Archives
This is a very large file. For the full smaller digest version, click here.Bush admin scam: Social Security "no match" letters will have little effect ("tough" new DHS policy)
This has to be read in its entirety to be believed. The Bush administration can't even keep a scam going for a few days.Days after unveiling a major crackdown on businesses that hire illegal immigrants, the Bush administration is now quietly admitting that its most heavily touted weapon in pursuing employers will be virtually useless.
...But Homeland Security officials acknowledged this week that because of a privacy provision in the IRS code, immigration officials will actually have no way of knowing which employers have received "no-match" letters, which have complied and which have not...
...Left untouched, however, was section 6103 of the IRS code - a privacy provision the government has long interpreted to mean that Social Security officials are forbidden from sharing tax information with other agencies...
..."I think this is viewed as more of a self-enforcing thing," said John Gay, top lobbyist for the National Restaurant Association, which represents about 1.4 million estimated employees in California. "This is another tool in their kit. It's easier to establish a violation with these rules."
Tom Nassif, president of the California Grower's Association, said any "no-match" letters a company receives will come out during a civil trial if that business is ever cited for immigration violations...
...[Steven Camarota, research director for the Center of Immigration Studies] said he suspects the Bush administration hopes the business community, whose division over the recent Senate immigration compromise bill helped lead to its failure, will be galvanized into action by the threat of economic upheaval.
"They don't really want to upset the apple cart, they just want to tip it back and forth and act like they're doing something," Camarota said of the administration's rules.
...Nassif agreed but called it a risky gamble with the country's economy...
Larry Craig on no-match: without "reform" it's the end of the American Dream
Yet another sign that the Bush administration's current pledge to enforce our immigration laws is a scam comes from the thoughts of Senator Larry Craig, who spoke to a Rotary Club to promote his AgJobs amnesty:
Pressure to pass immigration reform will intensify as millions of undocumented workers lose jobs as a result of a crackdown by the Social Security Administration, Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, said Thursday... ...Craig said $3.5 billion worth of crops rotted for lack of workers last year. He predicted that figure will double because many crops are "highly dependent on the hands of working people."
But, wait, things could get even worse (according to him):
"What will happen over the course of the next two months is several million workers will be laid off or fired and there is no one to take their place... [No match letters are] the law. It's being enforced, and it should be enforced... If the borders are shut and we become a closed society, then the most we can grow is about 1.2 percent a year... Control it, legalize it, manage it, but recognize that if we want to continue to grow and that our grandchildren would wish to achieve the American Dream as we have, then growth is essential."
It'd certainly be interesting to know what he means by "shutting the borders", since we're likely to have large amounts of legal immigration for a long time. I suppose he means either a) preventing illegal entry, or b) reducing the flow of low-wage labor from Mexico. And, it'd be interesting to know who he actually reports to:
Craig said he's already had word from an ally in his fight for a guest worker program, a California agricultural company that laid off about 200 of its 500 employees as a result of "mismatch" letters.
DHS to improve border security and immigration within existing law
Don't just take my word for it, here's the fact sheet entitled "Improving Border Security and Immigration Within Existing Law" (link). And, they said it couldn't be done.
Certainly, most of the steps listed sound worthwhile, but I have a sneaking suspicion that some of them will not only be ineffectual but will infringe on our privacy. And, I suspect that some of the "streamlining" of existing guest worker programs will have a few flaws as well. I also suspect that the usual suspects will raise howls of protest about some of the features, such as changes to the citizenship exam. That will, of course, make the Bush administration look better in some peoples' eyes, who'll think that if the ACLU opposes it they must be doing something right.
UPDATE: The nitty-gritty legal details of the "no match" requirements are here:
blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/08/my-faq-document.html
Judi Hasson/MSNBC: how to hire (most likely illegal) day labor
Judi Hasson of MSNBC Money offers "Dirt-cheap day labor". On the first page, she lists all the downsides of hiring day laborers, which she acknowledges are probably here illegally, even refering to the "underground economy". Then, on the second page, she gets down to business and tells people how to engage in illegal activity:What are the chances of a homeowner being caught?Unfortunately, we don't know whether Munoz knew this was going to be a "tips" article, so we can't say with certainty that she's advocating illegal activity.
"Virtually none at all," says San Diego attorney Jeff Isaac, who calls himself "a lawyer in bluejeans" for his practical approach to the law...
[don't do this if you expect to run for office!]
...Cecilia Munoz, the senior vice president for the National Council of La Raza, a national Hispanic civil-rights organization, also pointed out that employers are not expected to be able to spot whether these documents are valid, and for day labor, employers "tend not to check."
Though it is illegal to hire an undocumented worker, the law is seldom enforced...
Then, Hasson features a "If you decide to hire a day laborer" section with five helpful tips.
Coming next from MSNBC Money: "If you must cook meth, here's how to do it... safely and cheaply!"
Bush immigration policies get one right
Up until this happened, I had no idea who this was, and I dearly wish I had never found out. If we're lucky, she'll tell all her friends to just stay away. We can always clone.
UPDATE: Wow.
NYT editorial: supports illegal activity; acknowledges attrition; "pest control"
As soon as I hear the words "New York Times editorial" I, like no doubt most others, think "wrong". The latest is on display in "The Misery Strategy". Notably, the NYT has finally acknowledged attrition - enforcing our laws in order to encourage illegal aliens to go home - as a strategy. This contrasts with their prior attempts to present a false choice between mass deportations and a massive amnesty. I guess they knew about attrition all along, they were just being disingenuous.
But, of course, they disagree with this strategy, claiming that it won't work because the situations in the home countries of those illegal aliens are so dire they won't leave. Of note, they don't suggest encouraging those other countries to repatriate their citizens, nor do they suggest urging (in one way or another) those other countries to make situations there more amenable.
And, of course, there's the name-calling: they explicitly state that "ideologues" want to "unleash a flood of misery upon millions of illegal immigrants". And, this:
The American people cherish lawfulness but resist cruelty, and have supported reform that includes a reasonable path to earned citizenship. Their leaders have given them immigration reform as pest control.
And, their disingenuousness (or schizophrenia, or inability to think things through) is on full display. This:
The latest phase of the crackdown... would require employers to resolve discrepancies between their employee records and those of the Social Security Administration... There are millions of people in thousands of workplaces who could be caught in that net, and the government is promising to start dragging it zealously, with stepped-up raids around the country.
Is followed by this:
The Senate had struggled for years to erect the immense framework of bipartisan, comprehensive immigration reform, coupling stricter enforcement with a citizenship path and an orderly future flow of workers.
That "reform" would have encouraged millions more illegal aliens to try to come here, and according to "reform" stepped-up enforcement - the kind promoted by the NYT - would be performed to keep them out or send them home. Yet, the NYT is currently trying to portray enforcement of our laws in the most negative light possible. Certainly, a defense for them would be to say that they would support enforcement if there were some sort of "pathway" and "guest" worker program, but does anyone really believe that? Post-"reform", wouldn't the NYT simply write similar editorials opposing the enforcement of the "reform" they supported?
The bottom line is the bottom line: the NYT - for one corrupt reason or another - supports massive immigration of any kind. And, they'll continue to do so, no matter whether "reform" eventually passes or not.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce sues Janet Napolitano over immigration law
I'm flipping back and forth deciding who not to root for, but eventually I'm going to have to side with Janet:The U.S. Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday joined businesses suing Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano over the recent law she signed that will revoke business licenses for companies caught twice with undocumented workers.They say they're going to "aggressively defend" it, but I wouldn't entirely bet on that given Napolitano's history. The US CoC joined an earlier suit from the Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform and the Arizona Contractors Association, which also includes:
"Anyone who knowingly hires an undocumented worker is violating the law, but violating a federal law, subject to federal sanctions," said Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center representing the U.S. Chamber. "Our members do not want to be subject to a patchwork of state and local requirements, particularly when they are in compliance with federal law."
Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Wake Up Arizona! Inc., which includes former Phoenix Suns CEO Jerry Colangelo; Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce; Arizona Farm Bureau Federation; Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association; Associated Minority Contractors of America, based in state; Arizona Roofing Contractors Association; National Roofing Contractors Association, based in Illinois; and the Arizona Landscape Contractors Association
Is Ruth Marcus lying about SCHIP?
Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post offers "Attack Ads You'll Be Seeing", predicting that the GOP is going to run ads claiming that the Democrats want to take funds from U.S. citizens and give them to illegal aliens. Certainly, the Dems have tried something like this with the DREAM Act, and they certainly appear to be trying to do something similar with the SCHIP program. She says otherwise, or at least she says something:The provision at issue would repeal a 2006 requirement that everyone applying for Medicaid provide proof of citizenship -- passports or original birth certificates. That might sound sensible, but it has been a cumbersome, expensive solution to a non-problem.Thankfully, this site has pointed out the problems in her argument, sparing me the effort.
In 2005, when he was overseeing the Medicaid program for the Bush administration, Mark McClellan noted that an inspector general's investigation did "not find particular problems regarding false allegations of citizenship, nor are we aware of any."
...The House provision makes the documentation requirement optional for states, which, after all, have an interest in seeing that their Medicaid dollars are spent properly. Adults on Medicaid would still have to prove citizenship, swear that their children are citizens and provide their children's Social Security numbers. And states would have to conduct annual audits to ensure that no illegal immigrants are being covered.
Christine Neumann-Ortiz' monument to low wages, illegal activity
From [1]:On August 8, a first anniversary commemoration of the raid at Star Packaging will unveil a mock Wisconsin Historical Marker at the site and formally declare the factory's empty shell "a monument to the nation's broken immigration system".It certainly looks like a tragedy, if you read between the lines of July 18's hugely sympathetic report "Whitewater factory struggles to stay open after worker raid" (by Pat Schneider, link). Since that's an older article, I can let the commenters speak for me:
Wednesday's 10am press conference, to be held outside the factory, will begin with the unveiling and be followed by brief addresses from speakers including Executive Director of Voces de la Frontera, Christine Neumann-Ortiz, Jorge Islas, Vice President of Sigma America, and workers affected by the raid.
[Newman-Ortiz says:] "One year later, Whitewater is still hurting. A good local business is all but closed, 90 local jobs have gone, families have been scarred by deportations, others continue to fight... The empty shell of the factory has come to represent everything that is wrong with our broken immigration system. We need the federal government to step up and deliver on comprehensive reform so there are no more tragedies like this."
[Tired of the hand wringing:] ...Why would any hispanic in Whitewater feel afraid? If they're here legally, they've got no worries. They should be even more outraged over this than anyone else - they're the ones getting scapegoated for the actions of the criminals here illegally (yes, they're all criminals the second they sneak over the border)...[1] fairimmigration.wordpress.com/2007/08/08/ unveiling-monument-to-nations-broken-immigration-system
[Toaster:] I would say this story belongs in the "Opinion" section. It reads like if you don't support illegal immigrants, you are heartless shit. Yeah, they throw in the token "other side of the argument" at the end. :roll:
[supportamericans:] I have no sympathy for this business owner or anyone else locally that hires ILLEGAL immigrants. The only fear this has cast in our community is a fear that other business owners that hire illegal immigrants and violate federal laws will get caught. They should be afraid.
Note that that's from the Fair Immigration Reform Movement, which has Voces as a member. One other member has a link to the Mexican government, another has an indirect link, and a third has an alleged direct link.
Democratic union debate: Barack Obama asked to state position on immigration!
Just recently I've complained about the presidential "debates" not featuring any questions or any real questions about immigration matters.Now, just as I revised my opinion of the MSM, I must revise that after reading the transcript of yesterday's Democratic debate put on by AFL-CIO. Yes, the debate featured only one question about immigration and the question and the answer were the only parts of the entire debate with any instance of "illegal alien", "undocumented", or "immigr*", but that's made up for by the sheer toughness of the question that the AFL-CIO moderators allowed to be asked (those of you who are prone to having Soviet Union flashbacks may want to look away):
JORGE MULASANO (hotel worker): I’m from Argentina, and six months ago I proudly became citizen of this great country. (Applause.)Now, that's a tough question; historians may remember that when a similarly tough question was asked during the 19th Plenary Soviet, Igor Blotchnik - acting in the same role as Keith Olbermann - was almost banished to the gulags for even acknowledging it.
My concern is for those undocumented workers that established roots here. And my question would be, in your future, if you’re going to create a path to the citizenship for those workers.
MR. OLBERMANN: Congratulations, Mr. Mulasano.
Senator?
Needless to say, Obama responded to this question by supporting enforcing our current laws in order to encourage many current illegal aliens to leave and many fewer to come here in the future. He said we needed to do that for the best of the U.S., as unpopular as it may be in certain quarters. He then went on to disclose that "path to citizenship" is just a euphemism for amnesty and that "back of the line" is a sham as well: illegal aliens will get to remain here and will at the very least disrupt the line if not cutting in front of others depending on the specifics of (what he called) a "scam".
Wait, who am I kidding? He simply responded to that question with his standard blather, and I'll bet if you did a search you'd find him saying something almost word-for-word identical with what he told the union audience.
More proof GOP is corrupt, lacks differentiation from Democrats (Giuliani, Minuteman flyer)
From this:Rudy Giuliani's southwest political director [Chris Gulugian-Taylor] left a top position [executive director] at the Nevada Republican Party last year after breaking rules by advertising a Minuteman border patrol rally in internal GOP e-mails.The email is a bit "hard-edged", but the response was disproportionate. From this October 2006 post:
The notices publicizing a "Stop the Illegal Invasion" rally in October 2006 outraged some Hispanic Republicans in the state, who said they feared it would alienate voters in the nation's fastest growing minority group just weeks before election day...
[The email had a] subject line: "Help stop the illegal invasion") to the GOP's e-mail list, complete with nasty little digs like this: "If you are tired of seeing illegals catered to, then join us to send these Un-American corporations a message. "We'll not allow these illegals destroy our country. We'll not permit corporations like Chicago Title, Wells Fargo Bank, and Miller Brewing promote [sic] and financially support the take over [sic] of America by the Illegal Invaders... "Your voice is needed to let these Un-American companies know we will not tolerate them supporting illegals over law abiding citizens."Once again, that's a bit rough around the edges. But, who could object to the underlying message of opposing massive illegal activity and the corrupt businesses that profit from it?
Why, "Hispanics", of course. See, all Hispanics are strong supporters of massive illegal activity and all of them fully support corrupt banks and others profiteering off massive illegal immigration. Or, at least according to those that the GOP listened to. Returning to the first report:
...[Luis Valera, chairman of Nevada's "Viva Bush Coalition" says] "The Republican Party had made a lot of effort to reach out to Hispanics. With a stroke of a keyboard, he (Gulugian-Taylor) almost dismantled the hard work of a lot of people... I don't think he's a bad person... [but] I don't know if he'll make the same mistake twice."To put this in an even sharper focus, try to spot all the sleaze in this October 2006 article from Timothy Pratt and J. Patrick Coolican:
...Jim Lopez, a Giuliani supporter who chairs the California Republican National Hispanic Assembly, said he had mixed feelings about the Minuteman group because "some of the people ... are doing it for racist reasons, not the security of the country."
He said he wouldn't pass judgment on Gulugian-Taylor because he didn't have all the details on what happened in Nevada.
"We all make mistakes," Lopez said. He added, "If I was Rudy's campaign, I would keep a close eye on this guy."
Asked about the appointment, Edward Lujan, a former New Mexico GOP chairman, said "it's never a failure unless you do it again.
A Nevada Republican Party official resigned Thursday amid a Hispanic Republican backlash on the heels of an embarrassing e-mail sent out by the party.Wells Fargo certainly profits from illegal immigration; if you ask them, they'll say they don't know that many of their customers are here illegally, but in actual fact I'm sure that pretty much everyone realizes that people using Matricula Consular cards to open bank accounts are doing so because they're here illegally.
The state party sent out a flier Wednesday advertising a rally by the local chapter of the Minutemen, a stridently anti-illegal immigrant group that patrols the border without sanction from the government.
...Party operatives feared the flier would alienate Hispanic voters and the business community that employs them in large numbers. The flier was titled, "Help Stop the Illegal Invasion," and accused companies such as Wells Fargo of being complicit with illegal immigration...
Returning to the main point, Gulugian-Taylor should either have not sent out the email, or should have made it less harder-edged. On the other hand, if the GOP would like to shed its corrupt image, perhaps it should start by standing up to ethnic advocates who support massive illegal activity and who smear everyone of that same ethnicity as supporters of illegal activity. (GOP leaders: look up "Sistah Souljah" in your local dictionary.)
And an even more difficult task: the GOP could stand up to those corrupt businesses that profit from the illegal activity.
I know it will never happen, but I just thought I'd point it out.
Bridge builder charged with hiring illegal aliens, some with invalid welding certification
This story helps show how much our entire political system has been affected by corruption:The owner of Tarrasco Steel, a company that supplied workers on the Biloxi Bay Bridge, was arrested and charged with hiring illegal immigrants on projects in three states. Some had improper welding certification.It's pretty ironic that Huey Long is involved, if only by name; recall the collapsing staircase from this.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Jose S. Gonzalez, 32, at his office in Greenville Thursday, according to a news release. Tarrasco Steel was hired as a subcontractor for rebar installation services to major bridge projects in Mississippi, Louisiana and Tennessee. The federal government considers those bridges as critical infrastructure, and they were part of routine inspections of facilities that if damaged could pose a threat to national security and public safety.
...On inspections of several construction sites March 29, representatives of several federal agencies confirmed the majority of Tarrasco Steel employees were using bogus Social Security numbers, and 77 immigrants were arrested. Twenty-six of them worked for Tarrasco Steel. Some of them worked on the Biloxi bridge, the Huey P. Long bridge in New Orleans, and a project on Interstate 40 in Memphis, among others, the news release said...
As for political corruption, both the GOP and the Democrats have consistently looked the other way on the hiring of illegal aliens, setting the stage for cases like this. There are probably many similar cases that will never be discovered or prosecuted, until it's too late.
Single brain cell theory: Arlen Specter's new apartheid/amnesty scheme
Senator Arlen Specter offers "A Less Ambitious Approach to Immigration". Consider this:
...[Letting the supposed 12 million illegal aliens] hold the status of those with green cards -- without the automatic path to citizenship that was the core component of critics' argument that reform efforts were really amnesty... [That scheme] may be attacked as creating an "underclass" inconsistent with American values, which have always been to give refuge to the "huddled masses." But such a compromise is clearly better than leaving these people a fugitive class. People with a lesser status are frequently referred to as second-class citizens. Congress has adamantly refused to make the 12 million people already here full citizens, but isn't it better for them to at least be secure aliens than hunted and exploited?
So, he's refering to ICE doing their job as "hunt[ing]". And, he's acknowledging that the illegal aliens that he's played a role in allowing to come here are exploited. And, he's refusing to acknowledge a third option of reducing the numbers of illegal aliens here by making sure that ICE does their job.
And, regarding the "second-class citizens" bit, don't be so hard on Specter: he's at least honest enough to admit that this is all a sham:
Or, after our borders are secured and tough employer sanctions have been put in place, Congress can revisit the issue and possibly find a more hospitable America.
In brief: amnesty.
"Tancredo Blasts Dems for Funding Illegal Alien Healthcare" (SCHIP)
I've been woefully remiss in discussing the attempts involving the "SCHIP"/"S-CHIP" plan, partly because I don't understand all the details. However:U.S. Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) today criticized Congressional Democrats for eliminating a requirement that anyone applying for Medicaid and State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) services provide proof of U.S. citizenship. The new Democrat plan would raise taxes and make it easier for illegal aliens to obtain taxpayer-funded medical benefits.Also see "A new entitlement for illegals":
"Again, the Democrats have proven their loyalty to illegal aliens over American citizens," Tancredo said referring to the failed Senate Amnesty plan. "Rather than help middle class families as they promised, Congressional Democrats are squeezing tax dollars out of Americans in order to benefit those who have violated our laws."
Unsatisfied with thwarting a Republican effort to authorize $3 billion for a border fence, congressional Democrats are trying to enhance the incentive for illegal aliens to enter the United States by removing the citizenship requirement from the popular State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). The Republican Congress in 1996 passed legislation blocking people who are in the country illegally from claiming benefits from the federal government, and when SCHIP was created in 1997, states were required to verify citizenship. But Democrats want to take that sensible requirement for Medicaid and SCHIP and leave it to the discretion of each state...8/3/07 UPDATE: Apparently the vote on SCHIP or something similar resulted in a parliamentary crisis on the House floor. From this:
...Recall that SCHIP was born out of a failed attempt at government-run universal health coverage. Indeed, the Democratic expansion of SCHIP will actually allow children who currently have private health insurance to switch to the federally subsidized program, saddling taxpayers with yet another entitlement burden. In the wake of the defeat of the immigration amnesty bill last month, open-borders advocates are attempting to implement their agenda using a piecemeal approach.
Details remain fuzzy, but numerous Republicans argued afterward that they had secured a 215-213 win on their motion to bar undocumented immigrants from receiving any federal funds apportioned in the agricultural spending bill for employment or rental assistance. Democrats, however, argued the measure was deadlocked at 214-214 and failed, members and aides on both sides of the aisle said afterward...
...When Democrats finally moved to consider the spending bill as the last vote of the night, furious Republicans left the chamber en masse to protest the maneuver. The House eventually recessed at 11:18 p.m. But Republicans quickly discovered that there was no longer any record of the controversial vote and immediately charged Democrats with erasing the bad result...
Hard a-flip-flop: McCain changes course on immigration "reform"
From this:Republican presidential hopeful John McCain on Thursday backed a scaled-down proposal that imposes strict rules to end illegal immigration but doesn't include a path to citizenship.Note thee well that McCain is still supporting amnesty, he just wants to do border security in order to get his real goal. It says that he's supporting a plan from Jon Kyl and Lindsey Graham, but I'm not entirely sure of the name or number of the plan, if it has one yet. Note that Graham's $3 billion amendment for border security apparently passed, and Arlen Specter has floated a plan. The last link describes a plan Kyl was preparing for this month.
The move away from a comprehensive measure is an about-face for the Arizona senator, who had been a leading GOP champion of a bill that included a guest worker program and would have legalized many of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. It failed earlier this year.
"We can still show the American people that we are serious about securing our nation's border," McCain said in a statement, adding that the new bill would "provide an essential step toward achieving comprehensive reform in the future."
...Immigrants' rights advocates jumped to condemn their decision. "It is fairly stunning they have gone from leaders on comprehensive reform legislation to lemmings running over the cliff" with the Republican opponents of the bill, said Angela Kelley, deputy director of the National Immigration Forum.
UPDATE: Sens. Jeff Sessions and John Cornyn are also involved in the plan, which is outlined in a press release here:
...The bill would authorize significant increases in the number of personnel to patrol the border, staff the ports of entry, prevent smuggling, and investigate immigration violations. It would also increase the amount of fencing, vehicle barriers, physical infrastructure, and technology to observe and deter illegal crossings, and the amount of detention space to hold unlawful aliens.
The bill would also mandate that DHS detain unlawful aliens crossing the border until those aliens are removed. It would require that DHS capture biometric data on all foreign nationals legally entering and departing the United States, and identify, track, detain and remove those who overstay their visas.
The bill would authorize significant increases in personnel for DHS and the Department of Justice to enforce the immigration laws in the interior of the United States. It would add new legal authorities to prevent the entry and enable the removal of suspected terrorists, aggravated felons, gang members, human smugglers, and other criminals. The bill would add new legal authorities to deter and prosecute crimes against children, to combat smuggling, and to prevent fraud. It would also enhance the ability of state and local law enforcement officers to identify unlawful aliens, and increase funding to states adversely affected by illegal immigration...
Chortle: Bush admin beginning major crackdown on employers of illegal aliens
From the AP:Employers across the U.S. are preparing to fire workers with questionable Social Security government identification numbers to avoid getting snagged in a Bush administration crackdown on illegal immigrants.Yeah, we're pretty used to those excuses, six year's worth of them. In past statements, Chertoff has almost come right out and threatened to conduct raids in order to inflame the left, and Bush has warned about a labor shortage if the current laws are enforced. In that light, this might be seen as an attempt to make things worse in order to get "reform". If they actually intend to do anything of course.
The Department of Homeland Security is expected to make public soon new rules [involving "no match" letter] for employers notified when their worker's name or Social Security number was flagged by the Social Security Administration...
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the Homeland Security Department, "is going to be tough and aggressive in the enforcement of the law," [reknowned spokeshole Russ Knocke] said. "You are going to see more work site cases. And no more excuses."
Mexico, environmentalists oppose border fence; Argentina insulted
From this:Mexico is calling on the United States to alter a plan to expand border fences designed to stem illegal immigration, saying the barriers would threaten migratory species accustomed to roaming freely across the frontier.Somehow I think the only thing "green" the Mexican government cares about is the color of our money. They also say they'll file a complaint with the United Nations' International Court of Justice if necessary; they've done that before on another matter.
Ways to minimize environmental damage from the fences could include the creation of cross-border bridge areas so that ecosystems remain connected and "green corridors" of wilderness without roads that would be less attractive to smugglers, according to a report released yesterday and prepared for the Mexican government by experts and activists from both nations [mentioned: Mexico's Environment Department, Environment Secretary Juan Rafael Elvira, Exequiel Ezcurra, director of research at the San Diego Natural History Museum].
The report also proposed "live" fences of cactuses, removable fencing, and more permeable barriers to allow water, insects and pollen to cross the border. Ecologists say species affected include Mexican jaguars and black bears, and the endangered, antelope-like Sonora Pronghorn...
Meanwhile:
A U.S. plan to expand fences along the Mexican border to stem illegal immigration is an insult to all Latin Americans, Argentine President Nestor Kirchner said Tuesday during a visit to Mexico.Related:
"It's not just an insult to our sister nation of Mexico, but to all the nations of Latin America and all the nations of the world," the leftist president said to the applause of Mexican lawmakers...
Houston Chronicle does part against border fence
NYT: Border fence to be built, jaguars hardest hit
Will far-left "environmentalists" block the border fence?
Marc Brenman/WSHRC goes round bend in support of illegal activity
Marc Brenman - executive director of the Washington State Human Rights Commission - offers "Reject messages of hate and fear". Ironically, the one offering the hate and fear is Brenman himself; getting out his Big Book of Bad Historical Things, he says:
Unfortunately, it seems like the Minutemen have made progress in some of our communities, including in Everett. The Minutemen rely on the use of hateful speech, the Big Lie, and fear of people who are different to corrupt and coarsen political dialogue, just as their Nazi forebears did. The so-called Minutemen, like their former fellow traveler Tim McVey, are precursors to domestic terrorism and vigilantism. The federal government is charged with enforcing the immigration laws of the United States. Let the federal government do its job, without "assistance" from gun-toting, self-appointed know-nothings.
I'll leave it to the Minutemen to decide whether he's crossed over the line into libel, but these are shocking words coming from the executive director of a state agency. As far as I know, that Minuteman chapter will only assist in enforcing our laws in a legal fashion, yet he's comparing them not just to the Nazis but to Timothy McVeigh (and he can't even get his name right to boot).
What if the rights of any of the Minuteman chapter members are violated by far-left illegal immigration supporters? Does anyone have any doubt about which side of the issue Brenman would be on? If someone made similar claims about groups that Brenman supports, wouldn't it consider it close to a hate crime?
Elsewhere in the article he switches between discussing immigrants in general and "undocumented immigrants" and promotes the economic benefits of the latter. He's thus trying to sell his readers on the benefits of illegal activity. At their site, they even have a prominent page listing what to do in the case of an immigration raid (hum.wa.gov/InCaseofRaids.html)
Washington governor Chris Gregoire appoints the members of the WSHRC council, so please send her your thoughts: governor.wa.gov/contact/default.asp
These state HRCs seem to be dumping grounds for far-left loons; for another example read up on Stephen Glassman of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
Mexican Tourism Ad (illegal immigration satire)
One of the companies that sells parodies to radio stations has put together a quite funny Flash animation satirizing illegal immigration in the form of an ad for Mexican tourism.
Since satire has occasionally been an effective tool against powerful forces, please send the link to your favorite politicians: link, backup.
Help Gregory Clark (UC Davis) reduce illegal immigration
Gregory Clark - professor of economics at UC Davis - offers "Illegal immigration: our best foreign aid":About 160 million people with incomes a fifth or less than the average U.S. income now reside less than 1,500 miles from our southern border. Given this huge income gap, more border agents and more miles of fence cannot prevent substantial illegal migration. But such migration is actually the United States' most effective foreign aid program, helping some of the poorest people in the world. Some believe such migration should be tolerated, not fought to the death. [...globalism - sold by people like Clark - increased the wealth gap between countries...] ...Across such a long border, more agents and better technology can slow the inward march of migrants, but it cannot halt it... ...In such a situation, recognizing that there will be some flow of labor across this wealth divide, and periodically legalizing those who manage to find their way to the U.S. labor market, is not a bad option...Of course, Clark forgot to mention one of the other ways that, if we did it, would greatly reduce illegal immigration: conducting stings against crooked employers and imprisoning them.
And, he goes on to promote remittances, without mentioning their huge downsides. Is he unable to figure those out, or don't the costs of massive political corruption and propping up corrupt foreign governments figure into this "economist's" calculations?
There's yet another way to reduce illegal immigration: discredit hacks like Gregory Clark by pointing out the things they forgot to mention.
Mitt Romney opposes "special" pathway to citizenship, emphasis on "special"
Mitt Romney is a real slippery eel when it comes to immigration, and neither professional "journalists" nor the citizen kind have so far been willing to find out what he actually supports. For example, parse the following ad he's running in Iowa very closely:
He doesn't want to give illegal aliens a "special" pathway, but the ad doesn't rule out giving them some sort of pathway, and until he says "no pathway under any circumstances" he's still supporting amnesty, no matter what he tries to call it. He even says that "people who are here illegally are going to have to get in line with everyone else", strongly implying that he supports an amnesty.
Please go to his campaign appearances and ask him to clarify whether he supports any form of legalization, regularization, status adjustment, or any other procedure that would allow current, in-country illegal aliens to change their status to legal immigrant or worker. (I think that should cover all the bases, but the eel might yet be able to slip free).
Carlos Gutierrez, Larry Craig get plaques from American Nursery and Landscape Association
From this:Attendees at the 2007 [American Nursery and Landscape Association] Legislative Conference visited approximately 250 House and Senate offices representing 40 states. Attendees visited Capitol Hill to lobby Congress for a solution to the labor and immigration crisis and to support specialty crop provisions in the 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization. Research funding and water policy were also addressed.Instead of sending bricks or toilet brushes, perhaps we should send plaques with sarcastic messages.
United States Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez [shown right receiving a plaque "in thanks for his work to secure comprehensive immigration reform"] and Senator Larry Craig (R-Idaho) [also got his own plaque] both addressed the attendees, encouraging them to maintain their efforts to achieve a necessary solution for securing a viable workforce for our country's agricultural and seasonal industries...
...Confirming the importance of continued lobbying, the very evening the conference concluded Senators Larry Craig and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) engaged in a 40-minute debate on the Senate floor in an attempt to introduce AgJOBS provisions, agricultural worker immigration reform, in response to anti-immigrant language introduced into the Farm Bill...
...The partners include ANLA, OFA (An Association of Floriculture Professionals), the Irrigation Association (IA), the Perennial Plant Association (PPA), ANLA’s Lighthouse Partner state associations, the Horticultural Research Institute (HRI), The National Christmas Tree Association (NCTA), and the National Association of Plant Patent Owners (NAPPO)...
Tennessee: lawsuit over disabled vet tasered at anti-illegal immigration rally
From this:
A civil lawsuit has been filed against the city of Morristown, Hamblen County [Tennessee], numerous police and deputies and other officials in U.S. District Court in Greeneville by Teddy Ray Mitchell, a disabled vet who is claiming various violations of his civil rights and for injuries he claims he received when he attempted to carry an American flag and a lawn chair into the location of an anti-immigration rally held last June in Morristown.
The brief complaint is here.
Lindsey Graham border security-only amendment did pass
Sen. Lindsey Graham's border security-only amendment did eventually pass:The contentious debate last month on a failed immigration overhaul plan was key to the Senate's approval of $3 billion that will tighten security along the nation's borders, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday.
The money will be used to hire border patrol agents, build fences in urban areas and erect observation towers, Graham said.
"I think we're going to find more success that could not have been achieved without the prior debate," Graham said. "I took some political heat for being involved in that process, but here's where the political payoff is."
...Graham will continue to push for votes on other pieces of the overhaul including:
- A tougher visa law that cracks down on people who stay in the U.S. illegally.
- A system keeping illegal immigrants from getting jobs and allowing more legal immigration for highly skilled and unskilled labor.
- Some means of addressing the estimated 12 million people now in the nation illegally...
Should Harold Koh continue as Yale Law School Dean?
If a law school dean - especially the dean of the Yale Law School - supports widespread illegal activity and public corruption, should they continue in their present role? Consider the following statements [1] from Harold Koh regarding the ID cards that New Haven, Connecticut is distributing to their residents (including illegal aliens):
"If you look on the coin, it says 'E Pluribus Unum' - so they're right on the money!" said Yale Law School Dean Harold Koh... before snapping a photo for his city ID. The Yale Law School, through professors Bob Solomon and Mike Wishnie and the Yale law clinics, has pledged to represent the city in any legal battle over the ID... Of those who oppose the plan, Koh said: "I'm not sure how their life is diminished by people being able to prove they're part of the city."
If he can't figure out the many problems with this ID, is he in any way qualified to be Yale's Law School Dean? If he can figure out the many problems but he's simply lying, isn't he just as unqualified?
Please write presidents.office *at* yale.edu and suggest they find a law school dean who supports our laws rather than supporting attempts to subvert them.
[1] newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/07/immigrants_line.php
Anthony Ramirez/NYT spins Morristown rally for illegal immigration supporters
You know the rule: if a politician commits a crime and his party affiliation isn't mentioned, that means he's a Democrat. Anthony Ramirez of the New York Times offers the corollary to that rule in "Unrest and Arrests at Immigration Rally", about an event that took place on Saturday in Morristown, New Jersey.All five of those arrested were counter-protesters who support illegal immigration. Despite having eight paragraphs to work with, Ramirez fails to explicitly note that. In fact, the only clue to the affiliations of some of those arrested comes from this:
In the most serious clash, a man threw two small metal cylinders at a pickup truck. When the driver of the truck and his female companion confronted the man, they were set upon by about 10 other men, said Lt. David Ackerman of the Morristown police.Most people will probably have tuned out by that point, and others who aren't paying attention won't realize that those who support illegal immigration were the ones arrested. And, there are still two more arrests that Ramirez doesn't cover, both from the illegal immigration-supporting side. And, even those paragraphs don't note that the ones who threw the cylinders were from the other side; some people might end up thinking it was a disagreement among those on the same side.
Three men were arrested and charged with assault, disorderly conduct and other charges. The rest fled, Lieutenant Ackerman said.
The woman was treated at Morristown Memorial Hospital, he said. The injured man had been one of the speakers at the rally, organized by the ProAmerica Society, which urges stricter enforcement of immigration laws...
Maybe the NYT could learn something about real reporting from their country cousins over at the Daily Record, who disclose the affiliations of those arrested in the third paragraph.
Please write Clark Hoyt with your thoughts: public *at* nytimes.com
Related:
Attacks on illegal immigration protesters
AP: Minuteman march turns violent
Los Angeles Times: Covering for Commies
Bill Richardson misleads on immigration (again, and again...)
Not content to simply lie about the border fence or to be a shill for the OAS, on June 12, 2007 Bill Richardson made two misleading statements about immigration:
1. He offered the now-standard "false choice" between a massive legalization plan (i.e., amnesty) and mass deportations. He forgot to mention a third choice: "attrition". Under that plan we'd enforce our current laws in order to encourage many illegal aliens to return home voluntarily.
2. He claimed that legalization was not amnesty, ignoring how any such plan will be perceived by millions and millions of people around the world. They will definitely see it as amnesty, and they'll come a-running to take part in either the current or a future amnesty.
Even Arlen Specter and the New York Times have admitted that it's amnesty; can't Bill Richardson reach even their low standards for telling the truth?
Rep. Luis Gutierrez still promoting immigration "reform" (and serf labor)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez ("El Payaso"; D-IL) offers "Congress should restart immigration reform process". Even his co-author of the STRIVE Act, Jeff Flake, says their bill is dead. But, whether he knows that and is just playing to his base or whether he actually thinks it has a chance, he's keeping on keeping on:As most people who are familiar with the legislative process understand, being against something is easy. Embracing heated political rhetoric is easy. Pandering to conservative radio hosts and playing into people's fears is easy.Talk radio sure got under their skin, didn't it? Note also that in this context, "immigrant" means "illegal alien", because that's who 'reform" is targetting. And, as he did before, Gutierrez is in effect supporting low-wage workers working in undesirable conditions.
