Archives
This is a very large file. For the full smaller digest version, click here.Debbie Russell/ACLU tries blocking immigration enforcement in Austin, Texas (ICE, jails)
The American Civil Liberties Union is collaborating with the Mexican government, so the following shouldn't be much of a surprise:An ACLU attorney [ACLU of Texas Central Texas Chapter President Debbie Russell] and immigration rights' advocate [Austin Immigrants' Rights Coalition member Caroline Keating-Guerra] sighed with some relief after the City of Austin Human Rights Commission passed seven recommendations Monday to city council regarding immigration control at Travis County Jail.Once in jail, they might be checked by Immigrations and Custom Enforcement to see if they were illegal aliens or otherwise deportable. Needless to say, the ACLU wants as little of that as possible:
...The commission recommended, rather than arresting persons involved in non-violent Class A or Class B misdemeanors and taking them to jail, the Austin Police Department and the Travis County Sheriff's Department should issue citations and court summons at their discretion, as indicated in Texas House Bill 2391.
"I think there's also a lot of assumptions from the County Sheriff's office that they have to give certain access, and I think they're assuming too much in favor of ICE having access," Russell said. "I think they could limit the hours that they are allowed to go into the jail, and if the sheriff sees it as his job to process individuals, if they're getting the way, he can limit their access, so we just need to get down in writing how much so."
Mexico worried that "migrants" not receiving public services (in the U.S., of course)
As Felipe Calderon and other Mexican government officials have done recently, Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa Cantellano spoke out today in defense of "migrants" (i.e., illegal aliens that Mexico has more or less sent us) and threatened to ramp up the pressure for an amnesty.
Bearing strongly in mind that she said this first in Spanish, and then it was filtered by the Washington Post and their reporter Manuel Roig-Franzia, this is still an interesting thing to read:
Mexican officials have said they are concerned that migrants are being treated unfairly in workplaces and, in some cases, being denied public services. The presidential campaign has frequently inflamed tensions on issues related to immigration.
It would be great to learn which public services they have in mind; while illegal aliens are eligible for various services, the fact that their government would highlight that helps show that our generous program of services factors into that government's calculations.
She also said:
"Being effective in the defense and support of the migrants implies treating them the same way whether they are in Mexico or outside of the country... Given the adverse climate that prevails for the Mexican community in the United States, aggravated by the electoral debate in that country, we also have to give particular attention to the problems confronted by our migrants..."
Related:
Mexico's PRD Party to establish "migrant houses" in the U.S.
Felipe Calderon explicitly wants Mexican consuls to meddle in U.S. immigration debate (non-profits)
Felipe Calderon's "League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States"
Dallas Morning News/Rod Dreher names "The Illegal Immigrant" Texan of the Year
The Dallas Morning News - in an essay written by Rod Dreher - has named "The Illegal Immigrant" as their Texan of the Year (link).
In response to what was likely a barrage of emails, their Keven Ann Willey says:
I fear that many of the people upset over our choice for Texan of the Year have read only the headline of the essay and not its content. The essay makes it clear that we're not glorifying the illegal immigrant
Thankfully, the commenters at the last link have spared me from taking the article apart, including comments like this:
Your last sentence, which puts your stamp of opinion on the issue, gives your game away: "How we deal with the stranger among us says not only who we Americans are today but determines who we will become tomorrow." This is standard issue "campassionate conservative" evangelical speak...
Some suggest boycotting the DMN and their affiliated TV stations. More comments on this here, here, and here.
Julia Preston/NYT admits: border fencing, attrition works
Julia Preston of the New York Times has a brief round-up of the year's events in immigration called "Immigration Is Defying Easy Answers". After some expected NYT bias, she closes with:
The next president will still face the tricky task of negotiating not just the politics of the issue, but also some concrete realities. While border fences and immigration raids have discouraged some illegal immigrants from coming and encouraged some who are here to go home, millions of illegal workers have had families here and put down roots, and are not going to disappear.
