and principles to address the serious human rights issues.

The Memorandum of Agreement between the two organizations charges the parties jointly to explore legal actions to challenge Operation Gatekeeper and other programs that have contributed to migrant deaths, and to educate a transnational audience about the issue of human rights tragedies at the border. More than $30 billion dollars have been spent on Gatekeeper since its inception, but the program has done little to prevent illegal entries—it has simply shifted them to the mountains and deserts east of San Diego, where migrants face much harsher conditions in remote, environmentally hostile areas.

The agreement was developed in reaction to the continually mounting death toll of now more than 5,000 migrants along the border, as well as the challenge of advocating on these issues effectively from just one side of the border. With respect to abuses by federal law enforcement agencies, for example, U.S. federal agencies have acted with immunity and a complete lack of transparency.

Kevin Keenan, Executive Director of the ACLU-San Diego and Dr. José Luis Soberanes, President of the Comisión, signed the agreement at the “Justice in Mexico: Evaluating National and Local Strategies” conference at the Joan Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice, University of San Diego.

“Through this collaboration we hope to build bridges of understanding and justice, and tear down walls of prejudice and hate,” said Dr. Soberanes. “It is intolerable that our two civilized nations have allowed so many deaths of migrants along the border since the adoption of Operation Gatekeeper,” said Keenan. “By working together with Mexico’s Human Rights Commission, we will hold our governments to account in ways that we could not do alone.” David Shirk, Director of the Trans-Border Institute that hosted the conference, said, “We are pleased to serve as the backdrop for the signing of this historic agreement, and hope that this partnership will lead to a reversal of the tragic trends that have plagued our two nations in recent years.”

The agreement calls for the organizations to host an invitation-only conference of experts in June to focus on bi-national advocacy strategies for attacking inhumane policies affecting migrants, especially deaths from border crossings; to meet again following the U.S. elections in November to update its plans; to cooperate on other lawsuits, advocacy efforts, and educational campaigns on a case-by-case basis; and to seek funding for these efforts in their respective countries. The ACLU of San Diego is not receiving funding from any Mexican source for its work.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 09:58 AM

April 21, 2008

Barack Obama cancels North Carolina debate; is he afraid of Katie Couric?

Barack Obama has refused to appear at a North Carolina debate which was to be held on April 27.

The moderator of the debate? None other than the lovely and talented Democratic cheerleader Katie Couric.

There's certainly no reason for him to have attended the event since he's got the nomination sewed up (and, by extension, John McCain will be our next president). Of course, there's also the possibility that he was scared of the ever-so-tough questions that Katie Couric would have asked him.

Posted to Politics at 04:15 PM

Felipe Calderon to meet with IME advisory board in Dallas (+Alfredo Corchado's pro-Mexico spin)

On Tuesday, Felipe Calderon will be attending a meeting of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad/Instituto de los Mexicanos en el Exterior advisory board to the Mexican government (www.ime.gob.mx). The board has about 125 members, some of whom are U.S. citizens, all of whom have divided loyalties, and some or most of whom have some influence on U.S. politics. One member is even an Illinois state senator, Martin Sandoval. Another is Juan Salgado of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.

Others mentioned in "Mexico's President Calderon to hear immigrant leaders' concerns at Dallas conference" by Alfredo Corchado (link) include:

* Claudia Torrescano of Dallas: naturalized U.S. citizen and Univision radio host.

* Mexico City native Mario Cesar Ramírez, who runs the La Paloma taquería chain in the Dallas area. Also a U.S. citizen.

* Rene Martínez: works for the Dallas Independent School District in an unknown capacity; see this.

* Graciela Reyes Salinas: nurse in Dallas, naturalized U.S. citizen. ...She understands why some might be suspicious of her participation in IME... IME's mission, Ms. Salinas said, is aimed at providing "know-how" that "hopefully, we can stop the flow of illegal immigration to this country."

Why exactly people might be suspicious of U.S. citizens having divided loyalties and helping push Mexico's agenda inside the U.S. is, of course, not explored. What we are offered is this:

...A crackdown against illegal immigrants is roiling Texas and much of the U.S., and its scope and fury haven't been seen in this country in at least 50 years, historians have said... With about 125 members, the advisory board's influence is growing, analysts and Mexican government officials say. And that is why Mexico's president chose to visit the group's semiannual conference, which is being held outside Mexico for only the second time... With its burgeoning immigrant population, Dallas is a logical place for Mr. Calderon's visit, Mexican officials said. The Dallas area now has more Mexican-born people than Houston, placing the region just behind Chicago and Los Angeles in terms of political and economic importance for Mexico.

The article also quotes IME director Carlos Gonzalez Gutierrez:

"The access of these Mexican migrants to the decision-making process in Mexico is rare, if not unprecedented, and it's growing... Sometimes we're not in total agreement with IME advisers, but the consultation between us is real, and this meeting in Dallas is a reflection of that. These are people who want to influence both sides of the border, so our relationship is far from being one-sided... Polls have consistently shown that it is only a small minority of Americans who believe that it is feasible to deport 12 million undocumented people... We want to stay close and work with those organizations because we share their concerns."

What exactly he means by "those organizations" isn't clear, but presumably he's referring to the far-left U.S. non-profits that Calderon previously indicated he wants to use to push Mexico's agenda inside the U.S.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 02:58 PM

April 20, 2008

Mexico to reopen New Orleans consulte, George Bush to appear

From this we learn that Mexico is reopening their consulate in New Orleans, which they'd closed in 2002. Not only that, but putative U.S. president George Bush will be there to celebrate the event. This coincides with the fourth annual SPP North American Leaders Summit to be held in that city.

And, it follows a completely corrupt, anti- and un-American Bush scheme under which U.S. citizens were moved out of the city and warehoused in Atlanta and Houston while corrupt, connected contractors were allowed to move in illegal aliens largely from Mexico to do the jobs that Americans could and should have done. The profits from Bush's scheme flowed to those contractors and the Mexican government, while the costs of Bush's scheme were born by everyone else in the U.S. Those costs include overpriced multilevel contracts, the costs of warehousing U.S. citizens in other cities, the social costs of not getting New Orleans' underclass to work rebuilding their own city, and hidden long-term costs such as the health effects of those illegal aliens who worked without proper safety equipment.

Louisiana lieutenant governor Mitch Landrieu welcomes the reopening. This is Mexico's 48th consulate in the U.S.

And, from this:

[At the summit], [o]bservers say [Felipe Calderon] is eager to tout the role his 30,000 countrymen played in the rebuilding of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina in 2005... Ricardo Alday, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, said New Orleans is a good place for Calderon to remind Bush of Mexican workers' contributions to the U.S. economy... "I will expect the president to touch on the economic contributions of migrants to the U.S. economy, particularly to an area like New Orleans, where I understand a big part of the cleaning and reconstruction after Hurricane Katrina has been done by immigrants -- not just Mexicans, but immigrants in general," Alday said.

Posted to Immigration_consul at 10:27 PM

SPP North American Leaders Summit April 21, 22 in New Orleans

The fourth annual "North American Leaders Summit" - part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership started by George Bush - will be held Monday and Tuesday in New Orleans and will be attended by Bush, Felipe Calderon of Mexico, and Stephen Harper of Canada. Expect the news reports about the event to be credulous. Speaking of which, Norma Greenaway of the Canwest News Service/Ottawa Citizen offers this:

The annual leaders' gathering, popularly referred to as the Amigos Summit, is being held against the backdrop of a gripping race for the U.S. presidency where the North American Free Trade Agreement has become a favourite punching bag of Democratic contenders Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama... The two have promised to kill or rewrite the pact if elected president as they compete for the support of voters, many of whom blame NAFTA for job losses, especially in the manufacturing sector.

Well, not exactly. Obama recently spoke in code, indicating his support for the SPP process, and of course there's GoolsbeeGate to consider. Her paper was given ("obtained") a warning to the leaders from the "North American Competitiveness Council", a group of major businesses such as Home Depot:

Among other things, [the warning] expressed frustration over "serious roadblocks" that have hampered efforts to make borders within North America more efficient and secure... "Our most critical request to the leaders is for them to ensure that the SPP remains a dynamic and effective path forward for trilateral and bilateral co-operation," says the report, urging the leaders to make clear "sustained progress on the SPP agenda is a strategic priority."... "To the extent NAFTA itself continues to be a target, efforts to "deepen NAFTA" will be largely unsuccessful," [a draft version of the warning] said... A senior U.S. official, briefing American reporters on the leaders' summit, said Friday the pact is a winner for all three countries. Dan Fisk said the value of trade among the three countries had grown to almost $1 trillion from $290 billion in 1994, the year NAFTA took effect... "We want to find ways to, frankly, convince the American people from our perspective, first and foremost that this is an arrangement that has worked for us, and it's also worked for our neighbours," said Fisk, [Senior Director in the National Security Council for the Western Hemisphere].

An earlier meeting with Condoleezza Rice resulted in Mexican Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa saying this:

"We have also discussed that we should strengthen and make a permanent commitment with the continuity of this high-level dialogue in North America at all levels and particularly at the level of heads of state and government."

Becky Bohrer of the Associated Press red baits here, following this paragraph with a quote from one of the "People's Summit" protesters with a quote from someone from the U.S. Marxist-Leninist Organization:

One target of protesters is expected to be the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. They say the pact, which aims to share information between the three governments and smooth out regulatory differences, is a threat to national sovereignty and an attempt to create a military partnership to enforce the North American Free Trade Agreement.

This quotes Fisk:

"We think NAFTA works... We think the record of its past 14 years shows that it works. There's nothing broken. Why fix a success?"

This lets something slip:

It is more like a progress report on how the three countries are integrating... Bush's agenda will start today with the reopening of the Mexican Consulate in New Orleans...

Greg Flakus of the publicly-funded Voice of America - a source not intended to spread disinformation inside America - leads with the thoughts of someone from the New Orleans Convention and Visitors Bureau here, offering not just one but two pictures of her.