You know what is not easy, and what was often overlooked during the debate, is the struggle and sacrifice of the immigrant who gets up at the crack of dawn each morning to go take care of someone else's kids, or the young father working the midnight shift on a cleaning crew, or the woman picking vegetables in oppressive heat for 12 hours a day. You know what is not easy is worrying each day that your husband will not come home from work or that you will be swept up in a raid and your U.S. citizen children will be left helpless and alone.
He goes on to mislead and display how he's not doing his job:
Let's start with Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). He is on record as saying "if it hurts the bill, I'm for it." Let's put aside the fact that he was trying to hurt our efforts to add thousands of additional border agents and create the most robust employment verification system in our nation's history, and that he was effectively advocating for the horrific status quo of porous borders, workplace discrimination and exploitation and the continued destruction of families.Obviously, the bill did much more than Gutierrez lists above, and those parts (the massive amnesty for instance) were what DeMint was opposed to. And, Gutierrez could do something about the negatives in the last sentence... by opposing illegal immigration. Instead, he supports illegal immigration, and I think we know why:
First, we must better organize and mobilize our immigrant community and our true allies. We need to redouble our efforts to naturalize immigrants, register them to vote and turn them out on Election Day. Immigrants will remember who stood with them for fairness and justice and will elect leaders and representatives who stand for border security, economic vitality and family unity.In brief, Democrat Luis Gutierrez is willing to put better working conditions and his oath to support our laws aside, just as long as he can get votes out of the deal.
WSJ: open the borders so hurling players can come here
No headline I can create would outdo the actual ones supplied by the Wall Street Journal and/or their crack writer Conor Dougherty:Hurling in America Has a Problem -- Too Few Irishmen/The Lure of the Old Sod And Immigration Issues Make for a Player ShortageIt goes on like that.
For five years straight, the Clan Na nGael sports club in Atlanta sent a team to the North American Hurling Championships. That ended a year ago: Try as it did, Clan Na nGael could muster only 12 players, and it takes at least 13 to make a team.
...Hurling -- a centuries-old sport that has elements of field hockey and lacrosse -- has an immigration problem. With the Irish economy booming and the U.S. tightening borders, Irish expatriates are returning home and fewer newcomers are taking their place...
Arlen Specter floats new amnesty plan (apartheid version) (Kyl)
From this:Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said he's floating a plan that would grant legal status to the nation's 12 million illegal immigrants, but offer no path to citizenship.And, here we thought it wasn't amnesty. What Specter proposes - even if it worked - would create a permanent group of "second-class citizens" akin to that in Germany. Even Lindsey Graham says "Europe has paid a heavy price for that stuff."
"It might be the equivalent of a green card," Specter said Thursday. "The main thrust is to bring the 12 million out of the shadows," and eliminate the fear of arrest or deportation.
Specter said conservatives who last month derailed a comprehensive immigration bill might accept his plan because it would not allow the 12 million to seek citizenship status.
"We litigated amnesty and that lost," Specter said...
But, it probably wouldn't work as planned, with new marches designed to give citizenship to those newly out of the "shadows". He also says he's been in touch with the Grand Bargainers including the White House.
UPDATE: Continuing the attempt to get amnesty after some initial window dressing, Senator Jon Kyl is also going to introduce a security-first bill in August.
UPDATE 2: From this:
"[Specter is] a fairly classic negotiator trying to figure out a way to square the circle," Kyl said. "He's good at that. He's come up with an idea. I'm just dubious he can pull it off right now."
National Guard border force to be halved; "private contractors" to augment Border Patrol?
From this:The number of National Guard troops posted near the southern border nationally and in Arizona will drop by half in September, but federal officials have assured Gov. Janet Napolitano that key personnel will remain... While those numbers will drop by half within the next couple of months, Napolitano said the drawdown will involve troops performing administrative duties, not those conducting surveillance and other security functions... "They're not moving Guard from actual observation posts," Napolitano said Wednesday. "What they're doing is removing people from back-office duties."Meanwhile, from July 7:
The U.S. Border Patrol could dramatically increase its presence on the nation's southern frontier by adding hundreds of private contractors [aka "mercenaries"] to its ranks, according to a proposal presented to Congress last month.
DynCorp International, a Virginia-based military security firm, said it could train and deploy 1,000 private agents to the U.S.-Mexico border within 13 months, offering a quick surge of law enforcement officers to a region struggling to clamp down on illegal immigration.
...So far, the idea has received a tepid response from officials at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, who say their hiring efforts are on schedule.
"That's not even something the Border Patrol would consider," said Ramon Rivera, a Washington-based spokesman for the agency. "We are on track (for hiring) and should be meeting our numbers for 2008."
But the proposal has gained early support from some Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., who introduced a bill last summer that would mandate the addition of 5,000 to 8,000 contract agents.
The bill died in committee, but Rogers may reintroduce it if the Border Patrol fails to meet its hiring goals, his staffers said...
Hazleton ordinance blocked by judge James Munley; ACLU wins for now
U.S. District judge James Munley (a Clinton appointee) has struck down Hazleton Pennsylvania's Illegal Immigration Relief Act, a big win for the ACLU, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government.
You can download the 200 page ruling in a PDF linked from either of these:
lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/07/breaking-news-p.html
aclupa.blogspot.com/2007/07/we-won.html
I just scanned the beginning, but the judge's arguments regarding the harm that the plaintiffs endured seem rather weak. For instance, the Lechugas complained about a police car parked outside their restaurant and said that played a part in it being shut down because people said it was there to take away their customers:
Lechuga blamed his lack of business on the City's activities. A police car was often parked across the street from the restaurant, and after a police officer paid a visit, "people began to comment that the police [were] there to take the clients away when they came to eat."
Should Hazleton be held responsible for such myth-making? Regarding Lechuga's first claim, see: ACLU's anti-Hazleton star witness admits myth-making.
Regarding a landlord plaintiff the judge says:
We disagree with the defendant that these injuries cannot be recognized by the law because they constitute a complaint about an inability to rent to illegal immigrants. The plaintiffs testified that they were unaware of the immigration status of their renters. No evidence, therefore, indicates that the renters they lost were illegal immigrants. Such tenants may have been legal residents who did not desire to live in a town that appeared (to them) to seek to exclude Spanish-speaking residents. Such tenants may also have concluded that they did not want to register with the town and provide private information to the City as a condition of residing there. Perhaps they found the fees required for a permit onerous. In any case, we will not assume that the renters plaintiff lost were necessarily illegal immigrants.
Bolding added. Once again, if they have such unjustified feelings, should Hazleton be held responsible? Should the judge strike down all other cases where residents of a town have to provide personal information, such as when obtaining a building, dog, or bike license? Those involve fees as well.
Hopefully this will be appealed and a higher court will have more sense.
I've pointed out many times before how you - yes, you - can resolve this issue: discredit those who support illegal immigration. If that's done, judges like Munley will just be far-left voices in the wilderness.
New Haven: John DeStefano has financial interest in illegal immigration?
As previously discussed, New Haven Connecticut is passing out ID cards to their residents, including illegal aliens. The program was designed by a current city employee who used to head up a non-profit organization (Junta for Progressive Action) that's collaborating with the Mexican government.
Now, it turns out that Mayor John DeStefano or others may have a financial stake in the matter. It involves DeStefano possibly going to work for a bank that was started to give loans to serve the low income "immigrant" community, and the bank was started with part of a "contribution" from another bank that wanted to change their charter. This is all just speculation, but it does need to be investigated.
7/29/07 UPDATE: From newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/07/immigrants_line.php
The [unnamed] group claims DeStefano will profit from the ID because he is on the board of directors at the First City Fund Corp, a $25 million fund formed as a benefit to the community when the New Haven Savings Bank got converted into NewAlliance Bank. The mayor said he would probably sit on the board of directors of the new community bank, which has agreed to let patrons open a new bank account using the Elm City ID... DeStefano dismissed the issue as a bogus argument veiling underlying bigotry. "There is no compensation whatsoever" to board members, he said. "[Protesters] are afraid to articulate their ignorance and their prejudice about this population, so what they do is they lie. They lie, and they cloak themselves in the American flag as they do it."
I'm sure we're all looking forward to one day seeing DeStefano doing the perp walk.
There's more on the bank here: newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/02/a_banker_a_drea.php
Harry Reid blocks Lindsey Graham's border security-first bill
No, you read the title correct: Lindsey Graham tried to tack on an amendment to a Homeland Security funding bill that would have provided $3 billion just to be spent on border security. Yes, that Lindsay Graham, the one who said there were no votes for enforcement-only. A list of the provisions is at [1]. Now Graham says:"Border security is the gate that you must pass through to get overall comprehensive reform."Just part of the wranglings are further described:
Democratic leaders were scrambling after the Republican senators announced their proposal. The leadership did not want to put its members in the position of having to vote against border security. But there were parts of Graham's amendment that Democrats could not accept, such as mandatory jail time for people who crossed the border illegally after having once been deported.Further wranglings involved Sen. John Cornyn.
At one point, Majority Leader Harry Reid offered an amendment to Graham's amendment that would have tacked on the Ag Jobs guest worker and legalization plan and the DREAM Act.
But in the end, Reid used a procedural maneuver to sideline the Republican amendment as well as his addition to it. He objected to the amendment because its provisions, he said, would be making legislative policy on a spending bill, something the Senate does not do.
The Senate voted 52-44 on that procedural vote. It would have taken 60 votes to make it possible to vote on the Republicans' measure...
UPDATE: See Lindsey Graham border security-only amendment did pass
[1] lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/07/republicans-int.html
LULAC, National Council of La Raza, "liberals", and the Fairness Doctrine
When the left-wing support for free speech meets racial power groups like the League of United Latin American Citizens and the National Council of La Raza, watch out. Consider:The nation's largest Hispanic advocacy group says it must come up with a strategy to combat "a wave of hate" its leaders say came from talk radio's efforts to sink the Senate's immigration bill.While they don't appear to have specifically come out for the Fairness Doctrine, a couple weeks before that event, Laura Elizabeth Morales of the Young Conservatives of Texas said:
"That had an extraordinary impact in the Senate, and as a nation, I don't think we should be comfortable with the fact that the United States Senate responded to what was largely a wave of hate," Cecilia Munoz, the National Council of La Raza's senior vice president for research, advocacy and legislation, told The Washington Times after meeting with NCLR affiliates to talk about a new strategy.
I talked with a spokesperson from the National Council on La Raza. When discussing the right wing's alleged anti-immigrant rhetoric she said:And:
"[The Fairness Doctrine] is a partial solution."
Domingo Garcia, the national co-chairman of the civil rights commission of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), announced at the group's annual convention last week that he has asked U.S. House of Representatives Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) to introduce legislation to re-regulate broadcasters through the "Fairness Doctrine."On a related note, from "Some in Congress pushing for reinstatement of Fairness Doctrine" (link):
"These are public airwaves and the public should be entitled to a fair presentation," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who is considering whether the Fairness Doctrine should be restored... in January, Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), who is running for president, announced that with Democrats back in the House majority, he planned to hold hearings on reviving the policy because media consolidation has made it harder for some voices to be heard... "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with the problem," said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.). And Sens. Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.) and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) said they favored restoring the Fairness Doctrine... Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey (D-N.Y.) said the rest of the media presented a balanced view of controversial issues, and the Fairness Doctrine would simply reimpose that requirement on talk radio... Hinchey is readying legislation to reinstitute the doctrine as part of a broad package of media ownership reforms.
Obama proud of "walking the walk" on supporting illegal immigration
Some senators just talk the talk on being supporters of massive illegal activity. Senator Barack Obama walks the walk and he's not afraid to point that out. Speaking at the convention of the extremist-funding National Council of La Raza yesterday, he said:
"Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year. Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk — because I walked [in the May 1, 2006 rally]...I didn't run away from the issue, and I didn't just talk about it in front of Latino audiences... [the recent 'debate' over the Senate bill] was both ugly and racist in a way we haven't see since the struggle for civil rights."
Now, here's a minor problem for B. Hussein Obama: the rally he marched in was organized by people linked to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties. Extensive documentation at the link, and a question that I strongly urge everyone to try to publicly ask Obama here.
Should U.S. Senators really be marching in rallies organized by those linked to foreign governments? Is Obama confused about which country signs his paychecks?
He also promised that if he were elected president he'd make sure and pass immigration "reform" during his first term. He also reiterated his support for the anti-American DREAM Act.
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama speak to extremist-funding National Council of La Raza
From this:Two top Democratic contenders in the presidential race are in South Florida to address the National Council of La Raza, the nation's largest Hispanic civil rights group.It does so much more: it also allows illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens.
Sunday morning, New York Senator Hillary Clinton told the gathering at the Miami Beach Convention Center, she would prefer to pass a comprehensive immigration bill that would provide a path to legalization for immigrants in the United States.
But, she was quick to add, there were some aspects of the current immigration reform proposal that she believes have a chance of passing on their own. For example, she pointed to the so called "Deam Act" that would help students who are brought to the U.S. as young children go to college and eventually become citizens.
Barack Obama may have already appeared this afternoon; others who spoke to the extremist-funding group included Florida governor Charlie Crist, Lee Scott (president of WalMart) and the right reverend Al Sharpton. Mitt Romney, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani were invited but had scheduling conflicts, or something. The NCLR is also kicking off a voter registration drive for immigrants; of course, if someone is eligible to vote they are technically speaking no longer and "immigrant".
UPDATE: From this:
Mrs. Clinton said she has been trying "to understand where all of the venom and the incredible anxiety came from" in the immigration debate."I am very disappointed, and I was really quite offended by the tone of the debate and some of what was said by outside parties who were trying to influence the debate," she said... "Until recently, I did not hear the kind of insecurity and opposition to bringing immigrants into American society as I hear today," she said, adding that when her husband was in office, "people were too busy getting a better future for themselves... They didn't talk to me about what was or wasn't on their minds about immigration..."Of course, unlike Obama's outright promise to pass immigration "reform" during his first term, Hillary would only promise her "best efforts." And:
In response to two audience questions, Mrs. Clinton would not promise to end large-scale raids on illegal aliens in the workplace, which have led to families being separated. Instead, she said she would ask her Homeland Security Department to target employers as well... "It is time they start going after the employers who abuse and exploit undocumented workers instead of just going after the workers themselves," she said... Mrs. Clinton spoke in an informal setting designed more like a late-night TV-interview set. Sitting in a red armchair, she first fielded soft questions from Monica Lozano, publisher and CEO of La Opinion, and then answered five questions from the audience.
Agrigeddon! WSJ says fewer cukes being grown this year
The Wall Street Journal offers "Immigration Non-Harvest" (PDF), which is designed to promote the AgJOBS amnesty. The tale is not to be taken seriously and is presented here only because it's so funny:
...This spring, labor shortages forced Michigan growers to leave asparagus rotting in the fields, while farmers in North Carolina lost nearly a third of their cucumber crop last year. They're growing fewer cukes this summer... Growers who can't find enough workers to pick cantaloupe and eggplant are already substituting row crops such as wheat, corn or soybeans that are more highly mechanized. The irony is that specialty crops are also the fastest-growing segment of agribusiness and the least subsidized by taxpayers. So the farm labor shortage could push growers toward government-subsidized crops that distort the world trading system...
Because, as we all know, illegal labor is completely free to the rest of us and isn't subsidized in any way.
...But a more heavily fortified southern border and government immigration raids have busted up this efficient North American labor market...
I would hope that most non-hack economists wouldn't consider a market that relies on massive political corruption to be a real market at all.
The resulting labor shortage is leading some employers to desperate measures. In upstate New York, dairy farmers have formed informal networks, so that when one farm is raided and loses workers, surrounding farms spare some of their own labor to help minimize the economic damage.
*cough* conspiracy charges *cough*
According to Tim Chelling of the Western Growers Association, whose 3,000 members in California and Arizona generate half of the nation's fresh produce, "there's a quiet exodus going on already, tens of thousands of acres and millions of dollars in economic activity."
Can he be trusted? Even if he's telling the truth should we really care? Could the exodus be a bit louder so we could show up to say good-bye to them?
If the U.S. can't import foreign workers to help harvest American farm products, the U.S. will have to import more foreign farm products harvested by foreign workers. Either that, or Americans will pay a lot more for fruits and vegetables as their supply shrinks. Blame Mr. Dobbs and Tom Tancredo the next time you're appalled by prices at the grocery.
I'm sure many of the readers of the WSJ have someone else do the shopping for them, and in any case no one who's serious thinks that restricting illegal labor would raise prices by any great amount. And, while there are certainly risks involved in importing food from other countries, perhaps moving production to where the cheap labor is rather than the other way around is the more natural and better way to do things.
Jeff Flake: STRIVE Act (House amnesty) doesn't have a prayer. But...
Some comments from Rep. Jeff Flake ("Smiley"; R-AZ) on the Flake-Gutierrez STRIVE Act (House amnesty) are here. Asked whether it has a chance:
Not a prayer. No, I just don't see the Democrats wanting to take it up. I mean with the Senate bill dead I just don't think there's going to be any serious comprehensive legislation to move. There may be some political statement legislation or some single elements go through... maybe [agriculture] jobs [AgJOBS] or something, but I just don't see comprehensive reform moving at all.
In a way, this is actually a bad thing: it's harder to push through something "comprehensive" like the Senate bill or the STRIVE Act, but it's easier to push through bits and pieces like AgJOBS or the DREAM Act.
David Gonzalez/New York Times on white power obtained through anchor babies
David Gonzalez of the New York Times has a shocking report on plans by some Irish and other white illegal aliens to gain political power in NYC through the use of anchor babies:
Lucky enough to be born in New York, Daisy and Sean are citizens, for whom voting and civic participation are a birthright and duty. They grew up as pint-size bilingual guides helping their parents understand what was happening at school meetings and visits to the doctor's office. They are active in a youth group at Hope of the Neighborhood, a local advocacy group that started out helping street vendors. And while they have to wait to cast their first ballots — Daisy is 17 and Sean 15 — they already feel a special responsibility to help their neighbors.
Of course, by "neighbors", Gonzalez is refering to illegal aliens from Ireland and other European countries. He is specifically not refering to all those who live in their neighborhood, just whites.
Robert C. Smith, a professor of public affairs at Baruch College who has extensively studied New York's white populations, estimated that the city's half-million Irish, German, and Polish could have as many as 150,000 children born in the United States. Another big chunk of children came to New York in the early 1990s, when they were reunited with parents who benefited from a 1986 amnesty law that made them legal residents, allowed them to bring their children here and put them on the path to citizenship. And many more are on the way right here, thanks to a rising birthrate... Currently, they are seeking to keep alive the Dream Act, federal legislation that proposes to offer tuition help and a path to citizenship to immigrant high school graduates.
It does so much more, including letting illegal aliens take college discounts from U.S. citizens, but Gonzalez appears to have forgotten about that minor point. The article goes on in a like vein, including this charming quote from an ethnic advocate:
"I had been thinking about this for a long time... We were just waiting for the time when their children could be able to vote. And we have a lot of children."
If I wanted to continue the charade - which everyone has no doubt by now seen through - I'd give that advocate a German name, perhaps even following his quote with "jawohl!" Except, that wouldn't be fair to modern-day Germans.
Of course, the article isn't about white/European illegal aliens; if it were the New York Times wouldn't have printed it, and an ethno-booster like David Gonzalez wouldn't have written it. In fact, the article is just about Mexican illegal aliens, with the latter quote from Joel Magallan of the Asociacion Tepeyac de New York.
If you'd like to suggest that the NYT does its own racial switcheroo in order to decide whether what they're promoting is on the up-and-up, please write the New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt at public *at* nytimes.com
Emma Lozano, Walter "Slim" Coleman are married
Here's something I did not know. Emma Lozano (of Chicago's Pueblo Sin Fronteras/Centro Sin Fronteras) is married to the Reverend Walter "Slim" Coleman. The latter is the pastor of the church where Elvira Arellano has sought "refuge" rather than abiding by a deportation order. Arellano and Lozano have together called for a "campaign of resistance" to prevent deportations of other illegal aliens.
That kind of puts Lozano's complaint about "small white led leftist organizations" interfering in the "immigrants rights movement" into a bit more of a questionable focus.
Book: "Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista"
From the SPLC* Review of Books comes news of a book called "Domestic Enemies: The Reconquista":
Now, courtesy of former Navy SEAL Matthew Bracken, comes the American version [of Camp of the Saints] - a portrait of the apocalypse Bracken fears will overtake America thanks to undocumented immigration from the south. The book is a fictionalized version of the Aztlan conspiracy theory - the idea that Mexico is secretly planning a "reconquista" (reconquering) of the seven states of the Southwest - that now animates large swaths of the anti-immigration movement. It's being plugged on extremist websites, in gun magazines and similar electronic venues, and on immigrant-bashing radio shows like Peter Boyles' program on KHOW-AM in Denver...
And, for completeness' sake, I'll plug it here too, despite not having read it.
* Note: The Southern Poverty Law Center is indirectly linked to the Mexican government.
Sens. Feinstein, Cornyn criticize Border Patrol agents prosection (Ramos/Compean)
Neither Feinstein (AgJobs) nor Cornyn (curious NAU-related legislation) are on the pro-borders side, so I'm not about to give them a medal for this, but:
Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein and other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee criticized the 12- and 11-year prison sentences given to ex-agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos, respectively. And they strongly questioned federal prosecutors' decision to charge the pair with using a weapon during the commission of a crime — a 10-year penalty that most often is used against drug dealers and other criminals, not law enforcement officers obliged to carry guns as part of their jobs... "This really is a case of prosecutorial ... overreaction in charging," said Feinstein.
A statement from Cornyn is here.
Jean Pfaelzer is what's scary about the immigration debate
Jean Pfaelzer - professor of English and American Studies at the University of Delaware - offers "What's Scary About the Anti-Immigration Debate" [1]. It's so over-the-top and full of lies that I'm trying to debate whether it's a parody. It doesn't even deserve much of a discussion, since it reads like the rantings of a Hollywood street person, albeit one who's a pathological liar:
...Hazleton's mayor told Sixty Minutes about a 70% rise in violent crime since Latinos came to town in 2001 (the correct number is 20 of 8,500 crimes). Farmers Branch, Texas said that the code would prevent terrorist attacks by purging its Latinos. One third of towns that passed the code are in unemployed areas of Pennsylvania--railroad towns that once sold anthracite coal, steel tubes, and carpets. Now they export Latinos... These gentlemen prefer blondes. The mayor wants Hazleton to remain 94.7% white. Last week in front of a burning cross the Ku Klux Klan and the American Nazi Party, recently defunct, announced to ABC Evening News that since they began assaulting, torching, and "bleaching" Latinos, membership has risen 40%...
The "bleaching" part refers to one incident from May. Somehow I doubt that even those groups admitted on camera that they systematically engaged in those practices. And, I'm pretty sure she's mischaracterizing the comments of Hazleton's mayor, Lou Barletta, as well as the comments from those in Farmers Branch. Shouldn't George Mason University's History News Network consider its credibility and at least verify a few of the things they publish?
Please send them an email and suggest they print a retraction of the various lies and mischaracterizations in her article: editor *at* historynewsnetwork.org
[1] hnn.us/articles/40316.html
Mike Huckabee immigration commercial (border fence, from a supporter)
There are a lot of junky homemade videos out there (I know, I've made a few), and I wish I could say the following takes the cake but I'm sure there are things even worse than someone making their own video in support of Mike Huckabee and his position on the border fence... and using Barbie and Ken dolls to do it.
I think they're actually serious, making it kinda sad too. In our world, the Huckster has some sort of connection to LULAC and Tyson Foods, and on a trip to Mexico he suggested to Vicente Fox that Mexico should open their next consulate in Little Rock. Needless to say, Mexico uses its consulates to support illegal immigration to the U.S., specifically their illegal aliens sending money home. If (in an alternate universe) the Huckster were elected president, he might even be worse than Bush, and if he did build the border fence it would just be for show.
The above is the only video from "SuperMikeHuckabee", who joined that site just yesterday. Hopefully the videos to come will be even worse.
The Travis Loller Horror: Illegal aliens in some states not able to get married without SSN!
I was weeping my eyes out by the time I got to the end of "Some Immigrants Denied Marriage Licenses" (WaPo)/"Law puts illegal immigrants’ weddings on hold" (MSNBC) by Travis Loller of the Associated Press. To think: some illegal aliens have to go to other states to get married because their home states actually require applicants for a marriage license to have a Social Security number. What is this world coming to?!?!? Thankfully, there are some states that don't have such rules, or that "turn a blind eye", nod nod wink wink. Why, did you know that there are even edge cases involving legal immigrants and even citizens? Just think about them (for they could be you!), not about the fact that this report was designed to support illegal immigration. Thankfully, the Associated Press has even included a charming photo of one prospective husband of an illegal alien who would be affected (if he can't simply drive to another state). Why, it's almost like I'm looking at a catalog trying to sell me on illegal immigration.
Someone please call Jorge Bustamante of the United Nations, I feel a human rights complaint coming on.
Rudy Giuliani: NYC didn't give sanctuary to illegal aliens (!?)
In a move reminiscent of the debate over the word "amnesty", Rudy Giuliani now appears to be claiming that New York City wasn't a sanctuary for illegal aliens on his watch. That's despite him suing the federal government to try to prevent them from overturning an executive order Ed Koch signed making it such a sanctuary and his support for that order. Get out your Clintonian Parsing Handbook and follow along:At a town hall-style meeting with about 100 voters at a technical college in Concord on Tuesday, Giuliani encountered a voter who asked why the former mayor made "New York City a sanctuary for illegal aliens."
"You must be talking about another candidate," said Giuliani, who went on to argue that his administration urged the federal government to deport as many illegal immigrants as possible.
"Here are the three areas that you have distorted into this view that I gave sanctuary to illegal immigrants," said Giuliani, turning his back on the voter and addressing the other voters, seated on couches and loveseats around him.
He said that, as mayor he had to make sure that all kids went to school, that everyone needed access to hospitals and that illegal immigrants needed to be able to inform the police about crimes without fear of deportation.
"That's why you are wrong," said Giuliani.
"As mayor of New York City," he said. "If I was nothing else, I was rational and sensible."
WFMOJALI: Curt Thompson tells illegal aliens to stay in Georgia, get involved
The fourth installment of "Working for Mexico, or Just Acts like it?" continues with Georgia state senator Curt Thompson, who recently wrote an opinion piece for a Hispanic publication in which he told illegal aliens to remain in his state: they should "stay calm, stay put and get involved". Because he refers to voting and also to "immigrants" - without once using even a euphemism like "undocumented" - it's unclear to whom his remarks are directed exactly.
However, since his discussion revolves around recently-passed Georgia laws SB 529 and SB 38, both of which were designed to reduce illegal immigration and as far as I know have no impact on the legal variety, it's clear that he is in fact encouraging illegal aliens to remain in his state.
In the piece he engages in the usual name-calling and compares legalizing illegal aliens to the Civil Rights movement. He also encourages Latinos to vote; while in that case he could be speaking only of those who are eligible to vote, I tend to be a bit suspicious. Perhaps everyone would be better off if Thomson would make it clear whether he supports illegal aliens or non-citizen immigrants voting and whether he only wants legal immigrants to "stay calm, stay put and get involved".
Whether Thompson is far-left, an opportunist, or something else isn't known, but he has made at least three appearances with former Mexican consul general Teodoro Maus, someone who's been very active in supporting illegal immigration in that state. Thomson appeared at a news conference with him, at another event, and also appeared at an illegal immigration march with him (as well as with Pedro Marin.)
Chris Gregoire: down with border fence, up with serfs
Yesterday, Washington governor Chris Gregoire took a new direct flight from Seattle to Mexico City and:
criticized the construction of a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border and lamented the U.S. Congress' failure to approve an immigration reform bill... She said her state's agricultural industry would greatly benefit from an immigration reform bill... "If we don't have immigration reform ... Washington state will suffer," Gregoire said, adding that a shortage of workers last year forced apple growers to leave part of their crop on their trees.
Mexico-linked Peter Schey advises new sanctuary movement, helps prosecute BP agent
Emily Bazar of USA Today offers "Illegal immigrants find refuge in holy places", all about the "new sanctuary movement" in which churches take in illegal aliens in an example of far-left false compassion. She writes:
But Peter Schey, the lawyer advising the sanctuary movement and president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, says the churches are within the law. He advises congregations that they're not guilty of harboring if the immigrants aren't in hiding and have active cases pending to legalize their status.
What she fails to note is that Schey has at least three links to the Mexican goverment.
Nicholas Riccardi of the Los Angeles Times - in addition to refering to illegal aliens as "immigrants" - does the same in "Border Patrol shooting underscores peril on both sides":
Peter Schey, executive director of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law in Los Angeles, represents the three witnesses to the shooting [of an alleged illegal alien by Border Patrol agent Nicholas Corbett near Bisbee, Arizona], and said that a more restrained Border Patrol might be a good thing... "Violence along the border is an epidemic, and it's not just the smugglers," Schey said. "It's also the Border Patrol themselves. They're just extremely quick to use deadly force."
Other "reporters" who've failed to note Schey's links include: Randal Archibold, Teresa Watanabe, Peter Prengaman, and Martha Mendoza.
Returning to the "new sanctuary movement" article:
It is illegal to harbor illegal immigrants or shield them from detection, says Charles Kuck, president-elect of the [American Immigration Lawyers Association]. Penalties include stiff fines and prison sentences. Providing shelter to an illegal immigrant could be interpreted as breaking that law, he says. "If I were going to advise a church, I would tell them not to do this."
And, of course, Emily Bazar acts only as a transcriptionist and fails to question what she's told:
"We don't accept a broken law that causes separation of families," says Richard Estrada, an associate pastor at Our Lady Queen of Angels Catholic Church in Los Angeles. "We will protect families, those in danger of being separated... We're doing what we think is the right, moral thing to do."
The laws aren't "broken", and what's causing the "separation of families" is people coming here illegally and expecting it to work out OK. And, I'm sure lots of people have mistakenly thought they were doing the "right, moral thing" when in fact they were making the situation far worse.
Anti-"gringo" animosity on Piolin's illegal immigration bus tour
Radio host Eddie "Piolin" Sotelo recently traveled in a bus caravan across the U.S. in support of immigration "reform", aka a massive amnesty for illegal aliens. It culminated in he and Teddy Kennedy falsely claiming that boxes contained a million letters in support of their efforts, when in fact the boxes were empty. A few days later, Teddy Kennedy broke into song.Someone named Tim Paynter and claiming to be a lawyer from Wheat Ridge, Colorado apparently tried to join the caravan and was subjected to anti-"Gringo" animosity and was suspected of being an infiltrator. I don't know whether he's a completely sincere useful idiot or whether he was indeed there to make them look bad, but he did make them look bad in any case. A Hispanic newspaper wrote the following account:
The national Reporter had the opportunity to know Tim, "a man dedicated to his profession and mainly to serve the Latin community", expressed Doctor Antonio Flores, publisher of this newspaper. "many Hispanic people have come into our offices to complain about the abuse against them or their relatives because of the simple fact of being undocumented”. “We have sent these people to Tim so that he can help them in their immigration problems or offer direction to them”, indicated to doctor Flores.If you have a strong stomach and you'd like a disturbing tour inside the mind of a useful idiot - or if you're interested in hearing about his experiences with Piolin and his friends - read that and the other entries.
The national Reporter, roundly denies that Mr. Paynter has some type of relation with the organization of the "Minuteman".
In spite of his color, of his race, Paynter strongly supports immigration reform for all those who, with great sacrifice, manage to arrive in this "land of opportunities".
But, in spite of his activism with the Latin community, Tim also has felt discrimination in his hands. Recently, after joining the caravan organized by the radio personality Eduardo 'Piolin' Sotelo, the lawyer was accused and presumed a member of the "Minuteman", and was expelled from the march to Washington, with the allegation Tim had infiltrated the caravan to give integral details to anti immigrant groups...
Esther J. Cepeda: towns enforcing immigration laws could lead to "neighborhood lynchings"
The column here ("Beginning of the end?/Towns across America are taking illegal immigration control into their own hands — with frightening results. What's next? Neighborhood lynchings?") is pretty jaw-dropping even for Chicago Sun-Times ethno-booster and "reporter" Esther J. Cepeda:
...Towns across the country are so intent on controlling illegal immigration in their backyards, they're taking matters into their own hands... Take Panama City Beach, Fla., where the cops have taken to pulling up to construction sites with sirens blaring, chasing down and arresting those who run. I guess the regard for basic human dignity doesn't apply there... The sheriff has proven it's OK to terrorize certain community members, so how long until the first lynching? How long until it's commonplace for Hispanic immigrants to be murdered in the name of immigration law enforcement while neighbors cluck, "But they were illegal"?
Via this by Dave Gorak (ST contact info at the link), which describes how he appeared on a panel moderated by her and featuring the Mexico/Western Union/Blagojevich-linked Juan Salgado of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights.
Alan Bjerga/Bloomberg propaganda: wheat farmers want cheap foreign labor
For years, newspapers have been printing outright propaganda pieces with growers complaining that unless they get cheap foreign labor crops will rot in the fields. However, Alan Bjerga of Bloomberg offers a new twist: this time it's wheat farmers doing the whining ("U.S. Wheat Farmers Face Grim Harvests as Immigration Bill Dies", link). In the article he takes everything those farmers say at face value, and, if he asked them why they don't simply raise their rates it's not noted:[Thomas Murphy, an Irishman who leads a crew of combine operators from the U.K.]'s crew and 2,500 other skilled, legal immigrants who come from places such as South Africa, Australia and New Zealand to cut grain are among the most productive workers in the U.S., gathering one-third of all the wheat in a $7.7 billion market.People say lots of things. A real reporter tries to find out whether they're telling the truth or not. Bjerga does not.
That's why farmers and the companies that hire the crews say Congress's failure last week to overhaul the immigration laws will heighten an already intense labor shortage by preventing them from importing more of the English-speaking workers, even as the need for them grows. That may lower crop yields, raise food prices and force some growers out of business, they say.
"You'll have labor that simply doesn't get done," U.S. Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns said in a June 28 interview after the Senate rejected the legislation. "We have a system that doesn't work very well, so they're really struggling."Obviously, if Alan Bjerga were a real reporter and not simply a paid propagandist he would have tried to find out the impact of those harvesters raising their rates in order to attract U.S. workers.
...Grain-cutters say they need more of the skilled workers: Their understaffed crews are falling behind in the harvest, leaving crops vulnerable to disease and weather. The wheat harvest was 40 percent complete as of July 1, compared with 62 percent at the same time in 2006, the U.S. Department of Agriculture says. That's mostly because of poor weather.
...U.S. wheat was worth more than the labor-intensive output of grapes, tomatoes and apples combined in 2006, according to the USDA.
...[The H2A visas they use] require employers to buy newspaper and radio advertisements to prove that efforts to hire domestic workers were unsuccessful. That slows hiring and increases costs. Once a foreign worker arrives, the employer must pay the government-set prevailing wage and provide free housing.
...[The AgJobs part of the Senate bill] would also have eased ad requirements, reduced paperwork that delays visas, and permitted employers to give workers housing allowances rather than housing, saving costs.
...Tight job markets in Plains states, where unemployment runs below the rest of the U.S., also make domestic recruitment difficult, as does the seasonal, itinerant nature of harvest work, Baker said.
...For that, a worker bunks with crewmates in a mobile trailer for free while seeing the U.S. heartland on net pay of about $1,800 per month. The high-quality, low-cost labor "keeps costs down and keeps the producer profitable, which keeps the U.S. competitive in the world market," said Kenneth Hobbie, who heads the U.S. Grains Council, a Washington-based group that represents Archer Daniels, Cargill and other companies.
"Any American who would be good at this can find something with better hours and holidays off," [a harvester] said...
Stop Racism CA: Unite (with Home Depot) Against Racism!
Who could be opposed to a fine, upstanding site like StopRacismCA.com?Thank you for visiting StopRacismCA.com. We are a state-wide organization that is looking to stop all forms of hate and racism. We are confronted daily with politicians, policies and individuals who are trying to take our state backwards not forward. It is our mission to promote peaceful solutions to stopping racist actions by our government and elected leaders. We are dedicated to reducing hate crimes and prejudice in our neighborhoods.Sounds great, think I'll sign up! Oh, wait, what's that link to a Daily News article [1] they've so helpfully provided? What? It details how residents of the Los Angeles neighborhood Sunland-Tujunga have been fighting against a Home Depot moving in to their area and:
...Organizers originally hired by a public relations firm working for Home Depot say they have independently launched a campaign to expose what they say is rampant racism in the opposition of the big-box home store.[1] stopracismca.com/frame_article_e.php, "Racism charges fuel battle over Home Depot" by Kerry Cavanaugh, 6/6/07
...Daniel Haro said he witnessed blatant racism as he canvassed Sunland-Tujunga to drum up support for the store. About a month ago, he quit his job with Dakota Communications, a public relations and lobbying firm representing Home Depot, to start Stop Racism...
