I've been told that one of the big blogging stories of 2006 was all the hacks, er, bloggers who were hired by campaigns. Well, guess what! This blog has just been hired by a politician you've probably heard of, and you'd never guess I'd be working for her, but I am.
Finally today I can announce: I've been hired to give the plain English, BS-free version of Gabrielle Giffords' speeches. The plucky Arizona legislator beat Randy Graf in November, sparking the massive Graf/Hayworth canard, and one of her top goals is finally "solving" the immigration crisis.
Here's my maiden attempt for "Gabby" (from the apparent transcript here):
Mr. Speaker, we have made some major accomplishments this week, but one area that particularly pertains to my district and to the State of Arizona has not been addressed and that's the crisis in illegal immigration. For too long Congress and Washington have failed to act and we must secure the border now.
(Gabby is saying all this to show that she's tough. Heck, some people might buy it so it's worth it.)
We must move this year with a sense of urgency to pass a comprehensive immigration reform package that's tough, effective, and practical.
(Here, Gabby is expecting the word "tough" to shine like a diamond in a lump of something or other. Of course, those "in the know" know that "comprehensive immigration reform" means a massive amnesty, but many of her constituents will only hear "tough". And, those "in the know" also realize the "sense of urgency" is needed because the natives are getting very, very restless.)
We need to increase border security using modern-era technology radar, drones, electronic surveillance. There must be more border patrol agents and more support for those border patrol agents.
(More "boob bait for Bubba", this of the "virtual", Bennie Thompson kind. Those "in the know" already ignored that paragraph or laughed how her omission of the real fence probably passed over the heads of the lumpen proles.)
We also need tough employer sanctions for those employers who are knowingly hiring people illegally and a guest worker program so that people can come in and work legally, safely, and return back to their home country.
(Of course, those "in the know" know that those sanctions would be as vigorously enforced as the current ones are: only when politically necessary and reluctantly at that. And, of course, Gabby lied: everyone knows most of our "guests" will never go home.)
Working to pass such measures will be my priority in this 110th Congress, and I look forward to working with members on both sides of the aisle on this important issue.
(Of course, the only ones excluded from that list of collaborators are a small number of Dems and a larger number of GOP House members who support what's in the U.S.'s best interests.)
Posted at 07:59 AM | Comments (0)
But, you already knew that.
Further evidence comes from his pledge to oppose state Rep. Glenn Donnelson's attempt to repeal Utah's law giving illegal aliens discounted college educations:
"I'm going to fight it," said Huntsman, who added that he would "very seriously consider vetoing" a repeal.
Oddly similar: Texas Gov. Rick Perry made a similar pledge a couple days ago. Perhaps they're sharing notes or the same people are telling them what to do.
Posted at 02:48 AM | Comments (0)
Something called the "Pro-Family Law Center" is helping the Minuteman Project sue Compton over that fine, peaceful city's refusal of a MMP attempt to use a room at Compton Community College before the election to hold a "Town Hall Meeting":
The purported reason for the denial was that Compton Community College does not authorize nor permit the use of its facilities by specific special interest or advocacy groups, nor for the advancement of specific candidates for public office.
They then used the Public Records Act to determine that:
Compton Community College's facilities have been used by/for (1) The Farrakan Event, (2) The Multi-cultural Youth Peace Summit/Registration Drive, and (3) The Black Student Union and Muhammad's Mosque Peacemakers.
Posted at 04:30 PM | Comments (1)
Massachusetts' new governor, Deval Patrick, has shown himself to be a true Democrat by rescinding an agreement arranged by Mitt Romney with the feds that allowed state troopers to arrest illegal aliens.
His alternate plan is to allow officials at two state prisons to determine the immigration status of prisoners and then somehow recommend them for deportation. They would probably need to do that through ICE or similar.
Whether his alternate plan is just a dodge is not known, but Patrick supported both discounted college educations and driver's licenses for illegal aliens in the campaign.
Posted at 11:21 AM | Comments (5)
"The only way that you can be eligible for that in-state tuition is if you are in the process of getting your citizenship. If you're not in the queue, working towards getting your citizenship, you're not eligible for it," Perry said.But, wait, there's more:
"I think that's been highly overlooked in this debate."
However, under the law, students do not have to actually have applied for citizenship - they only have to promise that they will.
On other immigration-related issues, the governor repeated his vow to seek $100 million to strengthen security along the border, urged the federal government to enact a guest worker program and said he opposes legislation to remove citizenship rights from the Texas-born children of immigrants.The first is not only a drop in the bucket, it's also most likely just "boob bait for Bubba". The perils of "guest" worker schemes have been detailed here numerous times. And, he also thinks attempts to end birthright citizenship is "unconstitutional". Not exactly. If a state law is brought before the Supreme Court then we might know for sure. And, of course, Congress could deal with it as a federal matter.
Posted at 05:12 AM | Comments (1)
Representatives of the Essential Workers [Immigration] Coalition (see their member roster) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have asserted that they have successfully sabotaged implementation of a proposed DHS regulation which would require employers who receive 'no-match' letters from the Social Security Administration to correct the discrepancy, or be considered to have "constructive knowledge" of unlawful hiring of illegal aliens at their business.More at both links.
On a January 11, 2006 teleconference for immigration lawyers sponsored by the American Bar Association, Laura Reiff, a former INS attorney representing low-wage employers who hire large numbers of illegal aliens, said that the Chief Counsel of Customs and Border Protection (CBP)* Alfonso Robles, told her at a meeting at U.S. Department of Homeland Security headquarters in late December that his office was giving low-wage employers "a little Christmas present" by not sending the proposed regulation to the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. Failure to send a regulation to OMB effectively kills the proposed reform bureaucratically, out of the public eye...
Posted at 12:27 AM | Comments (0)
Farmers Branch is one of those cities trying to enact a Hazleton-style anti-illegal immigration ordinance. And, of course, they've been legally assailed by those on the other side. Earlier today State District Judge Bruce Priddy agreed with two FB residents and blocked the ordinance for 14 days. The identity of those residents is not known, but their suit appears to be different from the one brought by MALDEF and the ACLU, both of which have indirect links to the Mexican government.
Posted at 11:11 PM | Comments (2)
Is part of the mandate of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation - funded by the federal agency the Legal Services Corporation - to help day laborers make signs? This slightly incoherent article briefly discusses a counter-protest of "Minutemen supporters" by about a dozen day laborers, and:
The laborers said they had assistance in sign-making from four representatives of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation.
Note also that CRLAF is/was one of the endorsers of the AgJobs amnesty.
Posted at 10:02 PM | Comments (0)
Two horrific tastes that belong together join in this campaign video from last year.
Posted at 02:19 PM | Comments (0)
U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales toured the World Trade Bridge on Wednesday, announcing a new effort to fight drug traffickers on the border. "We're concerned about violence in Mexico spilling into the U.S.," Gonzales said...Everything is getting better and better, and the Bush administration is hard at work solving problems. Just wait! Hope, growth, and opportunity! Every day in every way the Bush administration is getting better and better! The "decider" has a plan!
...He was scheduled to meet with his Mexican counterpart later Wednesday. Gonzales said Mexico's new government presents an opportunity for progress and early signs indicate that the country is moving in a positive direction. Cuellar also said he is optimistic that President Felipe Calderón is headed the right way...
...Gonzales touted the success of existing task forces...
...Gonzales said he wants to secure the border in a way that allows trade between Mexico and the U.S., and he also said the DOJ is focusing on workplace enforcement of immigration laws in the interior of the country...
Posted at 01:06 PM | Comments (2)
Upstate New York dairy farmers are heading to Mexico to better understand what drives their workers thousands of miles to find jobs in our neighborhood.What WHAM won't reveal is that this program - and the associated articles - are highly similar to one in Wisconsin promoted by fellow dairy farmer John Rosenow. Are such programs and the associated propaganda simply a coincidence?