This is somewhat of a big step for the NYT: admitting that attrition works without sneering. As for the last part of her statement, that's a very strong argument for doing even more: we can't allow people to simply move here and settle down at will, no matter what the NYT thinks.
Mexico's PRD Party to establish "migrant houses" in the U.S.
According to a report in a Mexican newspaper, in 2008 Mexico's leftwing PRD Party will be establishing "migrant houses" inside the U.S. (translation here). They made the announcement in front of the U.S. Consulate in Mexico City, and the secretary general of that party (Carlos Reyes Gamiz) was accompanied by Elvira Arellano. As with Felipe Calderon, Gamiz said he was going to use U.S. non-profits to push their agenda inside the U.S.:
"The PRD has had a past presence in the U.S. territory, where a relationship has been maintained with agencies that defend human rights, and the goal is to share a work agenda, in this environment in which xenofobia and racism have a greater fervor in that country."
The PRD Party played a role in last year's illegal immigration marches in Chicago, due mainly to the efforts of one of their officials, Jorge Mujica.
Joy Lin/CBS News sneers at Mike Huckabee concern over possible terrorist infiltration (Pakistan)
On the topic of immigration, there are - believe it or not - people who are even worse than Mike Huckabee. One of those is Joy Lin of CBS News, who offers "Huckabee Ties Bhutto's Assassination to Illegal Immigration" (link). While Huck apparently made a few mistakes on other topics related to the situation there, one thing he said should be supported by all those who want to prevent terrorist attacks inside the U.S. Apparently that doesn't include CBS News:...After Mike Huckabee was done gladhanding with Iowans at the overcrowded Pizza Ranch restaurant, journalists grilled Huckabee on a hard right turn he took from the subject of Benazir Bhutto's assassination to illegal immigration.Yes, Joy Lin, it's a "hard right turn" and "ethnic baiting" to be concerned about possible terrorist infiltration of the U.S. The fact that he was even asked that, and had to reply "no" is completely preventable: if people went to campaign events and asked real questions about this issue - either of the candidates or of the "reporters" themselves - no "reporter" would dare ask such an incredibly stupid and irresponsible question.
In his speech today, Huckabee said it should be of concern to Americans that 660 illegal Pakistanis crossed the American border last year.
One reporter asked if that was ethnic baiting?
Huckabee went on to send a bit of a secret message, implying that he isn't concerned about illegal aliens just as long as they make some people money:
"The fact is the immigration issue is not so much about people coming to pick lettuce or make beds. It's about people that can come with a shoulder fired missile and can do serious damage and harm to us, and that's what we need to be worried about. And the unsecure borders that we have pose a real national security threat."Huckabee said he'd been briefed on a study showing that the largest category of non-Latin Americans coming over the border are Pakistanis; Lin apparently asked for the study itself, and mentions that the campaign hasn't responded. While it's good that she wants the study, the inclusion of that point seems to be an attempt by her to imply that no such study exists.
In related news, AlterNet's coverage of this is remarkably similar to that from CBS News. A post from Satyam Khanna of ThinkProgress includes the following (alternet.org/blogs/video/71880/#more):
Huckabee also seized on the Bhutto assassination to tighten up his hard-line anti-immigration stance. Yesterday, he said the U.S. should be on heightened alert from the threat posed by Pakistani immigrants.It would be extraordinarily easy for someone to discredit the Left/Dems/MSM on this issue, and only corruption prevents the GOP from doing it.