Ben Feller of the Associated Press offers this:

Tom Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, said the three countries benefit by working together against competition from China and India. "North America needs to maintain its economic unity," said Donohue, who is taking part in the summit.

Posted to NAU at 10:03 PM

Eddie Izzard eyes political career!

Who cares. Here's some pictures of Minnie Driver:

minnie driver

Posted to WackyHumor at 08:56 PM

April 19, 2008

Is Bryan Caplan the world's looniest libertarian? (give every Haitian a green card)

The New York Times offers "Across Globe, Empty Bellies Bring Rising Anger" (link) about high food prices having a detrimental effect on the third world, focusing on Haiti: "experts say there are few quick fixes" to the problem.

That causes "economist" Bryan Caplan of George Mason University to offer the self-evidently ludicrous "The Quick Fix: For the Love of God, Give Every Haitian a Green Card" (link). His grand plan helps show just how insane the libertarian support for open borders is:

Well, I've got a quick fix. Give every Haitian a green card. Invite the world's most precious resource - human labor - to leave a dirt-based economy and get an entry-level job in the modern economy. It's called doing well while doing good. And unlike everything else the world has ever done for Haiti, it works.

This isn't the first time Bryan Caplan has descended into self-parody, and it probably won't be the last.

There are over 8 million Haitians and having most of them come here would present a huge number of social costs, both financial and non-financial. Taking a glance at the CIA page on the country, their literacy rate is just over 50%, meaning that around half of those who came here would only be able to do manual labor, if that. And, the national languages of the country are French and Creole, not English. So, even those who can read and write would have to learn English in order to get a job other than manual labor.

And, the 2003 HIV rate was 5.6%. While not as high as Botswana at 37.3%, that's still much higher than the U.S. at 0.6%. They also have "pervasive corruption" and other issues that are ingrained in their culture. While eventually some or many would Americanize, in the intervening decades those negative cultural issues would simply be moved to the U.S. And, since there are hundreds of millions or even billions of people in the same or worse dire straits, why exactly we should favor Haiti over, say, Bangladesh, Belize, or Botswana is a mystery only Caplan can answer.

Discussing all the other issues with Caplan's beyond-childlike plan is left as an exercise for his students.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:36 PM

April 18, 2008

FingerGate: Did Obama flip the bird to Hillary Clinton? And, is this a previous example of him giving the finger?

FingerGate (aka MiddleFingerGate) enters its bitter second day with some people saying that, during a sequence of semaphoric hand gestures (!) at a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina yesterday, Barack Obama flipped off (aka gave the bird to, gave the finger to) Hillary Clinton. The campaign's video is here, it gets MSM attention here, CBS has video from another angle here, liberals agree with the assessment here, and a roundup is here. The latter explains the various references his gestures were meant to convey. A video still here shows that there were two fingers involved, but that his middle finger was extended above the other; those in the audience in front of and to his left would probably only have seen one finger. Note that, despite what some people have said in comments on the videos, there appears to be only one speech, not two.

Whether he was just scratching his cheek or whether he was trying to send a message isn't clear. What is clear is that he writes in code, so something like this isn't impossible.

And, note that he's done something like this before. At 1:56 of the following video shot on 3/31/08 (and discussed here), he raises his middle finger briefly, as pointed out in one of the comments on the video. I originally wrote it off because he switched the microphone to his other hand shortly after that, but now I'm not so sure.

On the one hand, I'd rather discuss the dishonesty shown on that video (see the last link), but on the other I don't think any of the other candidates from this year would have gotten themselves into the situation where we'd even be discussing this.

UPDATE: Various finger-related videos have racked up over half a million views on Youtube, implying this is something that will have a bit of an impact. A slo-mo version is here. And, past examples of him scratching his face - using his index finger both times - can be found here at about 3:10 and 5:15.

Posted to Politics at 08:57 AM

April 17, 2008

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform to oppose Lou Barletta (Jim Wallis backgrounder)

On Monday, the illegal immigration supporting Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform (headed up by Jim Wallis) held a press conference where they stated their opposition to Hazleton, Pennsylvania mayor Lou Barletta.

It was probably what you'd suspect, and their press release had more of the same:

..."They need to stop using rhetoric that demonizes immigrants and make an effort to respect all people, including immigrants..."

Barletta responded to the paper by pointing out that they'd forgot to specify that his opposition is to illegal immigration and that he supports the legal variety.

The article also has a little dirt on Wallis; while I hate to admit it I'd previously considered him mainstream leftwing because of the way that he's been presented by the MSM, but apparently he's got an interesting past:

Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform is a spinoff of “Sojourners” magazine. It’s a coalition of about 100 religious groups – including the Mennonite Church U.S.A. and the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference – that favor a path to citizenship for people in the country illegally. ...Wallis was an anti-Vietnam War activist in the mid- to late 1960s. He’s been arrested numerous times for “civil disobedience.” “Sojourners” began as “Post-American,” an anti-capitalist magazine that criticized American foreign policy and supported socialist governments. In the early ’70s, Wallis moved the magazine from Chicago to Washington and changed its name to “Sojourners.” In 1979, Wallis told the magazine “Mission Tracks,” “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.” That year, he also criticized the Vietnamese boat people who were trying to escape that country’s communist government, saying they’d been “inoculated” … “to support their consumer habit in other lands."...

Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:36 PM

Free the Jefferson 1! (loony libertarians)

A few days ago a group of libertarians in Washington DC decided to hold a flash mob at the Jefferson Memorial and gathered with their iPods to dance at midnight, for one uninteresting reason or other. They apparently weren't causing a disturbance, there was apparently only a few other people there, and they apparently weren't making much noise. The National Park Police swooped in and told them to disperse, but one of the daughty libertarians (Brooke Oberwetter) held her ground or asked one too many questions or something and was arrested on disorderly conduct charges.

Now, libertarians are trying to make a federal case out of it, and have even started a website (freethejefferson1.wordpress.com) with its own photo gallery (http://flickr.com/photos/25702093@N03), Facebook group, and even a "media contact". And, they're serious and not just playing this for yucks. And, per Radley Balko (who was ten minutes late for the event and missed the fracas) at reason.com/blog/show/126041.html:

The story has made headlines all over the world. There's also amateur video of the event taken by fellow flash-mobbers, as well as information on a legal defense fund, and links to and critiques of other press coverage.

I was unable to locate any of those "headlines" except at the WaPo, the local NBC affiliate, InformationWeek, American Spectator, and a few minor sites.

Perhaps if they want to be taken seriously they might consider something that, even if the police were in the wrong, people would actually feel some sympathy about rather than the current case. I don't think anyone except those in their milieu is going to really care about this either way.

Posted to Politics at 10:11 PM

April 16, 2008

Hundreds arrested at Pilgrim's Pride plants (immigration raids, identity theft)

Hundreds of illegal aliens and presumably others were arrested today at Pilgrim's Pride chicken processing plants in Texas, Tennessee, Arkansas, Florida, and West Virginia (link). The company participated in the E-Verify program and cooperated with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The arrests were for identity theft and document fraud in addition to being illegal aliens and/or criminal aliens.

There were also smaller, unconnected raids at Shipley Donuts in Houston (a local chain, report link) and at a chain of restaurants around Buffalo, New York.

Expect the usual suspects to start whining on cue tomorrow.

UPDATE: Erin Segroves offers "Hispanic community rocked by plant raid": "...Tension and fear burned through Chattanooga's immigrant community Wednesday..." etc. She also quotes someone as saying, "They pay for [fake documentation]... In their hearts, they really think that it's OK because they bought it." Obviously, it's bad public policy to have large numbers of people thinking that's OK, yet due to corrupt politicians supporting illegal immigration that thinking is becoming ingrained in a large segment of our population. And, another group is suing Pilgrim's Pride and seeking class action status, claiming they intentionally hired illegal aliens in order to drive down wages.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:01 PM

ABC News Democratic debate April 16, 2008 (Charlie Gibson, George Stephanopoulous)

Tonight's ABC News Democratic debate starring Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulous with appearances by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama was apparently fairly bad to very bad, depending on one's partisan inclination (transcript link). It was very bad to Obama supporters, who were dismayed by the debate focusing on "trivialities" such as Bittergate, Tuzla, Reverend Wright, and William Ayers. The HuffPost whines here and here. It also featured an apparently bad performance by Barack Obama (link). As Ever Excitable Andy says:

Yes, the Clintons have shredded him. But that's what they know how to do. It's also what the GOP knows how to do.

Oddly enough, I don't recall any of those whining about the lack of a real discussion of policy in previous debates; in fact, there's been nothing of the sort. Every single previous debate has featured lightweight questions which have generally led to simply a recitation of talking points, almost all of which were available on the candidates' websites or in their previous speeches. I suspect that if all the "trivial" questions had been directed at Clinton the same hacks whining now would be lifting Charlie and George onto their shoulders.

And, of course, not only were there no questions about immigration - both candidates' most vulnerable issue - but there wasn't even a single mention of the topic.

An extra "liberal"/Stalinist bonus! Two comments here [1] are worth noting because they're so very bad and so very indicative of how much trouble we're in because people can't be bothered to go out and show the MSM what a real question looks like:

Why would there be a need to ask about policy when they agree on most everything?

It's obvious to me but apparently not to many "liberals" that their policies have huge gaping holes, so despite them agreeing for the most part that still leaves hours that could be filled with an in-depth discussion of those problems and how the candidates' would mitigate them.

My suggestion: The DNC should choose its own moderator and produce the debate in house.

Unfortunately, that's hardly an original idea.

EXTRA "LIBERAL" UPDATE: Stephanopoulous appears to have gotten the Ayers topic due to Sean Hannity, causing DailyKos to go into full, frothing boycott Disney mode (link). It's a perfectly valid line of discussion, yet one that would not be allowed under the Reign of Kos.

I think the bottom line is that many of his supporters are now coming to grips with how flawed Obama is and are trying the last ditch (or first ditch for many) tack of trying to shut down debate.