Willow Bend Farm in Clifton Springs started 50 years ago with just one employee and a few cows. As the cattle grew into the thousands, the need for help grew, and in the 1990s the Mueller family turned to immigrant workers from Mexico for farm hands.
...John Davies is headed to Veracruz next week in a trip organized by Cornell Cooperative Extension to help dairy farmers relate to their workers. The farmers will spend a week in Mexico, learning about traditional farming, customs and life in their workers' home villages...
Posted at 12:55 PM | Comments (1)
Last year's chairman of the House immigration subcommittee, Indiana Republican John Hostetler, staunchly opposed guest-worker bills. He was not re-elected in November. This year's immigration panel chair, California Democrat Zoe Lofgren, explicitly supports the agricultural guest-worker legislation.And, those behind the current push are apparently working on full "comprehensive immigration reform" akin to last year's Senate bill. Please contact all your representatives and urge them to oppose AgJobs, whether alone or included in a broader amnesty.
Likewise, the skeptical GOP chairman of the House Judiciary Committee — James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin — has been replaced by a sympathetic Democrat, Rep. John Conyers of Michigan.
Posted at 10:45 AM | Comments (0)
A prosecutor plans to ask state and federal lawmakers to investigate why National Guard members backed off from armed men who were near them at the Mexican border.
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas said he was troubled by the retreat and questioned whether the rules the National Guard members operated under at the border were appropriate...
...Meanwhile, a state legislator said he will interview Maj. Gen. David Rataczak, head of the National Guard in Arizona, in a hearing of the new Homeland Security and Property Rights Committee soon.
"Why would this be allowed to happen?" asked Rep. Warde Nichols, the committee's chairman. "Why do we have National Guard running from illegals on the border? Are they (National Guardsmen) armed? Do they have bullets in their guns? We need some answers to some of these questions."
Rep. Russell Pearce, the Legislature's strongest voice on border security, said two National Guardsmen who work on the border told him their weapons do not have bullets.
Pearce said the unarmed soldiers are in harm's way and called the situation "absolutely outrageous."
Posted at 05:45 AM | Comments (4)
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Texas congressman Ted Poe led a group of lawmakers demanding the Justice Department not oppose a request that former Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos remain out of prison while their convictions for shooting an illegal alien Mexican drug smuggler are appealed. As we've reported, Ramos and Compean received 11 and 12-year sentences, while the Bush administration gave the wounded, allegedly unarmed drug smuggler, immunity from prosecution.Others involved are Reps. Tom Tancredo and Dana Rohrabacher.
REP. TED POE (R), TEXAS: And our federal government had the choice to make of being on the side a drug dealer who was bringing in a million dollars worth of drugs, or the side of two border agents that apparently were just enforcing the rule of law.
WIAN: Among issues expected to be raised during the agents' appeal, the grant of immunity and other benefits given to Oscar Aldrete-Davila, who was caught again smuggling an even bigger load of dope into the United States. And allegations of jury misconduct.
Texas federal judge Kathleen Cardone (ph) is expected to rule later this week on the agents' request to remain free until the appeal is heard.
REP. ED ROYCE (R), CALIFORNIA: It would be a grave miscarriage of justice if they were to be sent to prison for simply doing their job. Out of concern for their safety, they should not go to prison and should remain free on bond, pending their appeal.
WIAN: They're scheduled to surrender next Wednesday.
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER (R), CALIFORNIA: In this case, we'll have two of our best Border Patrol agents put in confinement with the very people that they brought to justice. That's like sending our soldiers or our Marines who have been -- who have been prosecuted into a confinement with al Qaeda.
WIAN: LOU DOBBS TONIGHT has learned the Justice Department will not oppose the bail request. Still, lawmakers are outraged President Bush refuses to intervene.
REP. WALTER JONES (R), NORTH CAROLINA: I am very, very disappointed in the indifference by this White House as it relates to these two men and their families.
Posted at 02:41 AM | Comments (0)
This post has an update to the story linked here:
Also, this morning, there is finally official acknowledgment of my article. Joe Westmoreland, a congressional liaison for Customs and Border Protection, issued a statement this morning confirming that the Mexican paramilitary force was in uniform, and wearing ballistic vests, helmets, carrying automatic weapons, and moving in an aggressive military formation. Exactly as I'd reported on Monday.
Westmoreland appears to work/have worked for Nathan Deal (R-GA), but his remarks don't appear in Google News or on Deal's site that I can see. He probably said it, but where and when might be helpful to know.
Posted at 10:27 PM | Comments (1)
After a federal study revealed that a look at 100 illegal immigrants previously arrested and released for breaking state or local law had on an average been arrested six times, the president of the Dallas chapter of the League of United Latin Amercian Citizens (LULAC) made a controversial remark that has been the talk of the town.
Jesse Diaz, the LULAC leader, said while the report is flawed, he stands by his comments that if Americans want to blame anybody, they need to blame themselves.
"Now that they come to the United States, they're picking up those bad habits of shooting [and] drinking drugs," he said...
... But what Diaz said worries him the most is that the study only looked at 100 who broke criminal laws, but cast a cloud over the millions whose only crime is crossing the border illegally
"It teaches them to hate immigrants, and the majority of these immigrants are good people," he said...
Posted at 09:33 PM | Comments (4)
The Pew Research Center has held a poll of "Generation Next", those 18 to 25 years old. Let's take a look at their only immigration-related question. Respondents were given a choice between:
A. Immigrants today strengthen our country because of their hard work and talents
B. Immigrants today are a burden on our country because they take our jobs, housing and health care
52 of GNers said "A", compared to 39 of those older. Those responding "B" was about equal: 38 and 42. The "Neither/Both equally" choice was selected by 6% of GNers compared to 15% of those older. In effect, some of those older said neither/both instead of "A".
Pew casts this as:
In their political outlook, they are the most tolerant of any generation on social issues such as immigration, race and homosexuality.
Will Lester of the AP rewrites that as:
Have more liberal views than other generations on questions of race and homosexuality and immigration.
First, an alternate explanation is that - no offense to those included - those under 25 simply don't have enough knowledge and experience to understand everything involved in "immigration". And, of course, there's the matter of Pew's choice of words. What would the response be if they had asked about illegal immigration? What would the response be if they had asked about specific effects of different types of immigration? That we don't know, because all they asked is one extremely broad and almost unanswerable question.
And, of course, there's also the assumption that immigration is solely a "social issue" and that support for massive immigration is "liberal" or indicative of "tolerance".
Perhaps Pew should start over and this time concentrate on finding what people think rather than trying to push them into saying things Pew apparently wants them to say.
Posted at 05:32 AM | Comments (1)
Garance Burke of the AP swallows grower propaganda till, tractor, and plow in "California farmers gear up to champion new guest worker bill". She also reveals that CA Senator Dianne Feinstein and Idaho Senator Larry Craig will be introducing a new farmworker amnesty scheme tomorrow. It appears to be a new version of AgJobs, and:
The bill would create a pilot program allowing people who have worked in agriculture for at least 150 days a year for three years, or 100 days per year for five years, to apply for a green card. It would grant legal status to no more than 1.5 million workers over five years, some of whom could apply for citizenship.
The rest of the article consists of growers making unopposed statements that strain credulity; see the "crops rotting in the fields" series for past examples. It also contains this statement that's wrong for one reason and raises questions for another:
Growers and farm worker advocates don't agree on how to fix a system that has allowed an estimated 12 million immigrants to enter the country illegally.
First, as the list of AgJobs endorsers (fourth link above) shows, those two nominally opposed forces have found common ground with this massive amnesty. Second, the "fix" needed are investigations of donations made to politicians and whether those have any bearing on those politicians then refusing to enforce our laws or supporting efforts not to enforce them. Whether Burke realizes this, or whether she thinks that new legislation would solve the problem isn't clear.
Then, we get this Feinstein quote:
"Virtually everybody agrees that agriculture is an industry that cannot do well without the undocumented worker... And the people are coming to the realization that there won't be a comprehensive immigration bill. The first step was taken with the border security bill. (A guest worker program) is the next logical step."