UPI wacky news: "Athletes, migrants drinking Pedialyte" (in order to avoid dying in desert)
Here's some wacky, fun news for those humanitarians who support or enable illegal immigration, thereby playing a part in encouraging people to try to cross the desert into the U.S. with thousands having died along the way. It's so wacky that UPI has put it into their "Quirks" section under the title "Athletes, migrants drinking Pedialyte" (link):U.S. pro athletes as well as illegal immigrants are turning to drinks designed to rehydrate sick infants for a source of liquid nutrition...But, wait, it gets even better. The UPI article appears to be based on "Pro athletes, migrants turn to baby drinks/Solutions quench adult thirsts" from Chris Hawley of the Arizona Republic (link). They substituted the "quirks" treatment for some helpful tips and an attempt to portray border fences - not those like the Republic who support illegal immigration - as the culprits:
However, athletes aren't the only dehydrated people turning to the baby beverage for sustenance -- shopkeepers in Sonoran towns across the Mexican border say Pedialyte and its Mexican competitor, Electrolit, are flying off the shelves...
The rehydrating solutions help those seeking to cross the border on foot to stave off dehydration, the top cause of death in the desert.
"It is recommended that you carry oral solution with you," says a guide for migrants published by the government of Mexico's Yucatan state. "It is sold in pharmacies and contains salt."Abbott Laboratories (makers of Pedialyte) claim not to have known about these uses for their products, but their Mexican counterpart (Pisa Laboratories, makers of Electrolit) not only knows but, as might be suspected, promotes it:
Sales to migrants have increased in recent years as crackdowns and border walls in Texas and California have forced illegal border-crossers deeper into the Arizona desert, store managers said.
"The migrants are now using it instead of water," said Gabriela Flores, director of marketing for Electrolit. "The truth is, it does help them a lot."
Citgo uses ethnic solidarity to sell gasoline
Via this we learn that Venezuala's Citgo Petroleum has been/is running TV ads - apparently since last year - that encourage U.S. Latinos to buy their gasoline out of ethnic solidarity. An ad is here. It starts with someone playing "Take me out to the ballgame", when he receives hand signals from someone else and then launches into a salsa number. That bring the previously bored crowd - all of the same ethnicity - alive and they begin to dance as "Energia Latina" flashes on the scoreboard.
While marketing campaigns sometimes miss the mark or try to push the envelope rather than follow a trend, I'm going to guess that they know their market and know that many would heed the call. So, mark this down as yet another small illustration of the current assimilation problem.
Less than 100 supervisors arrested on immigration charges in 2007 (+Spencer Hsu's pro-Dem spin)
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post offers "Immigrant Crackdown Falls Short/Despite Tough Rhetoric, Few Employers of Illegal Workers Face Criminal Charges". While we should be thankful for that news, he also offers some pro-Democratic Party spin.
Despite Bush administration blather (Michael Chertoff: "The days of treating employers who violate these laws by giving them the equivalent of a corporate parking ticket -- those days are gone. It's now felonies, jail time, fines and forfeitures."):
Fewer than 100 owners, supervisors or hiring officials were arrested in fiscal 2007, compared with nearly 4,900 arrests that involved illegal workers, providers of fake documents and others, the figures show... Late in the Clinton administration and early in the current administration, the number of illegal immigrants arrested in work-site cases fell -- from 2,849 in 1999 to a low of 445 in 2003 -- although there has since been a rebound. The number of criminal cases brought against employers during that period fell from 182 to four... ICE reported that the 92 criminal arrests made in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30 included 59 owners and 33 corporate officials, human resources workers, crew chiefs and others in the "supervisory chain."
Doris Meissner comes by to sideways promote "immigration reform" by refering to the "chronic failure of employer enforcement under current laws".
As for the spin, Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) is quoted throughout as a supporter of enforcement, which she might just be. However, Hsu fails to note that the Democratic Party takes various steps to block enforcement, as do groups to which they're linked:
The Bush administration has said it is trying to improve its Internet-based E-Verify program, through which less than 1 percent of U.S. employers now voluntarily check new hires' Social Security numbers. It is also fighting major business, farm and labor groups in federal court to use Social Security data generated when suspect numbers are submitted to the government as a sweeping nationwide enforcement tool.
What that fails to mention is that one of the lead parties to the suit is the ACLU, and many people might miss the "labor" part; another plaintiff is the AFL-CIO. Both have degrees of influence over the Democratic Party.