...Home Depot and Dakota Communications said they have no affiliation with Stop Racism, though both acknowledge the organizers were previously paid employees working on behalf of the home improvement chain.
"This organization is not related to Home Depot in any way and they are not employed by Home Depot," said Home Depot spokeswoman Kathryn Gallagher...
Related:
Home Depot, Antonio Villaraigosa, Fernando Guerra, and Microsoft
Los Angeles City Council approves illegal alien day laborer hiring hall
Atwater Village to Home Depot: stop the invasion!
What are they teaching Public Policy/Administration students? (NASPAA,MPA/MPP awards)
What I call - and no doubt you will call - one of the World's Dumbest, Saddest, and Most Pathetic Videos has just won the 'MPA/MPP You Tube Public Policy Challenge: Change the World in 1 Minute' contest. The contest was sponsored by the "National Association of Schools of Public Affairs and Administration" (NASPAA, naspaa.org), and the MPA/MPP stands for "Masters of Public Administration/Masters of Public Policy".
The video in question is here; it's called "Crossing Lines: Immigration Reform in America" and the author is Jon Hickey, who's a Masters of Public Administration student at the "Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington in Seattle". In other words, he's in graduate school, not the 2nd grade as you might first suspect.
I'm stunned at how stupid the video is, and I even feel a bit embarassed for everyone involved, even including Youtube's Steve Grove, shown here kicking off the contest.
The video's argument is so self-evidently faulty that I am honestly surprised that no one pulled anyone involved aside and told them that, for instance, there are billions of people worse off than "Carlos". And, one would think something calling itself "public policy" would be able to understand the role the Mexican establishment plays in their current situation and instead of supporting that support reform.
From naspaa.org/youtubechallenge/index.asp:
Hickey also tried to be creative and different and chose to create his video by color cartoon instead of filming real people or places.
Yeah, I do that too, but at least I have a real argument.
These were the judges:
Kathryn Newcomer, President of NASPAA
Chris Wolz, MPA & Founder of Forum One Communications
Jeremy Bronson, Producer with Chris Matthews 'Hardball' on MSNBC
Someone please tell me this is a prank or something.
Progressives: urge Clinton, Obama, Richardson, Edwards to support Elvira Arellano's "campaign of resistance"
Dear fellow progressives:Elvira Arellano - the undocumented person from Mexico currently seeking sanctuary in The Right Rev. Walter "Slim" Coleman's church in Chicago to avoid being deported and separated from her U.S.-born son - has issued a call to a "campaign of resistance". I urge all fellow progressives to not only heed the call, but to encourage the Democratic candidates to join with her in her struggle. Please go to campaign appearances by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards and urge them to at least support Arellano, and perhaps even her "campaign of resistance" if we're lucky.
You can read her declaration here:
Hours after the Senate voted against advancing the immigration reform project, the Mexican activist Elvira Arellano announced a campaign of resistance against the U.S. government.The above is an English translation of the Spanish version of an article at the site of the La Raza Newspaper (laraza.com/news.php?nid=44792). The article is marked as coming from EFE and what's left off from the above version is a call for a "hate moratorium" and for Lou Dobbs' show to be canceled.
In a written statement, the leader of the movement Familia Unida (United Family) said that "if the Democrats and the Republicans cannot summon the courage to fix the broken law we will not sit quietly and see our families and our children cut to pieces on the broken pieces of that broken law."
She demanded an immediate moratorium on all raids and deportations.
Arellano... said [presumably August 15] would be the deadline the government will have to "revive and pass a comprehensive immigration reform."
Otherwise, pro-immigrant organizers will begin a campaign "aimed at bringing this government and this economy to a halt."
Representatives from the Centro Sin Fronteras and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights [press release link] also announced this morning they were prepared to take "economic actions" against corporations that support anti immigrant legislators and programming.
Also, a massive concentration of families and children is scheduled for July 17 in Washington D.C. to "confront the leaders of both parties and the President."
Unfortunately, elviraspeaks.com is still "Bajo Construcction", so we have to turn to this Centro Sin Fronteras page to read more about the movimiento.
At that page - authored by Emma Lozano of Centro/Puebla Sin Fronteras and Elvira Arellano - they discuss how their struggle will continue even after an amnesty passes, they demand full legalization for almost all undocumented persons (quite a concession, since there are apparently some who would be rejected), complain about "small white led leftist organizations" interfering in the people's struggle, discuss the "the militancy of resistance", and say:
We have asserted that our demand to be here and to be fully enfranchised here is a right not a privilige and a destiny of our people to transform this nation.Note to fellow progressives: we did Manifest Destiny, so what they want to do is OK.
They also sound a bit like Dick Morris, the New York Times, and the Democratic/GOP leadership:
Our message of attack is simple: the republicans are anti-family and their proposed system of labor is racist. Our lever of power is simple: Latinos will not vote for republicans. – or democrats that do not vote with us. We will vote against all republicans and will run independent candidates against democrats who oppose us.
UPDATE: I earlier misidentified Walter "Slim" Coleman as 'Walter "Slim" Whitman'. I apologize to the country singer with whose name I got his mixed-up.
Ruth Morris, Elizabeth Baier/Sun-Sentinel also concerned re amnesty hurting GOP with Latinos
What a coincidence it is as Ruth Morris and Elizabeth Baier of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel offer "Hispanic voters could make GOP pay for defeat of immigration legislation". If you've already read today's highly similar article from Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times, you probably don't need to bother:With the Senate immigration bill dead and buried, political activists say their next battle will be at the ballot box, where Republicans risk losing hard-earned votes among Hispanic immigrants...Yep, Blut is definitely thicker than what's best for the country.
"Hispanics are not going to forget," said Jorge Mursuli, national executive director of Democracia Ahora, a Hispanic advocacy group active in voter registration drives...
"This is about their mothers or their kids or their best friend," Mursuli said. "It will be with them every single day, up to the ballot box." ..."It hurts me to see all the people who are struggling to be here," [a nobody] said. "I'm Hispanic. I support any reform that helps other Hispanics ... We're all very united."
From a related story:
"Whatever political gain people think may have come out of this vote will be short-lived, especially in light of the growing and increasingly energized Latino electorate," [Janet Murguia, president and chief executive officer of the National Council of La Raza] said. "In the long run, legislators should and will be held accountable for not moving a solution forward."
Jennifer Steinhauer/NYT frets massive illegal alien amnesty may have hurt GOP with Latinos
Concern troll/"reporter" Jennifer Steinhauer of the New York Times offers "After Bill's Fall, G.O.P. May Pay in Latino Votes". It's highly similar to and just as wrong as other such articles and pronouncements from Dick Morris and others. Consider:Yet in terms of the politics of perception, Hispanics may have been deeply alienated by the heated rhetoric that wound around the axle of the debate, most of it stemming from a few Republican opponents and the loud echo chamber of talk radio.1. The Sessions quote is not only factually accurate, I have trouble seeing anything inflammatory about it. If some have a problem with that quote, perhaps Steinhauer should have pointed out the great possibility that the problems lies with them.
"The tone of the debate, and the way it was framed in sort of an 'us against them' way, has done great harm in wooing Hispanics to the party," said [Linda Chavez], who was the director of the United States Commission on Civil Rights under Reagan.
For example, Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama, a leading opponent of the measure, at one point in the debate, said, "The bill would provide amnesty and a path to citizenship for people who broke into our country by running past the National Guard."
2. The "tone of the debate" was scurillously lowered by sleazy people like Chavez. Instead of pointing out that being opposed to massive illegal immigration or even massive legal immigration from one particular country isn't necessarily anti-Hispanic, Chavez did the opposite, implying that all those opposed to the Senate's bill were racists. The poisonous rhetoric coming from inside the supporters camp is not even alluded to in the entire article.
3. The article doesn't cover whether it's a good idea for the U.S. to in effect turn its immigration policy over to those from one particular country or region.
4. The article assumes that all Hispanics think alike and all are supporters of amnesty. Shouldn't the GOP fight against such Gramscian - and now Democratic Party - concepts? That isn't covered.
5. The article completely fails to note the endless string of horrible provisions in the Senate bill, and that many of those who helped quash it did so because they realized how bad it was and the damage it would do to the U.S.
6. The article says "some [Democrats] held views similar to the Republican opponents of the bill" but doesn't apply its steely analysis to whether this would hurt them in the same way that opposing the bill supposedly hurts the GOP.
In brief, Jennifer Steinhauer is simply a bi-partisan hack, supporting those among the Democratic and Republican leadership who put their own interests ahead of the interests of the U.S.
Please write the New York Times ombudsman at public *at* nytimes.com
UPDATE: Odd! Ruth Morris and Elizabeth Baier of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel have similar concerns for the GOP.
Senator Mel Martinez: revive illegal immigration amnesty in the House (recall petition!)
Speaking at a meeting of the Mexico-linked National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), Republican Party chairman and Senator Mel Martinez said he wants to revive the Bush/Senate massive illegal immigration amnesty scheme, this time starting in the House.Short answer: see this recall petition.
Longer answer:
[He] challenged [opponents of a massive legalization of illegal aliens] to come up with a solution beyond "just build a fence along the border."Then, he yelled, "arghhhhh!" But, seriously, about the only difference between what he said and what Howard Dean would say is that Dean is marginally saner.
"The voices of negativity now have a responsibility to come up with an answer," RNC Chairman and U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla. said.
"How will you fix the situation to make peoples' lives better? How will you continue to grow the economy? How will we bring people out of the shadows for our national security and for the sake of being a country that is just?" he demanded...
By failing to act, the Senate also tied law enforcement's hands, Martinez said...
"We're going to have a hodgepodge of local laws. We will have cities that will declare themselves sanctuary cities. And then we will have others that will make it a felony simply to rent to illegal immigrants."
Note: the link is a report from Laura Wides-Munoz who, as could be expected, does not disclose that NALEO has a link to the Mexican government.
Senator Lindsey Graham: there are no votes for enforcement-only
From this:
"The only way we're going to get Ag jobs or DREAM Act" or pathways to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, [Sen. Lindsey Graham] said, "is to do it together. This idea of 'Just do the enforcement,' there are no votes for that."
Democrats next immigration move: pass AgJobs, anti-American DREAM Act
Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer issued the following release regarding the failed Bush-Kennedy-Senate immigratiom amnesty bill [1]:"I decided to vote yes on cloture today because I felt that if the policies in this bill were carried out properly, the result would be a strengthening of our border security, the rescue of our agriculture industry, and the acknowledgment that hardworking undocumented immigrants should have a path to legality if they follow the tough rules we have set out... As we move forward, I hope that the Senate will work to immediately pass the non-controversial pieces of this bill such as increased funding for border security, the AgJobs program, and the Dream Act... We also need to legislate a fair way to deal with the 12 million undocumented workers who have become an important part of California's economy and the economy of the country."As pointed out here many times, the DREAM Act is one of the most anti-American pieces of legislation ever devised: among other things, it allows foreign citizens who are here illegally to take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens. It is only "non-controversial" because the MSM continually fails to note its downsides; moreover, there have been numerous propaganda pieces printed about it.
In fact, here's Charles Babington of the Associated Press parroting the lines from not just Boxer but corrupt growers:
...A priority [going ahead] for many farm groups is the "Ag jobs" component, one of several programs now needing a new legislative vehicle. It would legalize about 1 million undocumented agricultural workers in the U.S., a key goal of growers whose crops can rot in the fields if not harvested at key times by people willing to work hard at low wages.He did good work, promoting not just one but two of Boxer's themes as fact rather than the opinion of some. Note also that at her site [2], Hillary Clinton trumpets the DREAM Act:
The program is considered relatively popular, as is another piece of the stalled bill: the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act...
...Some lawmakers said they hope Congress will enact such programs as stand-alone bills fairly soon. Others, however, said it will be difficult to pass even noncontroversial parts by themselves.
I am proud of America's commitment to welcoming immigrants. We are all immeasurably enriched by the contributions of immigrants who have come to this country to find the American dream through their hard work. That's why I led efforts for the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, championed the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act, and co-sponsored the DREAM Act, which makes it possible for hardworking young people to attend college. These measures recognize that all America is strengthened when immigrants have access to health care and education that will enable them to become fully participating members of our society.[1] boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=277970
[2] clinton.senate.gov/issues/immigration/
NPR: "Mexican Migration Robs Towns of Youth, Future"
From NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (link):
The exodus of Mexicans across U.S. borders is depleting whole villages of the young and the able, leaving small, broken communities behind. A recent study shows more than half the municipalities in 10 Mexican states are seeing falling populations. One of them is Guanajuato, which has one of the highest rates of migration in Mexico...
An NGO is trying to reverse the trend; perhaps those who support illegal immigration out of false compassion might consider helping groups like that rather than helping Mexico avoid its responsibilities to its own people.
Tavis Smiley/PBS Democratic debate has no immigration questions at all
Yesterday, Tavis Smiley of PBS hosted the "The All-American Presidential Forums" featuring all the Democratic candidates:
Inspired by the book the Covenant with Black America, The All-American Presidential Forums on PBS marks the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color was represented in primetime. Many of the questions that were asked of the candidates focus on key domestic priorities that were originally outlined in the book.
And, their front page [1] includes 10 main topics, one of them being immigration. On that page [2] they post an inflammatory and false comment from Maria Elena Salinas, Univision Anchor:
"There's so many cities out there where you have thousands of people that are immigrants that are saying, 'enough is enough. We are tired of this immigrant bashing and this dialogue that seems more like a monologue instead of a debate on immigration.'"
That's followed by a no doubt hand-picked set of six comments, all opposed to illegal immigration.
Despite that, there is not a single instance of "immig*" in the entire transcript (link). I guess some topics are more difficult than others.
[1] pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums
[2] pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/issues/immigration.html
Howard Dean supports failed Senate bill, blames Bush
Trotting out his stock lines, Howard Dean says:"Today's immigration vote is a reminder of why the American people voted Republicans out in 2006 and why they'll vote against them in 2008. After using the immigration issue to inflame people with divisive rhetoric, the Republican Party, led by President Bush, had neither the capital nor the political will to work with Democrats on a reasonable compromise that would have delivered on the promise of immigration reform. The Republican election year strategy to scapegoat immigrants to win elections not only backfired in 2006 but today reveals a fractured party in disarray.He is, in essence, blaming Bush and the corrupt GOP Senators who supported the bill of the same things they blamed the GOP base for. And, he's supporting a bill that less than a quarter of Americans supported.
"Senator Reid and the Democratic leadership in Congress deserve a lot of credit for listening to the American people, for listening to the experts, and after participating in countless hearings, fighting to work in a bipartisan manner to deliver a comprehensive immigration reform package that would be tough and restore order to the border, but would also be smart and practical. Today's vote doesn’t end the immigration debate. It’s an issue that won’t go away. It was, however, a failure to address what’s needed at our borders, and it fails to address 12 million immigrants, most of whom are hard working and law abiding, and who will not go away by virtue of Republican obstructionism. Democrats will continue to look for ways to address the issue. The American people deserve better, and America is capable of better."
Obviously, the only way to face up to people like Dean is to take them head on and point out their lies and misleading statements. Bush and the GOP leadership tried to make nice, and we see where that got them.
Bush/Kennedy/Senate illegal immigration amnesty fails; what now?
The Bush/Kennedy/Senate illegal immigration amnesty has gone down to ignominious defeat, a major victory for the - dare I say it - American side. Bush's brief remarks are here: whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070628-7.html
Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress's failure to act on it is a disappointment. The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find a common ground -- it didn't work.
However, to get the full flavor of his disappointment, you need to see him say that. I'm sure he feels bad, but at least he can take solace in the fact that he did fulfill his pledge to the Mexican government to work as hard as he could.
The final roll call is here. I wouldn't necessarily take someone voting No to mean that they're on the right side: they might have just decided to be on the winning side.
What might happen now is that the same forces behind the Grand Compromise might decide to push the Flake-Gutierrez plan in the House; expect that to be even tougher for them.
Expect this to be spun as a defeat for a legacy-seeking Bush. If we work hard at it, it might be possible to present it more accurately as a victory of the American people against a corrupt elite composed of both the GOP and Democratic leadership as well as the media, racial power groups, religious leaders, and others.
And, as always, I urge everyone to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions designed to reveal the facts about this matter.
Jeff Zeleny/NYT: Conservative talk radio listeners menace Senate over immigration
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times offers the sleazy "Immigration Bill Prompts Some Menacing Responses", an attempt by that paper to portray those opposed to an illegal alien amnesty as violent thugs. It discusses how a few pro-amnesty Senators have received what they claim to be threats, but it only provides one excerpt from such a message and hearsay on another and it provides no count of the number of threats. And, based on their past statements it's hard to trust what these Senators (or the NYT) say. It also discusses how the volume of calls has greatly increased due to this issue but fails to note that statistically speaking the more calls, the more threats. And, it fails to note the strong possibility that Senators have been threatened on other occasions; in fact there is probably a steady stream of such threats regardless of what legislation is being considered. Everything supposedly told the "reporter" is presented at face value; I might say that he completely fails to wonder whether these Senators might actually be selling him a bill of goods, but the fact of the matter is that he's a shill who's in on the game.
It also falsely implies that all the calls against the bill came from conservatives:
Republicans who support the immigration bill are facing unusually intense opposition from conservative groups fighting it. This is among the first times, several of them said, that they have felt the full brunt of an advocacy machine built around conservative talk radio and cable television programs that have long buttressed Republican efforts to defeat Democrats and their policies.
Then, of course, Senator Lindsey Graham gets a chance to play the martyr:
"There's racism in this debate... Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally... One of the requirements of public service in modern America is dealing with a few voices that are full of hate... And our discourse and the way we politic, the way we engage each other, brings that out."
Oddly enough, the piece doesn't mention blogs, concentrating on TV and, especially, talk radio:
Several senators said Wednesday that they did not care to be identified speaking critically of the broadcasters, fearing the same conservative backlash that befell Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, this month when he declared: "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."
Brooks Jackson of FactCheck, fact checked (Newt Gingrich on Senate amnesty)
Brooks Jackson, Emi Kolawole & Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org offer "Gingrich Distorts Immigration Bill". It needs its own fact-checking, which I'll be happy to provide; this isn't the first time I've noticed that FactCheck.org tends to distort immigration matters, although I don't appear to have posted about the past instance.
In the current case, FactCheck has at least two issues: a) strictly and thus incorrectly defining amnesty, and b) failing to note that they and Gingrich are discussing different versions of the bills and failing to read the bill in its entirety.
Regarding b), they say:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made false claims about the Senate immigration bill in a TV ad for a conservative group. He said it "will put...potential terrorists and gang members on a path to U.S. citizenship," which is contrary to the language of the legislation... Actually, the bill grants authority to deport any alien who "at any time has participated in a criminal gang." And as for terrorists, the measure also gives the government authority to deny temporary visa status to an illegal alien if "there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States."
First, they're discussing apples and oranges, in this case different versions of the bill. They link to S.1639 (PDF), dated June 18. The Gingrich commercials were almost certainly made before that date and were based on the previous version of the bill.
For instance, from this June 1 post:
In Section 601 (g) (2), it states that gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty if they sign a statement that renounces their gang membership.
And, from June 5, one of Senator Jeff Session's "20 Loopholes" was this:
the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they "renounce" their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].
Their second paragraph above is a reference to this from page 121 of the new bill; see if you can spot the gigantic loophole:
Unless the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General waives the application of this subparagraph, any alien who a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows or has reason to believe participated in a criminal gang, knowing or having reason to know that such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or supported the illegal activity of the gang, is inadmissible.
Somehow I see a lot of "waiving" ahead. Consider also this:
The application form [for Z nonimmigrant status] shall request such information as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate, including but not limited to, information concerning the alien's physical and mental health; complete criminal history, including all arrests and dispositions; gang membership, renunciation of gang affiliation; immigration history; employment history; and claims to United States citizenship.
As with the previous version of the bill, the renunciation is still in there, strongly implying that it intends to be used to, in fact, allow gang members who've renounced their membership to receive the Z visas.
As for FactCheck raising issues with the Gingrich claim that "potential terrorists" can be legalized, obvious to everyone except them that means that someone who is not known (or shown by a cursory check) to be a terrorist could be legalized, as has happened before.
FactCheck also says that calling the Senate bill amnesty is misleading, relying on the dictionary definition of the word. Are the millions of prospective illegal aliens going to rely on the dictionary definition? Of course not. They're going to concentrate on the implicit U.S. policy of legalizing anyone who can live here long enough. Those millions of prospective illegal aliens will come a-running for what they perceive to be amnesty, whether Brooks Jackson, Emi Kolawole & Lori Robertson are standing on the border pointing to the Merriam-Webster definition or not.
Please contact Editor *at* FactCheck.org and let them know what you think.
UPDATE: The points made above about the new bill apply to the "clay pigeon" amendments as well. The pigeon has a similar waiver (link) and a similar mention of a "renunciation" (link).
Adam Nagourney spins his way into 30% of young adults sharing NYT loose immigration policies
Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee of the New York Times offer "New Poll Finds That Young Americans Are Leaning Left":
Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion... And 30 percent said that "Americans should always welcome new immigrants," while 24 percent of the general public holds that view...
As you might have already surmised, this latest poll is simply yet more propaganda from the NYT designed to support massive immigration. Here's the actual question:
54. Which comes closer to your opinion: 1) America should always welcome all immigrants, OR 2) America should always welcome some immigrants, but not others, OR 3) America cannot afford to open its doors to any newcomers?
Note that the poll says "all immigrants", but Nagourney said "new". What exactly does Nagourney's "open door" claim mean? What exactly does part #1 above mean? Is Nagourney trying to claim that they support literally open borders? Do the 30% who answered yes to part #1 want literally open borders? Or, could some of them think we should only allow a reasonable number of immigrants per year, but we shouldn't be mean to them? Or, could they mean that we should allow a reasonable number of people to come here from a wide variety of backgrounds? Could some percentage of the 30% be supporting a reasonable immigration policy that isn't weighted towards one country or region or one type of immigrant? If so, isn't Nagourney simply a lying hack?
If they mean literally open borders, isn't it more a sign of stupidity than anything else if someone would support allowing, say, Pakistani extremists to come here? What percentage of those who answered yes to part #1 had open borders in mind, and shouldn't someone besides me point out the issues with open borders?
Shouldn't a real reporter go into things like that, instead of simply using this highly-flawed poll to support his bosses' desire for massive immigration? Yes, a real reporter would do that, which leaves Adam Nagourney out.
Senate immigration amnesty bill amendments ("clay pigeon")
The "clay pigeon" amendments to the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl/Senate massive illegal alien amnesty scheme have been released.
I can't copy from the PDF file at the link, but I note on page 344 that "fish roe processors and fish roe technicians" have been specifically included in the list of those eligible for H-2A visas. That's a relief!
And, right below that, those with probationary Z visa status - after name and fingerprint checks - are eligible to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Even worse, the feds only have one day to declare them ineligible:
...that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible shall be eligible to serve as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.
And, just below that is a section authorizing a CIS office in Fairbanks, Alaska, which for all I know might be a hotbed of fish roe activity. Hmm...
Senate votes for amnesty cloture: what you can do
Cloture on the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill has passed with 64 Yes votes. There are other votes ahead, but the large number of votes for cloture don't bode well.
Apparently all those phone calls had an effect, but not enough of an effect.
What we need now is a series of Macaca moments, but about immigration policy.
What I urge everyone to do is to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions about immigration that are designed to reveal flaws in the candidates' arguments. Not rants, and not questions that will generate a predictable response. They need to be specific questions that are designed to prevent the candidates from being evasive. And, they don't have to be about the Senate bill specifically, just about amnesty in general.
Then, the videos of those responses can be put on Youtube and promoted in other ways.
If this is done enough times, it will have an impact on candidates' political careers, and that will send a loud message to those in the Senate and the House. Plus, it will have the side effect of showing just how corrupt the MSM is.
Here are questions for John Edwards, here are some for McCain, and see the videos with more questions for Hillary, Obama, and Richardson here.
UPDATE: How they voted here, those who switched from one side to another listed here, and from this:
The second, and final, cloture vote is coming Thursday (that will be to end debate and proceed to a final vote on the bill itself), and only five votes need to shift from Yes to No to stop it. That seems like a good bet, with good candidates for switching including Brownback, Bond, Ben Nelson, Ensign, Burr, and Gregg.
First Amendment in Los Angeles: illegal aliens, lefties keep Ted Hayes, Minutemen out of park
From Walter Moore:Activist Ted Hayes went to the trouble of getting a lawful permit to stage a peaceful protest, against illegal immigration, in a park. But laws meaning nothing to the City of L.A., because we don't have rule of law here. Instead, we have mob rule, driven largely by people who aren't even in the country legally...Hayes and others were later arrested after his permit expired and he refused to disperse. As could be expected, the news media is on the side of those who kept Hayes out of the park, with no less than three reports portraying this as "anti-immigration" forces against those who are "pro-immigrant".
Villaraigosa's and Bratton's police department refused to protect the rights of Hayes and his followers to assemble peacefully and protest, in accordance with their rights under the First Amendment and their City-issued permit.
Instead, a mob of pro-ILLEGAL alien protesters, WITHOUT A PERMIT, were allowed to occupy the location specified in the permit. Rather than ordering the illegals to disperse for assembling without a permit, the American citizens who had a permit were ordered to go away. After all, we mustn't have any TV pictures of the police ordering "immigrants rights" protesters to disperse. That would be too "May Day Melee."
From a "shared" report (link):
Police handled the situation carefully, mindful of the May Day clash in which officers used rubber bullets and batons to clear immigration reform demonstrations, Harding said. Officers, some in riot gear, some in shorts and on bicycles, kept the two sides apart.From KTLA (link):
Los Angeles police were a picture of restraint today as they kept screaming pro- and anti-immigration activists apart at Leimert Park and maintained order without another "May Day melee" breaking out.In other words, he's defending anarchy, mob rule, and the denial of First Amendment rights. And, one wonders whether those "government interests" include the interests of mayor Tony Villar in allowing Mexicans to move here at will and the interests of others who profit from illegal immigration.
The head of the anti-immigration group and about four others were arrested when they were denied access to the park by pro-immigration protesters and the police, but no injuries were reported.
...[Hayes] was joined by a couple hundred anti-immigration and mostly white Minutemen members and a few blacks demanding reparations for slavery.
When pro-immigration activists heard about the march, they assembled about 400 people of various races who milled about the park carrying pro- immigration signs and blocking the other group from entering.
..."In the balancing act that we got into here was the issue of allowing access to the park," LAPD Deputy Chief Mike Hillman told ABC7. "Mr. Hayes' group had a permit to go into the park. The park was occupied by, literally, children between 5 and 12 years of age and their parents, plus about 250 to 300 individuals that were community members who obviously took issue with Mr. Hayes being here in their community, so they blocked access to the park."
...Although Hayes had a permit to enter the park, "government interests far outweighed the permit," Hillman said, noting that the clashing protesters could have put children in the park at risk.
The KABC report (link) from Wendy Burch is oddly similar:
When people heard of Hayes' march, a counter protest was planned. A number of people showed up from various coalitions, of all different races. They were determined not to let Mr. Hayes and his group into Leimert Park. When police, supervising the march, saw what was transpiring they had to weigh all the issues. Police decided public safety was a larger priority than first amendment rights.Various lefties chimed in here:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201486_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201474_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201498_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201503_comment.php
More updates here, with pictures here and video here.
Sergio Bendixen: 83% of illegal aliens would comply with new, better-suiting laws
A Sergio Bendixen poll [1] contacted 1,600 "undocumented immigrants" in Spanish and discovered that 83% said they'd apply for the "Z" Visa, with 14% prefering to maintain their present status as illegal aliens.
However, 27% said they wouldn't apply even for the "Z" Visa if there are touchback provisions that would require them to receive that visa and without a guaranteed "right to return". It should be noted that, AFAIK, the touchback provisions in both current Senate and House bills only require them to leave the U.S. for a minimal amount of time and only to get on the "path to citizenship", not for the visa specifically.
Hopefully that will help them in their decision as to which of our laws they would prefer to follow.
[1] news.newamericamedia.org/news/
view_article.html?article_id=5f47289d59c786e1f07c3eb69707b8a4
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, cheap labor pimp (Pat Buchanan, Meet The Press)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Democrat from Illinois, debated the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill and illegal immigration with Pat Buchanan on today's Meet the Press (transcript link). It cast Pitchfork Pat in the role of the defender of the American workingman, with Gutierrez in the role of the Wall Street Journal-style cheap labor pimp. Not only that, he supported foreigners working in unsafe conditions that wouldn't be acceptable if they were performed by Americans:
The fact is that [illegal aliens] do jobs. Every time you go to the grocery store and you get grapes, any agricultural... product, we know who is in those pesticide-ridden fields across this country... ...and, many times, inhumane conditions... ..picking the fruits and the crops that are necessary and vital to our economy, doing the kinds of work that, that truly other Americans won't do... [later] ...But I suggest to you that I want to keep the vast majority of them that do the kinds of labor that sweat and toil and that make America a better place for all of us to live in.
Rather than trying to end working in "pesticide-ridden fields" as liberals of the past would have done, Gutierrez takes steps that will allow such abuses to continue. And, rather than supporting offshoring or automating inefficient, 19th century "industries" such as strawberry production, he wants to help those "industries" out.
In addition to cribbing the "jobs Americans won't do" line from Bush and Chertoff, he swiped another trick: playing the "why aren't you offering a civil discourse" game:
You know, the tone and the texture of the debate that Pat has brought here to MEET THE PRESS is really what is wrong with this debate. We need to have a debate that doesn't chastise people, that doesn't criminalize people, that doesn't cast a shadow over everyone. The fact is, the vast majority - the vast, the overwhelming majority of immigrants who come here to this country come here to work hard...
That followed this not necessarily controversial Buchanan statement:
But if she walks across the border, as many of them do. I think something like two thirds of the babies in Los Angeles born, women come into the country, cross the border, they have a baby, the baby's an anchor baby, entitled to a lifetime of social welfare benefits and citizenship. That's not what citizenship should mean in our country.
I haven't been able to determine whether his statistic is correct, but Gutierrez wasn't raising that as an issue. Then, Gutierrez plays the demographic hegemony card, conflating illegal immigration with all Hispanics and even borrowing a line about the Vietnam Memorial from John McCain during the last GOP debate:
But Republicans are going to become a party of the past and irrelevant in national elections... ...and in the Congress of the United States... ...if we don't change the texture and the tone of this debate and stop blaming immigrants... ...and specifically Latinos for every ill that exists in this society... They are good contributors. They are faithful Americans... They die in Iraq. Their names are etched in the Vietnam Memorial, and to make us all be criminals, I just think is wrong, unfair, and it is what is going to cost the Republican Party dearly in the future.
Democrats might want to look inward and decide whether what Gutierrez in effect supports is consistent with their past goals.
7 to 10 more votes against cloture on Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill needed
According to this message from NumbersUSA, they think they have "solid commitments" from 32 Senators to vote no on cloture on the Bush/Senate massive illegal alien amnesty, but 41 no votes are needed.
They suggest contacting the following in order to try to get them to vote no:
Bond (R-Mo.)
Bingaman (D-N.M.)
Burr (R-N.C.)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Cochran (R-Miss.)
Conrad (D-N.D.)
Ensign (R-Nev.)
Levin (D-Mich.)
Gregg (R-N.H.)
Nelson (D-Neb.)
Hatch (R-Utah)
Webb (D-Va.)
Clark Hoyt New York Times Public Editor: disingenuous, shill, hack
A couple weeks ago, Julia Preston of the New York Times offered "As Immigration Plan Folded, Grass Roots Roared". It included a picture of someone that - while he might be a great person - would be characterized by many New Yorkers as a toothless yokel. Their intent was clear: only hicks oppose the Senate illegal immigration amnesty. Compare, for instance, the photo at the last link with the one here:
Now, the new NYT Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, shows that he's even worse than his predecessors with the extraordinarily disingenuous "The Ugly Part Wasn't His Face". Rather than considering - or correctly characterizing - complaints made about the NYT's propaganda, he defends it. And, he does it in a sleazy, passive-aggressive way by accusing those who complained about the NYT story of stereotyping the photo subject.
However, the fact that he's a hack and a shill is revealed by his own comments. First, he relies on the protestations of innocence from NYT employees rather than, for instance, discussing the matter with John & Ken, the two Los Angeles talk show hosts who encouraged their listeners to send in their own photos (they aren't mentioned by name in the article). I guess if an NYT employee says it it must be true. Then, there's this:
[I asked why the NYT would] choose to run a picture of a man missing a tooth when they had to know it could contribute to stereotypes about the kinds of people opposing the immigration bill.
What stereotypes? Outside of Manhattan, the Westside of Los Angeles, and the Beltway, are there large numbers of people who believe in or try to promulgate such stereotypes? By admitting that some hold such a view, isn't Hoyt more or less admitting guilt?
More on the "perhaps" side of things, Grassfire.org is described as a "conservative citizens' coalition". What other organizations (besides Conservatives of Kern County) have similiar initials? Is Hoyt speaking in code?
Then, there's this ludicrous statement:
He came to the attention of The Times because Julia Preston, a reporter whose beat is immigration, believed that his side of the story wasn't being reflected enough in Times coverage of the bill.
Even if the NYT ran a hundred non-biased immigration articles, it wouldn't begin to make amends for all the pieces by Nina Bernstein, Samuel Freedman, David Brooks and all the rest. Certainly, anyone who's familiar with the NYT's coverage of this issue realizes just how disingenuous his statement is.
UPDATE: From this:
Clark Hoyt has now pubished three columns about the Times' behavior, and in each instance, has given the Times a perfect bill of reportial health... Hoyt is the perfect stooge for the Times. He is, to steal from Lenin, a Useful Mediocrity...
Innovation, not serf labor: growers fund fruit picking robot
From this:Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.At first, they wondered whether such a machine was possible. Then, they got the bright idea to use two robots: one to locate the fruit, and another to determine the best way to pick the pre-located fruit. The California Citrus Research Board will spend about $1 million on this, with a projected cost of $5 million to get to a finished product. Obviously, that's an extremely small amount compared to some of the figures involved in legalizing millions of illegal aliens, not to mention the non-financial costs.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa.
Related:
"In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines"
Bush representative posted to FreeRepublic (overt propaganda)
Back on the 14th, Nicholas Thompson of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives posted a comment on a FreeRepublic post, as described here. In two previous posts I've discussed the very strange circumstances associated with published reports describing how the White House has been reaching out to blogs. So far, no one else to my knowledge has investigated or even shown any interest in this matter, despite the possibility that the White House has done some of its outreach covertly.
As discussed at the second link, the NYT said that the WH had "posted defenses" on both conservative and liberal sites, yet I have so far been unable to find a single liberal site containing an overt defense. And, the Politco said that the WH had posted on a "wide range" of sites, yet so far the only possibilities I've found are FreeRepublic, RedState, Townhall, and The Corner.
Needless to say, those four sites are neither liberal nor would anyone consider that number a "wide range".
Teddy Kennedy posts on immigration "reform"
I first saw the guest Hill post "Failure Not an Option on Immigration Bill (Sen. Edward Kennedy)" a few hours ago. Since it was only a couple sentences long, I immediately refreshed the page thinking everything hadn't loaded, but, oddly enough, that was it. I've now given it several hours for the rest to appear, and I am now safe in believing that this is the entire, no doubt Grand Marnier-soaked post:
Failure is not an option — our national security demands it. This is a tough, practical, fair bill.
Yes, that is, aside from the title, the entire post. We pay him to repeatedly sell out the U.S., and he can't even give us more than two sentences?
Why, that post is even more empty than the boxes he falsely claimed contained hundreds of thousands of letters in support of his bill.
Bryan Caplan/George Mason University: a true "economist" and "intellectual"
Bryan Caplan is an Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University. His "thinking abilities" as well as his "economic" skills are on full display in the Economist guest post "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem". Let's take a look at this public "intellectual":
Every blogger I know tells me the same story: The fastest way to provoke angry comments is to post a kind word about immigration. In the blogosphere, as in real life, complaints about immigrants abound.
Of course, those complaints aren't usually about "immigrants" either in general or about "immigrants" personally. Usually, the complaints are about illegal immigration or large concentrations of illegal aliens, such as in our cities.
The funny thing, though, is that the complaints are diverse, but the cure is almost always the same: Cut immigration quotas, reinforce the border, and deport the illegals.