[1] washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013543.php

Posted to Politics at 09:35 PM

April 15, 2008

Eve Fairbanks misleads about Wikipedia (+Kevin Drum)

If two "liberals" tell you that Wikipedia isn't biased towards the "liberal" side of things, doesn't that prove that it is biased, especially when the two "liberals" aren't exactly known for thinking things through?

OK, it's not proof, but it is a strong indicator, as Kevin Drum [1] approvingly directs our attention to the post from Eve Fairbanks [2] of the New Republic (also home to Jim Kirchik and Jason Zengerle). She discusses a subscriber-only National Review article (link) called "Liberal Web" which discusses liberal bias at WP, and says:

while I hadn't perceived anti-conservative bias on Wikipedia's political pages, I wanted to see if [John J. Miller] had picked up on something I didn't.

She then uses the fact that Miller only came up with two points to buttress her claim that there's no such bias. Obviously, she's engaging in a logical fallacy: just because Miller doesn't present more examples doesn't mean that there are no more examples and doesn't mean that better examples can't be found. And, in fact, many more can be found as I know from editing various WP pages from about 2004 to about 2007 when I basically gave up due to things such as perfectly reasonable, fact-based edits being constantly rolled back [3]. In fact, I even created a site with a few examples at wikipediabias.com; note that there are many more that need to be added. Not all of the bias is of the "liberal" variety, such as that to be found at the Snopes entry.

And, it's perfectly understandable why there would be such bias due to the demographics of the web, which skews not just "liberal" and libertarian but also younger than the general population. Younger folks have more time to engage in editing wars, and those on the left side of things tend to be more activist than those on the right.

[1] washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_04/013529.php
[2] blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/
2008/04/15/george-will-s-not-bitter.aspx
[3] I made a recent edit to the Bill Richardson entry, which was rolled back. I'm not going to get into a fight over it, but others might consider doing so: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bill_Richardson#controversies

Posted to Miscellania at 04:37 PM

HuckPAC: Mike Huckabee launches his Political Action Committee (PAC)

Mike Huckabee has launched his own Political Action Committee (PAC) called, euphonically enough, "Huck PAC" (huckpac.com), saying:

"Our goal is to secure a better future for our country by changing our punitive tax system, standing firm for the sanctity of life and traditional marriage, and protecting our borders and giving our veterans the blood-bought benefits they deserve. We launch the new website today as we formally push the lift-off button for HUCK-PAC, which will enable us to help Senator McCain become our next President, and to assist conservative, pro-life and pro-family candidates to Senate and House seats. The website will not only preserve our online community, but enlarge it and encourage it to be a force for freedom, faith, and family!"

These are their current "featured candidates":

NH State Sen. Bob Clegg, who is running for Congress, GA Congressman John Linder, and AR State Sen. Gilbert Baker.

Now, as a start at following the chicken money, Baker gave $500 to Huck's presidential campaign, and Don Tyson and John Tyson (both exectutives with Tyson Foods) also gave to that campaign, maxing out at $2300 each (link). Baker is/was on the outs with current Arkansas governor Mike Beebe, but:

Counted among Baker's supporters are those in the construction, poultry, telecommunications and transportation industries. His allies claim that many of the same people who supported Beebe last year are now supporting Baker... Archie Shaffer, a Tyson Foods' lobbyist; Eddie Drilling, an AT&T vice president; Lane Kidd who heads the Arkansas Trucking Association, and Tom Kennedy, Entergy's vice president of Governmental Affairs, are either expected to be at Baker's fundraiser or have contributed to it.

And, last year during his failed attempt the Huckster claimed to have ordered state police to begin enforcing immigration laws under an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security. While he did sign the bill, he didn't complete the process. Baker sponsored the bill (link), and couldn't recall whether Huck had followed through on it (link).

Posted to Politics at 01:35 PM

Barack Obama immigration editorial misleads

But, you already knew that. Barack Obama offers an editorial entitled "Enforce tighter border, employer verifications" (link):

While I understand the passions -- and legitimate differences -- on both sides of this difficult issue, we must restore civility and reason to the conversation.

Translation: "my opponents are gun-toting anti-immigrant racists". And, "as irrational as it seems, what I propose is the rational approach."

First, we must reinforce our borders to deter the more than 2,000 immigrants who cross them illegally each day. Most of these aspiring laborers risk death in the desert to come here illegally, and they are diverting our attention from those trying to enter to do us harm.

That's the same thing Bush and Chertoff have said at least a few times. The use of "aspiring laborers" is a minor variation of the Busboys Canard as used by Tamar Jacoby, David Brooks, the WSJ, and on down the line.

We also have to ensure that employers are hiring only legal workers. That's why I've worked with Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Democratic Sen. Max Baucus to make it significantly more difficult -- if not impossible -- for employers to hire workers who are here illegally, including the more than 40 percent who came legally and overstayed their visa... This will require a mandatory electronic system that enables employers to verify the legal status of their employees within days of hiring them.

If that just uses SSNs, that might be acceptable. If however it involves a biometric national ID card, that probably wouldn't be. More on that later...

Second, we must require the 12 million undocumented immigrants who are already here, including more than 300,000 in North Carolina, to step out of the shadows and onto a path that includes the ability to earn citizenship by demonstrating a sound character, a commitment to America, and a strong work ethic.

Bolding added; see Possible Democratic Party immigration "reform" charade: "offer legalization" to become "require". At least he's got his talking points in order!

While it's unrealistic to deport them, illegal entry cannot go unpunished. That's why we must require them to pay a fine, learn English, and get to the back of the line for citizenship behind those who came here legally.

Unfortunately, there's no "back of the line", since the line is constantly being replenished. Not only would granting amnesty greatly impact those now in the line or who want to get in the line in the normal fashion, it would either take five to ten years to do all the background checks or they'd be extremely sloppily done.

We are a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants, and we must reconcile those traditions. It's time to move beyond our broken politics and achieve real progress on immigration reform, not just for the sake of passing a bill, and not as a favor to immigrants, but so that we can finally address the concerns of the American people, and make real the hopes of all those who want nothing more than a chance at the American Dream.

Certainly, many want the "American Dream". Others just want to earn money. And, their leaders have shown time and again that they have other goals in mind.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:39 AM

April 14, 2008

Barack Obama was at Million Man March (Louis Farrakhan)

A 1995 profile of Barack Obama had this news which was apparently a minor stir a couple weeks ago:

Obama took time off from attending campaign coffees to attend October's Million Man March in Washington, D.C.

Needless to say, that event was organized by and featured a keynote speech from Reverend Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam (profiled here). The page biography.com/search/article.do?id=9291850 says that "In 1995, along with other prominent black leaders such as Al Sharpton and Barack Obama, Farrakhan helped lead the Million Man March on Washington", but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that BHO was an actual key organizer of the march.

However, one of the limited number of participants provided by organizers to CNN includes Jeremiah Wright (link; copies of that CNN page from 2001 and 2002 show that BHO's name wasn't on the list then either). Bill Clinton may have supported the MMM itself even as he condemned Farrakhan (link) and, per Dick Morris, as he took steps to be out of town on the day when it was held.

In the 1995 profile Obama makes some now-standard noises, but also says this bit reminiscent of recent comments:

"The right wing, the Christian right, has done a good job of building these organizations of accountability, much better than the left or progressive forces have. But it's always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia. And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

And:

"Just as holding hands and singing 'We shall overcome' is not going to do it, exhorting youth to have pride in their race, give up drugs and crime, is not going to do it if we can't find jobs and futures for the 50 percent of black youth who are unemployed, underemployed, and full of bitterness and rage... Any solution to our unemployment catastrophe must arise from us working creatively within a multicultural, interdependent, and international economy. Any African-Americans who are only talking about racism as a barrier to our success are seriously misled if they don't also come to grips with the larger economic forces that are creating economic insecurity for all workers--whites, Latinos, and Asians. We must deal with the forces that are depressing wages, lopping off people's benefits right and left, and creating an earnings gap between CEOs and the lowest-paid worker that has risen in the last 20 years from a ratio of 10 to 1 to one of better than 100 to 1."

Needless to say, one of those "larger economic forces" is massive immigration, something that Obama supports and which has a negative impact on those he claims to be interested in helping.

Posted to Politics at 10:23 PM

CNN Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum: no immigration questions

Last night's CNN Democratic Candidates Compassion Forum at Messiah College in Pennsylvania (transcript link) contained no questions relating to immigration. That's despite it featuring questions from Jim Wallis and Samuel Rodriguez [1] of the National Hispanic Leadership Conference, and despite the high profile that religious leaders have in promoting amnesty. And, that's despite the fact that those leaders continually engage in false compassion to push their case.

The hosts were Campbell Brown and Newsweek editor Jon Meacham, and sponsors were Faith in Public Life, the ONE Campaign, and Oxfam America.

Previous coverage of the CNN "debates" starts at the last link.

[1] See the stock editorial "SAVE Act perpetuates, rather than reforms, our immigration policy" (link) "Expressions of hatred and xenophobia toward immigrants, at an all-time high, are producing widespread fear in the Latino community. Unfortunately, the echo of a hate-filled climate is now making its way through Congress..." etc. etc.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:23 PM

CNN, The Best Political Team on TV. Part 1, Campbell Brown

Very short video with just one more data point illustrating what's wrong with CNN and the MSM in general. A lightweight question like the following would never be featured in a real debate, in fact it sounds like something from a Politburo "debate".

This was from the 2/21/08 "debate", for which CNN let Mexican citizen Jorge Ramos quiz the candidates on immigration without revealing that he's a Mexican citizen.

Posted to Politics at 04:19 PM

April 13, 2008

Drudge, KGW leave me disillusioned, depressed (Mt. St. Helens snowmobiler, "ghost forest")

Drudge links to this story with the headline "Man falls into Mt. St. Helens Crater on snowmobile!" Thinking someone driving or at least seated on such a conveyance had gone over the edge, I clicked through only to find out that he had actually parked it near the edge and then had gone out on a cornice - an ice overhang - which had then broken off and he tumbled down the slope. While I'm glad that he's listed in fair condition, I don't have to add that things could have been as spectacular as Drudge promised.