MSM meme: voters ask tougher immigration questions than reporters
A subspecies of MSM reports features recounts of voters asking the presidential candidates questions about immigration- or North American Union-related matters. The reporters usually try to spin it in the best (pro-illegal immigration) light possible, frequently not offering everything that the voters and the candidates say, and frequently giving the candidates chances to "correct" "misstatements" made by the voters.These reports also reveal just how corrupt the MSM is: they're the ones who should be asking the tough questions, but instead all we get is horserace and the occasional biased recounting of what someone else asked.
The effect can be seen in a recent piece from Ron Claiborne of ABC News, and in July, Michael Luo of the New York Times reported on the candidates being asked about the NAU/NAFTA Superhighway. He allowed Giuliani to state that he had no knowledge of the scheme, when in fact his law firm is involved with the Trans Texas Corridor. Another example comes from Matt Stuart of ABC (link):
Romney faced a wide range of questions from the audiences in Coastal and Northern South Carolina today, from his stance on stem cells to the "consolidation of the North American union."The report contains nothing more about that, and just transcribes a few other comments. If Stuart had wanted to do real reporting he would have pressed Romney on the issue. So, why didn't he?
"Do you mean unifying our country with Canada and Mexico?" Romney said to the later, stating simply "No."
UPDATE: Along the same lines, see this article from Bennett Roth of the Houston Chronicle.
Ron Claiborne/ABC, Peter Canellos/Boston Globe help John McCain mislead about immigration
Ron Claiborne of ABC News offers "McCain Still Dogged by Immigration Issue" (link). He discusses how no matter where McCain goes he's asked questions about immigration matters; unfortunately, Claiborne didn't do his job (or at least the job I'd do) and the only questions he asked McCain about this allowed him to present his side of the matter.
And, Claiborne also allowed McCain to mislead:
He said he was often asked questions at his town hall meetings by citizens citing alarmist and usually fictitious anecdotes... Earlier that day, a woman said she had heard that some Mexican-American children in American schools were refusing to put their hands over their hearts during the Pledge of the Allegiance and other Mexican immigrants were flying the Mexican flag above the American flag somewhere... McCain wondered if these tales that people are citing are coming from talk radio where immigration is a burning issue.
I don't know about the first, but the second has happened at least twice and there have probably been more incidents. In 2006, students from another nearby school raised the Mexican flag over an upside down American flag at Montebello High School near Los Angeles. Earlier this year, a U.S. vet cut down a Mexican flag that was flying over the U.S. flag in Reno (youtube.com/watch?v=Px1PTsEdC1Y). While ABC News doesn't appear to have covered either incident, surely some editor there must have heard of those or at least should have done some research. In fact, a google search for mexican flag flying over american flag brings up several hits, including ones with that very title.
Are Claiborne and his editors incompetent, are they lazy, or were they simply trying to deceive?
Also, Peter Canellos of the Boston Globe offers "Fear of foreigners roils Iowa/Angry rural voters voicing far-fetched theories" (link) which has a very similar formulation involving those flags.
Steve Decosta/Standard-Times shows how to spin sweatshops (New Bedford Michael Bianco raid, WBSM)
Steve Decosta of the Standard-Times (South Coast Massachusetts) offers "Year in review: Bianco raid put SouthCoast at center of immigration debate" about the immigration raid of Michael Bianco Inc. in New Bedford. Most people admit that that factory was a sweatshop and that's not only been printed in previous reports by that paper but Decosta includes it in paragraph 21 of his "report".However, what goes before then could have equally been used to promote child labor back in the day. It also contains photos designed to provoke an emotional response, including the same picture of a crying child featured in the Urban Institute/NCLR report on "victims" of immigration enforcement; not only does Decosta mention their report, but the photo was taken by Peter Pereira from his paper.
Before the 21st paragraph where the conditions at the plant are partly described, we get things like this:
It was truly a trying year for America's tired, its poor, its huddled masses yearning to breathe free.If SouthCoastToday and the rest want to highlight their plight in their home countries, that might get a lot more support than their current tack of supporting massive illegal activity and what appears to have amounted to worker abuse.