The last is, of course, quite close to - and probably meant as - the usual false choice offered between a massive amnesty and mass deportations.
Suppose, for example, that the complaint about immigrants is that "They take advantage of the welfare state." If that's the problem, the simplest solution is not the get rid of immigrants, but to make them ineligible for benefits. Make them pay the usual taxes, but make it clear that welfare, unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, and the like are only for native-born citizens.
Yeah, what if. What if I could build a time machine? Wouldn't that be great? What people like Caplan are too ignorant to understand is that there's a great deal of pressure placed on local governments and even the federal government to continue such benefits. Some of that comes from racial power groups, others comes from corrupt businesses that enjoy corporatism. When Caplan does things such as offer false choices or conflates illegal and legal immigration he plays right into the hands of such groups. And, of course: no one wants to "get rid of immigrants".
What if the complaint is that immigrants endanger our political culture – in short, that they vote the wrong way? I'm sympathetic to this concern, but it's easy to tailor a solution: Don't let immigrants vote.
At this point, I'm laughing. It's easy to state such a supposed solution, it's not so easy to carry such a thing out. Unless we want think South Africa or Saudi Arabia are good American models.
In brief, Caplan is truly an "intellectual", and he's truly a top-tier "economist".
White House listening to pork producers, La Raza, Mexico-linked NALEO, NRA... just not you
The White House offers a PDF entitled "What They're Saying: Border Security And Immigration Reform Agreement" and subtitled 'Business And Agriculture Groups Say "It Is Critical That The Process Moves Forward"' (PDF) [1]. It's just a collection of quotes from press releases from those few groups that support the Bush/Senate massive illegal immigration amnesty, and it contains no accompaning text other than the titles.
As simply a collection of quotes, it's not that shocking. However, it's interesting that these are the special interest groups that the White House chooses to use to bolster their bill, rather than acknowledging the other 99.99% of Americans. And, at least two of the groups are certainly interesting. Let's lead with those two:
* National Association Of Latino Elected And Appointed Officials (has a link to the Mexican government)
* National Council Of La Raza President And CEO Janet Murguia (funds extremists)
* The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce
* National Restaurant Association
* Business Roundtable
* National Association Of Manufacturers
* National Federation Of Independent Business
* Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
* American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman
* Associated Builders And Contractors Chairman David Meyer
* National Milk Producers Federation President And CEO Jerry Kozak
* National Pork Producers Council President Jill Appell
* American Subcontractors Association President Stephen Rohrbach
* Agriculture Coalition For Immigration Reform
* American Health Care Association President And CEO Bruce Yarwood
* Poultry Federation President Marvin Childers
* Georgia Farm Bureau
* Tyson Foods, Inc.
* Western Growers President And CEO Tom Nassif
* Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
* California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
* National League Of Cities President And Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson
* Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
* MANA President And CEO Alma Morales Riojas
* U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce Board Of Directors Chairman David Lizarraga
* Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
* Esperanza USA President Rev. Luis Cortes
[1] The PDF is described here: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854324/posts. It was posted to RedState by Robert Bluey, so it's probably for real. However, I've cached it locally to avoid linking to that site.
Interests writ tiny: Nina Zagat, Tim Zagat want influx of Chinese chefs
Is the New York Times guest editorial "Eating Beyond Sichuan" by Nina Zagat and Tim Zagat - co-founders of the Zagat restaurant survey - a joke? I think it's a joke, but maybe I'm not educated enough. Let's find out:
If Henry Kissinger could practice "Ping-Pong diplomacy," perhaps Condoleezza Rice could try her hand at "dumpling diplomacy"? China and the United States should work together on a culinary visa program that makes it easier for Chinese chefs to come here. With more chefs who are schooled in China’s dynamic new restaurant scene, we would see a transformation of the way Chinese food is served in this country.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Either that, or they're very very confused about immigration matters and think that anyone beyond them and a few others have any concern about their pressing issue at all. Of course, perhaps Chuck Schumer could take up their cause and provide an amendment to the Senate's massive illegal alien amnesty bill specifically mentioned amnestying illegal aliens who can pass a culinary exam.
Harry Reid revives Senate amnesty bill; "clay pigeon"
From this:Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced an updated immigration bill Monday, launching one more attempt to conclude debate on the contentious issue and approve the measure in the Senate before Congress breaks for the 4th of July holiday.
...Revived as new legislation, the redrafted immigration bill reflects the substance of the 14 Democratic and 13 Republican amendments approved during the first two weeks of Senate debate, including a phaseout of the temporary guest worker program.
The new bill also includes a proposal by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to establish a $4.4 billion fund, paid for by fees and fines collected from undocumented immigrants, exclusively for financing border security.
...Though senators and advocates supporting reform are being careful to avoid calling any measure a "poison pill," the list appears to be problematic enough that Senate leaders are at least considering employing the rare tactic of packaging amendments to avoid losing critical support and votes.
Under the procedure, Reid would introduce a single, 22-part amendment, divisible into component parts for debate. Known as a "clay pigeon," it would offer the bill's supporters a means of staging the debate more or less free from interference, with the objective of keeping enough senators together to maintain the 60 votes needed to thwart a filibuster.
Environmentalists: Illegal aliens burning down Coronado National Forest
From this:U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.The response to this from many or most environmental groups would no doubt be similar to that from the Defenders of Wildlife in a related matter: blame the U.S. for not having an open border. Then, some of those same groups would go on to cash checks from those who support massive immigration. In fact, if anyone ever spots a single major environmental organization trying to reduce illegal immigration through border control in order to prevent the borderlands from being trashed, let me know.
The wildfires also have resulted in the destruction of valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according to federal law enforcement authorities and others.
In the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, with 60 miles of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Forest Service firefighters sent in to battle fires or clear wild land fire areas are required to be escorted by armed law enforcement officers...
Lindsey Graham: opposition to amnesty like anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic bigotry
Senator Lindsey Graham was interviewed by George Stephanapolous on Sunday and said lots of interesting things (link, via this).
Near the end, he says this about the opposition to the Senate's massive illegal alien amnesty:
We've been down this road before: no Catholics, no Jews, Irish need not apply
He also said that Republicans should realize that the Senate's bill is the "best [they're] going to get". He also blackmailed the U.S., claiming that if "reform" isn't passed "the 12 million [illegal aliens] become 20 million... the borders continue to be broken". Of course, that would not happen if our laws were enforced.
He also wondered whether we're "going to let the union halls and the talk radio take over this debate".
He also said the following which, were he not on Teddy Kennedy's side might have resulted in outraged leftists:
our culture is under attack... we're not going to give our culture away [under the bill]...
And, finally, he made an outrageous lie:
[the bill says to "illegals"] you stay here on our terms
Obviously, the bill caves in to illegal aliens and validates their attempts to make shows of force across the U.S. by marching in our streets. Of course, he's not the first person to try to sell a massive capitulation as a victory.
Harry Reid: unprecedented trick to pass illegal immigration amnesty?
Via this we find this description from a "knowledgeable Senate source" as to the procedure Harry Reid might use to push through amnesty. After a few days of "ripening",
we expect Reid - with the help and support of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers - to do something that we believe has never been done in the history of the Senate... he will use an arcane Senate procedure that allows a single amendment to be divisible into many - in this case, into the 20-odd amendments the Grand Bargainers are trying to cobble together to keep 60 votes in support of the bill. Traditionally, that amendment has been used to protect minority rights - but in this case, it will be used to PREVENT the minority from getting additional amendments called up and from being able to fully debate the amendments in question. It is, to our knowledge, unprecedented... If Reid does this, with the help of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers, they will shut off the ability of Senators with concerns of the bill to offer additional amendments and to debate the amendments in question.
A tough question for John McCain (let's block amnesty)
If you want to block an illegal alien amnesty, calling Congress is only going to go so far; many of our elected officials just aren't listening. That doesn't mean you shouldn't call, but an additional, even more effective way is to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions, and then publicize the response. The goal is to discredit politicians and have an impact on their careers. That's something that will get their attention.
Here's one possible question for John McCain:
Senator McCain: You've previously stated that not passing some form of illegal alien legalization could lead to civil disturbances [1] such as have occurred in Paris. Who's responsible for putting the U.S. in such an extremely dangerous situation? (Pointing at McCain while saying the last part is optional).
Alternative second sentence:
Shouldn't elected officials have prevented such an extremely dangerous situation from developing in the first place?
Or:
If president Bush had done his job and enforced the immigration laws across the board [2], and if Congress had done its job and made sure the president was enforcing the laws, would the U.S. be in such an extremely dangerous situation?
Here are some questions for John Edwards; at least one of those could be asked of McCain as well.
If you decide to go out and ask questions, have these footnotes handy on flyers to be passed out:
[1] McCain said the following on June 2, 2007 at a campaign stop in Mars, IA:
"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France... They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America."
[2] From this June 22, 2005 AP story:
Under the Clinton administration in 1999, federal officials formally notified 417 employers that they would be fined for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants or improperly completing employment verification forms... But only three employers received the notice of a fine in 2003, GAO auditors found... Similarly, immigration officials arrested 2,849 individuals at workplaces in 1999. By 2003, the GAO noted, the number of workplace arrests had fallen to 445. This is a trivial number compared with the roughly 5 million unauthorized workers now estimated to be in the United States.
Randal Archibold fails to note Peter Schey Mexico links (+MAPA)
In an article about the Dreams Across America tour, Randal C. Archibold of the New York Times ("With Immigration Bill Stalled, Advocates Push Forward") says:
"Nothing will be worse in terms of the millions of individuals and families that will be criminalized in perpetuity by the proposed Senate legislation," said lawyers for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, an advocacy group, in a statement.
What Randal forgot to tell you is that that group is collaborating with the Mexican government as described at the link, and either through the organization or through Schey has other links to that government as well.
However, it doesn't appear that Schey's quote is related to the Crazy Train. In fact, it comes from a June 7, 2007 letter from Nativo Lopez' Mexican American Political Association (lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/06/mapa_analysis_o.html) concerning the Senate bill and not mentioning the train trip.
Dreams Across America: all aboard the pro-illegal immigration train
"Dreams Across America" [1] is the latest stunt from supporters of a massive illegal alien amnesty, consisting of about 100 people taking a train Washington DC to lobby for "reform". You can read the MSM's take here.
They have at least one minor, indirect link to the Mexican government: when they arrive in DC they "will join hundreds of immigrant children and their families at an event organized by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement" [2]. One of the latter's member groups is the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, headed by the Mexico-linked Juan Salgado.
However, in a deft move, it appears that all of those on the train are either native-born or naturalized citizens rather than illegal aliens as was the case with 2003's "Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride". That is, needless to say, simply a ploy: what they support involves giving illegal aliens amnesty; any additional rights for legal immigrants are a minor part of what they want.
In addition to the fun vacation, they're also sharing their heart-warming stories in a series of web videos. There certainly aren't enough heart-warming stories about struggling immigrants in the MSM, right?
And, in another move indicating that they continue to learn how to hide what they really want, not all the videos are from Hispanics. One of the videos even features "Rusty Hicks tell[ing] the story of his migration from Texas to Los Angeles" [3]. Such internal migration is hardly any different from someone sneaking across the border and then buying fake documentation to work here illegally, right?
And, in an ironic twist, one of the participants appears to be a beneficiary of the 1986 amnesty.
One of the movers behind the current group is the Catholic Church including the "Pedophile Protector" himself, Cardinal Roger Mahoney. Another is sol-california.com, which appears to be a pan-union effort with board members from the AFL-CIO (Maria Elena Durazo), SEIU Local 1877 (Mike Garcia), President, SEIU United Healthcare Workers - West (Sal Roselli), and UNTIE HERE State Political Director Jack Gribbon. Contact persons for SOL are Javier Gonzalez and Elda Martinez.
Another person involved is HuffPost contributor and former Howard Dean CA chair Rick Jacobs; he heads the "Courage Campaign" [4]. The CC has some interesting indirect links to George Soros [5]; whether they have direct links isn't known. For some reason the CC's Youtube icon [6] is of Fabian Nunez. Their most-watched video only has about 1300 views (thanks largely to Crooks and Liars): youtube.com/watch?v=qs63p3_IdNs . It features a landscaper (Cathy Gurney) whining about not being able to find labor. While I don't endorse the words used in the following comment left on that video, the underlying spirit is accurate:
this bitch is a liar....she cant get legal employees because she wont offer a living wage...she is the epitomy of the evil employer....booohooohooo...i cant find legal employees....hey cathy, offer 20 bux an hour and legal employees will come out of the woodwork
[1] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org
[2] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org/dreamtrain/about
[3] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org/story/video/2007/06/11/rusty-hicks
[4] couragecampaign.org/pages/who_we_are
[5] Their "partners" include: MoveOn.org, Democracy For America (both Soros linked), New Progressive Coalition, Powerpac.org, CalPIRG, California Nurses Association, Common Cause, Brave New Films and Progressive Majority.
[6] youtube.com/profile?user=CourageCampaign
Fox: Harry Reid to revive Senate immigration amnesty next week
From this:Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will approve a new deal on immigration on Thursday and move to bring the once-dead legislation back to the Senate floor next week, Democratic sources told FOX News.
Details of the immigration compromise remain to be finalized, but top Democratic sources say Reid has closely monitored the behind-the-scenes dickering over policy changes and a finite list of amendments due for consideration. Based on the latest updates on the policy and amendments, Reid will approve the compromise and move late Thursday to put the bill back on the calendar for Senate consideration in the middle of next week.
"He's going to bless it and he's going to get the Senate back in the business of dealing with immigration," said a source in the Democratic Senate leadership...
Bush upbeat; $4bil for border security; amendments probably just ploy
Bush is still upbeat and thinking positively about the possibility of the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill passing. And, in fact, this morning he said he wants to spend $4.4 billion on border security. Unlike the supplemental proposal which would be spent even if the bill doesn't pass, this would be part of the "comprehensive" solution and would only be spent if the bill passes. On a fantastic note:
The $4.4 billion would be spent immediately and then repaid out of fees and fines collected through the path to citizenship program and the guest-worker program, Mr. Snow said. He did not know where the money would originally come from.
And, Sen. Trent Lott is publicly saying that any amendments that are added to the bill don't really matter: they'll get stripped out in committee. So, bear in mind that any "tough" amendments may simply be ploys or at least may never be in the final bill:
Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said those amendments will simply disappear when the House and Senate go to conference. "No big deal -- you pitch those before you get to the Rotunda," he said.
A similar point is made by an apparent Senate source here:
My source also noted that the cloture vote to end debate will be the "real" vote on the bill because if debate is closed off, the bill is sure to pass. Then, what will happen is that the votes for the bill will be counted, and a few Senators who are afraid that their election prospects will be jeopardized by a "yes" vote, will be allowed to vote against the bill. This enables those Senators to tell their constituents that they voted against the bill, but it will still allow them to collect campaign contributions from lobbyists who have a better understanding of how things work, and know that the bill couldn't have been passed without their support. Put another way, they get to reap the rewards of supporting amnesty while telling the voters in their home states that they opposed the bill.
Unreanimate: Only 20% want Senate amnesty bill revived (Rasmussen)
Here are the results of the latest Rasmussen poll asking "Should Senate Try and Pass the Same Immigration Bill Again?"
* Try and Pass Same Bill Again: 20%
* Take Smaller Steps Towards Reform: 51%
* Wait Until Next Year: 16%
Senior GOP senators are embracing an eleventh-hour plan to pass an emergency supplemental bill for more border security money as a strategy to win over Republicans who have balked at the bipartisan immigration bill languishing in the Senate...
I suggest keeping up the phone calls and - even more importantly - get out there and discredit some politicians.
Raul Grijalva wants to secure border ecologically soundly (Defenders of Wildlife)
From a Defenders of Wildlife press release (link):Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) yesterday introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would secure America's border with Mexico while reducing the negative impact on local communities and resources, including national parks, wildlife refuges and monuments that are home to several critically endangered species. H.R.2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act of 2007, would amend existing immigration and border security laws, including the recently-passed Secure Fence Act and REAL ID Act, to help alleviate the devastating impacts of undocumented immigration and border enforcement activities on public lands, wildlife and borderland communities...It seems like you can't turn around these days without bumping into someone who wants to secure the border. What's that you say, I really should put that in scare quotes? OK, Raul Grijalva wants to "secure the border". Now, it all makes sense.
These are the supposed bill provisions:
* Provides the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the ability to decide whether fences, vehicle barriers or virtual fences would be most effective in securing the border.Raul Grijalva is not just a former member of the racial separatist group MEChA, he's proud of having been a member. He also appeared with the Mexican government-linked Derechos Humanos at a forum last year.
* Gives land management agencies, Native American tribes and local communities a voice in border construction decisions.
* Requires compliance with laws meant to protect the air, water, wildlife, culture and the health and safety of people in borderland communities.
* Funds initiatives that help mitigate damage to borderland wildlife and resources.
Likewise, some of the leaders of those "local communities" will probably be little more than Mexican partisans. And, the leadership of the DHS hasn't exactly shown an interest in enforcing our laws. And, consider this quote:
"The Border Patrol needs to follow the current (environmental) law, which right now they're ignoring," counters Jenny Neeley, southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation advocacy group, adding that "the damage is being caused by border policy." Tougher border enforcement near portals such as San Diego and El Paso, she says, funnels traffic into more remote and environmentally sensitive regions...Obviously, DoW isn't exactly strong on the enforcement side of things either.
White House Senate bill outreach: just RedState, The Corner, and Townhall... or?
Continuing the post "Covert White House propaganda for Senate immigration amnesty bill?", we now learn this:The White House has done outreach to liberal religious and Hispanic groups and, at the suggestion of chief political strategist Karl Rove, made more use of the blogosphere on immigration than it has on any issue since President Bush took office, aides said...However, the only sites mentioned in the article are RedState and The Corner, and a search for the two aides' names through technorati and a google blog search doesn't turn up much I could see except references to those two sites. That's especially odd, since the NYT said that the White House said they'd been "posting defenses" on liberal sites, and one would think that the latter would be up in arms. And, of course, two or three sites is not a "wide range".
...Aides said it was Rove's idea to focus on blogs. After vetting by policy experts, responses have been posted on a wide range of blogs under the names of Kerrie Rushton and Nicholas Thompson, both associate directors in the Office of Strategic Initiatives, which falls under Rove's domain.
"We had to be nimble," said White House Communications Director Kevin Sullivan, who is coordinating the administration's public relations strategy. "The idea was to not let inaccurate or misleading statements become part of the conventional wisdom."
Unless, of course, there are other sites where they aren't using their real names and disclosing their affiliation. And, it would also be interesting to find out what communication they've had with, just as an example, those bloggers who remain administration stalwarts or at least are encouraging their readers to keep an open mind. It would seem that any such communication would be part of the public record and obtainable through an FOIA request.
UPDATE: To make this clearer, the first link in this post links to a June 3 New York Times article that contained this:
White House officials said [the backlash to their amnesty plan] had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.Yet, as discussed above I've only seen three possible sites where they've posted defenses, none of them liberal sites. And, if they've been overtly posting defenses on such sites, I'd imagine I would have heard about it. Obviously, both the NYT ("liberal sites") and the Politico ("a wide range of blogs") could have made similar mistakes. Or, something else might be going on. This is, of course, just speculation, but it would be great if someone would look into it.
Why Donald J. Boudreaux, George Mason University, is a fool
Becky Akers ("writing a book about the Transportation Security Administration") and Donald J. Boudreaux ("chairman of the economics department at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.") offer the hilariously sad (literally) open borders screed "Why restrict immigration at all?/The Constitution and the laws of economics compel us to welcome all immigrants." (link)
While it would be possible to demolish every point they try to make, let's just take a look at the last section, which is called "Illegal immigration: a false concept":
Laws labeling some people legal and others illegal aren't just divisive, they're unconstitutional... Defending America's integrity doesn't mean more rules and stronger walls; it means seeing foreigners as free agents with all the dignity and autonomy we demand for ourselves... Quota-wielding bureaucrats should not define the country's demographic destiny. It's time to let the free choices of millions of individuals determine America's complexion.
Playing the race card is the least of their sins. The greater sin is that - like pacifistic tribes who end up being another tribe's lunch - they have absolutely no clue how the world works. If we followed their advice, stronger, more cohesive countries such as China would take advantage of their foolishness to send us people in order to obtain power inside the U.S. Their proposal would allow other countries to colonize parts of the U.S. and obtain effective co-dominion or worse. No one should take anything either says seriously.
welcometousa.gov: the U.S. commodified and reduced to a possible convention location
Emilio Gonzalez, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced welcometousa.gov:The administration launched a new Web site to be a central clearinghouse of federal information that may be useful to immigrants. The site provides a range of information including a link to help immigrants find English classes and steers them to providing tips on building a resume and finding a job.While the front page of the site says "[a]s a permanent resident, you have made the decision to call the United States your home", I would not be surprised to learn that some parts of the site don't assume that "permanent resident" is just a shortened version of "legal permanent resident", but includes any resident.
Administration officials also said they are going to try to use the site to enlist people to volunteer to assist immigrants and to enlist immigrants for volunteer work in their communities.
Also, the administration is hoping to provide libraries, adult educators and community groups with training and resources to teach civics and citizenship classes.
I also find the site disturbingly similar to generic Chamber of Commerce sites promoting people to relocate to Dubuque, Milwaukee, or Piscataway, or to convention sites such as choosechicago.com or lacclink.com, with George Bush as the president of the local Chamber of Commerce. Such commodification of the U.S. is probably not that jarring to a committed globalist like Our Leader.
Steven E. Landsburg is a complete idiot
Steven E. Landsburg (armchair *at* troi.cc.rochester.edu) is apparently an "economist" who writes the Everyday Economics column for Slate magazine. His latest is called "How much is an immigrant's life worth, exactly?" Read an excerpt and a partial discussion here, and the following is adapted from a comment I left at Slate's Fray:
---
Obviously, it's extremely sleazy for him to use loaded phrases such as "three-fifths of a full-fledged citizen" and his reference to hunting Mexicans. But, let's ignore all that and concentrate on how his economic analysis is at the grade school level.
Landsburg completely fails to note other issues involved in this matter, such as the fact that there are billions of people poorer than Mexicans. He fails to ask what their lives are worth, implicitly assuming that there are only two countries on Earth.
He also completely fails to note the other economic issues involved in this matter, such as Robert Rector's estimated net retirement cost of $2.6 trillion if the Senate bill passes. How much would you have to save on lettuce to pay your share of that?
And, he also completely fails to note non-economic factors, such as massive immigration from Mexico leading to increased political power not only for far-left racial demagogues (e.g., Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo, Tony Villar), but also increased political power inside the U.S. for the Mexican government. In fact, many non-profit orgs in the U.S. have direct or indirect links to the Mexican government, including well-known orgs like the ACLU and the SPLC. Doesn't such a spectrum from useful idiots to Fifth Columnists have a price?
What of increased political corruption? Massive illegal immigration is a strong indicator of political corruption, yet Landsburg left that out of his "analysis".
Like the title says: Steven E. Landsburg is a complete idiot.
David Brooks: only uneducated nativists oppose massive immigration
David Brooks shows that he's a complete tool:...What's shaping the immigration debate is something altogether deeper and more interesting. And if you want to understand what it is, start with education. Between 1960 and 1980, the share of Americans enrolled in higher education exploded. The U.S. became the first nation in history with a mass educated class. The members of this class differed from each other in a thousand ways, but they tended to share a cosmopolitan approach to the world. They celebrated cultural diversity and saw ethnocentrism as a sign of backwardness.UPDATE: His column is one of those self-evidently wrong things, but, in addition to the many comments, I nonetheless feel the need to point out:
...Liberal members of the educated class celebrated the cultural individualism of the 1960s. Conservative members celebrated the economic individualism of the 1980s. But they all celebrated individualism. They all valued diversity and embraced a sense of national identity that rested on openness and global integration.
...And if you want to predict which side a person is likely to be on, look at his or her educational level. That'll be your best clue.
As the sociologist Manuel Castells generalized, "Elites are cosmopolitan, people are local." People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation.
...It's not the '60s versus the '80s. It's - to mimic Mark Lilla - between the people who have absorbed both the '60s and the '80s, and everyone else.
It's between open, individualistic cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists. It's between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they're destroying the best compromise they will get.
1. The reason I bolded the first "cosmopolitan" is because it's a bit of a loaded word. Did he know that?
2. At the first link, I compared him to Tokyo Rose, and I hereby renounce that comparison as unfair (to her that is, since she was eventually pardoned).
3. Brooks is lumping all forms of immigration into one whole, yet almost every American would not object to moderate levels of legal immigration from a wide range of countries as long as those immigrating were not a danger - in any way - to the rest of us.
4. Safely sheltered in Manhattan, Brooks' idea of "immigration" is probably something along the lines of having as wide variety of take-out as possible.
5. Brooks is coming out against assimilation and favoring a form of multiculturalism that even most Canadians would oppose. Even Europe is starting to realize the dangers of such multiculturalism.
6. Like most other sheltered pundits, Brooks fails to note things like the Mexican government and racial demagogues obtaining political power and the delitirious impacts of that power.
7. And, the bottom line: Brooks is writing junk like this for the educated fools who subscribe to Times Select; the bigger question is what they intend to do about it. What tactics will those in his target audience who support massive legal or illegal immigration use to educate we the great unwashed?
WFMOJALI: New Haven's John DeStefano to file complaint over ICE raid
The fourth edition of WFMOJALI ("Working for Mexico, or just acts like it?") features New Haven, Connecticut mayor John DeStefano, who's affiliated with the former leader of an organization that's collaborating with the Mexican government. ICE recently conducted raids in that city, and now DeStefano says he'll file a complaint with the DHS (Department of Homeland Security):
He said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents failed to notify local authorities of the operation and lacked search warrants. "They pushed into homes without warrants," DeStefano said. "This was just very aggressive intervention." The city plans to forward witness statements to federal officials describing how parents were arrested in front of their children. Agents refused to identify themselves and told those in the houses to shut up, according to the statements... "I just can't see how you can't view them as frightening in terms of respecting the rights of people, whether they're documented or undocumented," DeStefano said. DeStefano... also said the operation raised concerns of racial profiling. Most of those arrested were Hispanic...
After other raids, both Deval Patrick and Tom Vilsack said they hadn't received proper notification; both claims were since debunked. No doubt that will be the same in this case:
Bruce Chadbourne, field office director for ICE, said officers had permission to enter the homes from those present and acted professionally. He said the agency did notify New Haven police weeks before the operation about executing warrants and denied engaging in racial profiling.
Others involved: Sens. Christopher Dodd and Joe Lieberman and state Rep. Rosa DeLauro want "clarification". And:
"You can't use an arrest warrant to go into a home to arrest whoever happens to be there," [Michael Wishnie, a Yale law professor who is representing most of those arrested] said. "They lacked consent and the lacked a search warrant. These home invasions were unlawful."
Previously:
"Smiley" Jeff Flake, WFMOJALI Luis Gutierrez promote their amnesty
WFMOJALI: Gil Cedillo wants driver's licenses for illegal aliens, again and againWFMOJALI: Kyrsten Sinema (Minutemen as "domestic terrorists")
Newt Gingrich: Bush administration is blackmailing U.S. (won't enforce laws unless gets amnesty)
Welcome Newt Gingrich to the Clue Crew:
The Attempt to Blackmail the American People by Threatening to Refuse to Enforce the Law Without a New Bill Is Disgraceful: A number of powerful figures in the Bush Administration and in the Senate have been saying that if we do not agree to pass this destructive bill, they will never enforce the law. Tell your senator that this is an extraordinary effort to blackmail the American people by having officials state that they will fail to perform their sworn duty, and we won't stand for it.
My first relevant mention of the word "blackmail" was in regards to statements from Michael Chertoff in December 2005. A few days later, Pat Buchanan refered to a Bush speech using the word "extortion". I refered to Mike Johanns blackmailing the U.S. in July of last year. In November I posted again about Chertoff refusing to do his job, and again last month.
It's good to see Newt coming around and calling the current situation what it is, and hopefully others will now realize just how bad the Bush administration has been.
Chambliss, Isakson want "emergency supplemental" for border security (and their jobs and amnesty too)
In a desperate bid to save their jobs and their hopes for the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty, Senators Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson have sent a letter [1] to president Bush urging him to:
send an emergency supplemental spending bill to Congress to fund border security. Chambliss and Isakson believe emergency supplemental funds to secure the border will go a long way towards restoring the confidence of the American people in the federal government’s commitment to border security.
This is apparently because of the heat they've been receiving; their admission is duly noted:
As we travel around Georgia and continue to hear from our constituents, the message from a majority of Georgians is that they have no trust that the United States Government will enforce the laws contained in this new legislation and secure the border first. This lack of trust is rooted in the mistakes made in 1986 and the continued chaos surrounding our immigration laws.
Their thinking is clear: a years-late dollop of border security - done in a bright, flashy manner - will make the amnesty go down. But, somehow I don't think they want to try this for a few years and then get back to us, so I suggest keeping up the phone calls and get out there and discredit some politicians.
Democratic - but not GOP - candidates to appear at Mexico-linked NALEO gathering
The National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials has at least one link to the Mexican government: they nominate persons for Mexico's highest award to those outside Mexico, the Ohtli award. That's certainly not as objectionable a link as other groups have, but it's a link nonetheless.At the end of the month they'll be holding a shindig in Miami and all the Democratic candidates have announced they'll be there. However, all of the Republican candidates can't make it for some reason. That's despite other supposed Republicans who'll be there: U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, Florida Governor Charlie Crist, and Florida House Speaker Marco Rubio.
Details in this report from Beth Reinhard; note the ethnically-oriented sales job:
All of the Republican presidential contenders have turned down an invitation to speak in Orlando to the nation's largest gathering of Hispanic elected officials, at a time when their constituents are poised to be a powerful force in the 2008 election.Maybe they read somewhere that NALEO has a link to the Mexican government or something? At least, that's what I'd hope.
...About 1,000 Hispanic leaders, representing the fastest-growing part of the electorate, are expected at the conference. Hispanic voters could be particularly influential this year because of their strong presence in big states that have scheduled early presidential primaries, including Florida and California.
..."The Republican presidential candidates turning their back on this event is kind of shameful,'' said [Republican state Rep. Juan Zapata of Miami], who represents a heavily Republican Cuban-American district. "Politically, it could have been huge for us. I want to know why they're not coming."
NYT: Toothless yokels against Senate immigration grand compromise!
Previously I discussed how Julia Preston of the New York Times had gone to Michigan and discovered that the Senate's immigration bill isn't playing too well in the heartland, with the heartland striking back. However, I missed the photo to the right; it appears on the second page of the NYT's online report.
I don't want to call him a toothless yokel, but his facial expression makes him look a bit like a yokel, and he obviously is missing a few teeth. John and Ken are suggesting mailing in photos of yourself (assuming they're better as I'm no doubt sure).
As indicated at the first link, the NYT featured someone who supports mass deportations; combined with the photo, I think what they're getting at is clear. Note also that in the same article Preston uses some rather forceful words ("assault", "relentless", etc.) to describe the opposition; see another example here.
Janet Napolitano: no to "silent amnesty", yes to immigration "reform"
Arizona governor Janet Napolitano offers the guest editorial "The Myth of Amnesty/The Senate Immigration Bill vs. a Disastrous Status Quo". She has a "plea" to Congress:
You can't quit now. Last week the Senate was on the verge of addressing our broken immigration system. No, the compromise bill wasn't perfect. But our current system is a disaster. I implore lawmakers to go back to the table, iron out their differences and give us an immigration system that is enforceable, and the resources to enforce it...
Echoing the Wall Street Journal editorial board, she says that opponents 'merely yelled "amnesty" in place of reasoned opposition. They were -- and are -- just plain wrong.'. While the first part is certainly true of some, it's certainly not true of most. And, it's also false that the Senate bill isn't amnesty. Illegal aliens will be given immediate legal status, and the government will only have 24 (or 48?) hours to disapprove their applications. And, both that and the bill in general will be perceived as a massive amnesty by millions around the world. So, it pretty clearly is amnesty.
Then, she says: "No one favors illegal immigration." That's also obviously wrong. Many businesses prefer illegal aliens. And, many people - including Janet Napolitano herself - take steps to ensure that illegal immigration continues unabated. And, there are others who don't really favor illegal immigration per se, they just support massive immigration of any kind, including from specific countries such as Mexico.
She also accuses opponents of supporting a "silent amnesty", a phrase she uses no less than four times.
But, wait, there are more questionable statements:
Don't label me soft on illegal immigration. As a U.S. attorney (predating the Gonzales Justice Department), I supervised the prosecution of more than 6,000 immigration felonies. I govern a state where, in 2005, there were 550,000 apprehensions of illegal immigrants. I declared a state of emergency at our border that year, and I was the first governor in the nation to call for assistance from the National Guard. I have also established task forces on vehicle theft and the manufacture of fraudulent identification to complement federal law enforcement efforts.
She's also taken steps to encourage illegal aliens to live in her state, so her record is mixed at best.
Citizen video: "McCain: Can't Explain Why We Didn't Build The Fence"
For a while now, I've been urging people to go to campaign appearances and ask candidates tough questions and then promote their answers. In the following citizen video (transcript), John McCain is asked why the border fence hasn't been built yet... and he doesn't have an answer. While I would prefer asking candidates questions about their past statements and actions in order to help reveal them to be liars, this is a good start:
Open letter: no race preferences for naturalized former illegal aliens
From this:
Ward Connerly, Chairman of the American Civil Rights Institute, along with 25 national and local leaders in the movement to end race preferences, signed an open letter for publication in the Washington Times calling on Congress to exempt immigrants that might be naturalized by the immigration legislation currently before the United States Senate from receiving preferences based on race, sex, national origin, or color.
In addition to friendlies like Heather MacDonald and Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, signatories include Grover Norquist and... Linda Chavez. Needless to say, this call won't go over too well among those who are counting on those former illegal aliens to help them add to their power base.
Latino, Irish Catholics in illegal immigration march (Archdiocese of San Francisco, Irish government)
It's not just the Mexican government that meddles in our internal politics in order to support illegal immigration. The Irish government partly funds a group called the "Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform" [1], and yesterday some of their affiliates organized a march in San Francisco featuring 300 Latino and Irish Catholics demanding immigration "reform" (the falsely-titled "Irish, Latino Catholics march for immigrant rights" by Jill Tucker, link).
The sponsors of the event: the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Catholic Charities CYO, the Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Irish Immigration Pastoral Center and the San Francisco Organizing Project. After the march a mass was held by Archbishop George Niederauer, and Rev. Brandon McBride spoke at the march.
The IIPC is linked to the ILIR; from sfiipc.org:
As many of you will know, we have also in 2006 become involved in the national campaign for comprehensive immigration reform for our undocumented Irish and indeed all undocumented immigrants to the US. Through our involvement with the US Catholic Conference of Bishops' Justice for Immigrants campaign and the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, we have been in a position to keep our community updated and educated on the progression of the legislation through government.
And, from a news release at the site of California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma:
Fr. Brendan McBride from the Irish Immigration Pastoral Center (IIPC) introduced State Assembly Member Fiona Ma, who cancelled a prior engagement in Sacramento to attend the ILIR event. After donning a "Legalize the Irish" shirt, Ma thanked everyone for their attendance and pledged her commitment to immigration reform.
She's proud of being a useful idiot for a group linked to a foreign government?
[1] The ILIR is run by Niall O'Dowd, publisher of the Irish Voice newspaper. They've enjoyed access to politicians that other groups only dream of; at their site there's a picture of them with John McCain (irishlobbyusa.org/people.php), and they've also met with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. And, here's a picture of Frisco mayor Gavin Newsom wearing one of their "Legalize the Irish" t-shirts. That link includes audio (cached) of ILIR vice chair Ciaran Staunton joking about working under a fake SSN:
Someone told you, you wouldn't get a job without a Social Security number. You made one up. You got your job.
Maybe we should take that recording to campaign appearances by Clinton or McCain and see whether they appreciate the joke by the group they've supported in the past.
New York Times compares Senate bill opponents to George Wallace
I was previously considering tearing apart the New York Times editorial "A Failure of Leadership", then I decided that just watching them crash and burn from the sidelines was the better option.
However, it's now come to my attention (link) that they're comparing those who opposed the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill to George Wallace in this sentence:
The anti-immigrant hard-core - no amnesty today, no amnesty tomorrow, no amnesty forever - must not be allowed to hold the nation hostage.
That appears to be derived from a George Wallace speech which included "segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever". Obviously, this is scurrilous even for the NYT, and it probably won't be too long before they offer an editorial vioting Godwin's Law.