Meanwhile, the same page contains a link to "Beachgoers find 'ghost forest' along Oregon Coast". Sounds intriguing, I think, envisioning a previously unnoticed hidden forest found somewhere on Oregon's desolate coast. Perhaps with spider webs and buried treasure or something. As it turns out, the "forest" is just a petrified tree stumps in the beach.

Posted to WackyHumor at 01:50 PM

Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon files FBI complaint over Joe Arpaio raids

In his effort to support illegal immigration and perhaps just gain some fame, Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon now wants the FBI to investigate Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio over whether any civil rights laws were broken civil rights laws during his recent immigration sweeps (link).

In the letter, Gordon race baits, does something no one should do and relies on the characterization of an Arizona Republic editorial ("guilty of looking latino", link), and he also apparently included other news reports which may be biased as well. He includes one example of a suit that's already been filed, and another unverified incident involving one of his own staff members, not exactly an unbiased source.

Meanwhile:

Arpaio said it was ironic that Gordon drafted the letter on the same day that Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials from Washington observed his deputies arresting residents and illegal immigrants in Guadalupe and approved of the sheriff's work... ICE officials have said repeatedly that Arpaio is not violating the formal agreement he has with their office allowing sheriff's deputies to enforce immigration laws.

The Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League also wants an investigation, and others mentioned opposing the raids are the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (both have indirect links to the Mexican government), the Arizona Ecumenical Council, and the American Jewish Committee (collaborated with the Mexican government).

Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:00 PM

This is not a fake Hillary Clinton photo

The following is fake, but the picture is real:

hillary clinton indiana beer bitter

the New York senator downed a shot of Crown Royal whiskey, had a beer and chomped down a slice of cheese pizza, as her aides rushed to fill her request for another slice, with pepperoni...

To make it even better, it could have been venison pepperoni, made from a deer that she'd shot earlier in the day and taken back to the bar in a pickup with her new friends Bo and Clem. Then, she could have knocked everything back with a shot of bitters.

UPDATE: I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this one is even better:

hillary clinton drinks beer mug

UPDATE 2:

hillary clinton cheers

UPDATE 3: Video! Here and here.

Posted to Politics at 11:48 AM

April 11, 2008

Barack Obama misleads, smears Middle America

Speaking in San Francisco at a fundraiser for the wealthy (and in Marin County no less; pictures of his tour here), Barack Obama smeared Pennsylvanians and others by saying:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

While much could be said, here's a video covering just part of the immigration and trade comments; script after the video:

Among other things, Obama was being misleading regarding "anti-immigrant sentiment". For instance, the town of Hazleton PA passed an ordinance called the "Illegal Immigration Relief Act". That ordinance was designed only to reduce *illegal* immigration in that town. The mayor and other backers made it clear that it wasn't intended to affect legal immigrants.

Despite what Obama thinks, not too many people are against all immigrants or even against illegal aliens personally. Obama is simply trying to smear those opposed to illegal immigration as "anti-immigrant" because, as he's made clear time and again, he supports illegal immigration.

As for "anti-trade sentiment", Obama recently came out in support of Bush's "Security and Prosperity Partnership" (spp.gov), a scheme to "harmonize" regulations among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. It's been called "NAFTA on steroids", and many feel it could be a precursor to some form of North American Union comprising the three countries.

The SPP has been shrouded in secrecy and has been pushed without Congressional oversight. Freedom of Information Act requests have had to be filed in order to obtain even basic information about the scheme. No wonder that when Obama came out in support of that Bush scheme he spoke in code.

UPDATE: Obama has since "explained" his remarks, one of the latest including this:

People say they feel like no one is paying attention or listening to them and that is something – that is one of the reasons I am running for president.

And, that's one of the reasons why he's attempting to smear legitimate concerns over the massive illegal activity that he supports as "anti-immigrant sentiments". Please, Obama, keep explaining yourself, it's getting better and better.

Posted to Politics at 09:12 PM

Righteous panel accuses Amanda Marcotte of misappropriating, not honoring work of feminist blogger of color! Or, something.

I have no idea what the heck is happening here because I'm laughing so hard. Apparently running joke in these parts Amanda Marcotte based in some way or other one of her screeds on a series of others' works. One of those affected has gone as far as shutting down her blog! I have not researched the matter because, once again, I'm laughing too hard.

There's a pledge you can sign here (..."We will not appropriate their work, but amplify their work and integrate their ideas with attribution"...).

There's a hyperlinked copy of the disputed work here:

problemchylde.wordpress.com/2008/04/08/dont-hate-appropriate

Marcotte defends herself here, making a rarely somewhat coherent case that the others are just making it all up in order to play a mean game.

I link, you laugh and decide.

Posted to Bloggage at 03:26 PM

John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama advisors and bundlers include registered foreign agents

The U.S. Department of Justice administers the Foreign Agents Registration Act (usdoj.gov/criminal/fara; "FARA is a disclosure statute that requires persons acting as agents of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal"), and the WashTimes has cross-checked some of those registered under FARA as foreign agents with bundlers and advisors of the major campaigns.

John McCain:
* "senior adviser Charlie Black, who until recently was the chairman of Washington-based BKSH & Associates, and campaign co-chairman Thomas G. Loeffler, who heads the Loeffler Group in San Antonio [involved with Saudi Arabia], received millions of dollars lobbying the White House, Congress and others as agents of nearly a dozen foreign clients in recent years."

Hillary Clinton:
* "Mark Penn, former top strategist... Mr. Penn is chief executive of Washington-based Burson-Marsteller, which has lobbied for the Pakistan Peoples Party, the Colombian Embassy and the Mexico Tourism Board."

* "the Glover Park Group where top Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson previously worked, received more than $170,000 last year from the Colombian trade bureau and $250,000 from Dubai Aerospace Enterprises Ltd."

* "bundler John Merrigan is registered to lobby foreign governments at DLA Piper [FARA #3712], which during a six-month span last year reported more than $2.8 million in fees from foreign entities. In addition, former New Jersey Sen. Robert Torricelli, another Clinton bundler, signed off on a $15,000 per-month lobbying deal last year with the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office, Taiwan's office in the U.S."

Barack Obama:
* "fundraiser William T. Lake and adviser Stanford Ross were registered as a foreign lobbyists in the 1990s, according to Justice Department records."

The article describes some of the interesting work they did and lists a few others, such as McCain bundler and current or former registered foreign agent Rob Allyn. His FARA registration number is 5725.

Posted to Politics at 01:03 PM

Did Bob Barr swipe his immigration policy from Barack Obama (or Bush, McCain, Clinton,...)?

Libertarian Party contender for president Bob Barr was interviewed by Neal Boortz a few days ago, and the audio and a partial transcript is here. Part of the conversation involved immigration matters, and based on that I have trouble seeing any major difference between Barr's positions and those of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, George Bush, Teddy Kennedy, and on down the line. In fact, it's like his campaign was the recipient of a blank cardboard box with just the word "POLICY" stenciled on it.

On the audio, he implies that he supports a form of amnesty where illegal aliens who are caught in the interior, as long as they passed a background check, would get to remain. He doesn't specify whether that would be as a "guest" worker or whether they'd get on the "path to citizenship". Asked about this, he says:

"I think as a practical matter, that makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure how you would go about rounding up millions of people and trying to deport them. The key here is security..."

Now, compare that to BHO:

"We are not going to send [illegal aliens] home... I want us to have an honest conversation about this." ...Mr. Obama said many illegals have "settled," "bought property" and have children who are U.S. citizens. He said the country would have to devote "all our law enforcement resources to rounding up people without papers, even if they weren't causing any trouble," and once that's done, the country would have to "empty out our jails..." ..."Imagine what that would look like, basically detaining, putting in jail 12 million people. We're not going to do that..."

And, in fact, all of those listed above have made similar arguments. And, all of those arguments are wrong: they offer a false choice and fail to note other alternatives such as attrition. Under that plan we'd enforce the laws now and reduce non-emergency benefits to illegal aliens, causing many to leave voluntarily. Neither an amnesty nor mass deportations would be required.

Barr also said that neither the Dems nor the GOP are making border security a priority. To a large extent that's false, since the leaders of both parties supported "comprehensive immigration reform" and all three major candidates support some form of border enforcement, or at least pretend to.

As a political matter, Barr's position makes little sense (unless there's "something else" involved). He doesn't seem to have an ideological standpoint on this issue, and aside from using them to get the nomination there's little reason for him to reach out to the extremist libertarians on this issue. On the other hand, there's nothing to differentiate him from the three major candidates on immigration, an issue that many people care about and that the vast majority of Americans would care about if someone were able to explain everything involved in this issue.

Barr is also going to face a lot of heat from the GOP; see for instance Sean Hannity's attempts to portray him as someone who'd like to make crack and heroin legal. He's going to be ferociously attacked by he has no effective way to fight back against McCain. McCain's weakest point is immigration, yet he can't attack him on that issue since their positions are basically the same.

If Barr saw the light and decided to very aggressively go after all three major candidates on this issue he could have a very powerful impact on the presidential race. He'd have to explain everything involved, including topics that are frequently ignored such as the political power that foreign governments have been able to obtain inside the U.S. and the fact that illegal immigration is an indicator of political corruption. He'd also have to deflect attacks from those who support illegal activity, but that really isn't that difficult. And, he'd have to aggressively attack his opponents on this issue such as by sending his representatives to their campaign events to ask them embarrassing questions designed to point out the hugely obvious flaws in their policies and designed to discredit them.

However, based on what I've seen so far it looks like Barr isn't going to run an "insurgent" campaign but simply one designed with other goals in mind.

5/17/08 UPDATE: Barr appeared on the Glenn Beck show a few days ago and continued to sound as sleazy and misleading as his opponents as well as other hacks who support massive and/or illegal immigration. Asked whether he'd "ship [illegal aliens] home or not", Barr said:

When you find them, you ship them home, absolutely.