It's good to see that she's admitting defeat on "comprensive reform". However, her first statement is shown to be false (intentionally?) by the next paragraphs:
In the meantime, Chiesa has already started pulling up some of his peach trees and replanting rows of almond and walnut trees, which can be harvested by machines instead of people.
Maybe Feinstein should lead the way towards reviving research into mechanization rather than encouraging the importation of a third world serf class.
UPDATE: This apparent rewrite has more on those involved:
Among those supporting the bill are Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., a chief architect of last year's Senate immigration bill, and Sens. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, and Mel Martinez, R-Fla... Reps. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, and Howard Berman, D-Calif., are sponsoring the House version. It has the backing of House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, D-Minn. and Rep. Adam Putnam of Florida, a member of the Republican leadership team.
Posted at 02:37 PM | Comments (1)
The League of United Latin American Citizens, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, the Hispanic Federation, and America Votes are starting an astroturf campaign to push the Dems into support immigration "reform", aka amnesty.
America Votes (take a deep breath) has direct or indirect links to - among many others - the SEIU, Carl Pope and the Sierra Club, ACORN, EMILY's List, League of Conservation Voters, MoveOn.org, NAACP, NARAL, and People for the American Way.
And:
Hispanic leaders are making two clear statements: Reform should include a path to legal residency for the 12 million illegal immigrants now working in the U.S., and a guest-worker program supported by President Bush, which would require foreign workers to return home after several years, is inadequate. They also oppose the building of a fence along the Mexican border intended to stem the flow of immigration.
There's certainly the strong possibility that they actually think those "guests" would somehow be sent home when their time is up. However, the Senate bill allowed "guests" to apply for legal permanent resident status at four years, and - as pointed out here many times - it's going to be difficult to deport "guests" who've had U.S. citizen children.
I suggest that everyone contacts their representatives in an attempt to counteract LULAC's push.
Posted at 05:34 AM | Comments (1)
Arnold Schwarzenegger - California's Bush-resembling, Mexico-pandering, Rove/Kennedy/Mexico-linked governor - has announced some of the details of his universal healthcare plan, and it includes healthcare for all residents regardless of immigration status.
Thus, these questions that need to be asked and answered, but which will not be. I strongly urge everyone in California to go to any event where this plan is promoted or Arnold or an Arnold-linked person speaks and try to publicly ask these or similar questions. Don't be shy and don't hold back: try to end political careers if you can do it.
1. Won't this increase illegal immigration?
2. Won't this increase corporatism, with businesses being able to pay an effectively lower-than-market wage with the other costs being paid for by the state?
3. Won't this be yet another benefit that the Mexican government will send their people north to get? Won't we increase that country's dependence on the U.S. and decrease the chance that they'll reform?
4. What role, if any, did Arnold's campaign advisor who's linked to the Mexican government play in all this? For gosh sakes, he's listed right on a Mexican government website (ime.gob.mx/ccime/comisiones/asuntos_politicos.htm). Did Arnold take any advice from him when crafting this scheme?
UPDATE: Here's the start of a script that someone could use:
"If the manager of a donut shop puts out a sign saying, 'Free Donuts' but doesn't first determine how many people will come for the free donuts, how many donuts are available, and what happens when the donuts run out, then I'm sure we can agree that the manager is incompetent and has no right to be running a donut shop. With that in mind, I'd like you to provide me detailed answers to these questions:1. Have you estimated how many new illegal aliens will come here to take advantage of this plan (yes or no)? If so, what is that number?
2. Have you estimated how many new illegal aliens it would take before the plan is negatively impacted (yes or no)? If so, what is that number?
3. What do you intend to do if large numbers of illegal aliens come here in part because of this plan and have a negative impact on the scheme?"
Posted at 09:13 PM | Comments (0)
The incursion into U.S. territory last week by "Mexican gunmen" was not a chance confrontation between the Arizona National Guard and untrained illegal immigrants, but a deliberate "perimeter probe" by an infantry-trained, uniformed Mexican force, officials say.One of the statements that leaves me less sure of it is the claim that the Mexican force was inside the U.S. - or at least being observed by the National Guard - for three hours before the incident. I don't know exactly how far inside the U.S. it occured, but that seems to conflict with the claim that they could retreat quickly back over the border.
Euphoric Reality has learned in exclusive interviews with high-ranking sources within both the Arizona National Guard and the U.S. Border Patrol that the incident the mainstream media calls a “standoff” was in reality a military-style operation, carried out by a unit of Mexican troops dressed in military uniforms, flak jackets, and armed with AK-47s in an apparent operation to probe the border defenses and test the limits of the National Guard troops. Using easily recognizable infantry movement tactics (such as arm and hand signals and flanking maneuvers), the Mexican unit deliberately moved in a military formation across the border from Mexico, where they were picked up by National Guard surveillance...
Posted at 07:54 PM | Comments (1)
...recruiters in Chicago and other cities across the United States are turning away potential applicants who are illegal immigrants -- despite a special wartime provision President Bush signed into law after Sept. 11 allowing them to serve...Not so fast. The fly in the illegal immigration supporters' ointment is presented in the last letter on this page:
...On July 3, 2002, Bush authorized -- in Section 329 of the Immigration and Nationality Act -- an expedited citizenship process for legal immigrants serving in the armed forces in time of war, regardless of their length of residency...
The fact is that the US military can accept undocumented aliens as recruits when the US is in a declared state of war. Despite what President Bush repeatedly says about the US being involved in a war against terrorism, no such war has been declared by Congress.The article also quotes Margaret Stock as once again supporting illegal aliens joining the military.
Posted at 12:07 PM | Comments (2)
The article "Nearly half of robbery victims in Durham [North Carolina] are Hispanic" says that others say that Hispanics are a lucrative, vulnerable and growing target for armed robbers. Of course, they aren't really refering to "Hispanics" in general, but to illegal aliens, many of whom don't have bank accounts and carry large amounts of cash with them. And:
An assistant Durham County district attorney supports their assertion, saying armed robbery of Hispanics here is chiefly a black-on-Hispanic crime.
The first lesson here is that this wouldn't be an issue if there weren't so many illegal aliens there.
The second lesson here is that articles like this are sometimes precursors to self-interested parties stepping in offering to "help". Expect the Mexican government to announce a partnership with local or national banks (such as Wells Fargo or Bank of "America"), with perhaps that government giving their Matricula Consular card to illegal aliens outside the bank and the illegal aliens then using that card to open accounts.
Here's an example from Austin, with one of those involved in the scheme later getting an award from Mexico.
Posted at 10:10 AM | Comments (2)
Mark it on your calendars, because illegal aliens and their supporters will supposedly be holding yet another mass walkout/boycott/march on May 1 of this year. And, there's supposedly going to be a planning meeting on February 3 and 4 at Loyola Marymount Law School in Los Angeles. The specific target of the boycott is Walmart.
The only organizer mentioned is Javier Rodriguez from the "Coalicion 25 de Marzo"/March 25 Coalition. They were one of the sponsors of the September 2, 2006 Los Angeles march.
He may or may not be involved, but Fernando Guerra is a Loyola Marymount associate professor and the director of the Center for the Study of Los Angeles. He's also a lobbyist for both Microsoft and Home Depot, and he has at least an indirect link to former MEChA member and current Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Posted at 09:27 PM | Comments (2)
In November, the author of this article discussed one of Arnie's advisors, one Arnoldo Torres. Unfortunately, Rojas didn't disclose that Torres also serves on an advisory council to the Mexican president. He's even listed on a Mexican government website (ime.gob.mx/ccime/comisiones/asuntos_politicos.htm).As usual, I'll write to ombud *at* sacbee.com for an answer that will probably never come.
Perhaps the SacBee should look into whether Arnie's plan was influenced by Torres, or whether his plan was directly influenced by the Mexican government.