Shailagh Murray/Jonathan Weisman/WaPo insert infomercial into immigration coverage
Shailagh Murray and Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post offer "Talk of Resurrecting Immigration Bill Begins as Autopsy Goes On". I see that Mickey Kaus has also pointed to this paragraph:
Within policy circles, immigration reform is viewed as vital, addressing both the growing demand for workers and the social costs of an illegal underclass. The public also generally supports the idea. In last week's Washington Post-ABC News poll, a narrow majority of voters -- 52 percent -- said they supported allowing illegal immigrants to remain in the United States, as long as they are penalized, while 44 percent opposed the idea.
Certainly, some policy experts - particularly those funded by the Ford Foundation, George Soros, and the like - see "reform" (aka amnesty) as vital, but there are others who do not. Some of the latter are even suggesting simply enforcing the current laws! I guess Murray and Weisman need to either get out more, or stop misleading people. And, the idea that the "public also generally supports the idea" is based on misleading polls that fail to include all the downsides of the subject or offer false choices.
I also can't figure out whether he's being disingenuous or not (I suspect the former):
[Harry Reid] bristled when he was asked why he gave Dorgan a second chance. "This is a killer amendment? After five years, you'll take a look at how the program is working? I can't fathom why this is a bad amendment," he said.
And, showing surprising self-awareness as to what everyone else thinks of him and the Bush administration:
Chertoff rejected the suggestions that the administration had not hustled. "They are going to have to fumigate the room because we were basically living there. Anyone who says we weren't engaged is ignorant of the facts."
Julia Preston/NYT discovers: natives are restless over immigration bill
Julia Preston of the New York Times - last seen here promoting a misleading poll - goes to Michigan and comes back with "As Immigration Plan Folded, Grass Roots Roared". The main subject of the article is a housewife from the suburbs of Detroit. Speaking from her "neatly maintained home" she says:
For Mrs. Thibodeaux and others on her side, the immigration debate was a battle for the soul of the nation because it seemed to divert taxpayer-financed resources to cater to foreigners who had not come to this country by legal means.
Yeah, I guess there's that $2.5 trillion estimated net retirement cost, huh? But, perhaps in the NYT's universe that money would only "seem" to have to be spent.
"A lot of our American people in Detroit are hurting," Mrs. Thibodeaux said, noting that she has often done volunteer work in poor neighborhoods here. "It's just not right."
If she weren't a Republican and didn't oppose massive illegal immigration, the NYT would be portraying her as a saint instead of giving the impression that they feel like they're visiting another planet. And, it's curious that they focus on her; could it be because she's a supporter of mass deportations, and they're attempting to portray all opponents as supporters of such efforts? Something to ponder, as are the rather forceful adjectives Preston uses:
...The assault on lawmakers in Washington was relentless... supporters conceded that they were outmaneuvered by opponents who boiled down their complaints to that single hot-button word, repeated often and viscerally on talk radio programs and blogs... But many of these Republicans are enraged at their party leaders... they feel betrayed by Mr. Bush... Opposition to the Senate bill brought together many Americans in states where immigration was not traditionally a fervor-inspiring issue, but where illegal immigration has become more visible in recent years.
Other groups mentioned include Let Freedom Ring, Grassfire.org, and The John and Ken Show.
Illegal aliens disappointed over Senate bill; boycott threatened; Tara Burghart
Always willing to do their part to support illegal immigration, the AP offers "Immigrants Disappointed Over Defeat" by Tara Burghart. That appears to be the AP-supplied headline and, of course, "Illegal Aliens" would be the more accurate subject group. It quotes two disappointed illegal aliens, then this:Jorge Mujica, a spokesman for Chicago's March 10th movement, said one possibility is a boycott by illegal immigrants and their supporters against certain companies — perhaps national restaurants — to demonstrate the community's economic might.What the reporter forgot to add is that Mujica is an official with Mexico's PRD party. In other words, a representative of a foreign political party is agitating their citizens inside our country and even threatening an economic impact unless we change our laws to suit the citizens of that country.
"It's not that we want to radicalize the movement," he said. "But we have marched and lobbied and made phone calls and written letters, and nothing has come out of those strategies."
The article also includes a quote from Tom Nassif of the Western Growers Association saying that growers will be forced to cut back plantings. Oh well.
Please write feedback@ap.org with your thoughts.
Kennedy, Graham, Reid, Kyl, Bush to try to revive Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill
Like Jason or Michael Myers, the "Grand Bargainers" behind the Senate's illegal alien amnesty bill are promising to bring it back within a few days or a few weeks. If you want to prevent this from happening, it's within your power to do so. All we need is one well-known amnesty supporter to be roundly discredited and that will send a loud and clear message to the rest.[Sen. Edward Kennedy says] "We are not giving up. We are not giving in."More here, including sports analogies and this Kyl quote:
..."When it is recognized by the American people that the Senate has not acted (on immigration), I believe there is going to be a wave of support for what we have been trying to do," said Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., who also is on the negotiating team.
...But Republican Sens. Specter, Jon Kyl, Lindsey Graham and Mel Martinez were all upbeat after a vote to end debate failed 45-50, failing to reach the 60-vote threshold to move toward final passage.
...Graham said he talked extensively with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and is confident the bill will return...
..."There are ways we can do this," Reid said later. "There can be an agreement on the number of amendments. Hopefully we can do that in the next several weeks. We're very close."
Kyl, the chief Republican negotiator, told reporters on Friday that he believed a list of about 10 amendments would satisfy the concerns primarily on his side of the aisle, and that those could be considered in no more than three days on the Senate floor...
"Both sides can point fingers as to who was to blame for not allowing enough amendments to get up... I don't think we should engage in that blame game. I'll take the responsibility myself. I didn't do a good enough job of either working with the Democratic leader or my Republican colleagues to get everybody together and get it done. But that is the weakest of excuses given the historical significance of what we're talking about. If all we're talking about is 12 or 13 amendments and a couple of days of work in the Senate, think about it. Who would allow that opportunity to be wasted, to dissipate, to wash away?"White House adviser Dan Bartlett says Bush wants the bill to come back too.
UPDATE: Sen. Ken Salazar says it might come back next month, that if it doesn't it might be five more years, and:
"Failure on immigration reform is not an option...For this Congress and Washington not to deal with immigration reform is an abdication of responsibility."
Senate illegal immigration amnesty: cloture or defeat. And: what you can do.
[6/7 8pm UPDATE: The bill has ceased to exist... for now. The final try at cloture failed, but the bill might come back later in the year. Please read the original entry below if you'd like to help prevent future tries at amnesty.. Like Business Week predicting a bull market just before the stock market crash, the cover of Time's June 18, 2007 issue - apparently released today - intones "Why Amnesty Makes Sense".]
[6/7 3:30pm UPDATE: On the floor right now, Harry Reid is disclosing that last Saturday he met with Cardinal Roger Mahony, and the latter called him an hour ago...]
[6/7 Noon UPDATE: The bill failed the first couple cloture votes, and there might be one later this afternoon. Harry Reid says: "It's daylight hours in Europe. Maybe [White House chief of staff] Josh Bolten can make some calls... The headlines are going to be, 'The president fails again.' It's his bill.". I'm outsourcing CSPAN-watching to Michelle Malkin and The Corner; if you want to prevent this and future amnesties, please read and act on what's below.]
I haven't concentrated on the Senate bill for various reasons, not the least of which is that I don't think it's going anywhere. And, even if it makes it out of the Senate, it will sink even more under its own weight in the House, and will also put many Senators on record as having supported one of the worst, most anti-American bills in history. And, even if Bush ends up signing it, its disastrous impacts will be known immediately. At that point, there is to a great extent no going back. However, the newly legalized former illegal aliens will not have the vote immediately, and there will still be time to take action, and there will no doubt be such a groundswell of public opinion (among those eligible to vote) that something is bound to happen, and that won't be favorable to any of those who pushed or voted for the bill.
I'm also more concerned with the larger issue of preventing future amnesties and encouraging politicians to support our laws. I have already outlined what you can do to block this and future amnesties. While that's more difficult than making phone calls, it will also be much, much, much more effective. One of the keys to this issue is that politicians feel they can get away with things like this even if they have to weather the storm of hundreds of angry phone calls for a few days.
On the other hand, if trying to push bills like this has a measurable impact on their political careers, many will think twice. Business and racial power groups can only do so much harm if politicians are afraid to carry their water. Our goal should be to make supporting illegal immigration or amnesty radioactive, something that politicians would no more do than they would support other things which are widely considered radioactive. There will always be extremists who'll keep pushing the issue, but our goal should be to make supporting illegal immigration something limited to that group rather than something that's considered mainstream.
Unfortunately, my plan has not met with much support, but that doesn't mean I won't keep pushing it. If you want to help out, here's the plan.
In any case, here are some news items related to the bill:
It's apparently been dealt a significant blow, with an amendment from Sen. Byron Dorgan passing that would end the "guest" worker program after five years. See that link for other amendments that passed and that didn't.
Later today (Thursday) Harry Reid will apparently call for a cloture vote on the bill.
Racial demagogue Robert Menendez tells a constituent that it would cost "as much as $250 billion" to deport all illegal aliens; he appears to be using an overstated figure from the Center for American Progress' "study" which used an extremely suspect methodology.
Sens. Barack Obama and Lindsey Graham traded words on the Senate floor, with the latter complaining about an amendment from the former which would have favored chain vs skilled migration.
Twenty-six Arizona state legislators, together with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, have signed a letter urging Senator Jon Kyl to back off the bill.
Monkey Boy goes to Washington.
There's an apparent list of non-committal Senators here: robertbluey.com/blog/2007/06/06/amnesty-opponents-making-progress-in-senate
ICE raids New Haven (John DeStefano + Mexico)
Drudge is linking to the story about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arresting dozens of illegal aliens in New Haven, Connecticut earlier today. This is apparently part of their occasional sweeps of fugitives and criminal aliens. And, it comes not long after that city voted to create their own ID card which would be available to anyone, whether illegal aliens or here legally. Mayor John DeStefano and his aide Kica Matos [1] - the latter is the designer of the cards program - are, needless to say, up in arms.
Now, for the stories that won't be discussed.
First, last month DHS head Michael Chertoff promised to conduct raids which he strongly implied would be highly emotional affairs and would inflame the left. If you start hearing stories about how the raid tore families apart or see crying babies being waved about, blame him.
Second, those who support immigration "reform" - which is being sold based on its stricter enforcement - will come out against this instance of stricter enforcement and will show once again that they aren't really in support of "reform" so much as they're just opposed to enforcement.
Third, Kica Matos is the former head of a group called Junta for Progressive Action, and that group is collaborating with the Mexican government. She's married to DeStefano's campaign manager from his gubanatorial run, so the mayor is tightly affiliated with those willing to collaborate with a foreign government.
[1] newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/06/fed_sweep_fair.php
Letter: last 100 conservatives who support Senate amnesty bill must band together!
A group of about 30 conservatives have sent an open letter to the rest demanding that they band together and support the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl massive illegal alien amnesty bill. The letter itself is full of half-truths, such as their claim that "it will make sure that the law is enforced first, before any other provisions of the legislation take effect". Actually, the semi-legalization would occur immediately, and the government would only have 24 or 48 hours to turn down someone's application.
Here's a list of some of the signatories, with the rest in the extended entry:
* Jack Kemp, former New York congressman
* Jeb Bush, former governor of Florida
* Ken Mehlman, former chairman, Republican National Committee
* Tamar Jacoby, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
* Michael Gerson, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
* Hector Barreto, chairman, The Latino Coalition
* Lawrence Kudlow, economics editor, National Review Online
* Linda Chavez, chairman, Center for Equal Opportunity
Two others are open/loose borders "economists", Gregory Mankiw, professor of economics, Harvard University; Donald J. Boudreaux, chairman, Economics Department, George Mason University. You can see an example of the latter's thinking abilities on display in this post. The first was a signatory to the similarly childlike Open Letter on Immigration. As previously discussed, some of the first picking up the recent David Leonhardt smear of Lou Dobbs were similar "economists", although not those two.
Another is Robert de Posada, president, The Latino Coalition. He also has a link to First Data/Western Union, a company that profits from illegal immigration.
James Q. Wilson, professor of public policy, Pepperdine University
Bill Paxon, former New York congressman
Ken Weinstein, CEO, Hudson Institute
Charlie Black, chairman, BKSH & Associates
Mike Murphy, Republican strategist
Francis Fukuyama, professor of political economy, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies
Max Boot, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations
Richard Gilder, partner, Gilder Gagnon Howe & Co., LLC
Jeff Bell, principal, Capital City Partners
Steven Wagner, former director, Human Trafficking Program, Department of Health and Human Services
Philip I. Levy, resident scholar, American Enterprise Institute
Kevin Hassett, director of economic policy studies, American Enterprise Institute
Jerry Bowyer, chairman, Bowyer Media
Clint Bolick, senior fellow, Goldwater Institute
Gary Rosen, managing editor, Commentary
Joseph Bottum, editor, First Things
John McWhorter, senior fellow, Manhattan Institute
Larry Cirignano, Catholic activist
Pancho Kinney, former director of strategy, White House Office of Homeland Security
Arizona: 24% for Senate bill, 14% think it will work; McCain unfavorable at 51%
A couple days ago, Jonathan Weisman of the Washington Post gave corrupt legislators a pep talk ("Backers of Immigration Bill More Optimistic").
Now, let's take off the rose-colored glasses and read about a new Rasmussen Reports poll:
Just 24% of Arizona voters favor passage of the bill while 50% are opposed. Nationally, figures released last week showed 26% in favor and 48% opposed... Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Arizona voters say that is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." However, just 14% believe the Senate bill will actually reduce illegal immigration... Forty-two percent (42%) believe that if the bill is passed, illegal immigration will actually increase. That is very similar to the national reaction... Just 22% of Arizona voters believe it is Very Important for "the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States." However, 60% would be willing to accept a compromise providing illegal aliens with a path to citizenship provided that it truly reduced levels of illegal immigration... Kyl is still viewed favorably by 55% of Arizona voters. That’s little changed from his ratings before the election. However, the number with a Very Favorable opinion has fallen ten points to 26%. Last October, 36% had a Very Favorable opinion of Kyl... The impact is even more noticeable on McCain who is now viewed favorably by just 47% of Arizona voters. Fifty-one percent (51%) have an unfavorable of their state’s Presidential hopeful. Just 15% now have a Very Favorable opinion of McCain while 22% have a Very Unfavorable view.
CBO: Senate amnesty would only reduce flow of illegal aliens by 25% a year
This joke would be funnier if it were on some other country:The Senate's immigration bill will cut annual illegal immigration by just 25 percent, and the bill's new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal aliens within a decade, Congress' accounting arm said yesterday.UPDATE: The CBO analysis doesn't include several costs, as detailed here.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its official cost estimate that many guest workers will overstay their time in the plan, with the number totaling a half-million in 2017 and reaching 1 million a decade later...
...In a blow to President Bush's timetable, the CBO said the security "triggers" that must be met before the guest-worker program can begin won't be met until 2010. Mr. Bush had hoped to have those triggers -- setting up a verification system, deploying 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents and constructing hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers -- completed about the time he leaves office in January 2009...
John McCain: no amnesty for illegal aliens could lead to France-style riots
Senator John McCain snowed them in Le Mars, Iowa on Saturday:...The man wasn't satisfied with McCain's answer. He asked McCain why the U.S. couldn't execute large-scale deportations, as he had heard they did in France and other countries.On the one hand, one might think he's saying that mass deportations would lead to mass rioting. Then again, he's refering to being "relegated to ghettos", which is similar to the talking point of "illegal aliens in the shadows". So, I don't think he's saying we'd only have rioting if we tried mass deportations, but that we could have that if we have large numbers of people living in "ghettos" of some kind.
The question seemed to pique McCain.
"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France," McCain said. "They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America."
Obviously, when you have to make such calculations as McCain is, you're admitting that your country has been invaded and settled. It's good to see McCain come right out and admit that, but it'd be even better if we started to hold those who are responsible for the current situation, including McCain. And, it's imperative that we avoid making the situation even worse, which the Bush/Kennedy/McCain bill would do.
Covert White House propaganda for Senate immigration amnesty bill?
The previously mentioned NYT article about the backlash against the Bush/Senate amnesty bill contains a very interesting paragraph which, naturally, the NYT didn't follow up on:
White House officials said [the backlash] had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.
One would think that if White House representatives had been engaging the blogosphere, I would have heard about it. I know that Hugh Hewitt interviewed Tony Snow, and I make a habit of never visiting RedState, but that's the only two possibilities I can think of. And, one would think that if they had outreached to "liberal" sites they would have posted about that; I doubt whether DailyKos has been allowing Karl Rove to post a diary there under his own name.
Note also that the White House has been "posting defenses", which might imply that they've been posting comments. Did they identify themselves as being with the Bush administration?
Or, did they (just as an example!) get a cheap-o dial-up account or use a proxy to disguise where their comments were coming from? That's certainly something worth looking into, especially if any laws were broken by doing so.
I note also the furious nature with which the David Leonhardt smear of Lou Dobbs spread around the internet (partial list of sites discussing it here). Call me paranoid, but to me it seemed a bit like a coordinated attack. I note also that according to technorati, the first major sites linking to it, in addition to mediabistro.com and the usual smear merchants like ThinkProgress and puffballs like andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com, were academics: poliblogger.com, brendan-nyhan.com, marginalrevolution.com, and economistsview.typepad.com, with the last three being open borders, "free" trade "economists". I note also that economist.com followed up with their own smear, as did the Columbia Journalism Review. There are also at least five dupe links to the same NYT article at digg.com, a fairly large number.
Obviously, this is all just speculation, but if the White House has been spreading propaganda on the federal government's dime, then perhaps someone should look into it. Especially if it's been covert.
UPDATE: Someone like Les Kinsolving should ask Tony Snow for a full list - including URLs - of the defenses they've posted. An enterprising citizen journalist could even file an FOIA request looking for a list of websites visited by White House staff filtered by blogs and forums and any information on dial-up accounts or proxies used.
UPDATE 2: Based on comments, we've got The Corner as another possibility and there are apparently White House posts at RedState (as if you could tell the difference). But, where are the liberal sites the NYT mentioned above?
Rep. Ruben Hinojosa wants millions for the National Council of La Raza
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D-TX) wants the feds to underwrite the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") to the tune of $5 million per year for 2008. In 2009, that would double, with the National Council of The Race receiving $10 million from the federal government thereafter. They already receive $5 million per year from the Feds, and Harry Reid might have been involved in that.
The NCLR is a considered-mainstream group that actually works to support illegal immigration and which has links to and funds extremists.
The bill ("Hope Fund Act of 2007", HR 1999) is co-sponsored by Rick Renzi, Barney Frank, and Silvestre Reyes, and it's also race-specific:
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall, to the extent amounts are made available pursuant to subsection (b), make a grant to the National Council of La Raza for the purpose of providing technical and financial assistance to local non-profit organizations to undertake community development and affordable housing projects and programs serving low- and moderate-income households, particularly through organizations located in neighborhoods with substantial populations of income-disadvantaged households of Hispanic origin.
Needless to say, this will help consolidate La Raza's power, as well as those linked to them: the Democratic Party. It's also open-ended, allowing them to "conduct such other activities as may be determined by the Secretary and the National Council of La Raza."
Charles Krauthammer on biased NYT/CBS poll
One of the few remaining (previous?) Bush supporters offers "It Doesn't Take Einstein to See What's Wrong with This Bill". The bill is the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill, and he starts with a discussion of the VIP visas, followed by points covered here days ago:...But the campaign for legalization does not stop at stupidity and farce. It adds mendacity as well — such as the front-page story in last Friday's New York Times claiming that "a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status."
Sounds unbelievable. And it is. A Rasmussen poll had shown that 72 percent of Americans thought border enforcement and reducing illegal immigration to be very important. Only 29 percent thought legalization to be very important. Indeed, when a different question in the Times poll — one that did not make the front page — asked respondents if they wanted to see illegal immigrants prosecuted and deported, 69 percent said yes.
I looked for the poll question that justified the pro-legalization claim. It was question 61. Just as I suspected, it was perfectly tendentious. It gave the respondent two options: (a) allow illegal immigrants to apply for legalization (itself a misleading characterization because the current bill grants instant legal status to all non-criminals), or (b) deport them.
Surprise. Sixty-two percent said (a). That’s like asking about abortion: Do you favor (a) legalization or (b) capital punishment for doctor and mother? There is of course a third alternative: what we’ve been living with for the last 20 years — a certain tolerance of illegal immigrants that allows 12 million to stay and work but denies them most of the privileges and government payouts reserved for legal citizens, and thus acts as at least a mild disincentive to even more massive illegal immigration...
Bush: Senate bill isn't "risky"; no more "name-calling and finger-pointing"!
From president Bush's comments today, this is the lowest of the lowest hanging fruit I spotted (a difficult choice):
I say -- I don't think this is risky, frankly. I don't view this as risk reward. I, frankly, view it as doing what you ought to do. See, people ought to be running for office to do what's right for the United States of America. That's what I believe people run for office for. And so I want you to know that you've got an administration that looks forward to working with people. I will do my best to make sure that this debate [see update 3] does not denigrate into name-calling and finger-pointing. And we'll spend energy and time and effort to help you advance a really important piece of legislation for the good of this country.
First, I don't think denigrate can be used intransitively. Second, it's good to know that we've got a "people administration". Third, Bush is a complete Quisling.
Joe Klein/Time Magazine: just a sleazy liar
In his latest column, Joe Klein of Time Magazine discusses Mitt Romney, and says:
[Romney] has flipped on immigration, to better suit the Mexican-fearing tendencies of a segment of the Republican base.
That's a sleazy statement which tries to give the impression that opposition to massive illegal activity and massive public and private corruption is due to xenophobia and racism.
Now for an example of Joe Klien lying. In a previous column, he said this:
I've been surprised by how ineffective Tancredo has been in making his anti-immigrant pitch, which should have some resonance in the Republican Party.
A smear and a lie, in just one sentence. Tancredo is not "anti-immigrant", and the idea that such a platform would find "resonance" is a smear.
(Also: Wonkette/Ana Marie Cox said on their blog that Hugh Hewitt was an "immigration foe", placing me in the uncomfortable position of having to defend him.)
David Leonhardt/New York Times: illegal immigration supporting hack
David Leonhardt of the New York Times offers the much-linked "Truth, Fiction and Lou Dobbs". It discusses a few facts that Dobbs has gotten wrong, and to that extent it's worthwhile: everybody needs a fact-checker to keep them honest. However, one wonders about this bit:
He is the heir to the nativist tradition that has long used fiction and conspiracy theories as a weapon against the Irish, the Italians, the Chinese, the Jews and, now, the Mexicans.
That kind of smear doesn't sound like fact-checking to me. According to Lesley Stahl, journalists shouldn't mix in opinion with their facts. Does that above sound like a fact? Should Leonhard be considered a journalist?
In fact, what's going on here is the that New York Times and most of our corrupt elite support massive illegal activity, something that Dobbs opposes. The NYT is simply striking back.
He also mentions the Southern Poverty Law Center, calling them a "civil rights group" without mentioning that they have an indirect link to the Mexican government. Shouldn't a good journalist disclose such links?
And, one of Leonhardt's statements doesn't exactly square with previous NYT coverage. He quotes "James L. Krahenbuhl, the director of the National Hansen's Disease Program, an arm of the federal government" as saying:
"It is not a public health problem — that’s the bottom line... You've got a country of 300 million people. This is not something for the public to get alarmed about."
However, one of those sounding alarms... was the New York Times back in February 18, 2003 with "Leprosy, a Synonym for a Stigma, Returns":
But, in fact, as cases of leprosy have been declining worldwide in recent years, the infection has actually been on the rise in the United States... While there were some 900 recorded cases in the United States 40 years ago, today more than 7,000 people have leprosy, or Hansen's disease, as it is now called. ''And those are the ones we know about,'' said Dr. William Levis, attending physician at Bellevue Hospital's Hansen's Disease Clinic. ''There are probably many, many more.'' ...the disease is now officially endemic to the Northeastern United States for the first time ever.
Wouldn't a good journalist have at least mentioned that earlier article? Leonhart's smears continue:
Mr. Dobbs argues that the middle class has many enemies: corporate lobbyists, greedy executives, wimpy journalists, corrupt politicians. But none play a bigger role than illegal immigrants. As he sees it, they are stealing our jobs, depressing our wages and even endangering our lives.
I only see his show occasionally, but I suspect that Dobbs focuses more on illegal aliens themselves as symptoms of the former group, yet Leonhardt is implying that Dobbs focuses on the illegal aliens themselves.
Leonhardt's hack status is further entrenched with this chestnut:
There is no denying that this country's immigration system is broken.
The bottom line here is the bottom line: some people profit from illegal immigration, either monetarily or through obtaining political power. And, they're quite willing to defend their bottom line through lies and smears.
More to come, including Dobbs' response and a list of those who helped retransmit Leonhardt's smears.
UPDATE: Dobbs responds: "An answer for my critics".
I point out that I was one of the few people attempting to counteract this smear here. That helps illustrate why the MSM and politicians are continually allowed to spread lies and pro-illegal immigration propaganda.
The NYT article also contains this:
For one thing, Mr. Dobbs has a somewhat flexible relationship with reality. He has said, for example, that one-third of the inmates in the federal prison system are illegal immigrants. That's wrong, too. According to the Justice Department, 6 percent of prisoners in this country are noncitizens (compared with 7 percent of the population).
Bearing in mind that I'm not familiar with the statistics he cites, this site says:
Notice how Leonhardt has changed the subject. Dobbs was talking about federal prisoners, and Leonhardt is talking about the entire state plus federal prison population.
UPDATE 2: It's starting to get funny now. From the current NYT article:
Second, Mr. Dobbs really does give airtime to white supremacy sympathizers. Ms. Cosman, who is now deceased, was a lawyer and Renaissance studies scholar, never a medical doctor or a leprosy expert. She gave speeches in which she said that Mexican immigrants had a habit of molesting children.
Now, let's turn to this article from March 19, 2006:
Madeleine Pelner Cosman, a prominent writer, scholar and lecturer whose passion for what she called the "glorious order" of the past led her first to a career in medieval and Renaissance studies and more recently to wide public advocacy of tougher immigration laws, died on March 2 in Escondido, Calif. She was 68... Ms. Cosman took her work seriously. She could sing madrigals, play the lute and eat with her fingers off a trencher in the proper medieval style. Her house in suburban New Jersey was appointed with ornately carved period furniture. Arms and armor lay about, the walls were hung with Flemish tapestries, and the cellar was stocked with mead.
It goes on in its own laudatory way, with the only discordant note being the use of the term "anti-immigrant" to refer to websites that promoted her latter works. The source? Why (of course) the New York Times (link, copy).
Chicago alderman's father target of document forgery investigation
Back in April, the Feds raided a shopping center in Chicago's Little Village neighborhood to break up a document forgery ring that also involved an attempted murder. One of the stores raided was a photo store owned by the father of Chicago Alderman Ricardo Munoz (22nd); at the time he said that his father had no involvement in the alleged crimes. And, the raid generated a march through the streets with illegal immigration supporters going as far as saying that "Soldiers bombarded our neighborhood".Now comes this:
ABC7 has learned from a source close to the Munoz family that Elias Munoz will fight the charges maintaining that he only sold photos and had nothing to do with any conspiracy to make fake IDs. But the feds claim the 22nd Ward alderman's father was a major player and target of Operation Paper Tiger.The Feds may or may not be over-selling their case; they found blank identity cards in the shop which are apparently legal, but it isn't known the extent to which they're basing the case on that. See also the PDF from the previous post describing the crimes involved in this case.
Federal agents allege that a ring of fake ID sellers that operated for at least 3 1/2 years in the parking lot of a Little Village strip mall routinely sent their customers -- sometimes over 100 a day -- to Nuevo Foto Munoz, 3105 W. 26th St., to fill out forms and have their pictures taken for $10 each. At another location, the counterfeiters used the snapshots to make bogus Social Security cards, green cards and driver's licenses.
The government claims it has affidavits from informants and undercover agents that will link Elias Munoz to the ring, 13 members of which were arrested in an April 24 raid on the mall. On that day, Elias's son, 22nd Ward Alderman Ricky Munoz, led complaints about how the raid was conducted...
voceunidas.org is now the Swift Raid Collaborative (Mexico-linked Peter Schey)
Peter Schey is an immigration attorney with at least three links to the Mexican government. In addition to heading the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, he also operates vocesunidas.org, which until recently was called the "Mexico Project". It's since undergone an interesting change. The previous version included this:
A collaborative project of the Dirección General de Proteccion y Asuntos Consulares of the Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores of the Government of Mexico and the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.
It also included a "Partial list of participating consulates", listing Mexican consulates in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Oxnard, San Diego, San Francisco, Austin, Houston, Dallas, Brownsville, El Paso, Laredo, and Chicago.
Now, the site has become the "Swift Raid Collaborative", and there's no note on the front page of any collaboration with the Mexican government. There's a banner on the right called "Voces Unidas/A project for Mexican National women and children survivors of domestic abuse", but that leads back to the home page.
Thankfully, a copy of the original page has been cached both by me, by google, and by archive.org, so the next time Teresa Watanabe, Peter Prengaman, Martha Mendoza, or other "reporters" quote Schey without mentioning his links to the Mexican government, we can have something to send them to.
Is immigration reform an elaborate practical joke? (Chertoff USA Today interview)
USA Today continues their obvious attempt to help the Bush administration push amnesty with a transcript (link) of part of the meeting USA Today's editorial board held with DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez. After reading it, I know three things: a) there were no doubt tougher, less Soviet interviews in Izvestia, b) neither Chertoff nor Gutierrez are inhabiting the same universe as the rest of us (possible name of their universe: rubegoldbergia), and c) their scheme would be a bigger debacle than Iraq and Katrina multiplied together.First, it's worth noting that USA Today leads off the posting with: "Cabinet secretaries tackle myths of the immigration debate..." Obviously, the non-disclaimed word "myths" is editorializing and gives a strong clue to USA Today's stance on the issue. Let's take a look at this:
Q: So let's be sure we understand this. If this compromise becomes law, 12 million illegal immigrants could instantly enroll in the system and receive probationary legal status. Once a series of enforcement "triggers" are met — such as improved border security and a set system to verify the status of illegal workers — they could apply for a Z visa. That visa would allow them to remain and work in the country and, if they choose, put them on a path to citizenship. You'd be adding this to a system that was strained and challenged even before this legislation. Is this possible?Of course, what he fails to stress is that after simplifying the current system, they are going to have millions and millions of new applicants. Why not just simplify the current system, without the massive rush of millions and millions of new applicants?
Chertoff: By simplifying the system and by not having a very complicated process for getting the Z visa, you're eliminating a lot of the problems under the current system, which was built as a patchwork. (Illegal immigrants who were in the country by Jan. 1, 2007, are eligible for the Z visa.)
Then:
Q: How will you get the illegal immigrants to enroll, and what happens once they do?A model they could follow is the one the Mexican government uses with their mobile consulates. I'm kidding, but I wouldn't be surprised if they thought of that.
Chertoff: We need to have locations all over the country, particularly in places with large numbers of illegal migrants. We hope to get local community leaders to help...[describes Z visa process...]
Needless to say, the "local community leaders" will almost all be far-left with some of them being radicals and/or having direct or indirect links to the Mexican government. I have little doubt that individual offices would be under tremendous pressure to get as many people on "probationary" status as quickly as possible, with the "leaders" supplying much of the pressure, and lawyers from the ACLU and other groups supplying more. I am extremely doubtful that intake personnel will be experienced or skilled, with many being taken in by liars, with many feeling sympathy with applicants, and with some being on the take. "Mad rush" doesn't begin to describe what the offices will look like, even if many illegal aliens decide to maintain their current status.
Chertoff goes on to claim that after a certain period there will be no more Z Visas issued; can anyone see that happening? If there are hundreds of thousands or millions of unadmitted illegal aliens after the first phase, what are they going to do but wave the magic wand again? Expect an extension to be issued just before the end of the first phase; see "Temporary" Protected Status for an example of how that would work.
Chertoff then goes on to assure illegal aliens who enter the program that if they play by the rules and don't have criminal records, they won't be deported. While he has to say something like that in order to increase the miniscule possibility that the scheme would work, its irony was no doubt lost on the USA Today board. Or, perhaps they had a nice chuckle.
Then:
Q. So once the Z visa system is in place, will every employer have access to a computer in order to verify an employee's legal status?What? The last time I was in a PO (admittedly several months ago), they were barely electrified. Does this bill include the computerization of the post offices?
Gutierrez: Yes, and for those who may not have a computer, there will be post offices with computers and secretaries of state with computers.
Q: Would anyone who hires a day laborer — to do yard work, for instance — have to verify status?Did he stifle a laugh as he said that? The worries about getting caught hiring an illegal alien day laborer would be the same post-"reform" as they are now: none. Newspapers have even promoted the practice.
Gutierrez: Yes.
Asked about the "justification for the guest-worker program":
Gutierrez: Our unemployment is 4.5%. It's below the average of each of the last four decades. This is a very tight labor market. We don't have enough truck drivers. We don't have enough nurses. We don't have enough people working in the fields. We don't have enough maids in hotels. I'm constantly hearing this. So there's no question we don't have enough workers.I generally avoid economic arguments here, but my understanding is that many of those jobs are of the McJob variety, most of the recent jobs have gone to immigrants, and large numbers of Americans are structurally unemployed (and thus not reflected in the 4.5% figure). So, I don't think Gutierrez is being intellectually honest. And, of course, he says that he's bought the propaganda from cheap labor-seeking employers, and he wants everyone else to buy it as well.
Near the end, USA Today says this:
Q: Some people express concern that so many of today's immigrants speak the same language, and it's not English. Does that make this different from past waves of immigration?There are huge differences between the current wave and past waves. USA Today can't mention them all, but they're falsely implying that that's the only or the major difference. Gutierrez goes on to inform them that two of his children were born in Mexico (apparently this was when he was a Kellogg executive and after he'd obtained U.S. citizenship) and that because "the television; the whole environment is in English" it's not a problem. Obviously, there are huge problems with that statement.
Chertoff and Gutierrez are just snake oil salesmen, with USA Today as their shill.
Minor immigration debate reveals fundamental issue (Dianne Feinstein)
Not only do open/loose borders loons not understand or support our borders, they also have issues with public vs. private property. Earlier today a small group of said loons delivered petitions to Sen. Dianne Feinstein's San Francisco office. They also gathered on the steps of the building, and the building is private property. The security guard asked them to get off the steps, and it apparently took several minutes before they relented:[After having been asked to leave the steps...] As a woman who identified herself as Mary Doyle of the Diocese of Oakland began to read a prepared statement, Cooper [the security guard] stepped into the middle of the group and told her to stop.He then apparently showed them the "border line". After having determined that they were on private property, most people would relent and move to public property. It's quite revealing that they did not:
Another man in the crowd asked Cooper if he was afraid of the group.
"No, I am not afraid of you," Cooper said. "I asked you very politely to break this up and you have not done it. Can you please comply with that?"
A demonstrator told Cooper, "No." Another person said it was the group's First Amendment right to be there.
"To invade private property is your First Amendment right?" Cooper said.
At one point, Doyle began reading her statement again, and Cooper started making loud noises over her speech in an effort to get the group's attention. He asked the group to move again... [...they got into an argument...]They didn't cross the sidewalk, the sidewalk crossed them.
...In the end, the organizers moved 10 feet to a nearby sidewalk and continued their demonstration.
Bush attacks immigration "reform" opponents, taps out literary allusions
Our president spoke [1] in Georgia earlier today at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center in Glynco. The topic: comprehensive immigration "reform", specifically the Senate's amnesty bill.
I am uncertain how to proceed.
Do I offer a summary? A point-by-point "fisk"? Do I make fun of his blather? Do I outsource commenting to others? Do I frantically search through the collected works of Kafka, Gogol, Shakespeare, even Bradbury or Vonnegut or Asimov to try to find literary corollaries to his remarks? Contact professors of Russian or Classical history for past examples? I really don't know what to do in this case.
[1] whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070529-7.html
Steve Lopez: up with illegal immigration propaganda, allegedly Mexico-linked CHIRLA
Via this, Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times offers "Family crossed the border to success". The family in question is that of Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles. As discussed at that link, CHIRLA has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government. In the piece, Lopez says that Salas' job is to "tell stories" and even to "share her stories with immigrant-bashers". And, she "believes the tone of the debate has been and will continue to be changed by humanizing it". "Tell stories, Angelica Salas says."
Does he ask Salas about her group allegedly collaborating with the Mexican government? Does he bust her for spreading pro-illegal immigration propaganda? Does he try to find out who in the media or government has assisted her with spreading that propaganda?
No. In fact, he gladly joins in with her efforts and supports "humanizing" the debate through heartwarming anecdotes, offering a few of his own.