What Barr forgot to mention was that, based on what he's said earlier, that would only occur after having granted an amnesty, and he's only referring to those who came after the amnesty or those who didn't take part in the amnesty. He then said that he'd fine employers and was asked about the border fence. He said he wouldn't build it:

First of all, I think it would be terribly costly. And whatever border fence you build, people are going to find a way to get around it, go under it, go over it, somehow... I think it would look absolutely awful. And even though it`s a fence to keep people from coming in, as opposed to the Berlin wall, it gives the same impression. Not the impression I want to give the world about America.

Needless to say, it's not difficult to find other hacks saying something almost identical to that.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:12 AM

Candid emails from opponents Oklahoma's anti-illegal immigration law (1804, Harry Coates, Spirit Bank)

Oklahoma passed an anti-illegal immigration bill (1804) last year and various forces are apparently trying to weaken it or repeal it. Late last month the Oklahoma Bankers Association released a study claiming that the bill could cost residents of the state $1.8 billion (link). One of the opponents is state Sen. Harry Coates, whose family just happens to own a roofing company.

Now, some apparently embarrassing emails from the opponents have been obtained (link). I'm not familiar with the players and the post isn't entirely clear, but those mentioned include "Lobbyist Jamie Longacre, who represents Spirit Bank CEO Kell Kelly... Dick Rush [State Chamber of Oklahoma]."

UPDATE: Coates now says the emails were stolen. His opponent accuses him of being paranoid.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:02 AM

April 10, 2008

David Price, Ciro Rodriguez question Michael Chertoff on fence waiver; "contingency miles"; hilarious posturing

Earlier today, Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff spoke to Congress about the waivers he's using to apparently build part of the border fence.

"This is a major exercise of the waiver authority which goes beyond, I think, what many of us anticipated," House Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman David Price, D-N.C., said to Chertoff Thursday.

Price said Congress also instructed the department to conduct consultations with local officials and residents before constructing fencing and gave the department flexibility to not build fencing. Price said that the department needs to complete only about 360 miles of fencing to meet its goal for the year, and questioned why laws were being waived to build 470 miles.

Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, D-Texas, said he was not against fencing but does not believe the department has held adequate consultations with residents in his district.

"Because you have the right that doesn't mean you ought to have taken that right," he said. "I think in all honesty in some cases you've been misinformed by your own people."

They didn't, however, discuss withholding funds. And, there's apparently a little creativity involved:

He acknowledged that 470 miles of fencing is more than the department plans to construct, saying the additional fencing represents "contingency miles" or might be used to turn existing vehicle barriers into pedestrian fencing.

Now for some hilarious posturing from Chertoff, he also said:

"If it's the last thing I do in this job, I'm going to . . . live up to the commitments we've made to the American people."

Posted to Immigration2008a at 03:39 PM

AVWatch: Antonio Villaraigosa complains to Michael Chertoff about ICE raids

Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa - a former leader of the racial separatist group MEChA - has sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking him to back off on recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in the city. This is simply an attempt to a) grandstand to his base (Hispanics, whether citizens, legal immigrants, or illegal aliens as well as their employers), b) maintain said power base, and c) support said employers in their attempts to profit from illegal activity.

Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times has the scoop (link):

[He warned] that work-site raids on "non-exploitative" businesses could have "severe and lasting effects" on the local economy... "I am concerned that ICE enforcement actions are creating an impression that this region is somehow less hospitable to these critical businesses than other regions," Villaraigosa wrote in a March 27 letter to [Chertoff]... Villaraigosa said ICE has targeted "established, responsible employers" in industries that have a "significant reliance on workforces that include undocumented immigrants." ..."In these industries, including most areas of manufacturing, even the most scrupulous and responsible employers have no choice but to rely on workers whose documentation, while facially valid, may raise questions about their lawful presence," he wrote. He said ICE should spend its limited resources targeting employers who exploit wage and hour laws... "At a time when we are facing an economic downturn and gang violence at epidemic levels, the federal government should focus its resources on deporting criminal gang members rather than targeting legitimate businesses," said Matt Szabo, the mayor's spokesman.

And, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce President Gary L. Toebben sent his own letter to Chertoff saying that workplace raids are "devastating" to businesses that are trying to follow the law.

The LAT article quotes Ira Mehlman of FAIR, but also reaches out to Angelica Salas of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles, a group that has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government. As may be covered here later, that group was contacted by ICE before a raid in Van Nuys in February and then protested against it.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:16 AM

ICE to expand illegal alien criminals program to more local jails

From this:

Federal immigration officials want to reach into the nation's jails to find more illegal immigrants and legal immigrants with convictions serious enough to merit deportation.

Julie Myers, assistant secretary of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, said the effort, called Secure Communities, will focus on violent offenders first.

ICE screens all federal and state prison populations but has access to only about 10 percent of the nation's city and county jails, according to the agency.

Myers said the federal government wants to include all local jails by coordinating immigration databases with city and county databases. She estimated that the effort will take three and a half years to complete. The program's first phase -- removing violent offenders -- will cost $930 million to $1.1 billion, according to an ICE fact sheet.

Apparently non-violent offenders will be able to get some form of early release by agreeing to be deported, which may lead to some form of revolving door. I didn't see anything that confirms that those involved in violent crimes will be required to serve their full sentence before being deported, but I'd at least hope that's the case. They'll also be expanding the 287g program.

Needless to say, a few illegal immigration supporters oppose the plan, such as Irving, Texas' Carlos Quintanilla (at the link) and Arnoldo Garcia, program coordinator for the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (link).

In related news, Rep. Frank Wolf of Virginia is complaining about ICE taking a long time to respond to their 287(g) requests (link).

Posted to Immigration2008a at 10:57 AM

April 09, 2008

Rhode Island lawmaker threatened over new law?

I don't know whether he's credible and there's no video or photos, but:

State representative Peter Palumbo says, he and his family were confronted and threatened at their Cranston home. It happened not once, but twice.

All because he supports the governor's bill fighting illegal immigration. Amie Palumbo tells us she was taking her young child out of the car, when a man in an SUV, stopped in front of her home, and made rude and inappropriate comments to her.

She says he was speaking spanish, and had a message for her husband...

Posted to Immigration2008a at 03:18 PM

Otero County, New Mexico capitulates to ACLU, MALDEF

The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund - two groups indirectly linked to the Mexican government - sued New Mexico's Otero County Sheriff's Department over immigration raids that occurred in that county. Based only on a few scanned news reports the raids do sound like they overstepped their bounds.

Thankfully, all is now well, as they've settled the suit and Otero County has completely knuckled under to the demands of the two illegal immigration-supporting groups, establishing sanctuary city-style procedures that are available here:

aclu-nm.org/PDF/SOP4_9_08.pdf

While some are defensible, Point B contains what is probably a false statement: "A person's presence in the United States without proper documentation or authority, standing alone, is not a criminal violation." In fact, re-entering illegally can be a felony in some cases, and I'd imagine that applies to their presence as well. While some provisions of the agreement may prevent actual abuses, no doubt others will be used to tie their hands and prevent them from reasonable attempts to take a role in immigration enforcement.

UPDATE: Since Findlaw is a reputable site that probably keeps their pages up-to-date, I'm going to assume that this is accurate, meaning that Point B above is misleading:

After an alien has been legally "removed" from the United States, federal criminal law makes it a felony for that alien to reenter (or be found in) the country without approval of the government.

Presumably "legally removed" doesn't apply in many cases, and in any case someone has to decide to prosecute them for the felony; see the cases of the fired U.S. attorneys Paul Charlton and Carol Lam (link).

Posted to Immigration2008a at 03:17 PM

April 08, 2008

DNC complains about John McCain Google ad running on anti-illegal immigration site (BVBL)

Various Democrats have said and done some surreal things, but certainly a contender for their Top 100 list is this press release from the Democratic National Committee (via this) complaining about a Google ad John McCain is running.

Well, actually, they aren't complaining about the ad itself, only the fact that the ad was running on "Black Velvet Bruce Li" (bvbl.net; picture of the ad: democrats.org/page/-/images/mccain-web-ad.PNG), which they falsely claim is a "hate site". The specifics of Google ads make this all the more surreal [1].

Based on my occasional visits to the site, I haven't seen any "hate". I have, however, seen a somewhat successful effort to oppose illegal activity in the Virginia area. Obviously, opposing illegal activity would cost the Democrats power, so they have to use every means at their disposal - no matter how idiotic - to oppose it. The release doesn't seem to have been posted to democrats.org, so perhaps they realized (too late) how stupid they were being. It also puts "illegal aliens" in quotes, implying that they'd prefer a euphemism or perhaps even that they don't see anything illegal in coming here... illegally.

And, they kick it up a notch by comparing support for illegal activity with support for the Civil Rights Movement:

"John McCain can't apologize for one mistake while making another of the same ilk. As recently as 1994 John McCain voted to cut off funding for the Commission promoting Dr. King's holiday, but today says he made 'a mistake.' If McCain is truly regretful of those past actions, how can he justify advertising on a website that promotes the same type of hate and division Dr. King gave his life to end?"

Those involved in the release were: DNC Hispanic Caucus Chair Ramona Martinez, Black Caucus Chair Virgie Rollins, and APIA Caucus Chair Bel Leong-Hong.

[1] For those unfamiliar with how those ads work, you can target your Google ads to appear on specific sites, or you can just let Google choose which sites to show them on. I can block ads from certain sites from appearing on this site (so BVBL could block McCain campaign ads), but I don't recall whether someone can block their ads from appearing on certain sites when Google is the one that choose where the sites appear.

Posted to Politics at 04:06 PM

Bennie Thompson, Dingell, Conyers, Reyes, Ortiz, other Democrats support Sierra Club lawsuit over border fence (DHS, environmental waiver)

A cast of Congressional characters (all Democrats; listed below) intends to file an Amicus Curiae brief in the case where the Sierra Club and the Defenders of Wildlife are suing the Department of Homeland Security to prevent them from using apparently congressionally-mandated waivers that would let the DHS bypass environmental and related rules in order to build sections of the border fence.