Even as the nation's estimated 12 million illegal immigrants were squarely in the crosshairs of law enforcement agencies and radio talk-show callers, lawmakers essentially turned their backs on their plight.
SouthCoast became the focal point of the immigrant debate — some would say debacle — after federal authorities raided a South End military contractor's factory, ripping 361 undocumented workers away from their sewing machines and from their families.
Decosta goes on to quote someone who left a comment on one of their articles using the handle "Mexifornian"; that person started off making some sense but then refered to the children affected by the raid as "collateral damage". In effect, Decosta is trying to portray the people who would put a stop to sweatshops and massive illegal activity as cold-hearted, as opposed to the warm-hearted folks who support massive government corruption and abusive workplaces. "Mexifornian" is the only person in the whole article who gives a clue that we shouldn't be supporting people coming here illegally, and it's presented only as a choice between being "sympathetic" and not.
The article also quotes "Carly Burton, a policy associate with the Massachusetts Immigrant and Refugee Advocacy Coalition", "Rev. Marc Fallon, a caseworker for Catholic Social Services", and "Rev. Richard Wilson, pastor of Our Lady of Guadalupe Parish at St. James Church". Fallon appears to be quite a bit of work, saying:
"Every time you listen to WBSM, the vitriolic statements you hear there, there is no distinction between them and what was being said in Germany during the 1930s."I'm not familiar with that radio station, but I tend to think there's a significant distinction. Their was a relationship between the newspaper and the station, but the paper broke it off in August after they got tired of being slammed on the air (link). In March the editor of the paper, Bob Unger, defended them against charges that (as with the current piece) they were pulling at people's heartstrings in order to support illegal immigration, refering to "WBSM's on-air jihad against illegal immigrants since the raid" (link). One of the "jihadis", host Ken Pittman, organized an "America First" rally in May (link), and he certainly doesn't sound like a "jihadi" to me (link):
I have been calling for people to help feed these people while we figure out how to reunite the families but I am calling for deportation of ALL who have broken our laws. The local newspaper, The New Bedford Standard Times has decided to overwhelmingly favor the catch and release policy and let all " deserving," aliens continue to take from the taxpayer resources with equal access to Americans.He may have subsequently appeared on O'Reilly's show, but the post doesn't describe what happened. He also alludes to possible funny business involved in granting the federal contract to Michael Bianco Inc.; perhaps SouthCoastToday should concentrate on that instead.
The O'Reilly Factor of Fox News contacted me and asked me to look into the now infamous op/ed of the NY Times newspaper suggesting that the ICE raid was responsible for babies of illegal aliens being sent to area hospitals as a result of the incarcerations of their mothers (here against the law). I was able to determine from a Hospital spokeswoman and from the very woman who carried one of the two babies in question, that these poor babes were indeed dehydrated..as a result of pneumonia, something the New York Times mentioned nothing of. It didn’t end there. I was also able to learn that one of the mothers of these two actually lied about having children when the federal officials interviewed her. This kept the two separated much longer than was necessary...
Reports like this illustrate once again the impact that discrediting religious leaders who support illegal immigration could have on this debate. Publicly asking them tough questions wouldn't give hacks like Decosta as great a chance to hide behind false compassion to support illegal immigration.
1/18/07 UPDATE: John Kerry pushed for and now welcomes an investigation into the raid (link). He's interested in how they could have gotten a DOJ contract while under investigation by ICE. But, he's mainly interested in the raid's side-effects, such as sending detainees to Texas. Of especial note, he's not so interested in the fact that almost everyone agrees it was a sweatshop. If he came out in strong support of enforcement but wanted to do it the right way, that would be one thing. However, the bottom line is that he's trying to block enforcement, whether he explicitly says that or not.