...A comment cannot contain potentially libelous language, foul words, hate words, personal attacks or web links, among other things...Pretty much every statement of fact is "potentially libelous", but, since nothing in the comment is in fact "potentially libelous", I think we can rule that out. Could the stuck-in-the-19th-century dimbulbs at the SacBee be objecting to the tinyurl "web links"?
Posted at 02:07 PM | Comments (0)
The article "Congressional leaders predict immigration law" quotes House Democratic Leader Steny Hoyer describing last week's meeting between Bush and Dem leaders on today's "Fox News Sunday":
"He (Bush) smiled and he said, 'You know, I think I'm going to have a lot easier time dealing with you on immigration than I had dealing with the House Republican leadership on immigration.'"
GOP members (or their hacks) might say that as horrific as Bush is, the Dems are worse. As long as they continue to support the GOP in its present form, they will continue to be faced with that same choice and people like Bush will get what they want.
The solution to that dilemma is clear: urge your GOP representatives to turn their backs on Bush and his associates, turn your backs on Bush's enablers, and if the GOP calls asking for money, tell them you'll do it after they choose pro-American leaders unaffiliated with Bush.
Posted at 02:07 PM | Comments (1)
Toys"R"Us has recently shown their lack of respect for both U.S. law and their own rules, and I suggest boycotting them. Their Babies"R"Us subsidiary recently held a "First Baby of 2007" contest, with the winner receiving $25,000. There were three possibilities, and the winner of the tie-breaker drawing turned out to be the child of illegal aliens. This was a violation of the contest rules, which stated that it was only open to "women... who are legal residents [of the U.S.]"
After a manufactured controversy by ethnic advocacy groups, ToysRUs has capitulated and given the prize to all three finalists.
On the one hand this is the smartest move based on their situation. On the other hand, they've sent the message that neither their rules nor our laws really matter. And, they've in effect supported anchor babies as well as perhaps foreign citizens receiving subsidized U.S. healthcare.
Posted at 11:43 AM | Comments (4)
"I'm sure there are a lot of people applauding (the state law)," Ziemann said. "But some people out there know this community has a vested interest in what we do."When I read that, I said to myself that they should try to get money from those corrupt businesses that profit from illegal labor, since - in addition to illegal aliens and indirectly and in a minor way the Mexican government - that's who they're benefiting. The more services illegal aliens are able to get from the state or private agences, the fewer services employers have to provide and the more money they can make off of illegal activity.
To that end, Ziemann said he's looking for help from local businesses.
"I hope some of them might be willing to partner with us," he said.
"There aren't many foundations that like to fund these programs because it's so political," Ziemann added. "Many businesses benefit from immigrant workers. We're hoping they'll recognize this is the right thing to do."
Posted at 06:07 AM | Comments (2)
I can't believe I'm posting on such a trivial matter, but: Nina Bernstein of the New York Times is in a slightly more reportarial mood with "First-Baby Sweepstakes Fuels Immigration Debate". It seems that Toys R Us - specifically their Babies R Us subsidiary - sponsors a "1st Baby of the Year Sweepstakes", and this year there were three possibilities:
1. a New York Chinese couple who appear to be illegal aliens
2. a "black American" who gave birth in Gainesville, Georgia
3. a couple from El Salvador
All three could have won, so they held a tiebreaker, initially choosing #1. However, then they found out that the parents couldn't prove legal residence, and they switched to option #2.
This has caused ethnic power groups to erupt in a furor of race-based indignation. Those mentioned are: John Wang (president of the Asian American Business Development Center), officers of the Organization of Chinese Americans (including past national vice president Leo Y. Lee), and Albert H. Wang (corporate lawyer).
The last is a bit surprising, since presumably he can interpret the rules of the contest (firstbabyoftheyear.com/rules.html):
Sweepstakes only open to women who are pregnant and could plausibly give birth in a U.S. or D.C. hospital, at or after 12:00 am (local time in registrant time zone), on January 1, 2007 and who are legal residents of the 50 United States or Washington D.C.
The legal residence requirement absolutely applies to the woman giving birth, not to the baby.
Posted at 03:23 AM | Comments (3)
The new group "Families First in Immigration" appears to be a pro-amnesty coalition of conservative evangelicals. They've already sent a letter to Bush and Pelosi supporting their views, but that apparently won't be released until Monday. Apparently they're seeking a "third way" on immigration "reform", but one wonders exactly how different their scheme could be from the ones currently proposed. Specifically, based on their name it appears they'll stress family reunification, something which has helped lead to current massive legal and illegal immigration, and a surprise feature of the Senate's bill.
Those involved include:
* Manny Miranda ("memogate"; former counsel to Bill Frist)
* Paul Weyrich (Coalitions for America)
* Dr. Donald Wildmon (American Family Association)
* Gary Bauer (American Values)
* David Keene (American Conservative Union)
Expect them to be the only-slightly-less-loony version of Cardinal Roger Mahony and other Catholic Bishops.
UPDATE: The WashTimes has more. They want amnesty for all illegal aliens who have a U.S. citizen relative, which would amnestize all parents of anchor babies and, practically speaking, every other illegal alien in the U.S. who would fake a relation if they didn't have such relatives. On the other hand, they want to end birthright citizenship.
Others in the coalition include: Deal Hudson of the Morley Institute for Church & Culture... direct-mail guru Richard A. Viguerie..., the Rev. Louis Sheldon of Traditional Values Coalition and Rabbi Aryeh Spero of Caucus for America. They hope to get Sen. Sam Brownback involved.
Posted at 12:15 PM | Comments (4)
The AP's Istra Pacheco has more on Mexico's plan to give rescue beacons to "migrants". The article provides just a little more than that previously covered, but it has an extra helping of AP bias and reflects their inability to dig for the truth.
We're informed that two "state government institutions" are involved, presumably a reference to "Puebla state's Commission for the Attention of Migrants" (quote from their rep Jesus Torreblanca) and Monterrey Tech University. Rather than using commercial models, the latter is developing their own version, and they'll be passed out free to "migrants". And, despite their denials, it appears the Border Patrol might have at least been contacted about this, because we're informed that the "U.S. government has yet to sign off on the project".
As for the article, while it uses the at least partially acceptable phrase "illegal migration", it also refers to "migrants", a favorite euphemism of the Mexican government (and Bush). It also refers to "anti-immigration groups". And, we're informed that:
Hundreds of Mexicans are killed each year trying to sneak illegally into the U.S. Many are lost or succumb to heat exhaustion in the desert, while others are killed trying to swim across the Rio Grande or hide in vehicles.
The use of the verb "kill" rather than "die" is probably an attempt to prejudice the reader in favor of "migration".
Then, we get this unopposed quote from Torreblanca:
"Our main purpose is to show people the enormous dangers they risk in crossing rivers, canals and deserts ... but the phenomenon of immigration is something that can't be stopped overnight... The U.S. government has every right to protect its borders anyway it sees necessary... The only thing that we ask is that they respect human rights."
There are other ways to show the dangers, and rescue beacons aren't them. And, of course, refering to Mexico sending its people north as a "phenomenon" is a standard trick they use. And, Mexico's definition of "human rights" is a bit sloppy and apparently includes the "right" to cross borders illegally.
Posted at 10:12 AM | Comments (1)
Sylvester Stallone defended boxing, praised the hard work of Mexicans and dished out some jabs against U.S. plans to build a wall on its southern border, as the 60-year-old actor visited Mexico City to promote his sixth prizefighting film, "Rocky Balboa."It's certainly possible to oppose both the fence and illegal immigration, but if Stallone had meant to do that he would have used the magic word "legal" when refering to Mexicans working in the U.S.
..."I support Mexicans who work in my country," he said, adding that the United States depends on the hard work of Latinos to keep running...
...[The border fence] was "crazy" and "ridiculous," Stallone said, arguing nations should be able to interact without being divided by walls...
Posted at 02:54 AM | Comments (5)
Fanning out from the mammoth ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles, 16,000 drivers, nearly all of them Latino, crisscross Southern California's congested highways, carrying freight that will make its way to every part of the country.Oh, the horror that would ensue if Americans had to pay a few cents extra for lettuce, sneakers, or Tickle Me Elmo dolls.