Bennie Thompson, chairman of the Homeland Security Committee attempts to portray this as a Constitutional matter:

this waiver by the Secretary of Homeland Security is a direct challenge to Congress’s Constitutional role. The American people entrust Congress to ensure that the laws of this land are faithfully executed not excused by the Executive Branch

However, the plaintiffs and a quote from John Conyers, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, makes the intent clear:

our responsibility to be stewards of the earth cannot be thrown aside for the sake of an ill-conceived border fence

The others involved are: John Dingell, James Oberstar, George Miller, Louise Slaughter, Bob Filner, Silvestre Reyes, Solomon Ortiz, Zoe Lofgren, Sheila Jackson Lee, Susan Davis, Raul Grijalva, and Yvette Clarke.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 02:52 PM

James Parks/AFL-CIO, Jennifer Ludden/NPR promote bad, inhumane public policy, illegal immigration

Jennifer Ludden of National Public Radio (NPR) offers a two-part series about those deported from the U.S. to El Salvador in "Deportee Back Home After Near-Death Trip to U.S." (npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89383189) and "Deportee a Stranger in His Homeland" (npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89431942). To a certain extent they're both cautionary tales illustrating why people shouldn't try to come to the U.S. illegally. And, they're also both largely pointless and shallow character sketches. However, as her "notebook" entry makes clear (npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89209765), the stories are designed for an emotional impact and that's the one that they'll no doubt have to the useful idiots who listen to NPR and who are unable to think things through. The first two segments were produced by Marisa Penaloza.

Namely that it's horrific public policy to allow people in that and other countries the "out" of coming to the U.S. illegally. The correct policy response would be to try to improve conditions in those countries. The U.S. simply doesn't have the resources to be an "out" for all the people in El Salvador, Mexico, and the like who are having difficulties in their home countries. To present that as a policy prescription is also inhumane, because there are hundreds of millions or billions of people worse off than those depicted.

One of those joining in with Ludden's inability to think things through is James Parks of the AFL-CIO (blog.aflcio.org/2008/04/08/
npr-series-looks-at-what-really-happens-when-immigrant-workers-are-deported):

Click here to follow Cuellar’s journey home and learn more about what really happens to immigrants who come here seeking a better life... The AFL-CIO has called for real, comprehensive immigration reform that protects the rights of immigrant workers and provides a pathway to citizenship.

The AFL-CIO's goal is to increase their membership ranks and to increase their political power. Thinking things through is not on their agenda.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:44 PM

Michael Chertoff misleads, promotes immigration "reform" at Yale (New Haven)

Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff visited New Haven, Connecticut yesterday to deliver a keynote speech at Yale Law School. That city offers its own ID card for illegal aliens, the city employee who pushed that plan (Kica Matos) use to head a group that was working with the Mexican government to pass out Matricula Consular cards, and their mayor (John DeStefano) may have a financial interest in a bank that would accept the city's cards.

Did Chertoff take New Haven to task for that? No, of course not. Instead, as he's done before, he promoted "comprehensive immigration reform", showed once again that he's too corrupt and too much of a Bush lackey to do his job, and tried to mislead.

Chertoff said he predicted a year ago there would be "a patchwork of rules" across the country, if Congress failed to deal with the tough issue of border security, while also providing a path for the undocumented to come out of the shadows.

That's the pitch for "reform".

"I'm sad to say that warning was accurate," Chertoff said, referring to New Haven's approach as one extreme, with Pennsylvania and Virginia at the other end of the spectrum, where there have been attempts to make it illegal to rent to undocumented residents... "Enabling people to break the law is not something I can endorse," Chertoff said, but a practical middle solution that the majority can agree on is the best thing for the country... He said it was "unrealistic" to think of deporting millions of illegal immigrants.

Chertoff is misleading about the last: we could deport millions of illegal aliens if we absolutely had to, but it would enact a terrible price in both property damage and lives. However, if Chertoff actually did his job we could encourage hundreds of thousands or millions to leave on their own over time. Chertoff has shown time and time again that there's a huge difference between his job description and the job he was brought on to do.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:35 AM

April 07, 2008

DHS planned to crack down on unions involved in employing, harboring illegal aliens?

On January 3, 2007, Rick Perlstein offered "Heck-of-a-Job Myers?" (link). It concerns an appearance by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) head Julie Myers at the University of Chicago Legal Forum, apparently in October 2006:

As labor unions increasingly provide representation for undocumented workers, [Myers] said, "we need to look at" unions' violations of the boundary between "charitable assistance and the unlawful employment of aliens." Several lawyers were soon on the phone with labor officials trying to figure out what she meant. Is an ICE crackdown on labor organizing drives imminent? Was one already under way? Were unions harboring undocumented immigrants in violation of the law?

...ICE spokesman Dean Boyd seemed a bit taken aback when reached by The Nation for clarification. "There is a fine line between organizing individuals, um, which is perfectly legal; however, once you cross that line where you might be involved in knowingly hiring illegal aliens, that's a problem." Then he reached for a bizarre analogy: mob lawyers. "We have had cases in the past, unfortunately, of attorneys doing the same thing," Boyd said. "Lawyers who knowingly accepted laundered drug money as payment for their legal services--going so far as accepting large plastic bags of cash." He compared that to a union "knowingly recruiting illegal aliens to join a company."... ..."Let's say there's a bunch of new employees, and some of them are illegal and the union organizer is an employee of the same company and is advising them, I don't know, on how to, for example, where they can get better fake documents," he fantasizes. "Or, 'I know your status. Here's a place where you can stay where law enforcement can't check.'"

As could be expected, Perlstein isn't able to get his head around the fact that unions - or groups like LULAC - might serve in some capacity before employment or in a non-traditionally-union way post-employment, such as by harboring illegal aliens. He was unable to find a past instance of a union being prosecuted for such actions, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least investigate whether some have crossed the line. However, since Myers made that statement over a year ago and I haven't heard anything along these lines since then I'd imagine they aren't doing anything.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:23 PM

Rick Perlstein misleads about John McCain immigration position

In The Nation, author Rick Perlstein offers "All Aboard the McCain Express" (link), which includes the following:

...McCain's bowing down before the conservative holy grail of super-harsh enforcement-first immigration reform...

In actual fact, McCain's position would be, should all be said and done, the same as Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's. The only differences are that he supposedly wants the border to be certified as secure first, something that would probably be done by the four border state governors, all of whom are cheap labor hacks. And, after it was certified/"certified", McCain would push amnesty. He's backed away from his previous bill, but that's only because it was a failure and its egregiously bad provisions became known. Note that trying to portray McCain as a hardliner is a DNC tactic. Note also that the "conservative holy grail" would be oppose amnesty (by any name), something that McCain has refused to do.

And, a corollary to Perlstein's comment is that "liberals" apparently have issues with the responsible step of securing our borders; does anyone think he wouldn't refer to "reform"-mandated border enforcement as "super-harsh" as well?

Others misleading about McCain include Eric Hananoki of Media Matters, Joel Achenbach, Bennett Roth, Elisabeth Bumiller and John Broder, and Ron Claiborne and Peter Canellos.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:09 PM

Rhode Island religious "leaders" to pray in support of illegal activity

Rhode Island governor Don Carcieri recently signed an executive order designed to reduce illegal immigration in his state. That resulted in a near riot on Thursday as pro-illegal immigration demonstrators stormed his policy office (link). One of the coordinators was Direct Action for Rights and Equality, and one of the protesters was Providence City Councilman Miguel Luna. Religious leaders weren't apparently involved in that protest, but have fanned the flames; Carcieri urged those leaders to reign in their flock (link).

Now:

But religious leaders of various denominations, who say they weren't consulted before the decision was announced, have called on the governor to rescind the order, or at least reconsider it. Some want congregations to pray about the issue during weekend services.

...Rev. Donald Anderson of the Rhode Island State Council of Churches told church leaders in an e-mail this week that they should encourage prayer and discussion about the immigration debate.

"I would urge us to be open to understanding all the facets of these issues and look to God for wisdom and direction," Anderson wrote.

Bishop Thomas Tobin of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence criticized the order during a news conference Wednesday. The bishop plans to continue working on the issue, said Michael Guilfoyle, a spokesman for the diocese.

"I'm sure many of our parishes, many of our pastors, will be praying for the community," Guilfoyle said...

Also quoted: Rev. Eliseo Nogueras, president of the Hispanic Ministerial Association in Rhode Island (wants the order to be rescinded) and Rabbi Alan Flam, president of the Rhode Island Board of Rabbis (wanted to be consulted).

If anyone in the area wants to do something about this, challenge those religious leaders using these points, and then upload their response to video sharing sites and similar. The goal is to show that they're engaging in false compassion and publicly discredit them.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:53 AM

CBS Evening News immigration series (April 7, 2008)

The CBS Evening News Featuring Katie Couric will have a four-night series on immigration matters starting tonight. The only artifact I could find at post time is a 15 second preview (link), indicating that tonight's episode will feature Byron Pitts discussing how "pregnant women purposely come to this country to have their babies born in America". That's not news, but at least the tone is a bit more in the expose fashion than we might expect based on things like a 2006 report from Bill Whitaker. However, I fully expect the "liberal" position to be amply represented. More as it becomes available...

UPDATE: The surprisingly somewhat fair "Illegal Immigrant Births - At Your Expense" is here. I didn't watch the video, but that's probably the script to the segment and, while it contains a little baby-waving it also includes things like this:

"Do many women in Mexico make the choice to have their children in the United States?" Pitts asked.

"Yes," [an illegal alien who'd come here while six months pregnant] said through a translator. "I know people who have done that. Things are much better here in the U.S. because they help children so much more."

It's a "better" life ... that American taxpayers help pay for.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 11:46 AM

April 06, 2008

Ripping up flags is no way to fight illegal immigration (UNM case)

Let's say you're a student at the University of New Mexico and an Air Force veteran and you spot a lone Mexican flag flying on a UNM flag pole. You complain to administrators about it for a few days but they give you the run around.