Related:
Ted Kennedy, William Delahunt try blocking immigration enforcement ("Lactation Memo")
Michael Bianco Inc. workers invite lawmakers to take tour of plant (PR firm)
Carol Rose/ACLU Massachusetts compares ICE tactics to Slobodan Milosevic, ethnic cleansing
Cardinal Sean P. O'Malley's "Save The Sweatshops" movement
NYT hides behind "terrorized" illegal aliens to support massive immigration
Scottsdale: police only asking if suspects in country illegally (AP correction)
These are the moments I live for. Yesterday, the AP offered this:Police in suburban Scottsdale have begun routinely asking for proof of citizenship from every suspect they arrest and turning those who are in this country illegally over to federal immigration officials.Today comes this AP correction, which in full states:
In a Dec. 23 story about a Scottsdale Police Department immigration policy, The Associated Press reported erroneously that officers have begun to ask for proof of citizenship from every suspect they arrest.The AP would issue similar corrections for all the errors in their previous coverage, but no computer could hold that much data.
Sgt. Mark Clark, a Scottsdale police spokesman, said officers are asking people who are arrested if they are in the country illegally, but police aren't requiring that criminal suspects prove their lawful presence in the country.
Dana Milbank lies, misleads, smears (Tancredo)
The Washington Post doesn't appear to be sore losers about the failure of immigration "reform". They recently published a vile column from Harold Meyerson and a similar editorial. Now comes Dana Milbank with "Hasta La Vista" (link) about Rep. Tom Tancredo dropping his presidential bid. The problems start with the title, a childish attempt at irony. The running theme throughout is that Tancredo is angry; in fact he uses that word four times. Why is he an "angry man"?
We know this because he has proposed dropping bombs on Mecca. We know this because he sang "Dixie" at a South Carolina gathering full of Confederate flags and white supremacists. And we know this because he wants to expel 12 million people now living in the United States.
The first sentence was only the ultimate response to nukes having gone off in several U.S. cities. The second is discussed here and here. The third might imply that he supports mass deportations, when in fact he doesn't. Milbank then goes on to mock the fact that there were only 18 supporters when he made his announcement. Then:
In response to questions, he admitted he was pulling out to help defeat somebody he dislikes more than an undocumented Mexican in the desert: former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, the new Republican front-runner here with what Tancredo called an "abysmal" record of "inviting" illegal immigrants.
I don't think Tancredo would actually "dislike" someone who's trying to cross the desert into the U.S., he just doesn't want them to do it. On the other hand, the Washington Post's support for illegal immigration plays a part in encouraging people to try to cross the desert, despite the fact that thousands have died while trying. And, of course, Huck has promoted and enabled illegal immigration such as by helping Mexico to build a consulate in his state. Then, it's on to a lie:
Never mind that Huckabee was tough enough on immigration to win the support of the border-vigilante Minuteman Project.
The support only came from Jim Gilchrist himself, not any groups using that name. After discussing an admittedly stupid video that Tancredo released (youtube.com/watch?v=n5GUCQAdlxg), it's Milbank's turn to admit why he's the one who's angry:
"It's beyond anybody's wildest expectations that we have been able to, with the help of America, really, get our national leaders to pay attention to the issue," declared Candidate Two Percent... He boasted, with some validity, that his candidacy helped lead "nearly every Republican presidential candidate to commit themselves to an immigration plan that calls for securing our borders." It's true: As his rivals coopted his nativist positions -- even if just rhetorically -- Tancredo became a victim of his own success.
UPDATE: The technicalities of the Gilchrist endorsement are described here:
it is important to note that the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps (MCDC), the nation's largest Minuteman organization, is a 501(C)4 non-profit organization and cannot and does not endorse any candidate for public office. MCDC is not associated with Mr. Jim Gilchrist, who today endorsed Mike Huckabee for president. Jim Gilchrist's erstwhile Minuteman Project is itself an organization which by its own representations as a non-profit civic group cannot legally endorse candidates. It does not have any volunteers who observe illegal border activity. It has no border fence building projects. Jim Gilchrist here speaks only for Jim Gilchrist, he does not speak for the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, nor is he nationally representative of most patriots in the "Minuteman movement" – who under no circumstances could ignore the failed record nor endorse the duplicitous "plan" recently rolled out by candidate Mike Huckabee. The national media needs to recognize that Jim Gilchrist's endorsement is his own personal statement, nothing more.