But a number of the drivers are undocumented immigrants, and they could soon find themselves out of work and freight ould begin backing up across the country...
...Like any business pondering how it will get by without undocumented workers, the trucking industry is in deep debate about what could lie ahead.
"There could be a huge impact," said Curtis Whalen, an official for the American Transportation Association. "If you start getting whacked in the West, you will have an impact in Chicago because of less traffic flow."
Posted at 10:06 PM | Comments (0)
...The accord lacks specific language clearly delineating that [illegal aliens] would be barred from applying for benefits, and it should concern anyone on Social Security that billions of dollars could be going to millions of people who worked illegally, said Shannon Benton, executive director of the senior league.And, Stephen Dinan says:
Mark Lassiter, the SSA spokesman who was granted authority to speak for the White House on the matter, said the group's allegations are false.
He said the agreements tackle taxation, not immigration issues, and that current laws forbid people from collecting benefits if they don't have a valid Social Security number.
But those laws leave loopholes that could cost at least $10 billion in benefits, the senior league countered.
...the document is based on existing benefits laws that provide loopholes for unauthorized migrants to collect benefits, and that sends the wrong message, according to the senior league.
But Mark Lassiter, a spokesman for the Social Security Administration, said the agreement doesn't change U.S. law. The law states that those who do not have authorization to work will not get benefits under a totalization agreement.UPDATE: Investors Business Daily has an editorial opposing the scheme, as does the WashTimes.
"To get Social Security benefits, you do have to be legally in the United States. This agreement does not address in any way immigration, immigration laws or override current law," he said, adding that a 2004 law, the Social Security Protection Act, prevents illegal aliens from getting benefits.
But the seniors group said the 2004 law also states that if those aliens later get legal status -- through an amnesty or some sort of legalization plan such as the one President Bush and the Senate tried to enact last year -- they would be able to collect the benefits based on their time as illegal workers.
Posted at 12:36 PM | Comments (1)
But in recent months, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officials have determined that the troubled, $2-billion-a-year agency is unable to effectively manage its existing work, much less a flood of new applications.Related:
A report released Dec. 20 by Homeland Security Inspector General Richard L. Skinner cited a long list of setbacks and concurred with internal USCIS reviews that the bureau "lacks the processing capacity, systems integration and project management resources needed to manage a potential increase in workloads."
...Many legal immigrants already face years-long waits when they apply for green cards, often a first step toward obtaining citizenship.Another 100,000 names submitted to the FBI for background checks have been on hold for a year or more. Congressional auditors recently reported that 14 immigration offices had lost track of 111,000 files as of July...
Posted at 10:51 AM | Comments (2)
Kondracke: "Our 'Dumbest Move' award of the year is Republicans trashing immigrants. And this - this has disastrous consequences for the, in the election. The Hispanic vote, which is the fastest-growing element of the population, went 55 to 42 percent Democratic in 2004. This time, it went 76 to 26. And it's all because of this stupid wall that the House Republicans wanted to build, and rejected their own president's plan for a comprehensive immigrant reform in preference to cozying up to radio talk show hosts."Additional comments - this time anti-Lou Dobbs - at the link.
Barnes: "I don't think it's the wall, per se. I think it's their whole attitude toward immigrants in general, but particularly Hispanic immigrants. It seemed mean-spirited, and, you know, American voters are generally not mean-spirited. You, you're going to have some kind of a wall at some point, but you have to a lot of other things, too."
Kondracke: "Yes. The wall only is the problem."
Posted at 10:37 PM | Comments (1)
The Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was deeply involved in last year's illegal immigration marches. However, their president Andy Stern only goes as far as supporting the Senate amnesty schemes which include "guest" worker plots. Other SEIU members go even further, opposing "guest" workers and demanding legalization for all illegal aliens [1].
The open borders side of things is represented by the California group of SEIU members calling themselves "No Worker is Illegal". One of their leaders is Renee Saucedo of the City of San Francisco's Day Labor Program. One of those on Stern's side is SEIU Vice President Eliseo Medina.
As for those of us on the American side of things, I'd suggest that the SEIU being seen as extremist as possible is the best outcome, with the SEIU being split into two over "guest" workers vs. complete amnesty being the second best outcome.
[1] Needless to say, that would be the equivalent of an open borders plan. Millions more illegal aliens would come here in expectation of receiving the next amnesty. And, if they support across the board legalization now, there's very little chance they would oppose it for those new illegal aliens. Repeat ad infinitum.
Posted at 07:43 PM | Comments (4)
Harvard economists Michael Kremer and Stanley Watt have released a study claiming that importing a certain amount of cheap labor - such as nannies - does wonderful good for an economy. James G. Forsyth of Foreign Policy explains:
Kremer explains his findings by pointing out that domestic workers can increase a country's supply of highly skilled workers by allowing well-educated parents (generally mothers) to remain in the workforce. Household help is actually far more liberating to parents than day care, he argues, because nannies let them work the long hours required by many highpowered, highpaying jobs.
Of course, one wonders whether Kremer and Watt actually looked at this issue in its totality or whether they only looked at the fiscal aspects of the matter. Given what passes for economics, I suspect the latter. Specifically, I doubt whether they reported on the social impacts of the importation of cheap labor from foreign countries. For instance, are cheap Korean or Filipino nannies imported into Japan healthy for either party? Is importing Mexican nannies to their "lost territories" a dangerous situation? Does creating a "nanny employing class" lead to decadence and an elite class that becomes even further estranged from their (supposed) fellow citizens? Real economists would cover those issues, but I would be surprised if Kremer and Watt did.
Posted at 08:20 AM | Comments (1)
...ICE's failure to advise the Iowa National Guard of the size and scope of the raid could have led to unacceptable risks to Guard personnel and property. Although the Guard was simply a space provider, your department's operations and lack of coordination put the Iowa National Guard into the national spotlight without the courtesy of providing them sufficient information or authority to plan and respond...And, here's the details on the contract:
...ICE failed to provide any information to Iowa National Guard public affairs staff prior to and during the operation...
...In order to prevent similar or greater problems in the future, please note that the Iowa National Guard... will now require proper notification to the Governor and appropriate law enforcement personnel, as well as a thorough and synchronized media plan, before we again agree to provide any space for future actions or operations by ICE.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement planned to house up to 1,100 undocumented workers for as many 10 nights at Camp Dodge, according to a government contract.The only out for Vilsack in this case is to either accuse Dardis of lying to him or to pretend that reserving 1100 sets of linens is not a good indication of the size of the raid.
The contract showed that would have cost ICE $32,000, but the site was used for fewer days last month and housed about 500 people who were arrested during the Dec. 12 raid at Swift & Co. meatpacking plants in Marshalltown and five other states.
The contract between ICE and the Iowa National Guard was dated Dec. 4 and prohibited guard officials from discussing it without permission from ICE.
The contract shows ICE reserved access to communications support, cleaning services, beds and 1,100 sets of linens...
Posted at 05:21 AM | Comments (1)
Supposedly tens of thousands of Iraqis leave their country each month to avoid the general violence. Some of them have worked with the U.S. and fear for their lives. Our refugee planning - like almost all other Bush administration "planning" - failed to take this into account, and until recently only considered resettling 500 Iraqis this year. The State Department says they could handle many more, but blames the issue on the U.N.
Teddy Kennedy to the rescue! The incoming chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship is going to hold hearings to try to figure out what to do.
On the one hand, we do have an obligation to those Iraqis who have worked for us and who do not pose a threat should they be brought here. However - given once again the Bush administration's general incompetence - some of those that we would admit might end up posing a threat to the rest of us. The best solution would probably be to encourage some other country to take as many as possible.
Posted at 12:00 PM | Comments (2)
Patterico offers his Los Angeles Times Year in Review post. Here's some more bias from that paper specifically relating to immigration matters:
Dec: Danced around the status of a cop shooter. Backs Bill Richardson's opposition to border fence. Elizabeth Mehren said that Mitt Romney directly employed illegal aliens, when they were actually employees of a lawn care company with which he'd contracted.