What do you do?

1. Document the situation with photos and other documentation, gather legal information regarding the proper flying of flags (paying attention to the helpful tips of our friends at the ACLU, link), and then publicly confront those administrators on video tape and work to discredit them and have an impact on their careers. Even if there isn't a legal requirement regarding flag flying (link), get them on the run-around part of things.

2. Lower the Mexican flag and rip it in half. Then, get railroaded through the judicial system as Peter Lynch did recently, being sentenced to a year's probation and 48 hours of community service. And, also be accused by the other side (but not by prosecutors) of a "hate crime". And, thereby provide yet another anecdote that the SPLC can use in their campaign "against hate".

Can you guess which it was?

Obviously, the first option is the one that he should have chosen, yet oddly enough few are able to realize that that's the way you have to do things.

Note also that the group that owned the flag was El Centro De La Raza. Like many others, the link above confuses that group with the National Council of La Raza simply because they share two words in common. Confusing groups with similar names and confusing slogans is also counter-productive.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 04:49 PM

Al Gore's Green Pioneers program to fight global warming!

Al Gore has announced the new "Green Pioneers" program, a children's organization that will fight global warming and work to safeguard our environment. Green Pioneers Camps will be established across the U.S., and members will pass out literature, monitor energy consumption, and the like:

It certainly sounds like a worthy program, but something bothers me about it. It's like there's something I'm not being told or something.

Posted to WackyHumor at 02:57 PM

John McCain running for America's Diversity Director (Web Ad: Tolerance)

John McCain offers an interminable web ad called "Tolerance" (link), which basically says we shouldn't hate on each other. It's akin to something that employees are forced to watch at their indoctrinations or when they need reeducating, and it's difficult to imagine it coming from even Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. In fact, it's more appropriate for candidates in foreign countries such as England or Canada. Even if Bush had done something similar there'd be more of a cowboy theme in some way.

When promoting "tolerance", you're in effect calling some people intolerant. Could McCain be calling some of his current or future supporters intolerant? Or, could it be an attempt to play up the Jeremiah Wright scandal? Or, some combination?

And, do we really want to hear lectures like this coming from the White House? Haven't Bush's lectures (and those from his lackeys) been bad enough?

Posted to Politics at 02:47 PM

April 05, 2008

Bob Barr for President 2008: muddled thinking?

Former Republican representative from Georgia Bob Barr has joined the Libertarian Party and thrown his hat into the ring for president of the U.S. He's certainly the most mainstream, most sane person to run Libertarian for a long time, if not forever. He "occupies the 21st Century Liberties Chair for Freedom and Privacy at the American Conservative Union, and as a Board Member of the National Rifle Association", but he's also been affiliated with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

And, his position on immigration (bobbarr2008.com/issues) shows some possibly muddled thinking. The section "Securing the Border" sounds a bit like the usual blather from the three major candidates and doesn't specify exactly what he does support, leaving me to assume that he would support some form of amnesty for current illegal aliens and/or some form of massive "guest" worker program.

He first quotes the LP's position on the dangers of a completely open border, then says:

Resolving this issue will be a challenge for America as it means that we must be aggressive in securing our borders while at the same time, vigilantly fighting the nanny state that seeks to coddle even those capable of providing for their own personal prosperity... Until all governments are willing to take a unified front to confront this problem, it is the duty of the federal government to secure our borders from criminals, terrorists and those seeking to take advantage of the American taxpayer.

What Barr apparently can't figure out is that it's hard to fight the nanny state when the Democrats are allowed to import millions of people who will vote for the nanny state. And, no one in the U.S. provides for their own "personal prosperity", in that all of us receive some form of benefits from the government. And, that's especially pronounced in the case of illegal aliens and immigrants. No one who employs illegal aliens is paying the full and true cost of their labor, especially when one considers the non-financial costs such as reduced sovereignty and the costs associated with allowing millions to resettle their former lands.

Barack Obama, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton all want to "secure the borders", and all are buried in the pockets of those who want amnesty and a "guest" worker program. Barr needs to provide the details of what exactly he supports and what he opposes. Not that it really matters, since the only thing he'd do is siphon off a small percentage of McCain's votes.

Also expect to see hit pieces from James Kirchik or similar, since Barr spoke to the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC) in 1998 (salon.com/news/1998/12/11newsc.html).

Posted to Politics at 01:23 PM

Why England's in trouble, and what they can do

A far-left that would put Michael Moore to shame running the country. Rampant abuse of their immigration system that has no cost benefits. One-fifth of their workers being government employees. Surveillance cameras everywhere.

How did once-proud England descend to such a state? What can they do to pull themselves out of it before it's too late?

My answer: make knowing how to do the following mandatory for every immigrant and visitor, and make every last resident or visitor perform it at least once per day.

Posted to WackyHumor at 01:03 PM

April 04, 2008

Lew Rockwell should rethink immigration

Libertarian icon Lew Rockwell - purported ghostwriter of some of the Ron Paul newsletters - supposedly spoke about his views on immigration on a radio program of some kind: bkmarcus.com/blog/2006/01/lew-rockwell-on-immigration.html I'm going to assume that the transcript is accurate and that those reflect his current views on the matter, but he might have other views or he might have changed his mind since then. In any case:

1. Rockwell discusses intentional demographic change beginning in 1965 (thanks to Teddy Kennedy), but forgot to discuss the fact that massive immigration = political power. And, that means more power for the far-left and the Mexican government. Neither of those are libertarian, yet Rockwell and most other "libertarians" would... give them more political power.

2. The vast majority of Americans will always oppose illegal immigration and/or massive immigration. By encouraging those, "libertarians" encourage a crackdown, leading to support for more government intervention. If libertarians instead opposed illegal activity and supported our completely rational laws, there would be less government intervention, not more.

3. Perhaps Rockwell could tell us how we could do mass deportations if we absolutely, positively had to. If "libertarians" try to think that through, they'll see that we've been invaded and settled, something that the Constitution says we should be defended against.

Rockwell and most other "libertarians" really need to think this subject through in more depth.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 05:17 PM

Paul Vitello/NYT offers weepy, inaccurate pro-grower propaganda (Keith Eckel)

keith eckel new york times vitello

Getting to the story a bit late, on the second of this month Paul Vitello of the New York Times offered "Immigration Issues End a Pennsylvania Grower's Season" (link). For the backstory, see the post about Keith Eckel, the Pennsylvania grower who's switched from planting tomatoes on part of his property to planting corn and similar less labor-intensive crops. The bottom line: the article is pro-grower propaganda laced with purple prose designed to push for "comprehensive immigration reform" and/or a massive "guest" worker program.

1. Vitello states "This year, however, the new politics of immigration... has put him out of business." I'm not going to call that a flat-out lie, even though I strongly suspect that it is. As earlier reports indicated, Eckel simply decided to plant other crops.

2. The photo on the article shows Keith Eckel's back, walking away from the camera. Presumably he's crying or something. Not only that, but eleven other photos are associated with the article, including the one to the right from Chris Ramirez. Just as the Soviet Union had Socialist Realism, the NYT has Propaganda Surrealism.

3. Vitello states "A temporary federal guest worker program, which briefly made hiring migrant farm workers easier, was not renewed by Congress last year in the rancorous debate over border security." Presumably that's a reference to what was actually simply an extension providing additional visas for an existing guest worker program (H-2B), as described here: savesmallbusiness.org. We have at least two current small guest worker programs, and both are still available.

4. Vitello states "In the 10th Congressional District, where Mr. Eckel’s 700-acre farm is located, the incumbent Democrat, Representative Christopher Carney, has made the enforcement of strong penalties for illegal immigrants and their employers a signature issue in a tough re-election campaign; Mr. Carney is one of two dozen incumbent Democrats singled out for defeat by the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee." However, he fails to note that George Bush recently nominated Eckel to the U.S. Agency for International Development's Board for International Food and Agricultural Development.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 02:33 PM

April 03, 2008

Barack Obama's "honest conversation" about immigration included dishonesty, false choice, support for illegal activity

On the first of the month, Senator Barack Obama spoke in Scranton, Pennsylvania and was asked about the 12 million (or so) illegal aliens in the U.S.:

"We are not going to send [illegal aliens] home... I want us to have an honest conversation about this." ...Mr. Obama said many illegals have "settled," "bought property" and have children who are U.S. citizens. He said the country would have to devote "all our law enforcement resources to rounding up people without papers, even if they weren't causing any trouble," and once that's done, the country would have to "empty out our jails." ...That would force police to ignore killers and carjackers and instead be "worried about the guy in the kitchen somewhere who's working in a restaurant... Not all of 'em are from Mexico," because some are from Ireland, Poland or Nigeria. ..."Imagine what that would look like, basically detaining, putting in jail 12 million people. We're not going to do that..."

What he said was about as far from "honest" as you can get.

1. He offered the stock false choice between mass deportations and a massive amnesty; note that Obama lied about Lou Dobbs in a similar fashion. The unmentioned alternative of simply enforcing our laws now, aka attrition, would not require anywhere near the resources described above.

2. It's horrible public policy to allow people to "settle" here, especially considering that some think they're "settling" their homeland. It's also horrible public policy to encourage mixed-status families. Yet, Obama's proposed solution of "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty, would lead to more illegal immigration and more mixed status families.

3. When he says "Imagine what that would look like", he's acting in the role of a cheap used car salesman ("imagine how you're going to look driving this down the street!") engaging in a crooked sales job for illegal activity.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:29 PM

April 02, 2008

Barack Obama: no evidence of North American Union, confirms NAFTA Superhighway (?), says not CFR member

In Lancaster, Pennsylvania on 3/31/08, an audience member asked Barack Obama whether he's a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and asks about the North American Union. He denied being a member of the CFR, and said he didn't see any evidence of the NAU. However, in his discussion of the NAU he described something sounding an awful lot like the NAFTA Superhighway. If you go to one of his appearances, read back his statements (below) and tell him that he came close to verifying something that we're told doesn't exist.