Virginia Employers for "Sensible" Immigration Policy
A new group of businesses has been formed to oppose anti-illegal immigration laws in their state, called "Virginia Employers for Sensible Immigration Policy". One of the organizers is Julia Ciarlo Hammond, state director of the National Federation of Independent Business. They'll supposedly only focus on measures affecting employers, and they state that they want to follow the law, they just don't want undue burdens. But, don't they all.
The coalition includes some of the most influential industries in the state, including many that rely heavily on low-cost and migrant labor. The group includes home builders, contractors, hog and poultry growers, retailers, truckers, the hospitality industry and the state Chamber of Commerce.
A purported list of their members is here: raisingkaine.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=11853
Note that they point out that the majority of campaign contributions from the various groups are to Republicans, as the same time that many at that site play their own very small role in enabling illegal immigration through various statements such as calling those who oppose illegal activity names.
National names on the list are Pilgrim's Pride Corporation, Smithfield Foods, and Tyson Foods.
Linda Chavez meddles in Prince William County Virginia immigration debate
From this 12/14 article:The chairman of a federal civil rights panel clashed yesterday with Prince William Board of County Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart over the recent crackdown on illegal immigrants approved by the board.As Stewart points out, Chavez is a known apologist for illegal immigration, so - surprise! - whoever nominated her to the committee knew what she was going to say.
Linda Chavez, a conservative commentator who heads a U.S. Commission on Civil Rights panel examining whether the crackdown violates federal antidiscrimination laws, said she believed the supervisors based their action largely on anecdotal evidence of problems caused by illegal immigrants...
I'll outsource the rest of this to most of the comments here.
Jay Newton-Small/Time misleads about immigration (Huckabee, Tancredo, INS)
A minor example of how Time magazine and the rest of the MSM mislead and/or don't understand immigration issues is presented in "Tancredo's Single-Issue Victory" (link):...By basics [U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo] means forcing all illegal immigrants to go home and reapply to enter the country legally if they want to return, making English the national language and denying municipal services for illegal aliens such as driver's licenses, Social Security benefits and state-subsidized education. Huckabee has come under particular fire for backing college-level grants for the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas. "We are a better country than to punish children for what their parents did," said Huckabee, defending his stance, in a Florida debate last month...1. "forcing" would seem to imply some form of mass deportations; Tancredo actually supports attrition which might be better described as "encouraging".
Tancredo has announced he is also not running for reelection for his Congressional seat. His immediate plans, he said, are to hang out with his grandkids, stump for Romney and finish his last year in office. After that, who knows? Romney may one day need to appoint a head of Immigration and Naturalization Services.
2. I don't believe Tancredo supports ending "state-subsidized education" for K-12, especially since that was decided on by the Supreme Court (thanks to Peter Schey). He does oppose college-level discounts for illegal aliens.
3. Huck's program, as discussed at the link, was irrespective of their parents' status(es), and that misleading formulation has been used many times in the MSM. Even the WaPo has corrected that formulation.
4. Jay Newton-Small includes a quote from Huck, but as with Joseph Berger of the NYT he doesn't include the response from Mitt Romney regarding discounts being a finite resource.
5. The INS hasn't existed for over four years.
Mike Huckabee sued over Mexican consulate deal
A private citizen in Arkansas (Jim Parsons) is suing the former governor of that state, Mike Huckabee, over his role in helping the Mexican government establish their latest consulate there (link). The main claim is that Huckabee used public funds to offer discounted office space to the consulate, and that per AR's laws he was forbidden from doing so. The suit also contains a state Freedom of Information Act request, and raises the issue of hard drives that Huckabee apparently had destroyed on his way out the door at the end of 2006. The suit wants a refund for the cost of destroying them.