In previous columns, he's shown an inability to understand simple economics but even more relevant Steve Lopez spread propaganda from a Mexican consul.
Please write him at steve.lopez *at* latimes.com with your thoughts.
Janet Napolitano endorses Senate immigration bill; "silent amnesty"
Note that she's using the same term as Michael Chertoff; who used it first isn't known:Saying the only current alternative is allowing a status quo of "silent amnesty," Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano on Wednesday [5/23/07] tentatively endorsed a U.S. Senate proposal on immigration.
Napolitano said she sees some flaws in the Senate proposal but that it "includes all the elements of comprehensive immigration reform."
..."The status quo is not acceptable, and when I hear those who are opposed to the bill call it amnesty, I really want to say to them what we have now is silent amnesty, because nothing is being done with those who are already illegally in this country, and we have no system to do anything with those already illegally in this country," she said.
...Napolitano wrote in a newspaper commentary published Tuesday that she wanted changes made to the U.S. Senate proposal. She criticized the proposal's delay of a temporary worker program until border security measures are deployed, a requirement that temporary workers return home for a year after two years of work in the United States and a requirement that illegal immigrants who are heads of household return to their country before gaining legal status...
ACLU has "concerns" about Senate immigration amnesty bill
From their press release [1]:The American Civil Liberties Union today [5/25/07] expressed grave concerns about the due process and privacy implications of the Senate immigration bill. The proposed legislation would create a vast federal database to verify the work eligibility of all job applicants in America - including U.S. citizens; expand indefinite detention; and deny effective judicial review of Department of Homeland Security errors denying immigration status.In addition to their many othe flaws, the ACLU is indirectly linked to the Mexican government. However, that doesn't stop me from agreeing with them in principle, despite the fact that I think they're overselling the downsides. And, the danger in this case is that the bill could be amended in a way that would make them - and other far-left and racial power groups such as La Raza - support it.
...The proposed legislation would require every job applicant in America to have their eligibility to work verified by the DHS, using the error-plagued Employment Eligibility Verification System (EEVS). EEVS creates a massive government database containing extraordinary amounts of personal information on everyone in America, tied to each individual's Social Security number. If DHS makes a mistake in determining work eligibility, there will be virtually no way to challenge the error or recover lost wages due to the bill's prohibitions on judicial review.
As a part of EEVS, every person in America would be forced to carry a hardened Social Security card perhaps containing biometric information about the cardholder - essentially a national ID - and present a Real ID-compliant driver's license to get any new job. The proposed legislation also expands current practice of expedited removal. The ACLU noted that these policies do nothing to solve the problems of illegal immigration and violate the fundamental American value of due process.
[1] aclu.org/immigrants/gen/29878prs20070525.html
Trent Lott's question for voters: "Is the current immigration situation intolerable?"
From "Fury grows over US immigration bill" comes this:Trent Lott doesn't usually answer his Senate phone himself, but when angry callers are burning up the lines – as they are over this week's debate about revising America's immigration laws – the Republicans' No. 2 Senate leader has picked up to hear what they've got to say.Of course, if Gail Russell Chaddock wanted to be a real journalist, she would have pressed him on that point, asking for examples of the "misinformation". And, of course, some of the information is obviously true, since Lott only says "a lot" of it isn't. And, of course, whether what he says can be trusted is an open question; he may in fact be lying through his teeth.
A lot of the talk is misinformation, he says. Talk radio and the blogs were blasting the compromise bill, which includes a guest-worker program and a path to legal status for many of the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the US, well before the text of the bill was ready for senators on Tuesday.
Then, continuing the transcription:
The Mississippi senator urges his colleagues to take three questions home to voters this week: Is the current immigration situation intolerable? Is the bill before the Senate significantly better than the current situation? The answer to both questions is yes, he says.It's an established trick to make a situation far worse than it has to be in order to strongarm through the "fix" you've wanted all along. A very good follow-up question to anyone who asks about whether the situation is intolerable is who's responsible for getting us into this position? What exactly was Lott doing to, for instance, encourage Bush to enforce our laws all throughout his presidency? Isn't Lott partially responsible for the current situation?
His final question is this: Will more time make a better bill? With next year's election results uncertain for Republicans, the answer is "clearly no," says Lott.
"This," he says, "is our last best chance to make a significant improvement in our immigration laws."
Please call him and ask.
Linda Chavez: opposition to amnesy is just about racism, xenophobia
Linda Chavez - recently mentioned here playing the race card in the case of the Fort Dix Six - just got back from the 99 Cents store with a bag full of cards and threw all of them - together with whatever small amount of credibility she had remaining - on the table:Some people just don't like Mexicans -- or anyone else from south of the border. They think Latinos are freeloaders and welfare cheats who are too lazy to learn English. They think Latinos have too many babies, and that Latino kids will dumb down our schools. They think Latinos are dirty, diseased, indolent and more prone to criminal behavior. They think Latinos are just too different from us ever to become real Americans.There really isn't that much of a difference between her argument and those to be found at DailyKos, BrainFireHeadDogLakeBrain, Amanda Marcotte's site, or other left-wing smear sites. And, if she feels this way about the large majority of Republicans who oppose illegal immigration, then perhaps she (together with Bush, Michael Gerson, and the rest) should find another party more to their liking.
No amount of hard, empirical evidence to the contrary, and no amount of reasoned argument or appeals to decency and fairness, will convince this small group of Americans -- fewer than 10 percent of the general population, at most -- otherwise. Unfortunately, among this group is a fair number of Republican members of Congress, almost all influential conservative talk radio hosts, some cable news anchors -- most prominently, Lou Dobbs -- and a handful of public policy "experts" at organizations such as the Center for Immigration Studies, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, NumbersUSA, in addition to fringe groups like the Minuteman Project.
Stripped bare, this is what the current debate on immigration reform is all about...
Sleazy Bush proxy Michael Gerson attacks "nativists" in GOP base over immigration
The Bush administration's charm offensive continues with Michael Gerson - a Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and Bush's former head speechwriter ("Axis of Evil") - offering up "Letting Fear Rule/Nativism Is a Recipe for Long-Term GOP Losses". As you might expect, it's one smear after another.
Like Lindsey Graham reading documents from 1911, he leads with the Chinese Exclusion Act, then starts the lies and name calling: "anti-immigrant sentiments", "a nativist party will cease to be a national party", "Tancredo is the lowbrow expression of this fear", "any attempt to grant a legal status to illegal immigrants is as welcome as salsa on their apple pie", "rage and national chauvinism".
His overall thesis is false in at least three ways. First, there's absolutely no guarantee that importing millions more Latin Americans will cause at least 40% of them to vote GOP. Even if the corrupt forces in the GOP prevail and it becomes a party of loose and race-based immigration, the Democrats will always be able to offer a looser deal and one even more explicitly based on race. Anyone who's familiar with this issue realizes that many groups (LULAC, National Council of La Raza/"The Race") are very successful at making racial appeals, as are racial demagogues like Antonio Villaraigosa. Gerson and the rest are actually giving those groups more power, as David Frum stated earlier. He even approvingly quotes someone promoting the "Latinoization of America". There's clearly an extremely strong possibility that he's wrong, yet he doesn't acknowledge that fact.
Second, if his argument has any validity it's one for immigration in general, not massive illegal immigration or massive immigration of any kind from one country or region.
Third, it certainly is possible to both be non-discriminatory to Hispanics and oppose illegal and massive legal immigration at the same time. Yet, he undercuts that by assuming that those are incompatible and smearing those who show it is as "nativists".
He should just be considered a smearing CFR hack and a Bush proxy.
UPDATE: ThinkProgress - the political answer to the National Enquirer - uses his remarks to further spread the "GOP = nativistic racists" meme, something that Gerson and his presumed handlers should spend more time attacking and less time aiding and abetting:
False choice alert: NYT/CBS poll says "Majority Favor Changing Immigration Laws"
Julia Preston and Marjorie Connelly of the New York Times get out their megaphone and shout, "Majority Favor Changing Immigration Laws, Poll Says". The New York Times/CBS News Poll in question obtains that result by offering a false choice, and some of the other answers in the poll are a bit schizophrenic [questions: graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20070525poll.pdf].
And, needless to say, the NYT is pushing what is actually a lie to the greatest extent possible:
Taking a pragmatic view on a divisive issue, a large majority of Americans want to change the immigration laws to allow illegal immigrants to gain legal status and to create a new guest worker program to meet future labor demand, the poll found... Point by point, large majorities expressed support for measures contained in the legislation that has been under debate since Monday in the Senate...
Not so fast now. First, the false choice is in this question:
61. If you had to choose, what do you think should happen to most illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the United States for at least two years: They should be given a chance to keep their jobs and eventually apply for legal status, OR They should be deported back to their native country?
62% said the first, 33% said the second. There are other options which weren't, of course, asked, such as strictly enforcing the current laws in order to encourage many of those here now to return home. Why wouldn't the NYT and CBS ask about that? Obviously, the poll question was dictated by the result they wanted. This is made obvious by the next question they asked:
62. ASKED OF THOSE WHO SAID DEPORTED: Do you think it is possible to find and deport most illegal immigrants to their native countries, or do you think that is not possible?
That was 19 for the first, 14 for the second, plus 1 for undecided (adding up to the 33% in the previous question). Needless to say, this is a stock talking point employed by Bush, Chertoff, and others.
There's also this question:
48. How much have you heard or read about changing the laws regarding immigration in the United States — a lot, some, not much, or nothing at all?
Only 26% said "a lot", with "some" at 51% and "not much" at 18%. One wonders how much the results would differ if they had broken them out by those groups.
Other questions showing support for "guest" workers are followed by this:
71. Some people say a guest worker program would DECREASE illegal immigration by giving the people who want to come and work in the U.S. a legal way to do so. Other people say a guest worker program would INCREASE illegal immigration because those who came to work in the U.S. might stay longer than allowed. What do you think — would having a guest worker program increase or decrease illegal immigration?
45% say it would increase vs. 41% saying it would decrease. Perhaps they should have asked that question before asking the other "guest" worker questions.
And, in the schizophrenia category, 69% (vs. 24%) say yes to this:
Should illegal immigrants be prosecuted and deported for being in the U.S. illegally, or shouldn't they?
Another question shows more support for the Border Patrol than building fences (actually another false choice). 34% would favor a "tamper-proof government-issued identification card", vs. 15% against and 49% undecided. A slim majority oppose a database of all workers, including citizens. 51% vs. 34% favor skills-based rather than family-based immigration.
Then, there's this misleading question about the anti-American DREAM Act:
75. Do you think the children of illegal immigrants who graduate from high school in the U.S. should be allowed to attend state public colleges at the same reduced in-state tuition rates as other state residents, or should they pay higher tuition?
52% say they should pay the in-state rate, with 39% saying the higher rate. However, that question is highly misleading, since the issue is that the children themselves are illegal aliens, not just the parents. And, they don't note that every discount that goes to an illegal alien is one that was taken away from a citizen.
If they had correctly stated the issue - and informed the respondents of everything involved in this issue - no doubt the result would be very different. Of course, that applies to most of the other questions in the poll as well.
Sleazy Robert Novak on "immigrant-bashing" and "anti-immigration"
Robert Novak offers "Immigration trap for GOP candidates/Immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans":Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Saxby Chambliss of Georgia were booed at their respective state party conventions Sunday for supporting a compromise immigration bill. Their specific sin was collaborating with the liberal lion Sen. Edward M. Kennedy. But behind the catcalls was GOP rage over undocumented foreigners, a sentiment GOP lawmakers must appease or risk dire consequences.Of course, Novak and Graham are too much sleazy lightweights to realize the huge differences between then and now.
Why are the party faithful so incensed by immigration? When I asked Graham, he quoted from a federal government report on the new arrivals to this country, "largely unskilled laborers" and heavily illiterate: "The new immigration has provoked a widespread feeling of apprehension as to its effect on the economic and social welfare of the country." The report, by the U.S. Immigration Commission, was dated 1911.
...This nation of immigrants has greeted successive waves of newcomers with apprehension stoked by demagogues. It has overcome such past xenophobic impulses. But that will be more difficult in an era of Internet bloggers and radio talkers, with the Republican Party in trouble and seeking a unifying issue at the grass roots and with the Democratic Party sensing their adversary's weakness and moving in for the kill.The only ones advocating that are Novak and the corrupt Senators who support illegal immigration and "guest" workers.
...Graham was not happy with his junior South Carolina colleague, Sen. Jim DeMint, for playing to the convention crowd with anti-immigration oratory... Many Republicans reach for an anti-immigration lifeline because of the party's plight... But immigrant-bashing divides rather than unites Republicans. In a recent closed-door meeting of the House's conservative Republican Study Committee, Rep. Bob Inglis of South Carolina raised the danger of resembling South Africa's National Party advocating apartheid.
I'm outsourcing the rest of this to The Derb:
Novak comes out with every creaky old tune in the songbook of the open-borders nutsos, and garnishes it all with a big greasy dollop of huddled-masses sentimentality... ...He ignores **everything** that immigration wonks have been thrashing out for years...
Chertoff: won't do job; going after bloggers; will stage show raids to inflame left
DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, in a meeting with the editorial board of USA Today, admitted that he's not going to do the job he's supposed to be doing, said that the White House will be creating a "rapid response" team to counter criticism from the MSM and from bloggers, and implied that those immigration raids that he'll be conducting in the future will be designed to inflame the left and other illegal immigration supporters.Bottom line: Congress should try to get him fired. Since it's clear that he has not and will not do his job, that should be easy. Except, of course, most of them appreciate the fact that he's not doing his job.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Wednesday that Republican conservatives working to block an immigration bill risk endorsing a "silent amnesty" by insisting on deportations that are "not going to happen."Trying to force many of them to leave would not be impossible if we had a DHS Secretary who was willing to do his job, together with a president who would make sure that he was doing his job.
Chertoff also leveled criticism at liberal immigrant rights advocates, saying they could prolong the anguish of immigrant families by withholding support for legislation that could make them legal.
...a "rapid response" team is countering critics, not only in the conventional media but, for the first time, on Internet blogs, said White House communications director Kevin Sullivan...
Chertoff acknowledged that there is "a fundamental unfairness" in a bill allowing illegal immigrants to stay. But trying to force them to leave would be impossible, Chertoff said, "We are bowing to reality."
..."[Responding to attrition:] You're not going to replace 12 million people who are doing the work they're currently doing," Chertoff said. "If they don't leave, then you are going to give them silent amnesty. You're either going to let them stay or you're going to be hypocritical."
[Rep. Brian] Bilbray said his idea hasn't worked because "there's been a conscious strategy of not enforcing the law."
Chertoff, whose department has staged a number of recent raids that have resulted in mass roundups of illegal workers and sharp protests from religious groups, warned there will be more if the workers don't get a chance to become legal. "We're going to enforce the law," he said. "People all around the country will be seeing teary-eyed children whose parents are going to be deported."I've suspected that some of the high profile raids which appeared to have been flubbed were intentionally managed in a way to generate the most negative publicity, and Chertoff has just almost confirmed my suspicions.
[Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says:] "The reality is, we don't have enough people," said Gutierrez, adding that many of the USA's economic competitors, such as France, Germany, Japan and China, will be facing a similar demographic shift. "The big challenge of the 21st century is: Who gets the people? Who gets the immigrants?" he said. "We don't appreciate today that these people are coming in for free."
Senate immigration amnesty bill: the downsides
The concept of amnesty is bad, and almost everything in the Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill is bad as well. It's fairly obvious to just about everyone that this is an extremely flawed piece of legislation, so what I'd suggest is using it to further discredit its supporters. However, please don't lose sight of the forest: we need to stop amnesty in general, not just this particular piece of legislation. You can do that by following these steps.
There's a top ten list in "Rewarding Illegal Aliens: Senate Bill Undermines The Rule of Law".
There are seven more reasons here, including the provision regarding the "United States-Mexico Border Enforcement Review Commission". I actually scanned that section earlier, but I failed to note this:
Members from the law enforcement community will be balanced out by members from "academia, religious leaders, civic leaders or community leaders" (read: the open-borders lobby).
For an example of how that would work, note that Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich's "New Americans Immigrant Policy Council" includes an organization which is headed by someone linked to the Mexican government (Juan Salgado).
David Frum has also discussed the downsides. In this post, he discloses that Bush has apparently never heard the pro-enforcement side of the argument. No big surprise there. And, from this:
With this immigration bill, the GOP is telling hard-pressed workers: Go look to somebody else to help you... ...the deal also identifies the GOP as a party that in the crunch puts employers' interests first... ...The president and the senators have now managed to divide and demoralize their party even further... ...The deal has wounded all three of the GOP front-runners... ...this White House's first instinct when faced with dissent in the ranks is to insult and abuse its strongest supporters... ...And unfortunately the White House's second instinct when confronted with dissent is to revert to incompetent spin. Unlike the Clinton administration, which lied with a fluency and bravado that will impress PR hacks for decades to come, the Bush administration stumbles, flusters, and eventually disheartens even its staunchest supporters... ...Republicans have done so well because until now, the highly diverse Hispanic population has not voted as an ethnic bloc. Now we ourselves are forcing that to change. It's as if this Republican president and these Republican senators have said, "Hmm. Can we invent an issue that will teach Cuban-American doctors, Honduran day laborers, and Mexican-American army officers to think of themselves as a unified ethnic group? Can we then provoke a fight that all of them (whatever their diverging practical interests) will treat as a symbol of acceptance in American society? And can we then stage-manage this fight to ensure that two-thirds of our party will have no choice but to fall on the wrong side of it?"
And, Hugh Hewitt - often described here as a Bushbot - has done yeoman work by reading the bill and posting several of its downsides here.
There's an online version of the bill here.
National Review calls it a "Bipartisan Fantasy".
And, Heather Mac Donald says "Don't Be Fooled", highlighting the provision that grants immediate legitimacy to former illegal aliens.
UPDATE: Sen. Jeff Sessions says "Immigration Bill Is Worse Than You Think".
UPDATE 2: Some of the downsides are in this segment from the Lou Dobbs show. Apparently illegal aliens would have first dibs on federally-funded legal aid for their applications for citizenship.
Dick Morris: "Republicans should back immigration compromise"
In case you were wondering why I erupted into peals of laughter moments ago, your answer is here. Of course, then I wondered, "Is he still working for the Democrats, or Mexico?"
The Republican Party would be self-destructive (not for the first time, either) if they did not let the immigration compromise negotiated by Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) pass and become law. The hopes of the entire Latino community are pinned to immigration reform and, if the GOP is seen as blocking it, the consequences for the indefinite future will be horrific. The Republican Party will lose Hispanics as surely as they lost blacks when Barry Goldwater ran in 1964 against the civil rights bill (even though a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats backed the bill in each house).
The "entire Latino community"? That's certainly a false statement. I doubt whether most Puerto Ricans, for instance, really care all that much about allowing Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to import their relatives here via endless chain migration. Of course, some may do so out of pan-Hispanic solidarity, but surely Republican - or at least conservative - principles say that should be discouraged and fought against, rather than encouraged. Wait, what was I thinking assuming that Dick Morris even knows what principles are?
If the Hispanics are not massively turned off by a Republican rejection of immigration reform, they will drift into an increasingly pro-Republican orientation just as Irish and Italian Catholics did before them. Already Protestant evangelicalism has converted a third of the American Latino population, a clear precursor of GOP political support.
Of course, those who realize the dangers inherent in the GOP becoming a vassal of religious fundamentalists might not approve of the tack Morris implies: delivering the bread and circuses via gay marriage, abortion, and other red meat social issues.
Related:
Dick Morris still wrong; Hispanics, unprincipled GOP, religious conservatives
House offers border security bill; Dick Morris, liberals
Base responds to Dick Morris' Base Desires
Dick Morris' idiotic thoughts on immigration
Dick Morris offers thoughts on Bush and immigration
Rasmussen: only 26% favor Senate illegal immigration amnesty
According to Rasmussen Reports, only 26% of those polled favor the Bush/Senate illegal immigration amnesty:...The enforcement side of the debate is clearly where the public passion lies on the issue. Seventy-two percent (72%) of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration." That view is held by 89% of Republicans, 65% of Democrats, and 63% of unaffiliated voters.All "reformers" have to do is post a bond that would guarantee that their plans would truly reduce illegal immigration (rather than increasing it as seems almost certain), and their "reform" would pass. Surely, they wouldn't hesitate to do that, right?
Advocates of "comprehensive" reform have taken to arguing that those who want an enforcement-only policy must explain how they would deal with the 12 million illegal aliens already living in the country. The public reaction to that question appears to be "Why?" Only 29% of voters say it is Very Important for "the government to legalize the status of illegal aliens already in the United States."
...Still, 65% of voters would be willing to support a compromise including a "very long path to citizenship" provided that "the proposal required the aliens to pay fines and learn English" and that the compromise "would truly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the country." The proposal, specifically described as a compromise, was said to include "strict employer penalties for hiring illegal aliens, building a barrier along the Mexican border and other steps to significantly reduce the number of illegal aliens entering the United States."
Texas State Rep. Roberto Alonzo lies in Democratic radio address (immigration "reform")
Oddly enough, the Democratic Party doesn't seem to be crowing about Teddy Kennedy's massively successful Senate immigration amnesty bill. Rather, they're concentrating on pointing out Mitt Romney's flip-flops from when he used to support the previous version of McCain-Kennedy (link), highlighting the unimportant McCain F-you quote (link), highlighting McCain's latest quip (link), and generally acting like ThinkProgress.
However, they do have an example of outrageous demagoguery regarding immigration. Texas State Representative Roberto Alonzo gave the Hispanic Democratic radio address on Friday or Saturday (link), and said something that even a far-left loon like Cardinal Roger Mahony would consider a lie:
Two years ago a very different debate on immigration began than the one we see today. Under the Republican Congress, the debate began by scapegoating immigrants for political gain and even went as far as trying to criminalize clergy.
The last is quite simply a lie. And, of course, "scapegoating immigrants" is Democrat code for "opposing widespread illegal activity".
He goes on to support foreign citizens marching in our streets, making a show of force and demanding rights to which they aren't entitled. This shouldn't come as a suprise, considering the links between various Democrats and the organizers of some of the illegal immigration marches; some of those organizers are linked to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties:
The hundreds of thousands of people who marched for peace, opportunity, and hope during the last two years helped put a human face on the issue of immigration.
He does allow us one thing:
Real reform has to protect our borders. That's the duty of any country.
Then, he goes on to support massive, endless legalization for those here now and those to come:
But the reform must also protect workers, reunite families, and allow hardworking people who obey the law and pay taxes to have the opportunity to apply for the responsibilities of citizenship. This earned path to citizenship should also be available to workers who would come in the future to help meet our economic needs and help improve our communities.
"Immigration Bill Would Make Taxpayers Pay Legal Bills of Illegal Aliens Seeking Amnesty"
From a press release (link):[Ken Boehm, Chairman of the National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC)] said, "If passed, this bill will make taxpayers pay the legal bills for illegal aliens seeking amnesty. Tucked away on page 317 is a provision that would allow lawyers in the federally-funded legal services program to represent illegal aliens, which they are presently barred from doing."
John Carlisle, NLPC's Director of Policy, said, "Many taxpayers will be chagrined to learn they may soon have to provide a lawyer for illegal aliens who should not be here in the first place. Activist lawyers, illegal aliens and government money are a bad mix."
The federally-funded Legal Services Corporation (LSC) supports a network of lawyers in hundreds of communities in the country to provide civil (not criminal) day-to-day legal help to poor people. This year, LSC will receive $330 million. Since it was founded in 1974, LSC has received over $6 billion...
Farmers Branch: Federal judge issues TRO over anti-illegal immigration ordinance
From this:The Farmers Branch city ordinance banning apartments from renting to illegal immigrants won't go into effect Tuesday as planned because a federal judge has issued a temporary restraining order stopping the city from enforcing the ordinance.Previously: Farmers Branch: 68% vote for anti-illegal immigration ordinance; ACLU, MALDEF file TRO
Voters on May 12 by a 2-to-1 ratio said that they wanted the law, which requires apartment managers or owners to obtain proof from prospective tenants that they are U.S. citizens or in the country legally. But lawyers representing three groups of plaintiffs challenged the ordinance in federal court last week seeking the temporary restraining order to stop enforcement...
Now that the judge has issued the restraining order, a hearing must be held within 10 days to determine if the order would be lifted, or if a temporary injunction would be put in place to halt the city from implementing the law until the case goes to trial, attorneys on both sides said...
Both groups involved have the same, indirect link to the Mexican government.
Senate immigration amnesty bill: the supporters
Outside a number of Senators, there aren't too many who support the Senate's immigration amnesty/"guest" worker plan. This post will keep track of them, and I urge everyone to hold those below accountable whether the bill passes or not. I also urge everyone to keep calling Congress, but, even more importantly, follow the steps previously outlined to help stop amnesty.
The supporters:
* Of course: president Bush, Sens. John McCain and Ted Kennedy
* From "Few senators support the illegals bill" (link):
Sen. Arlen Specter, one of the Republicans who helped craft the deal, said it's the best they could do... "It will treat the 12 million undocumented immigrants in a constructive way. It is not amnesty. They'll have to pay a fine. They'll have to earn their way to citizenship," he said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "It's better than what we have now." ...in Georgia, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, one of the secret negotiators, was also booed [like Lindsey Graham] at that state's Republican convention... ...Meanwhile, Republicans' chief negotiator in the closed-door sessions, Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, wrote a column for the Arizona Republic newspaper yesterday saying he won't support the bill if major changes are made during the floor debate... "If the consensus we reach is not accurately reflected in the final legislative language, or is seriously undercut by amendments in the Senate or House, it will lose support, including from me," he wrote... ...Seven Republicans, including the party's chairman, Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida, Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Kyl, the Senate Republican Conference chairman, were at the press conference announcing the bill...
* DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff meanwhile challenged critics to offer alternative solutions instead of simply saying "this isn't good enough." (link; the obvious answer is, of course, that he should do his job)
* [Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez says] "I have the impression that perhaps for some people, the only thing that would not be amnesty is mass deportation... We don't think that's practical, we don't think that's logical, we don't think that's humane and that would hurt our economy. So it's not amnesty."
* [Sen. Lindsey Graham says (ibid)] "To my colleagues who have come on the floor to tear this bill down with no alternative, you're not doing this country a service and I will push back... If you’ve got a better idea and you can lead us to a better solution, I'm all for it. But if all you're going to do is embrace the status quo, I’m going to be your biggest critic.
* The Wall Street Journal editorial board offered "Immigration Opening" on Saturday (link), which was followed by several reader letters almost all denouncing the bill (link). Today, John Fund offers "Don't Run for the Border - America needs immigration reform, but not a law enacted in haste" (link), perhaps as an indirect acknowledgement of the bill's failings.
* Even deeper inside the compound, we find Tamar Jacoby, who's profiled in "An Advocate Rallies to Unify GOP" (link)
Last week after a deal was reached in the Senate, Jacoby held a conference call with 20 business owners Friday to explain the politics of the overhaul... [She's praised by] Randel Johnson, a vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce... ...Jacoby sat at a table in the Senate Chef last week surrounded by two Texas bankers, a cattle rancher and a guy who represents Rio Grande Valley orange growers, all of whom had flown in to put a last-minute press on their congressional representatives... "The most important thing is the temporary-worker program," Jacoby told them. Lawmakers "are going to go all out to cut it in half and unless business goes all out, like D-Day, they will surely win." ...She is willing to work with religious and civil rights groups, including the Roman Catholic Church and the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, to achieve the goal... ...the leader of a Latino civil rights group tapped Jacoby on the shoulder. Brent A. Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens...
* Safely outside the compound, Michael Barone phones in to say that he supports the bill, despite not having read it.
* In the basement of the compound, Captain Ed decides to be even more like Hugh Hewitt than Hugh Hewitt, saying today [1] that
"Conceptually, I think it could work -- but the bill doesn't quite match the concepts outlined in the announcement, either."
In a previous post [2], he offered this stock talking point:
Everyone agrees that the system is broken; in fact, that's about the only agreement to be found.
* In the subbasement, Dafydd ab Hugh shows how little he knows about this issue and continues to support some form of "regularization" (the same word the Mexican government uses) [3]
UPDATE: NAU apologist Michael Medved comes out in favor of it (link):
the bi-partisan Senate bill makes a point of rewarding only good behavior... ...And speaking of rewarding good behavior, and punishing the bad: those courageous conservatives (Senators Kyl, Graham, Isakson and, yes, McCain) who have worked constructively and seriously on immigration reform deserve our support, not our rage, while those politicians and media figures who have demagogued this issue in a way that only makes it worse, in no way merit our encouragement.
UPDATE 2: I knew this would come sooner or later. Instapundit says [4]:
WHY PEOPLE WHO HATE THE IMMIGRATION BILL SHOULD BACK THE IMMIGRATION BILL: Okay, I had this thought last night as I was drifting off to sleep. But the Nyquil wore off and I still think it may make sense. Lots of people think that the immigration bill stinks, and want to punish the GOP by staying home in 2008. Fair enough. But if you plan to punish the GOP in 2008, then you might want to support the immigration bill now. Why? Because if the Democrats win the White House and Congress in 2008, you'll get a bill that you like a whole lot less! So if you plan to punish the Republicans later, you should encourage them to pass their bill now... There's got to be something wrong with this analysis, I just can't figure out what it is. Anyone? Kaus? Anyone?
UPDATE 3: Here's another Chertoff quote:
"You know, Wolf [Blitzer], first, I understand there's some people who expect anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty. The reality is the proposal here requires people who came in illegally who want to stay to pay a penalty. Like a fine. That's a punishment. That's not an amnesty."
UPDATE 4: Jorge Mursuli, National Executive Director, Democracia Ahora (a project of People For the American Way) offers "Senate's Immigration Proposal Needs Work, but Is Salvagable".
UPDATE 5: Dick Morris: "Republicans should back immigration compromise"
UPDATE 6: Sen. Trent Lott says:
"Is the current situation in America with legal and illegal immigration intolerable and unacceptable? Yes. Everybody would agree. Is this bill better than the current law? Without a doubt, yes. Are we going to have another opportunity to do this better next year or the next year? The answer is no. We've got to do it. We've got to do it as good as we can. We've got to do it right now."
UPDATE 7: Sen. Mitch McConnell says he'll support the bill, and also says:
"This is a divisive issue... I don't think there's a single member of either party next year who is going to fail to be re-elected over this issue."
SPECIAL HACK UPDATE: Hacks - not all of whom specifically support the Senate bill - have started their rampage of smears against those who oppose massive illegal immigration: Linda Chavez, Michael Gerson, and Robert Novak.
SPECIAL "LIBERAL" HACK UPDATE: Eleanor Clift offers "Bush Is Right—On Immigration, Anyway". She and the preceding hacks aren't that much different. Let's count the lies:
Just as [Pete Wilson]'s anti-immigrant [lie] policies turned California into the bluest of Blue States [misleading if not wrong], the angry, racist and xenophobic rhetoric emanating from the Republican right [smear and largely false] is turning the fastest-growing voting bloc in America against the GOP... Seeing a way to rally the base and respond to the growing anti-immigrant sentiment [lie], House Republicans pushed and passed legislation that was racially divisive and punitive [lie], cracking down on those who aided illegal immigrants - even church groups [lie]. The bill sparked massive rallies across the country against the Republican Congress [some of the organizers of those rallies were Mexican political parties and those linked to the Mexican government]. Rosenberg's New Democrat Network monitored ads in 25 states picturing a Mexican immigrant side by side with an Islamist terrorist. [Chuck Schumer created a similar TV ad]
[1] captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010025.php
[2] captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010020.php
[3] biglizards.net/blog/archives/2007/05/regularization.html
[4] instapundit.com/archives2/005448.php
NYT editorial: Senate bill bad; "Know-Nothings" hate illegal aliens
The New York Times offers the editorial "The Immigration Deal". Summary: they're going even further around the bend.
They divide provisions of the bill into "good", "bad", and "awful", with the "guest" worker provisions in the latter camp. If the bad parts aren't removed, they say that no bill is better than the current one.
And:
It is painful, for many reasons, to oppose this immigration deal. It is no comfort to watch as this generation's Know-Nothings bray against "amnesty" from their anchor chairs and campaign lecterns, knowing that it gives hope to the people they hate.
Truly a sleazy paragraph, implying that those "anchors" (presumably Lou Dobbs) and politicians (presumably Tancredo, Hunter, Paul and maybe others) oppose illegal immigration because they're "Know-Nothings" and motivated by hatred.
They also take a swipe at Lou Barletta and others:
Congress's dithering has encouraged the rise of homegrown zealots: mayors, police departments, county executives and legislators who take reform into their own hands, with cruelly punitive measures.
Of course, pulling a business' license when that business fails to follow the laws isn't exactly cruel, and being closer to the people those local officials realize the impact of the policies that the NYT espouses.
And, it's interesting that they'd put amnesty in quotes, since just last month they seemed to acknowledge that "comprehensive immigration reform" is in fact amnesty:
Americans want the immigration issue solved, and they strongly favor "amnesty," whether you call it that or not.
And, of course, their editorial contains the seeds of its own destruction:
The millions without documents live in constant fear: a campaign of federal raids has spread panic and shattered families.
But, isn't tough enforcement a part of the current and past amnesty bills? And, won't that mean raids in order to prevent future illegal immigration? And, won't any amnesty encourage even more illegal immigration, resulting in even more mixed-status families? If an amnesty bill passes, won't the NYT simply use the same line against enforcement mandated by that bill?
Shouldn't the NYT be honest enough to just come right out and admit that what they really want is a loose borders system, where anyone who makes it over the border and can stay here for a while is allowed to become a citizen?
Related:
NYT hides behind "terrorized" illegal aliens to support massive immigration
LULAC, Raza radicals: Senate bill "unworkable", "this is our land!", "border crossed us"
A couple days ago, Mickey Kaus suggested one way to scuttle the Senate's amnesty bill: get radicals to support an even worse version, and perhaps even utter "reconquista" style statements. It looks like he's got his wish. From this:[Jaime P. Martinez, national treasurer of the League of United Latin American Citizens] preached from the podium of a small chapel at Primera Baptist Church flanked by U.S. and Mexican flags, his message one of defiance - not of turning the other cheek.The latter may or may not be true: under the Flake-Gutierrez version, they only have to go to a "Point of Entry", which could be in Canada or Mexico. I don't know what's in the Senate bill, but I'd imagine that eventually any tough provisions would get whittled down to going to a local major airport inside the U.S. Apparently the person who said they'd have to return to their home countries is U.S. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, who was also at the meeting.
"We must not sell out, and we must fight for the rights of our people that have been here!" he shouted, a crowd of 50 or so cheering and applauding as the short speech closed. "This is our land and we're going to fight for just and humane comprehensive immigration reform!... ...We did not cross the border, the border crossed us."
...Most of those at the town hall meeting hosted by LULAC, the National Council of La Raza and the Service Employees International Union oppose the bill, in part because of provisions to fine each head of household $5,000 and require them to return to their home countries before seeking permanent residency.
Those at the church, almost all Hispanic and some of them immigration activists, weren't in the mood to compromise. La Raza, LULAC and the union issued a news release announcing the town hall meeting that was an ultimatum. They said U.S. Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, R-Texas, were "on notice" that "we want workable reform and we want it now!"Note that the latter quote source's affiliation wasn't given and his thoughts were apparently not explicitly echoed by LULAC or NCLR, even though they are somewhat similar.
The release went on to say the groups are seeking legislation "that balances stronger border security with common-sense reform — including family reunification, respect for worker rights and a pathway to citizenship."
...[A member of the crowd] said Mexicans have an absolute right to live in the United States — either as residents or citizens. U.S. residents, he said, had the same right to live in Mexico... "The only borders that we used to recognize are the natural borders of rivers, mountains, lakes, deserts, not these international boundaries that this colonial government has set up by dividing our land," he said.
Senate amnesty could cost over $2.5 trillion dollars
The Senate's illegal immigration amnesty bill could end up costing the U.S. over $2.5 trillion dollars. Trillion, with a "t".From May 17 testimony by the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector before the House Judiciary Committee (PDF file):
In FY 2004, the average low skill immigrant household received $30,160 in direct benefits, means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services from all levels of government. By contrast, low-skill immigrant households paid only $10,573 in taxes in FY 2004. A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. The average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes).
At the state and local level, the average low skill immigrant household received $14,145 in benefits and services and paid only $5,309 in taxes. The average low skill immigrant households imposed a net fiscal burden on state and local government of $8,836 per year.
The fiscal burden imposed by low skill immigrant households is slightly greater at the state and local level than at the federal level. The annual fiscal deficit for all 4.54 million low skill immigrant households at the state and local level in 2004 was $49.1 billion. Over the next ten years the state and local fiscal deficit caused by low skill immigrants on state and local governments will approach a half trillion dollars.