Nov: Lionized and continued to cover up for Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. Editorial engaged in the Graf/Hayworth canard.
Oct: Peter Wallsten: the GOP can't win without opening the borders. David Streitfeld/Los Angeles Times promotes illegal immigration. "Food Stamps in Four Hours" (Mexican consul+USDA)
Sep: Los Angeles Times reporter Sonia Nazario promotes illegal immigration on CBS News. Reporter Lee Romney promotes "guest" worker schemes. At an immigration march, they gave in to union thuggery. Joe Mathews didn't ask about the immigration status of hotel workers engaging in political theater. Patt Morrison opposes the border fence.
Aug: Jordan Rau falsely claims that "liberals and Latinos" "strongly" support driver's licenses for illegal aliens. The numbers aren't there.
Jul: To their credit, they issue a partial indictment of what they support. A few days before: Molly Hennessy-Fiske/LAT promotes corruption in Arkansas. A few days before came the slightly more balanced "Vision That Inspires Some and Scares Others: Aztlan".
Jun: Alicia Robinson of Orange County's Los Angeles Times-affiliated Daily Pilot promotes Mexico's "IDs for Illegals" identity card.
May: Los Angeles Times supports Bush immigration speech (editorial).
Apr: Columnist Steve Lopez thought massive immigration would help a low-wage legal immigrant. They join those who refer to foreign citizens marching in our streets as an "Immigrant" Rights Movement. They conduct a puffball interview on immigration with Antonio Villaraigosa. Partially on the other hand, they disclosed Bush's Aztlan video. Tim Rutten slams Lou Dobbs. Put a smiley face on students marching for illegal immigration. Anna Gorman misleads on workplace enforcement.
Mar: Printed a pro-illegal immigration ad from the Mexican government. Reports on massive trash dumps left behind by illegal aliens... and blames it on the Border Patrol. OTOH, they give a couple paragraphs to the downsides of Maywood's support for illegal immigration.
Feb: Christopher Goffard discusses the illegal aliens who "oil the gears of [Orange County's] humming economy"
Jan: Peter Wallsten plays the 187 canard among many other misleading statements.
I didn't cover the L.A. Times' coverage of the illegal immigration protests, but I'd imagine it was in line with the above.
Posted at 09:59 AM | Comments (1)
The U.S. currently has 21 similar agreements in effect with other nations, which are intended to eliminate dual taxation for persons who work outside their country of origin. All of the agreements are with developed nations with economies similar to that of the U.S.Previously:
For example, a worker who turns 62 after 1990 generally needs 40 calendar quarters of coverage to receive retirement benefits. Under totalization agreements, workers are allowed to combine earnings from both countries in order to qualify for benefits. The Agreement with Mexico, like other totalization agreements, would allow workers to qualify with just six quarters, or 18 months, of U.S. coverage.
But Mexico's retirement system is radically different than that of other participating countries. For example, only 40 percent of non-government workers participate in Mexico's system, whereas 96 percent of America’s non-government workers do. In addition, the U.S. system is progressive, meaning lower wage earners get back much more than they put in; in Mexico, workers get back only what they put in, plus accrued interest.
Posted at 12:43 PM | Comments (3)
Illegal aliens and a smaller number of legal immigrants send more than $20 billion back to Mexico each year. That partly helps explain why that country has passed out a comic book to prospective illegal aliens showing them how to cross the desert. They also considered passing out maps (with the help of two U.S. collaborators), they operate a "migrant assistance" group called Grupo Beta, and the state of Yucatan even came out with a computer CD.
Thus, the report "Mexico offers satnav to illegals crossing into the US" - as ludicrous as it might sound to someone who's not familiar with our remora fish to the south - isn't that much of a surprise. Apparently officials from the Mexican state of Puebla (led by Jaime Obregon, "coordinator for the state commission for migrants") are going to pass out personal locator beacons of some kind to those trying to cross the border. If they get lost - or get abandoned by their coyote - they can activate the beacon and help - supposedly from either Mexico or the U.S. - will be on the way. An unnamed CBP spokesman denies any knowledge of the scheme.
The article is a bit questionable because it's in a Hong Kong newspaper and there doesn't appear to be any other source with the news, but the author is Justin Stares, who appears to be a writer for various British newspapers.
On the other hand, they say they might pass out 200,000 of the devices which could really add up. "Personal Rescue Beacons" for use on boats and such appear to cost several hundreds of dollars, they're so pricy that there's even one site offering them for rental (you need to sign in to see their rental prices so I didn't bother), and a device called a "Digital Angel" that uses cellphone technology appears to cost around $400. However, many or most cellphones contain GPS technology and they aren't too expensive so maybe there are cheaper alternatives.
Or, perhaps Mexico has some sort of a rental arrangement in mind, with the "migrants" turning their PLB into the local consulate once they arrive in Mexico's "Lost Territories".
UPDATE: This story also appears in the UK Telegraph, so it might be legit.
UPDATE 2: As discussed here, the AP has confirmed this report. A Mexican university is developing their own cheap beacon, which will be passed out free to "migrants". If they have the abilities to design and manufacture cheap electronic devices, one wonders why they're unable to put that to good uses that would reduce "migration" rather than putting it to uses that will only make Mexico's overall situation worse.
Posted at 08:13 PM | Comments (4)
Mike Madden of Gannett News/USA Today offers "Advocates hope new Congress will act on immigration reform", the latest in a long line of similar articles (Tim Gaynor/Reuters: "Democrats' win spurs hope of immigration revamp", the NYT editorial "Signs of Hope on Immigration", Boston Herald wants to "resolve immigration reform", etc.) Certainly, the views of the other side are to a certain extent worth listening to, but one wonders whether six opponents of amnesty have been featured in their own article.
Madden informs us that "[m]illions of immigrants marched from coast to coast demanding new rights", when I recall them actually being foreign citizens or their supporters making a show of force in our streets. Then, after playing the Hayworth/Graf canard, he sets down to work by quoting "Marshall Fitz, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association, which is pressing for reforms." Harry Reid promises to come up with his own version of the bill the Senate passed. Patrick Leahy is mentioned, then we're treated to a quote from:
John Gay, a lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association and co-director of the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition, made up of trade organizations for industries that depend on immigrant labor.
Unnamed aides say that Nancy Pelosi, unlike Harry Reid, is on the fence:
Many new House Democrats supported new border security restrictions on the campaign trail, which could complicate matters politically for Pelosi, even though lobbyists working on the issue believe a majority of the House would vote for reform.
So, Hayworth and Santorum lost because of their support for enforcement, but Dems won despite supporting enforcement? Or, did Madden simply forget what he wrote only a few paragraphs before?
Continuing with the internal inconsistencies:
But the stalemate this year taught advocates that they need to act fast, before election-year politics come into play, said Cecelia Munoz, vice president for advocacy at the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Latino civil rights group, Munoz hopes the House will take up a bill by spring in order for Congress to finish its work before 2008.
The NCLR also has links to and funds extremists, but who's counting. Finally, Madden refers to the flow of illegal aliens over the border as the "arrival of new immigrants", and says that agricultural interests are complaining about a lack of labor.
Posted at 06:35 AM | Comments (1)
-Marie Georgette Ginette Briere of Gatineau, Quebec, possession of cocaine with intent to distribute.Those who were not pardoned include quite-possibly-railroaded Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean.
-George Thomas Harley of Albuquerque, N.M, aiding and abetting the distribution of cocaine.
-Eric William Olson of Ojai, CA, possession with intent to distribute hashish.
-Phillip Anthony Emmert of Washington, IA, conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine (commutation of sentence).
Posted at 06:03 AM | Comments (2)
Sanctimonious illegal immigration supporter Mike Huckabee - current governor of Arkansas says:
"I think I would appeal to true conservatives for whom conservatism doesn't mean they're angry at everybody... My brand of conservatism is not an angry, hostile brand. It's one that says 'conservative' means we want to conserve the best of our culture, society, principles and values and pass them on... I would be the kind of Republican who doesn't scare the living daylights out of people who are in the center or slightly to the left."