And, if Obama is truthful when he says he sees no evidence of the NAU - for instance as a gleam in the eyes of powerful people - then he's not qualified for major public office. But, we knew that already. Were he an honest and brave politician he'd acknowledge that there are plenty of signs that powerful forces want something like a NAU, and he'd work to oppose them.

Details after the clip.

Regarding the CFR, Obama says he doesn't know whether he's an "official member", but says he's spoken there in the past. He then says:

"the CFR is basically just a forum where a bunch of people talk about foreign policy... so there's no official membership... I don't have a card or an [inaudible, perhaps 'special'] handshake or anything like that..."

For the last part of that he was mocking the questioner, causing the audience to laugh right along with him. And, of course, he was lying about them just being a forum; they're obviously much more and almost all top government officials for the past several administrations have been members. In fact, here's CFR member Dick Cheney - standing next to David Rockefeller - laughing about not telling the folks back in Wyoming that he's a member: link.

Obama then pretends not to remember that the final word in NAU is "Union", asking the original questioner for the word. He says he sees no evidence of it taking place. Then, perhaps saying more than his handlers would like him to say, he goes on:

It was based partly on the fact that there's this highway being built in Texas that will facilitate more transportation and travel between Mexico and the intercontinental United States, on up to Canada so people have perceived that this potentially means that somehow there's gonna be this Union like the European Union... there's no evidence that that's taking place.

So, it runs from Mexico to Canada, and will facilitate transportation. Sounds like... an intercontinental trade corridor, no? In fact, it certainly sounds like the NAFTA Superhighway, something that hacks have worked night and day to deny. In fact, most of them, if they acknowledge the Trans Texas Corridor (TTC) at all, stop right there and don't go past, say, Oklahoma. But, brave soul that he is, Obama went all the way up to Canada.

Posted to NAU at 11:45 PM

Chadwick Matlin/Slate doesn't mention Mexican government funding of "Under the Same Moon"

On March 27, Chadwick Matlin of Slate Magazine offered a "post" (no permalink at slatev.com/blog.html) entitled "Weinstein Company Owns Lou Dobbs" about the movie "Under the Same Moon". As with Neal Ungerleider, Owen Gleiberman, and others, he fails to note that the movie was financed by the Mexican government:

In this commercial for the Spanish-language film Under the Same Moon, the Weinstein Company uses Lou Dobbs' anti-immigration reputation to highlight the sensitivity of their movie and the ridiculousness of Dobbs' views

Slate's lame attempt at highlighting online videos might be a bit less lame if they hired people who weren't useful idiots or worse.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 09:02 PM

Yep, he's a Libertarian: Mike Gravel does "Helter Skelter"

In the future, animatronics will probably be used to produce fake videos featuring politicians in "compromising situations". For now, we can watch newly-joined Libertarian Mike Gravel (D-Pluto) do it to himself, making a music video featuring The Beatles song forever associated with a heinous crime that mortified the nation:

Posted to Politics at 03:26 PM

Neal Ungerleider fails to follow money on Dobbs-bashing "Under the Same Moon"

Neal Ungerleider of Media Bistro (mediabistro.com) offers "Fox Promotes Film With Anti-Lou Dobbs Ad" (link), a discussion of an ad for the new movie "Under the Same Moon" that features anti-Lou Dobbs quotes from critics. Let's take a look at Neal Ungerlieder's version of following the money and see if he forgot something:

The Fox News Channel, [movie distributor] Fox Searchlight's corporate sibling, has an unabashedly conservative political stance. It's home to a number of pundits that rely on jingoism and masked xenophobism as a matter of course. Meanwhile, Fox Searchlight is promoting a film about a family of illegal immigrants trying to stay afloat in the USA. Needless to say, it's openly sympathetic to their struggles... It just goes to show: It's not about left-wing or right-wing. It's all about the almighty dollar, people.

Indeed it is. And, what Underlider forgot to mention is that the Mexican government financed the movie. The same government that profits from illegal immigration financed propaganda designed to make illegal activity acceptable. And, countless hacks have gladly served as useful idiots for them or worse.

Also, every hack knows the correct word is "xenophobia", not "xenophobism". The last doesn't even appear to be a real word.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:40 PM

League of Women Voters now supports amnesty for illegal aliens ("comprehensive immigration reform")

The League of Women Voters is presented by itself and the MSM as a "non-partisan" group, but, oddly enough, their positions all fall on the left side of things (background here). Their latest "liberal" position is to support amnesty for illegal aliens. Per their national president Mary Wilson (link):

"After a lengthy and comprehensive study of this complex issue by our grassroots members... the League's position calls for a path to citizenship for current unauthorized immigrants... As part of overall immigration reform, the League supports a system for unauthorized immigrants already in the country to earn legal status, including citizenship, by paying taxes, learning English, studying civics and meeting other relevant criteria... We oppose deportations of current unauthorized immigrants who have no history of serious criminal activity..."

As a sop, they also say they support more border and worksite enforcement, but they probably don't mean that. As for the "serious criminal activity", I'd imagine that doesn't include identity theft and similar crimes. They'll also engage in advocacy for their new position, so if you know of any LWV meetings in your area please go to them and discredit your local LWV leaders.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 12:27 PM

April 01, 2008

Western Union/Radio Shack discover new way to profit from illegal immigration: cell phone remittances (Cecilia Kang)

Cecilia Kang of the Washington Post offers "Three Firms Combine on Cellphone Remittances", a barely-rewritten press release about a new scheme from Western Union. Immigrants/illegal aliens will be able to buy a phone from Trumpet Mobile at Radio Shack. The phone acts as a bit of a debit card (a "mobile wallet"), in that money can be added to it in the U.S. and then part of the balance can be sent to friends or relatives in their home country.

Needless to say, the WaPo doesn't discuss how many or most of those using this service will be illegal aliens and thus the money they'll be transferring will have been earned illegally. Nor do they discuss the steps that Western Union has taken to make sure that they continue making a profit off that flow.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 08:30 PM

Poll: only 34% of McCain voters know he supports amnesty

A Center for Immigration Studies poll concerning voter knowledge of and support for their candidates' positions is here. Unlike most other polls, they asked about attrition:

Only 34 percent of McCain voters, 42 percent of Clinton voters, and 52 percent of Obama voters correctly identified their candidate as favoring eventual citizenship for illegal immigrants who meet certain requirements... Of McCain voters, 35 percent mistakenly thought he favored enforcement that would cause illegals to return home, another 10 percent thought he wanted mass deportations, and 21 percent didn’t know his position... Voters often held different positions from the candidate they supported. Only 31 percent of McCain voters had the same immigration position as he does. For Clinton voters, 45 percent shared her position; 61 percent of Obama voters shared his position...

What's also interesting is that almost 3/4 of Fred Thompson voters supported attrition, the highest of any of them (oddly, Giuliani came in second). Thompson was also the only candidate who explicitly came out for that plan. And, 2/3 of his voters correctly named his position, also the highest.

That would seem to indicate that coming out for - and explaining - attrition would work. It also indicates that the MSM has been quite effective in their attempts to lie about both the issue in general and the candidates' positions in particular.

On the other side, only 29% of all Democrats strongly support amnesty, with it being about a quarter for Hillary Clinton, 40% for Barack Obama, and just 14% for John Edwards.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 08:18 PM

Dianne Feinstein's "Emergency Agriculture Relief Act of 2008": mini-AgJobs

Senator Dianne Feinstein's robotic quest to help growers in California and otehr states obtain cheap labor continues as she will apparently offer the "Emergency Agriculture Relief Act of 2008", as described here:

[It] would provide temporary limited legal immigration status to experienced farmworkers who must continue to work in agriculture for five years after enactment.

Workers, however, could not obtain legal permanent resident status (green cards), the program would be capped at 1.35 million workers nationwide and eligibility would be limited to those who can prove agricultural employment for at least 150 days or 863 hours or who have earned at least $7,000 working in agriculture during the 48 months prior to Dec. 31, 2007.

The plan would also require emergency workers to labor at least 100 days per year in agriculture for each of the next five years, pay a $250 fine plus processing fees and restricts them from receiving social security benefits based on prior illegal employment.

Note that she's continually tried to enact the more sweeping AgJobs amnesty. Feinstein spokesman Scott Gerber pretends that the endless propaganda about crops rotting in the fields is anything other than an attempt to gain cheaper labor. You can send a FAX about this here; perhaps you could suggest that she sticks to doing things like this instead.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 08:10 PM

Bush admin to build 361 more miles of border fence by end of year

From this:

The Bush administration plans to use its authority to bypass more than 30 laws and regulations in an effort to finish building 670 miles of fence along the southwest U.S. border by the end of this year, federal officials said Tuesday.

Invoking the two legal waivers — which Congress authorized — would cut through bureaucratic red tape and sidestep environmental laws that currently stand in the way of the Homeland Security Department building 267 miles of fencing in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas, according to officials familiar with the plan...

...As of March 17, there were 309 miles of fencing in place, leaving 361 to be completed by the end of the year to meet the department's goal. Of those, 267 miles are being held up by federal, state and local laws and regulations, the officials said...

Some of those completed miles might actually just be things like vehicle barriers and the like, and some of those miles might not actually be completed at all.

In any case, this appears to almost completely be an election year stunt designed to give a boost to whoever wins the election. The primary intended beneficiary is John McCain, but Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will also benefit. Whoever ultimately benefits probably doesn't matter all that much to whoever's finally decided to get most of the fence built, since all of them support amnesty and all will keep the cheap labor flowing one way or another.

And, of course, there's a good possibility that "something will come up" and what's being promised today will never happen.

The much more effective, long-lasting solution to the overall problem is not the fence but rather to discredit those who support illegal and/or massive immigration by asking them tough questions about their policies and then uploading their responses to video sharing sites.

Posted to Immigration2008a at 01:49 PM