Current federal immigration policy permits a massive inflow of both legal and illegal low skill immigrants to enter and reside in the U.S. This imposes a massive unfunded mandate on state and local government which much bear the costs of that immigration flow.
Giving amnesty to illegal immigrants would increase the costs outlined in this testimony. Some 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants lack a high school degree. Granting amnesty or conditional amnesty to illegal immigrants would, overtime, increase their use of means-tested welfare, Social Security and Medicare. Fiscal costs would go up significantly in the short term but would go up dramatically after the amnesty recipientreached retirement. Based on my current research, I estimate that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.
Recent proposed immigration legislation in the Senate and House will raise costs on the taxpayers at all levels of government. By granting amnesty to illegal immigrants (who are overwhelmingly low skilled) and creating massive new “guest worker” programs which would bring millions of additional low skill families into the nation, such legislation, if enacted, would impose massive costs on the U.S. taxpayer...
"Mexico welcomes U.S. immigration pact"
From this:The Mexican government said on Friday that the immigration pact reached by U.S. Democratic and Republican senators is a positive step to achieve an integral immigration reform that will benefit millions of Mexicans.UPDATE: The following was also in the statement released by Aviles:
[Mexican Foreign Ministry Spokesman Victor Aviles says:] "The Mexican government expects a substantial migratory reform will be discussed with practical and realistic solutions... Mexico expects everyone to contribute objectively and positively to overcome the ongoing disagreements, respect sensitive aspects of the bipartisan proposal..."
"The Mexican government has been in permanent communication with distinct actors in the debate and has expressed its points of view on the subject, in a climate of respect for the U.S. legislative process."
Jorge Bustamante/United Nations, MacArthur Park riot, CRLA, Peter Schey, NILC, ACLU...
And Teresa Watanabe too! From her report "Human rights expert examines migrant issues in L.A." comes this:In the first broad international scrutiny of U.S. treatment of migrants, a United Nations human rights expert [Jorge A. Bustamante, U.N. "special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants"] took testimony about worker abuse, government raids, family separations and other issues as he wrapped up a two-day visit to Los Angeles on Thursday... [it was] undertaken at the invitation of the U.S. government.Watanabe forgot to mention that Schey has at least three links to the Mexican government, including collaborating with them on a project related to those visas.
"There is concern in the United Nations human rights community about rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States," said Bustamante, who will present his report to the world body in the next year.
..."The way the local police physically abused marchers [at the MacArthur Park riot] represents right there a violation of human rights," he said... Bustamante, a University of Notre Dame sociology professor who splits his time between his native Mexico and the United States... ...But Bustamante said he was concerned that the U.S. was not in actual compliance with some of its laws...
...At the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, immigration attorney Peter A. Schey told Bustamante that new migrant protections passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2000 still have not been implemented because of bureaucratic delays. Those protections would offer visas for migrant crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation.
Bustamante also met with the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, who took the U.S. to task for detention centers. He also met with Jeffrey Ponting, "an attorney with the California Rural Legal Assistance program", as well as histrionic community activists.
John Edwards is going to help stop amnesty
Imagine what would happen if an amnesty supporter were forced to endure an hour-long, nationally-televised interview just about immigration matters where they were asked a series of tough questions about amnesty and forced to defend what they support.
As long as the questions were tough enough, and they were asked follow-up after follow-up, their lies and misleading statements would be revealed. That would almost certainly result in them losing a great deal of credibility and it would almost certainly have a significant impact on their political careers.
And, that would go a long way towards ending any chance of amnesty, as all the other supporters realize that their arguments could similarly be exposed and they would lose credibility as well.
So, how do we get something like that? The mainstream media is definitely part of the problem: they're completely corrupt and instead of trying to expose the lies by asking tough questions, they work to cover up the lies that politicians tell.
But, there is a way to do an end-around, and I urge everyone who wants to prevent amnesty to take part:
1. Choose a politician who supports amnesty, then go to their public appearances and ask them one or more very tough questions designed to reveal exactly how they're wrong and forcing them to defend what they support.
2. Publicize their answers (via Youtube, blogs, forums, press releases, Digg, Reddit, etc. etc.)
3. Repeat the first two until the politician loses credibility and support.
While you can choose others, I'm recommending concentrating on John Edwards, with Bill Richardson a possibility as well. While Edwards has "concerns about parts of the [latest Senate bill]", he supports amnesty in general. Richardson doesn't appear to have spoken out about the Senate bill, but he too supports amnesty in general. We might force John Edwards to come out whole-heartedly against the Senate scheme, but at the least we'll sharply reduce the credibility of those who support any form of amnesty. You can find Edwards' campaign schedule here, and Richardson's is here.
Here are a few questions to start with:
"Senator Edwards: you've falsely claimed that there are only three options to deal with illegal immigration: the status quo, massive legalization, or massive deportations (listen). You forgot to mention a fourth choice: simply enforcing the current laws and thereby encouraging many illegal aliens to leave voluntarily over time. That would also reduce future illegal immigration. Do you agree that it's misleading to omit that fourth choice? Why didn't you push for the fourth choice when you were in the Senate? In 2003, just four (4!) companies were fined for immigration violations. Why weren't you pushing the Bush administration to enforce the laws when you were in the Senate, in order to help avoid the current situation?"
"Senator Edwards: no matter what it's called, won't millions and millions of people around the world see any form of 'comprehensive immigration reform' as an amnesty, and won't they try to come here to take part in that amnesty or in future amnesties? And, doesn't the federal government's failure to enforce the laws over the past decades strongly indicate that any provisions designed to keep those new prospective illegal aliens from coming here will not be enforced or will be watered down?"
"Senator Edwards: you voted for the DREAM Act (link), which is also part of the latest Senate amnesty bill. In addition to being an amnesty of its own, that Act lets illegal aliens attend college at the in-state rate. Since there are only a finite number of college discounts available, every discount that goes to an illegal alien is one that is taken away from a U.S. citizen. I would like you to tell us exactly what you would say to a U.S. citizen who can't go to college because of the legislation you supported. Please bear in mind that, once again, there are only so many discounts available, and every one that goes to an illegal alien deprives a U.S. citizen of a discount."
Feel free to offer your own questions in comments, and please leave links in this or future posts if you go out and ask him some tough questions.
UPDATE: Here's another one:
"Senator Edwards: In Congressional testimony, Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation estimated (quote) 'that if all the current adult illegal immigrants in the U.S. were granted amnesty the net retirement costs to government (benefits minus taxes) could be over $2.5 trillion.' You might disagree on that estimate, or you might not. But, could you give us a ballpark figure as to the net cost of legalization that you would consider too high? Do you consider a net cost of $1 trillion too high? $2 trillion? $3 trillion? Please give us a ballpark figure, bearing in mind that we're discussing the net cost.
UPDATE 2: The positions of various candidates are given here, including this:
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson also praised the immigration bill... "This legislation makes a good start toward re-securing our southern border," Richardson said Friday... But, like other Democratic candidates, he expressed concern about a temporary worker program and rules governing family unification.
GOP talking points on their immigration bill capitulation
[UPDATE: See this for how to block the amnesty.]
The Senate Republicans have released a set of talking points on the immigration bill that they're getting close to "compromise" on: link.
As a sign of just how bad this is, the person who got the talking points was arch BushBot Hugh Hewitt... and he's refusing to talk them! Instead he calls them "four pages of crap" (link). As previously pointed out, Hewitt is in the "stress the border fence as cover for the amnesty that the GOP leadership wants" camp, and he's upset that the fence has been pared in two, down to just 370 miles.
Let's look at some of the TPs:
1. Republicans insist that border security improvements must be completed before other reforms can occur. Democrats blocked any "triggers" in last year's bill.
As mentioned several times, the triggers in the White House proposal and other bills - and most likely in the current version - only specify planning and funding, not actual measurable improvements. They claim otherwise below, but the Bush administration isn't exactly trustworthy.
Enforcement at the workplace. Republicans are insisting on a meaningful, effective, and workable electronic employment verification system that will prevent employers from hiring illegal workers and eliminate the "magnet" that attracts so many illegal aliens... [from draft]... The bill will create an Electronic Employment Verification System ("EEVS") so only legal workers can get jobs... Once the EEVS is in place (the administration predicts 18 months), illegal aliens without the right to work will find it extremely difficult to gain any legitimate employment... Another Trigger: Republicans also insisted that this new EEVS be fully operational before reforms such as the temporary worker program or status adjustment for illegal aliens occur... ...because of the tough new workplace enforcement mechanisms, they will not be able to be employed in any legitimate business enterprise...
I.e., a national ID card. We already have a pilot program employers can use to verify SSNs, but... it's voluntary. Due to racial profiling - and the inevitable suits - it's not possible to have an effective work authorization program that's split into two parts: one for "guests" and another for citizens. It will either be ineffective (as illegal aliens use SSNs and pretend they're citizens) or it will result in extensive lawsuits (as newly-naturalized citizens with foreign accents are assumed to be illegal aliens).
Merit-based future immigration system and end to "chain migration." Republicans are insisting on eliminating "chain migration" and transforming our immigration system so that all future efforts are focused on attracting those immigrants (and their immediate, nuclear families) who have the combination of job skills, education, and English language proficiency that will make them productive Americans.
I'm absolutely positive the that racial power groups - and the Democrats that they control - will not try to water that down.
The Republicans fail to note that they're thinking in current terms, when they should be thinking of the future. A decade or less from now, those groups that have "virtual veto power" over the Democratic immigration proposals will have vastly more race-based power than they do now. If they're able to control Teddy Kennedy now, imagine what it will be like after they have several million more potential voters ready to take the word of the National Council of The Race or MALDEF. At that point in time, all of the "tough" provisions will be on the chopping block.
A truly temporary worker program. Republicans insist that a temporary worker program be for a limited period of time and not serve as a path to citizenship. Temporary workers must truly be temporary.
As pointed out many times, after a "guest" has their first U.S. citizen child, it will be extremely difficult to deport them when their time is up. And, of course, we're currently being told we have to legalize illegal aliens who've "put down roots in this country". Won't the same line be used about "guests"? Won't the Dems and others go to work to give a "path to citizenship" to "guests"?
Strict limits on processing of illegal aliens. Majority-party Democrats made legalization of illegal aliens a non-negotiable priority, but Republicans refused to allow automatic amnesty or a guaranteed path to citizenship for illegal aliens. Republicans insist that all green card applicants must (1) go to the back of the line behind those who have followed the law, (2) pay higher fines than in last year's bill, (3) pass a criminal background check, (4) show a nearly perfect work history, English proficiency, and familiarity with American civics. If they cannot do so, they will be subject to removal... [from the draft section] Second, Republicans insisted that all illegal aliens seeking permanent residence must get in line behind the legal applicants for permanent residence who did not enter the country illegally. And they must return home to make the formal application.
Past proposals didn't send them to the back of the line, but put them in front of those waiting in foreign countries to come here. And, of course, the line is never-ending: there are always people joining the line, and anyone who joins will inconvenience those behind them, including future applicants for legal immigration. And, of course, it will either take an extremely long time to do background checks of 12 to 20 million people or there will be little checking at all. Past terrorists have tried to game our immigration system, and the same would take place here. The USCIS won't have a fraud management system in place until 2011; before he was apparently "gotten to", the Director of the USCIS said the timeline of the previous Senate bill was not "practical". And, of course, if we're going to do thorough checks that means we're going to be asking foreign countries for their input, something that's extremely problematic. Is Mexico really going to tell us the truth about someone? Does Mexico really have the infrastructure to help us? Are we going to be sending agents to Mexico to check up on whether someone is really who they say they are, and not, for instance, an Islamic extremist who's able to pretend to be a Mexican?
Or, by "criminal background check" do they just mean checking a few databases? If the latter, aren't the chances fairly high that future "Fort Dix Six"-style terrorists would be legalized and thus have an even greater ability to carry out attacks inside the U.S.?
And, of course, the administration that has shown little ability or willingness to deport people from the interior cannot be trusted to deport those who didn't pass the requirements. And, if the requirements are tough enough, many fewer will try to join the program.
And, the last line refers to touchback. Between Luis Gutierrez' peels of laughter, he described how someone would only have to be out of the country for an hour.
Democrats wanted last year's permissive Senate bill, which allowed illegal aliens to jump to the front of the line and did not require illegal aliens to continue to work.
They may indeed mean the actual end of the line (after all the current legal applicants), but see the discussion above: the line is constantly being refreshed with legal applicants.
Republicans have championed greater border enforcement in order to better protect us against terrorist, drug smuggling, human trafficking, and illegal immigration.
On George Bush's watch, thousands of people from "Special Interest" countries - including at least two Hezbollah members - have snuck over the border.
More from the draft section:
Temporary workers must return home after their work period expires. Failure to depart on time will result in criminal penalties and a permanent bar on participating in any U.S. immigration programs, i.e., the worker could never gain an American green card.
Tell me another one. A substantial number of former "guests" will build up and demand citizenship, just as the current illegal aliens are. Let a million Elvira Arellanos bloom!
Due solely to Republican efforts, illegal aliens will not gain an automatic right to stay in this country indefinitely... If Republicans had not fought for these limits, Democrats would have passed an automatic amnesty bill without any of the restrictions that Republicans have now guaranteed.
GOP Pride! Of course, if the GOP were doing their job, they could have blocked this completely. The Bush administration and crooks in the Senate fought tooth and nail for this amnesty, not against it. The Democrats have even explicitly stated that they need GOP support to get the amnesty that the Dems want.
Instead of doing what's in the best interests of the U.S., they're harping on how they were able to restrain the Dems from completely selling out the country. Thanks to the Republicans, it's only a 99% sellout.
[UPDATE: See this for how to block the amnesty.]
UPDATE 2: More cold water here:
In short order, the system will be overwhelmed. Whatever minimal fraud detection and prevention safeguards might be erected won’t last long in the face of hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of applications and petitions to be adjudicated. What that means is the information provided on those applications and petitions, and whatever supporting documents they may have (if any), will essentially be taken at face value... And those names of the applicant aliens...those aliens who, for whatever time period they have been "undocumented" (illegal) in the United States, wherein so very many have procured and utilized false and fraudulent identification documents often in false identities...suddenly the Government will accept as true whatever those applicant aliens tell the Government on those applications and in those interviews. An undocumented alien who procured and used false documents would lie? Well, not when applying for genuine status in the US...right?
La Raza, MALDEF have "virtual veto power" over immigration bill
From the article "Latino Groups Play Key Role on Hill/Virtual Veto Power in Immigration Debate" (link):When Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) declared last week that unnamed "stakeholders" would decide whether Congress overhauls immigration law this year, Latino organizations in Washington understood exactly what he meant.The NCLR (the LR part means "The Race") has links to and funds extremists. MALDEF has at least an indirect link to the Mexican government.
After laboring in obscurity for decades, groups such as the National Council of La Raza, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and the National Immigration Forum are virtually being granted veto power over perhaps the biggest domestic issue coming before Congress this year. Organizations that represent what is now the nation's largest minority group are beginning to achieve power commensurate with their numbers.
...Such groups were practically in the room yesterday, maintaining contact as Democratic and Republican senators tried to hammer out a new immigration bill...They go on to quote William Ramos from the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO has a direct link to the Mexican government) and Brent Wilkes of LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens).
...A deal on ["guests" and family reunification] could depend on the assent of Kennedy's "stakeholders," Democratic negotiators agreed...
...LULAC, MALDEF, La Raza and the National Immigration Forum are part of a broad network of immigrant rights groups that hold nightly conference calls and strategy sessions on the legislation. The groups speak daily with top aides in Reid's and Kennedy's offices.
...The White House held a meeting 2 1/2 weeks ago with Latino advocates, labor unions and civil rights organizations in which an adviser outlined an administration's policy based on increased border security and a temporary-worker program. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez have also met with some of the groups.
..."Power is not handed over. To get your place at the table, you have to fight for it," Wilkes said.
Corrupt crypto-Dem Watch: Arnold Schwarzenegger endorses "comprehensive immigration reform"
California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has sent a letter to Sens. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell urging them to pass "comprehensive immigration reform": ilw.com/immigdaily/news/2007,0517-schwarzenegger.pdf
It's the usual swill: the system is broken, we need a "guest" worker program, we need border security, we need to deal "realistically" with current illegal aliens, etc. The swill is of the southwest-governor-variant, demanding that the Feds pay for the costs associated with massive immigration, including the SCAAP program (refunds states for incarcerating illegal aliens). There's also a tiny shout out to assimilation.
It also contains the seeds of its own evisceration:
However, it is also important that any new program for immigrant workers not become an endorsement of illegal immigration. While we are a country of immigrants, we are also a nation of laws.
Any form of "comprehensive immigration reform" will reward massive law-breaking by both illegal aliens and employers, and will not only strongly endorse illegal immigration, it will lead to even more of it.
Leftwing illegal immigration supporters still after Lou Dobbs (SPLC)
As the immigration "debate" picks up, various leftwing sources are trying to smack down Lou Dobbs in what may be an effort to counteract his opposition to any "reform" or what may be just a general attempt to support illegal immigration.
There was, of course, the recent Lesley Stahl/60 Minutes lame hit piece. And, the Southern Poverty Law Center - a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government - has run an open letter advertisement in the New York Times and other unknown papers demanding that CNN provide a correction to what appears to have been an inaccurate report that there had been 7000 cases of leprosy in the U.S. in three years. The apparent ad is in this PDF file: splcenter.org/images/dynamic/main/dobbsnew.pdf The letter is dated May 9, but when it appeared isn't known. A discussion of it is here. They take Dobbs to task for having "attacked" Mark Potok of the SPLC on his May 7 show; here's the transcript:
First of all, I've never said anything remotely resembling what you suggested. And of the numbers of reports, the hundreds and hundreds of reports we've done on the issue of illegal immigration on this broadcast over the past four and a half years, well, I decided to find out, and I asked our staff to compute how many of them dealt with disease or other illnesses and illegal aliens... By the way, the number, Mr. Potok, is three. That's three over a period of four and a half years. What happened to your "day in and day out"? ...And by the way, Mr. Potok, three of our reports covered rape or sexual predators in the context of illegal immigration in this country...
What an "attack". The letter also says:
[Dobbs] has repeatedly given legitimacy to individuals and groups who make unsupported claims like the Aztlan conspiracy theory, which asserts that Mexico is involved in a secret plot to "reconquer" seven states in the American Southwest.
Obviously, Mexico has an agenda, and - like any other state would - if we allowed them to gain political power inside our country, they'd take advantage of it. And, of course, they are taking advantage of our weakness in that regard. And, of course, it isn't clear which "individuals and groups" they're refering to, and Dobbs' reaction to their statements.
Minions are also involved, with "Obsidian Wings" taking Dobbs to task here, and Steve Gilliard's site offering a sleazy and violent parody here.
Possible Senate amnesty deal, Part 2 (Z Visas, Captain Ed)
From this:
Senators negotiating a bipartisan immigration reform bill have settled on the details of a plan that would immediately grant legal status to all illegal immigrants currently in the United States... ...The plan to award legal status to all illegal immigrants who meet certain qualifications would occur only after other "triggers" are met. These triggers would require that certain border security and work-site enforcement measures be in place before other aspects of the overhaul go forward.
The triggers are most likely a sham involving funding or planning, rather than actual results.
The Z visa plan would start with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States going on a probationary legal status. If the triggers are met — a process that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) estimated would take 18 months — then illegal immigrants who qualify could get Z visas. Those who have committed felonies would not be eligible, Graham said, and all participants would have to pass security checks, pay a fine and a processing fee and pass an English proficiency test.
Doing security checks for 12 million people is going to take, what, a couple months at most, right? Especially since we can trust Mexico to help us determine whether someone has a history.
Z visa holders would be able to apply for legal permanent resident status, a step toward citizenship. But at some point, the heads of households with Z visas would have to return to his or her home country and then reenter the United States. They would have to take their Z visa to the U.S. Embassy or consulate and would be guaranteed reentry. The Z visa would include a photo and fingerprints, Graham said.
In the Flake-Gutierrez scam, the head of household would only have to be out of the U.S. for one hour. Most likely this is the same.
...Unresolved issues include the terms of a guest worker program for future immigrants. Republicans are adamant that any program that imports labor should be temporary and not allow participants to become citizens.
That'll work out just fine... until the next amnesty.
In other news, "Captain" Ed Morrissey, says:
Conservatives don't get everything they want, of course, but we don't control Congress any more, either. While one could argue that no bill beats a bad bill, this compromise does not look all that bad.
Now you know why I've tried to take him to task (and appear to have been banned from his site for my efforts).
Amnesty deal imminent?
Various sources are whispering that an illegal alien amnesty/"guest" worker scheme is imminent:A highly-placed senate source confirmed to me this afternoon that a deal on a Senate immigration bill is expected tonight. Closed-door meetings continue... At issue now is the issue of "chain immigration."... ...Call your senators now. Each can be reached through the Capitol switchboard, 202-224-3121. Call now, call later, and keep calling.Slightly less "hopeful":
Republicans and Democrats were nearing a deal Tuesday on a sweeping immigration overhaul that would give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at legal status but strictly limit future arrivals from staying in the United States.Whatever they do, there's a very effective way to stop any bill in its tracks.
Senators and White House officials negotiated through the afternoon and into the evening and said an elusive compromise was in sight. But with details changing rapidly, it was unclear whether the talks would result in a breakthrough or a meltdown.
"Eighty-twenty!" said an upbeat Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., one of the key players in the talks, giving strong odds of a deal he said could be announced as early as today.
In a hopeful sign for a potential deal, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., postponed until Monday a vote that had been scheduled for today on bringing up an immigration measure that passed the Senate last year.
Farmers Branch: 68% vote for anti-illegal immigration ordinance; ACLU, MALDEF file TRO
Last week, Farmers Branch (outside Dallas, Texas) passed a city ordinance requiring landlords to check the immigration status of renters. It passed with 68% voting for it, and it has "exemptions for minors, seniors and some mixed-status families".
Needless to say, illegal immigration supporters are up in arms, and MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund; indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union; also indirectly linked to the Mexican government) have asked for a temporary restraining order in an attempt to block the ordinance:
"It is unfortunate that the residents of Farmers Branch have chosen to implement a law which is not only bad policy, but is likely also unconstitutional," said Lisa Graybill, legal director for the ACLU of Texas. "Now the issue will have to be resolved in federal court."
Related:
ACLU, LULAC, ACORN, SVREP endorsed Dallas April 1 illegal immigration march
Pro-illegal immigration loons descend on Farmers Branch
Farmers Branch ordinance blocked on technicality
Pro-Farmers Branch editorial
Charlie Gibson promotes illegal immigration on ABC Nightly News
Farmers Branch: will Hector Flores violate fair housing laws?
1994: Rudy Giuliani explicitly welcomed illegal aliens to New York City
The unremarkable and as-could-be-expected-biased "Top GOP Hopefuls Keep Distance on Immigration" by Michael Shear discusses how John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Rudy Giuliani are backing off from "comprehensive immigration reform", aka amnesty.
However, it does contain this:
[Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum] remembers watching in awe as Giuliani faced the cameras in 1994 to defend illegal immigrants, declaring: "If you come here and you work hard and you happen to be in an undocumented status, you're one of the people who we want in this city." ...Giuliani "was a god in the mid-1990s on this issue," Sharry said this week.
Deja moo: Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform on Capitol Hill May 15
Didn't I read this press release a few months ago? Yet, it's got today's date on it, and tomorrow the "Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform" will be meeting with "Senator Larry Craig [R-ID] and Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA)" [sic] to advance their cheap labor agenda:A group of lawmakers and farmers will gather to ask Congress to pass responsible immigration reform. Labor shortages are being reported on American farms across the country, leaving crops rotting in the field. Agriculture Needs Action Now from Congress to secure access to a legal and stable workforce.Those coming by include:
Maureen Torrey of Torrey Farms, Elba, NY;
Phil Glaize of Fred Glaize Inc., VA;
Elia Vasquez, a strawberry and herb grower from Watsonville, CA;
Mike Gempler of the Washington Growers League (WA) and National Council of Agriculture Employers from Yakima, WA;
Tom Nassif, President of Western Growers Association.
Senate amnesty debate this week; how to stop it
On Wednesday, Harry Reid (D-NV) is throwing down the gauntlet (link,link), having scheduled a vote to determine whether the Senate is going to try to pass last year's illegal alien amnesty/"guest" worker bill.
In the past, I've suggested calling your Senators and letting them know what you think. Please do so in this case.
However, a much more effective way to block amnesty and reduce support for illegal immigration is to publicly embarrass a well-known amnesty supporter by asking them tough questions. If someone who supports amnesty loses a great deal of credibility, that will send a loud message to all the others who support the same thing. It will also help show just how corrupt the media is for their failure to ask tough questions.
Here are three worthy candidates:
- Bill Richardson
- John Edwards
- Jim Wallis
The latter is probably the best choice due to his pretense that his support for amnesty is "humanitarian". If he were asked a series of questions that showed that his support is not humanitarian, and the questions and answers were widely promulgated, that would take a great deal of the wind out of the sails of the amnesty movement. However, the first two might actually be more approachable. You can find out where Richardson and Edwards are appearing here.
At some future date I'll be putting together a flyer with a series of questions, but in the meantime here are some question tips:
- Is it a question? (Not just a rant)
- Is it short? (Put your details on flyers which you can hand out)
- Is it difficult to evade? (Specifically state you want them to answer the question)
- Does it reveal them to have lied or made misleading statements or have failed to think things through?
After asking your question, upload it to Youtube and other video sites, post it to blogs and forums, and use Digg and Reddit to promote it.
We just need one well-known person to be asked a series of tough questions, and then for that to be publicized for the rest of the amnesty supporters to get the message.
For some samples, see my Barack Obama video. And, here's my Bill Richardson video. Here's another question for Bill Richardson. And, for John McCain. And, of course, I stumped Tamar Jacoby.
Mexican agent? IL Sen. Martin Sandoval wants loans for illegal aliens
From this:Illegal immigrants with "B" averages would be eligible for state-backed student loans if a controversial Senate proposal becomes law.What Whitney Woodward forgot to mention is that Sandoval - a Democrat - serves on a Mexican government advisory council. In fact, you can see his name on this list of their advisors:
Sen. Martin Sandoval (D-Chicago) has called for the state to establish a taxpayer-funded student loan fund from which Illinois residents -- regardless of their citizenship -- could borrow to pay for their academic careers.
"Whether you're a citizen or a permanent legal resident or an immigrant, you . . . should have a right to an education," Sandoval said.
Sandoval's loan program fell one vote short of passage Thursday but was kept alive through a parliamentary move...
www.ime.gob.mx/ccime/directorios/dir_ccime_06_09.htm
Exactly which country is he representing with this proposal?
Please write the Sun Times' Managing Editor and suggest they include his affiliation next time: dhayner *at* suntimes.com
Rudy Giuliani still braindead on immigration
Chris Wallace interviewed Rudy Giuliani earlier today, and got asked questions about his decision to put New York's emergency response center in the World Trade Center and other topics, including his immigration stance. Regarding the sanctuary policies he took the feds to court for, he says the standard thing: he wanted the INS to do their job but since they didn't he had to do something. Be that as it may, let's fast forward to his current "thinking":...we need a tamper-proof I.D. card.A very good question Wallace could have asked is exactly how Rudy Juliani intends to focus on those who don't "come forward". How exactly is he going to find them? Unlike other foreigners, by definition they won't have a "tamper-proof I.D. card", but will most likely have a fake SSN or similar. Oops! In order to "focus" on that category of people, you're going to have to strengthen SSNs in some way... oh what could that be... why, how about requiring everyone to have a "tamper-proof I.D. card"? Wouldn't that work? Wouldn't you feel all warm and safe knowing that President Giuliani has everyone's name and retinal scans on file? I know I would!
We need to know who's in the United States. We need to know everyone who's in the United States that comes in here from a foreign country. And we have to separate the ones who are dangerous from the ones who aren't.
To accomplish that, we need a fence. We need a technological fence. We need a border patrol. We need people to come forward who are working so they'll get identified, get fingerprinted, get photographed.
And then we should focus our attention on the people who don't come forward. And there's where you're going to find the drug dealers. There's where you're going to find...
Univision conducts citizenship drive with Mexico-linked group (NALEO)
The Spanish-language TV network Univision is encouraging their eligible viewers to become (U.S.) citizens. The initiator of the campaign (NALEO) has at least one link to the Mexican government, nominating the recipients of Mexico's Ohtli award. Granted, nominating award recipients isn't as big a link as others have, but it still helps indicate where they and Univision are coming from:During news shows, anchors pop questions from the civics test that applicants for citizenship are required to pass, such as "How many stars are on the U.S. flag?" Against a backdrop of stars soaring through the U.S. flag and the Statue of Liberty, a ticker counts down, from a goal of one million for the L.A. area, the number of persons who have applied for citizenship since the campaign started in Southern California. On Saturday mornings, a 30-minute program is devoted to teaching viewers the ABCs of becoming a U.S. citizen...Related:
...The citizenship drive is the brainchild of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund, a nonpartisan outreach group known as Naleo. Last year, Naleo officials gathered representatives from Univision, Spanish-language newspaper La Opinion, Spanish-language radio, unions and dozens of community groups to hatch a plan for drawing more Hispanics into the U.S. political process.
The result is the largest campaign ever to convert eligible Hispanics into citizens and, ultimately, voters. "This is about increasing the participation of Latino immigrants in U.S. civic life," says Marcelo Gaete, a senior director of Naleo. "They can change the political landscape."
The citizen-application hotline, operated by bilingual volunteers at the headquarters of the Naleo Educational Fund in Los Angeles, receive hundreds of calls each day from California, Texas and Arizona. Callers who require special legal assistance are referred to immigration lawyers who have partnered in the effort. In the field, Hispanic community-based organizations are providing "citizenship packages" partly prepared by unions, including the Service Employees International Union, or SEIU. Meanwhile, the Web sites for Univision stations in L.A. and other cities, as well as Naleo's site, feature a wealth of information to guide applicants...
Alfonso Aguilar/U.S. Office of Citizenship promotes "guest" workers (LULAC, NALEO connection)
"Clarification" letter sent to Hispanics (Tan Nguyen, MALDEF, NCLR, NALEO)
"The Fastest Way To [profit from illegal immigration]"
Tamar Jacoby's lunatic semi-permanent "guest" worker tryout points system
One of our favorites, Tamar Jacoby, returns with "'Temporary is temporary' won't work for all immigrants":
...[an] unrealistic faction of Republicans, though willing to admit an extra 400,000 workers a year, is insisting that they stay only temporarily - that no matter how well they do in this country or what kind of roots they put down here, every single one of them must go home at the end of a three-year work stint... These Republicans' mantra is "temporary is temporary," and the reasoning behind it isn't entirely wrong... But what about the foreigners who do so well here — rising up the economic ladder, putting down roots and falling in love with the United States — that they want to settle permanently and, like generations of immigrants before them, become citizens? We need a system that can accommodate them too... One possible compromise: Allow foreign workers to enter on temporary visas, then use a point system [see: Chuck Hagel's scheme] to determine who can stay... Far better to admit an array of temporary workers, skilled and unskilled, and then after a few years use a point system to screen them for permanent visas: a system that rewards not just skill and education but hard work, job advancement, abiding by the law, learning English, putting down roots and investing in your community — the things we want to see in U.S. citizens... "Temporary is temporary" makes a good sound bite, but as a one-size-fits-all policy, it's not a workable answer. A system like that would deprive us of our most able, enterprising newcomers. Even worse, many of them probably would not go home when their work stints were done, but instead would burrow underground, creating another generation of illegal immigrants.
My response is in parable form: once upon a time there was a farmer named Farmer Bob, who decided to try some new seeds in his garden. He figured if they didn't work out, he could always dig them up and send them back, and he decided to decide which to send back based on the depths of their roots. The plants struggled as hard as they could to develop deep roots. Then came decision day. By that time, the plants had formed the National Council of The Plants, who held candlelight vigils fighting tooth and nail to prevent Farmer Bob from sending back even those plants who had turned out to be complete epiphytes. They complained about his criteria, they planted news stories about sympathetic plants, the plants even marched through his field demanding amnesty! Eventually Farmer Bob just threw up his arms and decided to let them all stay. Boy was he angry at the seed saleswoman who'd sold him that bill of goods!
Nowadays, Farmer Bob wishes he'd read her brochure more closely and had realized that it carried the seeds of its own destruction.
In recent related news:
Tamar Jacoby now Los Angeles Times contributing editor
Florida businesses join to support immigration "reform" (Laura Wides-Munoz, Laura Reiff)
"Stop chasing that busboy"
Tamar Jacoby reiterates pro-busboy, pro-gardener stance
Assimilation? Schoolkids chant "Mexico! Mexico! Mexico!" to Minutemen in Santa Ana
Hacks and others continue to pretend that the assimilation of millions of Mexicans isn't a problem. Here's one of the most striking counter-examples. On May 1, a group of protesters from the Minuteman Project protested in Santa Ana, CA as part of an illegal immigration rally (report). Across the street, young schoolchildren climbed on top of playground equipment and began chanting, "Mexico! Mexico! Mexico!"
It seems like the MMP members were protesting the Mexican consulate, and the school was just coincidentally across the street. On the video their chant appears to have started spontaneously rather than being deliberately provoked.
Even taking into account that they're children, their choice of a chant is very revealing and should be very disturbing. Rather than all the other choices - the usual leftwing smears, or chanting for "reform", or simple name-calling, or all the other choices they had - they chose the name of what is almost certainly to them their country. Also disturbing are the comments on the video by Mexicans - including those living here - supporting the children's choice (links).
When you see a hack hand-waving away assimilation problems, please send them the video link.
The school involved is the Orange County Educational Arts Academy (OCEAA), a charter school at oceaa.org. They've released a statement linked to from oceaa.org/English/oceaa_board.htm:
During the second lunch period, a group of OCEAA students stood on the play structure and chanted "Mexico" while demonstrators protested at the Mexican Consulate across the street. When an administrator was notified of the students' actions, he went out to the playground to redirect the students, but they were already returning to the building for class... The Board has received emails indicating that members of the public believe the students were brought to the playground by their teachers, and that the school explicitly sanctioned this demonstration. We wish to assure our school community and the general public that this is not the case. The students were at lunch recess; they were not on the playground during instructional time. We learned from a demonstration organizer who visited OCEAA Wednesday morning that the group moved to the Consulate spontaneously. Likewise, the students' chanting was impromptu, not part of a pre-planned counter-demonstration. We regret that the recess supervision staff did not quickly recognize the need to shelter students from media exposure and from hostile protesters... In addition, we wish to express unequivocally that OCEAA does not require nor expect students to participate in political demonstrations, much less express a particular viewpoint...
Luis Gutierrez laughs at touchback: it's a "symbolic rebooting", a "gesture"
Sleazy U.S. Congressman Luis Gutierrez appeared on CSPAN apparently earlier today to promote the Flake-Gutierrez STRIVE ACT amnesty, and the video-only replay is here (warning: video might begin playing immediately).First, I only watched as much of it as I could stand, so someone might have asked him a direct question later on. There were a couple people who gave good rants about the issue of immigration, but he was able to weasle out of their complaints because they did not ask him direct questions about specific policies. If anyone gets CSPAN and can call in, please only ask short, direct, specific questions. Feel free to preface it with "I would like you to directly answer this specific question."
Second, he confirmed that the "touchback" provisions of their bill are, literally, a joke:
LG: "...everything [to prepare for legalization and citizenship is] done here in the United States of America... security check in the U.S... [they get a] biometric visa... at some point during those six years, the head of the household leaves and comes back... For example, you live in Chicago, travel six hours to Detroit, cross the border into Canada, stopping at a coffee shop and be back home that evening... ...It's really a rebooting, a symbolic gesture..."At that point, Gutierrez starts laughing at "touchback". Unfortunately, right now the joke's on us.
MODERATOR: [How long would they be out of the country?]
LG: [They'd] "stay in canada for an hour"
MODERATOR: [Why?]
LG: "There are those who want that symbolic rebooting... [you need to ask Rep. Flake why...] "...Jeff Flake says that in order to get republicans [to sign on they need the touchback...]
MODERATOR: [Does that make any sense?]
But, then again, if enough people ask him and his sleazy friend tough questions, maybe we can be the ones smiling.
169 illegal aliens in tractor-trailer gassed by police!
Breaking news... last month, police stopped a tractor-trailer filled with illegal aliens. They refused to leave the trailer, so police gassed the trailer, forcing all 169 to exit...
The illegal aliens were from El Salvador and Guatemala, and included 26 children... one of the 15-year-olds was 5 months pregnant...