Indeed, he should appeal to the 25% or less of the populace who support illegal immigration. When combined with the 0.1% of the populace who will buy another "compassionate conservative", he should simply coast to victory.
Posted at 02:28 PM | Comments (6)
In an interview with KCBS radio that probably had little journalistic content whatsoever, Democratic Congressperson Zoe Lofgren of San Jose expressed the hope that immigration "reform" could be passed. She'll be the new head of the House Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security, and she was also mentioned as an upcoming player in the NYT article linked to by "McCain, Kennedy, Gutierrez, Flake collaborating on immigration "reform", Part 2".
To help both her and KCBS, let's examine their recap and - hopefully - the reader will go a bit further and contact either Lofgren or the station and suggest ways that they could lie better (in the first case) or ask better questions (in the second case). You can reach KCBS at 415-474-KCBS (5227), and Lofgren is at 202-225-3072 or 408-271-8700.
The representative points out that many of the politicians who pinned their re-election hopes on being tough on immigration lost in the midterm elections. "So I think that has been a wake up call for the Republicans that people want some practical solutions," she added.
At that point in the interview, the "reporter" should have called her on her BS by refering her to the many sources that have shown that canard to be false.
She said an amnesty program is under consideration but there still must be some consequences for those who have blatantly violated the law.
At that point in time, the "reporter" should have first thanked her for at least being honest enough to call it an amnesty. Then, the "reporter" should have discussed those "consequences" that illegal aliens will be subjected to before receiving their amnesty, such as not having to pay two out of five years of taxes. And, the "reporter" should have asked her exactly how she intends to prevent the amnesty being seen as a massive "Welcome" sign for future illegal aliens. If she says through enforcement, then the "reporter" should have pointed out that the 1986 amnesty was never really enforced, as well as noting all the forces currently working against enforcement and asked Lofgren whether she fantastically assumes they'll stop opposing enforcement after they get the "reform" they seek.
Lofgren said the goal is to get some true legislative reform next year in order to avoid the congestion of the presidential elections in 2008.
At that point in time, the "reporter" should have (once again) called her on her BS, asking her to deny that she realizes that "reform" is a political loser and could harm Democratic - and Republican - contenders for president.
Since the reporter clearly didn't ask any of those questions, they could have just saved time and money by asking Lofgren to send in an audio press release.
Posted at 05:18 AM | Comments (1)
Back on the 18th, Rep. Jose Serrano (D-South Bronx) enlightened the Congressional Progressive Caucus - of which he's a proud part - with his thoughts in "Serrano Denounces Immigration Raids". It isn't worth a full treatment, but let's take a look at a few points from his cri de coeur for racial power:
The current system provides no way for the businesses of our nation to find the labor supply they need, and provides no way to allow immigrants to become documented workers who need not fear deportation.
I'm willing to bet that there's a large and unemployed labor supply right in the district he supposedly represents, and I'm willing to bet that if all our illegal aliens left tomorrow we'd have some problems for a while but eventually our labor markets would adjust. That certainly wouldn't please businesses that want the cheapest or most pliable labor possible, but I'm sure we can do it. As for the second part, his thinking is more than a bit muddled since we have hundreds of thousands of legal immigrants per year. If we have caps on unskilled laborers, well, perhaps there's a reason. And, if Serrano wants to raise that cap, then perhaps he should consider seperate legislation as well as describing exactly how many workers would be allowed in under his scheme.
Then, he plays the "it's for the children" line, refering to the Swift case in which parents were supposedly separated from their children. Needless to say, he doesn't discuss the parents' negligence for bringing children here or having them here while illegal aliens.
And, having spent too much time on this payaso already, let's finish with this:
Our nation has never turned away workers who come seeking a decent salary and a shot at a better life.
Obviously, that's false. Those arriving at Ellis Island were pre-screened by the shipping companies, and once here a small percentage were not allowed into the country. And, just as obviously, there's a huge backlog of applications from prospective legal immigrants, and not all of those are approved.
Posted at 02:23 AM | Comments (1)
Last week, two Long Beach (CA) police officers were shot by long-term criminal Oscar Gallegos and they remain in stable but critical condition. Yesterday Gallegos was shot and killed in a gun battle with Santa Ana cops.
According to KFI's Eric Leonard, Gallegos was an illegal alien. At post time, none of the news sources discussing this case have revealed that, and only two instances of an earlier AP report disclose that he was "deported at least once" (KESQ, PE.com).
As with a previous case, let's wait and see whether the non-KFI local media tries to cover up his immigration status and whether they bother to look into whether sanctuary policies played any role in his ability to remain in the U.S.
UPDATE: The unbylined AP article here dated 12/29/06 says:
Gallegos was an illegal immigrant who had been deported three times and had a criminal record dating back to 1990, including arrests for drug offenses and assault with a deadly weapon, authorities said.
And, on 12/27 (apparently not showing up in google news), the L.B. Press-Telegram said:
Gallegos, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, was deported at least three times, the last one occurring in 1996, according to immigration officials.
Now, we turn to the Los Angeles Times.
12/25's "Long Beach police search for gunman" by Richard Winton and Stuart Silverstein says he has a "long criminal history" but there's not even a hint to his status.
12/28's "Long Beach gunman slain in Santa Ana shootout" by David Haldane and Stuart Silverstein likewise offers no clue.
12/29's "60 lawmen joined hunt for suspect" by Andrew Blankstein and Garrett Therolf dances like so:
Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley said authorities were concerned that Gallegos, a Mexican national who had been deported from the United States three times, might flee the country.
12/28's "Possible shooting suspect is slain" by David Haldane and Stuart Silverstein dances too:
[Authorities] said he had also been deported in 1994, although they provided no details on where he was sent or the incident prompting the deportation.
(That also has the news that he was arrested by Long Beach police on a warrant in 2003, but the warrant was actually for someone else with the same name. He tried to sue and collect $5 million, but the suit was dismissed. The question then becomes why his status wasn't discovered while in jail and why he wasn't turned over the the INS.)
Summary: in this race for the bottom, the AP is even more accurate than the L.A. Times.
Posted at 10:07 PM | Comments (3)
More than two weeks after immigration raids resulted in the detention of 1,282 Swift & Co. workers, the company's pork plants still have not returned to full capacity and the slowdown has caused hog prices to drop.I'm no Porcine Professional, but do Hog Farmers "need" to sell their crop within some certain time? Or, can they keep piggies around if they can't find a good price? And, of course, the article doesn't disclose current pig pricing nor the average weight of a pig and whether the cost is based on when the pig is still in possession of its various appendages and so forth.
...hog farmers who need to sell their animals have had fewer buyers, driving prices down. David Preisler, executive director of the Minnesota Pork Producers Association, estimates that the raids are costing pork producers $6 per pig.
[Swift spokesman Sean McHugh] said that because the raid happened early in the morning, we were able to get in touch with our producers, and a lot of the normal deliveries were either stopped, turned around en route or directed to other processors," he said. "There were no livestock at risk from an animal welfare perspective."The better method he has in mind is to let the Pork Industry run our immigration system. I suggest they deal with the current situation and make do.
Brad Freking, owner and managing partner of Jackson-based New Fashion Pork, said the raid proves the need for a compromise on immigration reform.
"The impact of this is so widespread. We're being indirectly impacted - Main Street businesses and social services are all impacted," he said. There has to be a better method."
A panel of pork industry analysts said that while Swift & Co. was hurt by the [immigration raids], the impact on the pork industry as a whole was extremely short-lived. "It took the industry less than a week to recover" and return to pre-raid production levels, said Ron Plain, professor of agricultural economics at the University of Missouri.