Various human rights groups are trying to learn more, and have issued strong declarations opposing this human rights violation... complaints are being filed with the U.N., the OAS, and the World Court...
Updating... this just in... this actually occured in Chiapas, Mexico... the police were Mexicans... the human rights groups have retracted their criticisms and complaints to the U.N., the OAS, and the World Court... never mind...
The "anti-immigration movement" charted! (Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, VDare...)
Solana Larsen (whose name rings a bell for some unknown reason) is the president of "PuertoDansk" and a contributor to opendemocracy.net and other sites. At the site of the North American Congress on Latin America, she offers "The Anti-Immigration Movement: From Shovels to Suits" [1]. If you read the recent Max Blumenthal interview, you already know what she's going to say and how wrong she is. In fact, she and Son of Sid recently appeared on a panel together [2].
But, unlike Baby Max, she's got visual aids! Her multimedia extravaganza includes a handy chart showing the "movement", ranking them by "politics", "think tanks", "grassroots", and "media" on one axis, and from "mainstream conservative" to "hate groups" on the other.
There are several familiar names, particularly in the lower center and right of the chart: National Review, Michelle Malkin, Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, VDare, and Lou Dobbs. In fact, they've put Dobbs perilously close to the right edge, where the "hate groups" live.
There are two effective responses to smears like this:
1. Point out factual errors in their reasoning (see the interview link).
2. Discredit those leaders who support illegal immigration.
[1] news.nacla.org/2007/05/09/the-anti-immigration-movement-from-shovels-to-suits
[2] nyc.indymedia.org/or/2007/05/85772.html
Sen. Lindsey Graham: America just an idea, "we're going to tell the bigots to shut up"
The video here shows Sen. Lindsey Graham speaking at an event sponsored by the extremist-funding group the National Council of La Raza ("The Race") and saying:An American is an idea... no group owns being an American... nobody owns this...The charitable interpretation of his comment is that he means that no racial group "owns being an American". The less charitable interpretation would point out that American citizens own being an American, something that Lindsay Graham appears to have forgotten.
I want to thank John McCain for being a leader... I don't do this much, but I want to thank Ted Kennedy... because those two gentlemen got this thing [immigration "reform"] started and the rest of us are trying to figure out how to get there...Not so fast. Our "leaders" like Graham as well as corrupt businesses and racial power groups like NCLR are the ones who've let it get out of control, not the rest of us.
...we need to find a way to get people right with the law... we also need to understand that if the law means anything, you have to have a just result...
...as a nation we have looked the other way... we have welcomed the workers to do the things the economy needs to do... all of a sudden, we start talking about how bad this problem is... we've all let it get out of control and all of us have to fix it...
[...homoerotic interlude deleted...]
On behalf of the Dan Garzas of the world, we are going to solve this problem... we're not going to run people down, we're not going to scapegoat people... we're going to tell the bigots to shut up, and we're going to get this right.
Fmr CBP Chief Robert Bonner criticizes Ramos/Compean sentences
From this:The former commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, who helped organize the agency in 2003 as a part of the Department of Homeland Security, says the lengthy prison sentences handed two U.S. Border Patrol agents for shooting a fleeing drug-smuggling suspect were excessive.Note: he's unrelated to T.J. Bonner of the Border Patrol agents union.
Robert S. Bonner, a former federal judge and veteran prosecutor who also headed the U.S. Customs Service and the Drug Enforcement Administration, is the highest ranking current or former Homeland Security official to publicly criticize the prosecution and conviction of agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
"The sentences were way too severe," Mr. Bonner told The Washington Times. "I hope that they will be substantially reduced."
Rockford IL: Red Cross lets Mexico pass out ID cards for illegal aliens
Mexico operates mobile Mexican Consulates that travel from town to town passing out ID cards, especially to their citizens who are here illegally. One of their visits was to the Rockford, Illinois branch of the American Red Cross.
You might want to contact your local branch and tell one of the leaders there that you won't be donating any money to them until their national headquarters repudiate this practice.
Janet Napolitano vetoes anti-Matricula Consular bill
Continuing a trend of supporting illegal immigration, Arizona governor Janet Napolitano has vetoed a bill that would have helped prevent the use of Mexico's Matricula Consular ID card. That card is usually an indicator that the bearer is an illegal alien; legal immigrants have no use for such a card. The bill would have blocked the state and cities from accepting the card; in the past the Mexican government has lobbied localities to accept them, and they're allowed to travel from town to town passing them out to their citizens regardless of their immigration status.
Napolitano said the bill would have hindered law enforcement officers' ability to confirm the identities of foreign nationals, including those pulled over for traffic violations "or stopped for any reason." ...Without the cards, foreign nationals are more likely to try to obtain forged documents that are accepted by the state, she added. "The state is better served by having foreign nationals use identification that accurately identifies them as foreign nationals."
"Foreign nationals" who are here legally for whatever reason have other documents they can provide, such as visas or green cards. And, of course, governments shouldn't try to prevent illegal activity (obtaining forged documents) by encouraging foreign governments to paper over someone's immigration status. She is implicitly and explicitly encouraging IDs for illegal aliens.
Chertoff tells locals to lobby against border fence
Val Verde County Sheriff A. D'Wayne Jernigan and other border sheriffs went to Washington to speak to DHS chief Michael Chertoff:"When we met with Secretary Chertoff, he assured us there would be no action taken on the fence along the border without conferring with local officials... The Secretary told us that he believes that in some areas there does not need to be a fence, especially in places where there are natural borders like the ones we have here in Val Verde County. We told him that the only thing he is going to do by building a fence here is create a firestorm of controversy..."Certainly, in some areas the fence might not make sense or might not be necessary due to the local topography. However, I suspect that Chertoff isn't just thinking of those cases.
...Jernigan said Chertoff told the border sheriffs their best route to quash the fence plan is to keep in close contact with their elected representatives in Washington.
"He told us, 'I'm under mandate by that law that says I have to build a fence.' And what he said was, that we need to start lobbying and we need to start informing our legislators so they can change the law..."
New Haven Independent deletes another comment (John DeStefano + Mexico)
Melissa Bailey of the leftwing New Haven Independent informs us [1] that that city is renewing discussions on issuing ID cards for various uses from the mundane (paying parking fines) to the not-so-mundane (apparent substitute for driver's licenses for illegal aliens). As could be expected from those familiar with issues in that city, mayor John DeStefano and the "city's social-services chief" Kica Matos - former leader of "Junta for Progressive Action" - are involved. The latter group is collaborating with the Mexican government [2].I left a comment on [1], which appeared immediately. It's since disappeared, so I left it again. Let's see if it sticks this time. This is the second time they've deleted a comment I left on such stories, the first deletion is detailed at the second link above.
It was such a short comment too:
Since Matos' group is collaborating with the MexicanGovernment, does anyone have any information on what role if any that government is playing in this effort?Obviously, I made one minor error: it's Matos' former group; she now works for the city. However, I have no doubt that she maintains close contact with her former collaborateurs.
If anyone in their area wants to jump into the vacuum that the NHI is leaving in the reporting field, feel free to try to answer my question.
UPDATE: They deleted the second comment, so I left this:
Could the NHI explain why it keeps deleting my comments, especially since the content of my comments was based on a previous NHI article? You can see the comment I left here.[1] newhavenindependent.org/archives/2007/05/city_unveils_a.php
Since the NHI apparently doesn't want to do real reporting on this issue, I urge everyone else to fill the gap.
[2] newhavenindependent.org/archives/2006/10/id_for_life.php
100+ Hispanic groups send letter supporting illegal immigration, opposing raids
The National Council of La Raza ("The Race") has led the charge to send a letter to president Bush (cc'ed to Michael Chertoff and Julie Myers) complaining about the recent workplace raids [1]. The list of "grassroots" organizations involved is in the extended entry, and some are "interesting": CASA of Maryland, Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition, Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (one of whose founders marched alongside a former Mexican consul general in an illegal immigration march), the odious Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights (their president is linked to the Mexican government), Instituto del Progreso Latino (their executive director is the president of the ICIRR), the
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and the Southern Poverty Law Center (indirectly linked to the Mexican government).
Obviously, a letter that's sent now could simply be repurposed and sent again a year or two after "comprehensive immigration reform" passes. There's no assurance that these groups wouldn't send a similar letter in order to weaken future, "reform"-mandated enforcement, and that's one of the ways that the current amnesty would become like past amnesties.
We, the undersigned Latino organizations, write to express our outrage and deep concern over the manner in which workplace raids have been conducted all across the United States in the past few months. As organizations that work closely with the communities that are directly impacted by these raids, we are often the first to respond to the immediate humanitarian crisis that occurs when a raid is conducted. Particularly, we are concerned about the raids' short- and long-term impact on children. There are approximately 3.1 million U.S. citizen children who have at least one undocumented parent, and there are 1.8 million undocumented children in the U.S. We believe that the U.S. must take the needs of these children into account and fix the broken immigration system that separates them from their parents.
The parents and those who encourage illegal immigration are at fault, not the system. Why aren't they taking the needs of the children into account?
...Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick correctly characterized the recent raids as a "humanitarian crisis." ...The time is long overdue for our nation to stop tearing apart these hardworking families and bring about real, comprehensive solutions to our immigration problems...
Patrick was shown not to be telling the whole truth in that case, and hopefully the same will happen here. Obviously, what they support - out of purely racial grounds - will make the situation far worse.
[1] nclr.org/content/news/detail/45751
The signatories:
Academia Cesar Chavez – Saint Paul, MN
Acercamiento Hispano de Carolina del Sur – Columbia, SC
AltaMed Health Services Corporation – Los Angeles, CA
Bridge Academy Charter School – Bridgeport, CT
Calexico Community Action Council – Calexico, CA
CARECEN – Washington, DC
Carlos Rosario School – Washington, DC
CASA of Maryland – Silver Spring, MD
CASA of Oregon – Newberg, OR
Center for Hispanic Policy & Advocacy – Providence, RI
Center for Training & Careers/WorkNET – San Jose, CA
Centro Campesino Farmworker Center, Inc. – Florida City, FL
Centro de Amistad – Guadalupe, AZ
Centro de la Comunidad – Baltimore, MD
Centro de Residentes Bolivianos – Madison, WI
Centro de Salud Familiar La Fe – El Paso, TX
Centro Hispano of Dane County – Cambridge, MA
CentroNía – Washington, DC
Centro Presente, Inc. – Cambridge, MA
Cesar Chavez Academy – Pueblo, CO
Cesar Chavez Dual Language Immersion Charter School – Santa Barbara, CA
Chicano Awareness Center – Omaha, NE
Chicano Federation of San Diego County – San Diego, CA
Coalition for New South Carolinians – Columbia, SC
Colorado Immigrant Rights Coalition – Denver, CO
Colorado Rural Housing – Westminster, CO
Committee for Hispanic Children and Families, Inc. – New York, NY
Community Child Care Center of Santa Clara County – San Jose, CA
Conexión Américas – Nashville, TN
Congreso de Latinos Unidos – Philadelphia, PA
Council for the Spanish Speaking – Milwaukee, WI
Del Norte Neighborhood Development Corp. – Denver, CO
Detroit Hispanic Development Corporation – Detroit, MI
Dolores Huerta Preparatory High School – Pueblo, CO
DRAW Academy – Houston, TX
East Las Vegas Community Development Corporation (ELVCDC) – Las Vegas, NV
El Centro de la Raza – Seattle, WA
El Centro de las Americas – Lincoln, NE
El Pueblo, Inc. – Raleigh, NC
Emigrantes Sin Fronteras – Phoenix, AZ
Florida Immigrant Advocacy Center – Miami, FL
Florida Immigrant Coalition – Tallahassee, FL
Gads Hill Center – Chicago, IL
Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials (GALEO) – Atlanta, GA
Hands Across Cultures – Española, NM
HELP – New Mexico, Inc. – Albuquerque, NM
Hispanic American Student Association (HASA), University of Central Oklahoma – Edmond, OK
Hispanic Chamber of Commerce of Minnesota – Minneapolis, MN
Hispanic Coalition of Florida – Miami, FL
Hispanic Committee of Virginia – Falls Church, VA
Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama – Birmingham, AL
Hispanic Women’s Organization of Arkansas – Springdale, AR
HOLA – Hispanas Organizadas de Lake y Ashtabula (OH) – Painesville, OH
Hyde Square Task Force – Jamaica Plain, MA
Idaho Community Action Network – Boise, ID
Kentucky Coalition of Immigrant and Refugee Rights – Lexington, KY
Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights – Chicago, IL
Information Referral Resource Assistance Inc. – Edinburg, TX
Instituto del Progreso Latino – Chicago, IL
La Casa de Esperanza – Waukesha, WI
La Casa Health Network, Inc. – Little Rock, AR
Latin American Coalition – Charlotte, NC
Latin American Community Center, Inc. – Wilmington, DE
Latin American Research and Service Agency – Denver, CO
Latin American Youth Center – Washington, DC
Latino Community Development Agency – Oklahoma City, OK
Latino Economic Development Corporation – Washington, DC
Latino Family Services – Detroit, MI
Latino Leadership – Orlando, FL
Latino Memphis, Inc. – Memphis, TN
Latinos for Education and Justice Organization – Calhoun, GA
Latinos United for Change and Advancement – Madison, WI
Law Offices of Navarro & Associates – Santa Ana, CA
Mary’s Center for Maternal and Child Care – Washington, DC
Mississippi Immigrant Rights Alliance (MIRA) – Jackson & Biloxi, MS
Montebello Housing Development Corporation – Montebello, CA
Mujeres Latinas en Acción – Chicago, IL
NAF Multicultural Human Development Corporation – North Platte, NE
National Association of Latino Independent Producers – New York, NY
Near Northside Partners Council, Inc. – Fort Worth, TX
New Jersey Immigration Policy Network – Newark, NJ
NEWSED CDC – Denver, CO
Parent Institute for Quality Education – San Diego, CA
Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund – New York, NY
Repertorio Español – New York, NY
Rural Opportunities, Inc. – Rochester, NY
Salem/Keizer Coalition for Equality – Salem, OR
San Diego County SER/Jobs for Progress, Inc. – Oceanside, CA
SEA MAR Community Health Centers – Seattle, WA
Servicios de La Raza, Inc. – Denver, CO
Siete del Norte CDC – Embudo, NM
Southern Poverty Law Center – Montgomery, AL
Southwest Key Program, Inc. – Austin, TX
Spanish Speaking Citizens’ Foundation – Oakland, CA
St. Matthew Immigration/Detention Committee – Baltimore, MD
Tejano Center for Community Concerns – Houston, TX
Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition (TIRRC) – Nashville, TN
United Dubuque Immigrant Alliance (UN DIA) – Dubuque, IA
United Hispanic Americans, Inc. – Fort Wayne, IN
University of Wisconsin Latina/o Law Student Association – Madison, WI
Vecinos Unidos – Dallas, TX
Washington State Migrant Council – Sunnyside, WA
Watts/Century Latino Organization – Los Angeles, CA
Western Colorado Justice for Immigrants Committee – Grand Junction, CO
AP/White House/Senate latest amnesty scam to emphasize triggers
The AP report "Secure Borders Trump Deal on Immigration" by Julie Hirschfeld Davis is perhaps intentionally confusing:The Bush administration and key senators are working on a deal that would delay a sweeping immigration overhaul until the border is fortified and leave illegal immigrants waiting up to 13 more years to gain legal status...She's clearly talking about some form of legalization plan (i.e., amnesty), the only difference is that the trigger mechanisms would be highlighted. Somehow I get the impression that she, the White House, or the Senators are trying to portray this as a grand concession, when it really isn't: at the end of the day (or the years) there's still an amnesty. The "overhaul" is indeed being "delayed", it just isn't being shelved.
...As contemplated, the proposal would delay the process of giving legal status to undocumented immigrants and guest worker visas to new arrivals until the administration beefs up border security and implements a high-tech identification system for temporary workers. Such measures are expected to take up to two years.
I also feel the need to help them understand numbers:
Even then, officials said it would take up to 13 years — along with large fines and a trip to their home country — before the 12 million men, women and children estimated to be in the U.S. illegally could get permanent legal status, or green cards. The government would spend eight years clearing visa backlogs for immigrants currently waiting in line, and then spend about five years processing those here illegally.Unless they're going to halt legal immigration, in the first eight years, a million or more potential legal immigrants would enter the queue each year. Meaning that a backlog might exist during or at the end of those eight years, around about the time we were going to start processing current illegal aliens.
In other words, like all the other grand schemes, it has "unfeasible" written all over it in big red letters.
UPDATE: In related Orwellian news, Arlen Specter says:
"We have come to an agreement on what we call a 'grand bargain,' which is the outline of an immigration bill... There is no doubt that we want to secure the border and stop illegal immigration as the first item."It's not an amnesty, it's just a "pathway to citizenship"!
...The senator added that the group has decided to put discussion of a guest-worker program on hold until steps are taken to secure the borders. The committee is "rejecting the idea of amnesty for the 11 million undocumented immigrants," he said.
"We are trying to structure a temporary-worker program that is temporary," he added. But he said that illegal immigrants would be given a pathway to citizenship that includes paying back taxes, learning English and providing an extensive work history in the U.S.
The side of the MacArthur Park illegal immigration riot you didn't see
Via this comes the following report from a pro-illegal immigration protester. Contrasting with the video of the LAPD beating up a camerawoman, it shows the LAPD with some restraint and it also shows some demonstrators hanging back to taunt the cops. In one case one is brandishing a long stick. Not exactly a deadly weapon, but what's shown on the video has not as far as I know been mentioned by the Triumverate of Loons (Villaraigosa, Bratton, and Mahony).
AVWatch: Villaraigosa, Bratton "send message" on MacArthur Park immigration riot
Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and LAPD chief William Bratton is currently holding a press conference pledging a "comprehensive review" of the May 1 MacArthur Park immigration riot. Bratton is demoting two leaders of the Central Division. Tony Villar is offering his remarks in both English and Spanish.In earlier demagogic news, Louis Sahagun of the Los Angeles Times offered "L.A. mayor vows action against guilty officers":
In a show of solidarity with families confronted by police during Tuesday's immigrant rally at MacArthur Park, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa told Cinco de Mayo audiences around Los Angeles on Saturday that action would be taken against officers found to have violated the law.
The mayor stepped up to a downtown pulpit Saturday night and vowed, "There will be consequences... There will be an investigation into what occurred," Villaraigosa said in Spanish, assuring about 300 parishioners at Immaculate Conception Catholic Church that "not even police are above the law."
...Earlier, during the Mass, Villaraigosa, who was seated in the front pew, rose and walked down the center aisle toward the back of the church, grasping people's hands and hugging parishioners. He then returned to give his speech at the end of the hour-long service.
During his 10-minute address, he told the parishioners, "It doesn't matter to me whether you have papers or not. You came to work. We all have the same dreams. We want peace and decent jobs."
Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform
Christians for Comprehensive Immigration Reform is a new group headed up by Jim Wallis, and they're wrong. In order to promote legalization for all as well as a "guest" worker program, they'll be conducting an ad campaign, letter writing effort, and most likely advocating from the pulpit.
First, they're selectively quoting the Bible; see the links here. Second, what they support will make things far worse for all concerned; see this and this for starters.
The solution to their problem is simple, but unfortunately I'm not aware of anyone having done it: go to public appearances by these pastors and point out to everyone else exactly how they're wrong. You can't point out that you just disagree; you need to show that their arguments have no merit.
You can see a list of their signatories here, read about their press conference here, and you can see one of their sleazy ads in this PDF file. It features a staged shot of a little weeping Hispanic girl being led away by two Border Patrol agents, and the ad itself shows that they aren't able to think things through. In almost all instances the Border Patrol would have contact with her only if she were trying to cross the border; ICE would deal with her in other instances. And, it presents BP agents as thugs. And, the religious "leaders" appear to have forgotten about parental responsibility. What were her parents thinking to bring her here illegally, or have a child here while living here illegally? And, it's ironic that the policies the CCIR supports would lead to even more such cases.
If you're a member of one of the CCIR churches, I urge you to hold your "leaders" responsible.
Lesley Stahl/60 Minutes tries lame hit piece on Lou Dobbs
Tonight's 60 Minutes featured a profile of Lou Dobbs by Lesley Stahl entitled Lou Dobbs, "Advocacy" Journalist? In the World of CBS, biased reporters - such as the dozens exposed in the entries here as well as Stahl herself, Ed Bradley, and Steve Kroft - are real journalists, but only Dobbs blurs the lines. Apparently if you're biased in the right way, it's OK.Dobbs is "less Walter Cronkite than Bill O'Reilly"; good ol' leftwing Uncle Walty is apparently a journalist, while Dobbs is more a BOR-style firethrower.
She spends most of her time unable to fathom why anyone would care about illegal immigration, sidewise implying that Dobbs is a racist for opposing illegal immigration, and also spending an inordinate amount of time on apparently the only gotcha moment they could find: that one of his correspondents told him that "there have been 7,000 cases of leprosy in the U.S. in the past three years". From this:
Rep. J.D. Hayworth, R-Ariz., told the Business Journal of Phoenix. "For example, in 40 years, only 900 persons were afflicted by leprosy in the U.S.; in the past three years, more than 7,000 cases have been presented."That statement appears to have been obtained from the article "Illegal Aliens and American Medicine" which, according to this, says:
Leprosy, also known as Hansen's disease, was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy.Did Stahl see that report? Why didn't she - the good journalist - mention where the figure was from?
Then, it's over to Mark Potok, "who monitors hate groups for the Southern Poverty Law Center." In addition to that, the SPLC is indirectly linked to the Mexican government (a fact not disclosed by Journalist Stahl).
Potok charges that Dobbs is a fear monger. "The impression you get, pretty strongly I think, day after day, is that sort of all 11 million illegal aliens are bringing leprosy, they're bringing crime, they're bringing all these terrible things to the United States," he explains.Obviously, the one leaping is Potok.
"If these people have come into this country illegally, what is so wrong with somebody taking it up as an advocate?" Stahl asks.
"But that does not sort of give one the go-ahead to say that, you know, 'These are a group of rapists and disease-carrying people who are coming to, you know, essentially destroy the culture of this country.' You know, I think that’s a long leap," Potok says.
Then, Stahl once again shows her ignorance by saying that he "seems to suggest that all illegals should be rounded up." He corrects her, saying that while he's never advocated that it would be possible if we wanted to. She persists, gamely pushing the Bush/Chertoff line:
"We can't even find them," Stahl points out. "How're you going to round them up? I'm serious. If you think it's possible. How's it possible?"Then, Dobbs has kind words for migrant workers:
If that pat on the back is surprising, given the tone of his show, there's something even more surprising, something he never brings up: the fact that his wife Debi is Mexican-American.In no way, shape or form is anything Lesley Stahl does journalism.
UPDATE: Our fair trade reporter, David Sirota, discusses the piece here. While he doesn't defend or oppose Dobbs' immigration stance, he does defend him because of his outsourcing stance. And, he points out even more Stahl biases.
UPDATE 2: Dobbs responds to the interview here, fingering Cosman for her report (linked above). And, regarding Potok's claims, he says:
...You just took a plunge from the facts.
First of all, I've never said anything remotely resembling what you suggested. And of the numbers of reports, the hundreds and hundreds of reports we've done on the issue of illegal immigration on this broadcast over the past four and a half years, well, I decided to find out, and I asked our staff to compute how many of them dealt with disease or other illnesses and illegal aliens.
By the way, the number, Mr. Potok, is three. That's three over a period of four and a half years. What happened to your "day in and day out"?
And by the way, Mr. Potok, three of our reports covered rape or sexual predators in the context of illegal immigration in this country...
UPDATE 3: From this:
In an email, a CNN spokeswoman attributed the claim to a 2005 article by medical historian and anti-illegal immigration activist Madeleine Cosman in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons. That article stated, "Leprosy, Hansen's disease, was so rare in America that in 40 years only 900 people were afflicted. Suddenly, in the past three years America has more than 7,000 cases of leprosy." Ms. Cosman, who has since died, attributed those numbers to a 2003 report in the New York Times, but it appears she misrepresented the wording of that report. The Times article said, "While there were some 900 recorded cases in the United States 40 years ago, today more than 7,000 people have leprosy, or Hansen's disease, as it is now called." The Times wording suggests that the 7,000 figure represents total patients, not just new diagnoses — and doesn't support Ms. Romans's claim on the Dobbs show that "there were about 900 cases of leprosy for 40 years." ...The Times article didn't identify the source of the numbers. A spokesman for the paper said he would look into it but hasn't yet gotten back to me. If he does, I'll update this post... "Lou Dobbs Tonight" was certainly not the only media outlet to publicize the leprosy numbers as part of a broader argument that illegal immigration poses health risks. Since the Times article in 2003, the stats have appeared on Fox News and in newspapers' news pages, opinion columns and letters to the editor — often with similar confusion about the timeframe, to make the increase seem more marked.
MacArthur Park immigration riot: "safe spot" for journalists
Los Angeles, home of sun-baked people and half-baked ideas, is truly a magical place:
While [LAPD Chief William Bratton] met with journalist groups, [Antonio Villaraigosa] was speaking at Cathedral Our Lady of the Angels downtown where Cardinal Roger Mahony was celebrating a Mass of consolation and healing.
In other news, Bratton continues throwing his employees under the bus, including threatening to move some officers from the "elite" Metro Division elsewhere ("Some of this will be career-impacting"). This is also the first time I've heard of this:
Journalist organizations asked why officers ignored LAPD policies toward the news media worked out after reporters were assaulted during the 2000 Democratic National Convention... A 2002 agreement with media organizations and the American Civil Liberties Union called for, among other things, designation of a safe spot for reporters covering news events. LAPD spokeswoman Mary Grady acknowledged reporters were not given "a designated safe spot" at MacArthur Park.
Once again: I'm no great fan of what the LAPD did, and they have a history of doing things like this. But, perhaps Bratton should consider not completely going over to the side of loons like Villaraigosa and Mahoney.
Fred Thompson: illegal alien amnesty supporter?
Presumed presidential candidate Fred Thompson spoke in Orange County, CA on Friday:[He said] "border security" must be the first priority in reforming immigration.I'll break the silence: his "middle" stance might turn out to be as radical as that of Bush and most of the current GOP candidates. He didn't oppose an amnesty for illegal aliens, and if he doesn't think having 12 to 20 million foreign citizens living here illegally is an issue there's a strong possibility that he's a supporter of some form of amnesty. Whatever it's called, it will be seen as an amnesty by millions of prospective illegal aliens around the world, and they'll come a-running.
But he also made clear that he would tack closer to the middle on the issue by adding that "the 12 million [illegal immigrants] here aren't as much as a concern as the next 12 million after that."
The first line – border security – won immediate head nods, murmurs of "m-hmm," and applause. His downplaying of the status of the illegal immigrants in the country now drew silence.
I note also that harping on border security is the stock Bush partisan line employed by worthies such as Hugh Hewitt and Captain Ed. I note also that he's being pushed by RedState and Instapundit, both of which are very strong warning signs.
I'm certainly willing to give him a hearing, but as for now I'm a very strong skeptic.
UPDATE: Fred Thompson: Globalist? refers to unnamed "Nashville news editors" who are creating a "supernova" around his candidacy. And, it says that he was a NAFTA supporter, he voted for the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, he voted to "relax the rules on migrant farm workers", and "most of his time is spent in Manhattan and Hollywood". And:
Although it's true that Ol' Fred drove a red pickup truck to campaign appearances when he ran for Al Gore's vacated seat in the U.S. Senate, it's also true that Fred only drove that truck a few blocks at a time before it was put on the flatbed hauler until the next campaign speech.When I heard about the red pickup truck on one of the political talk shows, my first thought was that they'd probably use a flatbed to move it around. It's good to see that confirmed.
Maria Hinojosa/PBS Now interviews Chris Simcox
Maria Hinojosa of PBS Now interviews the founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, Chris Simcox, here. I didn't listen to the interview, and I have a neutral position on Simcox and his group [1]. However, I find their choice of links quite interesting.
They give the game away by linking to the CFR, specifically the illogical, not comprehensively economic "The Economic Logic of Illegal Immigration" by Gordon Hanson.
They also link to what is probably a hit piece from the SPLC, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government.
As, as a capper, they link to the Kathy Kiely USA Today article offering a highly misleading reading of a Gallup poll.
[1] I interviewed him a few years ago and, while he didn't seem as loony as he had been portrayed in hit pieces, one of his compadres did not leave a good impression and I never wrote it up. Part of that was because he failed to comply with my request that he provide examples of how the MSM has misrepresented him. He couldn't point to specific examples, prefering instead to repeat his talking points. There's also some controversy over a fence they're building and the funding for it, and of course his group is apparently separate from Jim Gilchrist's current and former groups with similar names.
National Institute for Latino Policy gets CNN to remove link from Lou Dobbs site
Lou Dobb's CNN page used to have a link to Small Town Defenders, aka the City of Hazleton Legal Defense Fund. From this:
An advocacy group, the National Institute for Latino Policy, protested that Dobbs’ on-air advocacy was expanding to include an endorsement of raising money for an organization. After getting a letter from the group, CNN chief executive Jim Walton agreed to remove the link, CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson said Friday.
The NILP was formerly affiliated with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of the groups involved in suing... Hazleton.
CNN certainly has a right to add and remove links at will, and since the linked site solicits donations they might have journalistic concerns. On the other hand, they might want to consider having the balls to stand up to racial power groups.
"Special use permits" used to silence anti-illegal immigration protesters
Russ Dove is a fringey Tucson anti-illegal immigration protester. He was trying to use a bullhorn to counter-protest an illegal immigration march, when Tucson police told him that the noise was bothering someone else and that he'd be arrested if he didn't stop using the bullhorn. Apparently this involves the type of permit the marchers received. More here; see the long video here; background from the other side here.
I don't know whether his First Amendment rights have been violated or not, but I certainly don't expect the ACLU or the MSM to look into it either.
Max Blumenthal feverishly uncovers the "anti-immigrant" movement
Max Blumenthal - aka "Son of Sid" - was interviewed by Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! about the "anti-immigrant" movement with predictable results:
...there are several components of the anti-immigrant movement in this country, and they're all working very closely together. They have a longstanding program to forcibly remove the twelve million undocumented immigrants in this country, and they're specifically targeting brown-skinned immigrants, people who come from the third world. That's what their target is. So they're actually not a xenophobic movement. They're a nativist movement...
Tom Tancredo is allegedly at the "top" of the movement. And, of course, very few people are talking about forcibly removing all illegal aliens. I'm also not aware of any even slightly mainstream groups specifically targeting either "brown-skinned" people or "immigrants". He follows with the stock SPLC discussion of John Tanton, originator of FAIR, CIS, and other groups. Including, of course, this perennial favorite:
FAIR, took $1.3 million from the Pioneer Fund, a group that advanced Nazi propaganda in the 1930s and which exists to fund the science of Hitlerian eugenics.
Henry Ford had some interesting thoughts as well, yet the Ford Foundation tends to fund a large variety of far-left groups. Both have the same level of relevance. Pioneer has also donated to major universities, including Stanford and one in Tel Aviv. That appears to have been left out of his analysis. While I don't know whether they supported "Hitlerian eugenics" in the 30s, I highly doubt that they do now; in fact, I hope the Pioneer Fund sues him for slander. See their explanation for more information on this and other smears.
Then:
You have people like Lou Dobbs, who works very closely with Tom Tancredo's office, who works closely with these think tanks, and he advances extreme conspiracy theories, like the idea of a North American Union, which came from the far shores of the right, from groups like the John Birch Society.
Obviously, Bush could give a televised speech promoting the NAU and people like Blumenthal would still seek to deny it.
Then, it gets even worse. Baby Blumenthal tries to tie those who oppose illegal immigration into the KKK, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the recent arrests of loony militia members in Alabama.
Amy Goodman ignores Mexico links of illegal immigration march organizers
Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! interviewed two illegal immigration march organizers (link) without mentioning that at least one of them has a highly questionable link to Mexico. Per her:To help recap and look ahead to what's next, we're joined by organizers of the day's two largest protests:As did Peter Prengaman, she fails to note that the first group has allegedly collaborated with the Mexican government. The second person is an official with the Mexican political party PRD.
* Angelica Salas, Executive Director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights in Los Angeles.
* Jorge Mujica, former journalist and union organizer and one of the lead organizers for immigrant rights protests in Chicago. He has worked for La Raza, Univision, and Telemundo, and has been involved in union organizing in both the US and in Mexico.
Lawsuits, etc. over MacArthur Park illegal immigration riot
The National Lawyer's Guild is now saying that they're going to file a class action lawsuit against the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles over the riot which occured at yesterday's illegal immigration march in MacArthur Park. Apparently a group of protesters is currently holding a press conference; they're wearing masks and waving a Mexican flag as well as the flag of the FMLN (El Salvador's Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front). They were previously a guerilla organized but they've morphed into a semi-mainstream political party.
UPDATE: One of those at the press conference is Ron Gochez.
UPDATE 2: To make this clear, it wasn't clear whether those at the press confab were actually with the FMLN or just supporters.
There are police scanner intercepts in these MP3 files: 1, 2. Per this:
...In part one you will hear the cops talking about being pelted with rocks and bottles at around the 11 minute mark. People were throwing stuff from apartments too. At around the 14 minute mark someone starts a fire. Note that the media ignored many of these facts... In part two the rowdiness starts around the 05:30 mark. Some jokes around 10:50. At around 14:10 there is talk of people throwing bottles at cars. At 16 minutes they start going after some of the mobsters.
In other news, far-leftie Pasadena City College teacher Leslie Radford offers "Police Terror in the Park":
la.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/197899.php
Meanwhile, another person offers "LAPD tries to crush immigrant rights movement":
la.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/197816.php
And, "May Day 2007; A Report To Correct The Balance":
la.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/197854.php
Burn, baby, burn writ small, as some trash or similar was alighted three blocks from the scene:
la.indymedia.org/news/2007/05/197907.php
There are a couple videos from the incident currently at this link:
telemundo52.com/video/index.html
UPDATE 3: Los Angeles Times reporter Jill Leovy describes the melee from her perspective here:
a small group of young protesters, including several wearing bandanas over their faces, had been hovering near the police on this side of the park. Unlike the rest of the protesters, who mostly ignored officers, this group had appeared quite focused on the police throughout the march -- watching them, filming them at close range, hollering at them, etc... [later on] When the police had driven the last of the press and protesters to the northwest corner of the park, an order came specifically directed at the press: "Members of the media" were told they were there illegally by an officer on foot... ...A block west of the park on 6th, a couple dozen young men and middle-aged men threw plastic garbage cans into the street. They formed a barricade of garbage cans blocking traffic and also threw material at passing cars. A large metal truck hubcap was sent spinning into the street toward people. An older man began hitting a Metro bus pulled up to the curb with a large piece of wood. A dozen men stood in the middle of the street taunting the advancing police line...
Bonus sub-text: "established" press vs. "self-styled grassroots reporters" and "self-appointed journalists". The former are obviously upset.
There's also video shot from inside a bus driving through the protest here.
UPDATES:
AVWatch: Villaraigosa promoting allegedly Mexico-linked group
Fabian Nunez: LAPD officers set out to do "target practice" on "immigrants"
Orwell Alert: Temporary Protected Status extended 18 more months
From our Orwell Alert/'When "Temporary" Means "Permanent"' file comes this:Central Americans who are legally in the U-S because their countries were slammed by natural disasters are getting an 18-month extension.From this USCIS PDF:
The Department of Homeland Security is allowing the added time for citizens of Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador who have Temporary Protected Status.
Salvadorans have had the status since early 2001 after two earthquakes killed 12-hundred people. Nicaraguans and Hondurans have had the designation since Hurricane Mitch in 1998.
"Although Honduras, Nicaragua, and El Salvador have made significant progress in their recovery and rebuilding efforts, each country continues to face social and economic challenges in their efforts to restore their nations to normalcy," said USCIS Director Emilio Gonzalez. "This 18 month extension reflects the United States' commitment to continue assisting our Central American neighbors on their road to recovery."Related from Feb 2006: "Temporary" Protected Status extended; preview of "guest" worker schemes
Cook County illegal alien sanctuary policy loses
From this:The Cook County Board rejected Tuesday an attempt to make the county an immigrant-friendly government by forbidding its employees from investigating or asking about anyone's immigration status.
Cook County Commissioner Roberto Maldonado, who has championed the resolution for more than a year, looked visibly upset after the resolution failed on a tie vote with three abstentions.
"I'm not going to give up," Maldonado (D-Chicago) said. "I'm going to bring it back. ... When we fought for civil rights legislation, it did not happen overnight."
Ken Mehlman, your hat sir, thank you, good bye
Former RNC chief Ken Mehlman