Posted at 04:02 PM | Comments (4)
The mayor said that a crackdown on illegal immigration was discouraging law-abiding visitors to the city.On the one hand, he might have a slight point. Increased scrutiny to tourist and other visa applications - enacted after that minor incident that occured in his city five years back - may have made it more difficult for people to come here. But, he should take heart that, as far as I know, we've still got an open door for visitors from Saudi Arabia. And, as a matter of policy, we want to make sure that visa recipients actually intend to abide by the terms of the visa and don't stay on as illegal aliens. Other than that, the mind reels trying to think how a supposed "crackdown" on illegal immigration - such as workplace and border enforcement - could impact tourism to his city. Perhaps he's thinking of the workers for his associates and not the tourists themselves.
"Current immigration policy is making it harder for people from other countries to come to New York, and it's not just hurting tourism but all of our businesses in this city," Mr. Bloomberg said. "Now, we all recognize that in today's world we have to do a better job of securing our borders. But we also have to make sure it's done right."
Posted at 08:30 AM | Comments (2)
...Border Patrol officials say the work being done by guard troops has freed 108 agents in Arizona to go out into the field. The troops are intended to serve as a stopgap until the Border Patrol has time to recruit, hire, and train 6,000 additional agents by the end of 2008.
This June,the National Guard plans to cut in half the number of troops deployed along the border. The Border Patrol, meanwhile, is struggling to find enough qualified candidates. The agency plans to add 2,500this fiscal year, 6,000 by the end of 2008, for a total of 18,000. But it's unclear whether the agency will be able to meet those goals. The Border Patrol estimates it will have to interview 500,000 people to find 6,000 qualified candidates.
So far, the Border Patrol has hired 367 new agents. Another 739 are currently in training at the Border Patrol academy in New Mexico. But many candidates wash out before graduating, or don't pass muster once they get out in the field...
Posted at 05:50 AM | Comments (1)
Gould Construction is the Colorado construction company featured in Tom Brokaw's pro-illegal immigration propaganda piece from NBC. After that show aired, they claim to have received 600 phone calls from job applicants, as well as a quantity of "hate mail". While I certainly wouldn't mind seeing them coming under some degree of scrutiny vis-a-vis their hiring practices, they are ultimately small fry and just the vessel that Brokaw's handlers used to promulgate their message.
So, let me suggest that everyone calls NBC Nightly News with their thoughts on the show. I believe their phone number is: 212-664-4971.
Posted at 02:42 AM | Comments (3)
Gustavo Torres, executive director of CASA of Maryland, said he's concerned that tensions over immigration will spread and intensify if large numbers of idle construction workers are not quickly absorbed by other services and industries. "We've seen workers leaving for other states for jobs in construction or agriculture," he said.Thankfully, sanity is restored with the next paragraph:
Torres argued for the need for job training programs to help workers make the transition into other sectors, saying he feared that "confrontation will accelerate further" if the slowdown worsens.
"That's one of the dangers of importing lots of workers," said Ira Mehlmen, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which seeks to curb illegal immigration. "After their services are no longer required, you end up with them and with their families. "There isn't much reason for them to return home when services and other benefits are available."
Posted at 02:49 PM | Comments (7)
...The founder of the Emigration Party of Nevada is among a growing number of nativists from across the United States that have been stepping up direct action in recent months to make a stand on the issues of illegal immigration and border security.He goes on to discuss the non-mild end of the spectrum with neoNazi, various supremacist groups, "gangs who battled newcomers on the streets of New York in the 1800s", and "the Ku Klux Klan's rants against Mexican immigrants in the last century". In Reuters' view, anyone who takes action to prevent illegal immigration is a "nativist" and just a step or two away from extremists and perhaps violence. Needless to say, this is guilt by association and simple name-calling. News sources that wish to remain objective shouldn't engage in this type of behavior, but then again, it's Reuters so what do you expect.
The milder end of the spectrum includes the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, who spot for illegal entrants crossing the borders from Mexico and Canada, and councilors in towns and cities from California to Pennsylvania who vote to curb landlords from renting to undocumented immigrants...
However, analysts caution that the groups are small and increasingly out of step with mainstream Americans, who elected a Democratic Congress on November 7 that promises a comprehensive approach to immigration combining tough enforcement with incentives for newcomers.Previously:
"The (nativists) show up at town meetings, they call talk radio shows and some of them even engage in acts of violence, but the elections are the ultimate poll," said Frank Sharry, the executive director of the National Immigration Forum think tank in Washington.
Posted at 03:33 PM | Comments (1)
Tonight, Tom Brokaw is hosting "In the Shadow of the American Dream" on NBC. As a preview, he offers "Indisputable points in the immigration debate" (also here). The pro-illegal immigration points could be disputed, such as this:
In many parts of the country immigrants are doing the work Americans no longer want to do, especially the hard work of manual labor at construction sites.
I highly doubt that "want to do" comports with reality. Rather, Americans have been driven out of the market due to illegal aliens being willing to work for a lower wage or with lower safety requirements and also by forming networks. Here's just one example. He goes on to advocate for unnamed "urgent action in Congress" that sounds an awful like "comprehensive immigration reform." This page also disputes his various "indisputable points".
Obviously, Brokaw doesn't know what he's talking about, and he's simply a pro-illegal immigration hack and not a real journalist. Even the NYT's review admits that "this is no expose... [v]aried views are dutifully represented, but this is at heart a pro-immigrant program..."
Debbie Schlussel's review is even less kind. NewsBusters has a clip of his promotional appearance on the Today show and a discussion of his pro-amnesty statements, including his incorrect statement that remittances to Mexico are only $8 billion per year (they're actually >$20 billion). The Stein Reports' commenters have more.
If anyone knows anyone who's part of the Nielsen survey, please urge them to watch something else.
UPDATE: VDare comments here. Showing just how little he knows, the Washington Post's Tom Shales praises the propaganda piece, conflates "illegal aliens" with "Hispanic", and even says this:
President Bush, who likes to call himself a "compassionate person," certainly doesn't sound compassionate in an excerpt from a surly speech on immigration that he gave earlier this year.
If Tom Brokaw ever gives a speech near you, I urge you to try to publicly ask him a question about his "documentary", perhaps concentrating on one of his "indisputable" points. If a local reporter or similar interviews Brokaw, contact them and suggest they do the same or ask them why they didn't.
And, like Debbie, I suggest doing the same with his helpers: David Corvo (executive producer), Soraya Gage (producer), Joyce Cordero and Leonor Ayala (field producers), Liz Bowyer (editorial producer), Erika Beck (researcher).
Posted at 12:03 PM | Comments (6)
Rachel Swarns of the New York Times offers "Bipartisan Effort to Draft Immigration Bill", about various Congressmen thinking they can pass immigration "reform" early next year. Most of this was already covered in the article linked to in McCain, Kennedy, Gutierrez, Flake collaborating on immigration "reform".
Unbelievably, they want to create an even more open borders version of the Senate bill. The latter had a three-tiered approach that treated illegal aliens differently depending on how long they'd been here. The version they're trying to create would do away with those tiers and basically offer amnesty to all. No illegal aliens would even need to leave the U.S. first to get their amnesty.
They also want to block financing for the 700 mile fence bill.
Of course, some of their ideas might be considered to be bargaining chips, but even after compromise what remains will be opposed by most Americans. The best outcome would be for them to try something like this and fall flat on their faces, which might allow us to discredit even more open borders hacks in the process.
And:
[Aides] said the bill might include incentives for illegal immigrants to leave the country.
That's certainly an interesting statement, but as could be expected Swarns doesn't explore it. If offering incentives to leave the country would work, why don't we try that first? Clearly, the putative U.S. elected officials involved in this scheme strongly support illegal immigration and want illegal aliens here now to stay.
As for the article, it's among other things internally inconsistent. The Hispanic vote myth is trotted out, and we're told that "reform" is a winner (including with the Graf/Hayworth canard), but we're also told that the schemers need to tread carefully, such as:
The House Democrats are concerned about protecting newly elected moderate and conservative Democrats, some of whom had campaigned against legalizing illegal immigrants.
Posted at 11:47 AM |