The Huckster is being sued as a private citizen; others named in the suit include current governor Mike Beebe (only in his official role), and the Mexican consulate.
Related:
More on Mike Huckabee's questionable Mexican consulate deal
Mike Huckabee defends Mexico consulate deal (businesses agreed to pay Mexico's bills; law violated?)
Thanks, Huckabee: Arkansas Mexican consul opposing immigration laws
A question you can ask Huck
Mexican consul from Little Rock encourages advocacy for illegal immigration
You can't trust what Harold Meyerson says (immigration edition)
Harold Meyerson of the American Prospect offers a vile, illegal immigration-supporting smear piece called "Hard-liners for Jesus". Pretty much everything in it is bad, including comparing the GOP to the KKK. And, he misleads about the immigration stance of all the GOP candidates and the vast majority of GOP voters:But it's on their policies concerning immigrants where Republicans -- candidates and voters alike -- really run afoul of biblical writ. Not on immigration as such but on the treatment of immigrants who are already here. [Biblical "stranger" references; those are answered here and here]Very few people want to actually punish illegal aliens. And, in fact, some such as Ruy Giuliani or Mike Huckabee are supporters of amnesty. The most that others support is attrition, which is designed not to punish illegal aliens but to reduce the jobs and benefits magnet so that many will go home and many fewer will try to come here.
Yet the distinctive cry coming from the Republican base this year isn't simply to control the flow of immigrants across our borders but to punish the undocumented immigrants already here, children and parents alike.
And, supporting illegal immigration is not humanitarian in the least.
You can leave comments at the WaPo, or send him an email explaining why he's wrong to meyersonh *at* prospect.org
However, the better option in the long term is to go to appearances by those religious leaders who make the same "stranger" arguments, publicly point out how they're wrong using the last link, and then upload the exchange to video sharing sites. If we could completely discredit someone like Roger Mahony or Jim Wallis it would prevent people like Meyerson from making similar false arguments.
Kay Bailey Hutchison, Dems scale back border fence
From this:[The House] last night passed a giant new spending bill that undermines current plans for a U.S.-Mexico border fence, allowing the Homeland Security Department to build a single-tier barrier rather than the two-tier version that has worked in California.Reps. Peter King (R-NY) and Duncan Hunter (R-CA) both oppose the move. The first says it "guts the Secure Fence Act almost entirely", the second says it would be a "significant step backwards". Apparently the changes are in line with what the DHS wants.
The spending bill, written by Democrats and passed 253-154 with mostly their votes...
...The 2006 Secure Fence Act specifically called for "two layers of reinforced fencing" and listed five specific sections of border where it should be installed. The new spending bill removes the two-tier requirement and the list of locations.
House Democrats said they were just adopting the Senate version, which was backed by a bipartisan group of border-state senators and passed the Senate several times this year.
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, the Texas Republican who has led the charge to change the 2006 law, said she wants to give Homeland Security more flexibility and wants local officials and landowners to be consulted...
There's also what appears to be a minor Rudy Giuliani connection to all this. His law firm (Bracewell & Giuliani) apparently donated money to Hutchison, and that firm has represented DynCorp - a "virtual fence" subcontractor - in litigation. See comments 10 and 44 here. Whether there's shenanigans involved isn't known.
Related:
Secure Fence Act: a hoax and a scam? (Kay Bailey Hutchison, DHS)
Jim Gilchrist reconsidering Mike Huckabee endorsement
Huckstered! From this:Minuteman Project founder Jim Gilchrist says he will have to reconsider his endorsement of former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee after learning the Republican presidential candidate favors allowing illegal aliens to wait only days to receive documents allowing re-entry into the U.S...He says it will be a few days before he'll have an answer from the Huckabee campaign about his concerns.
"I'm going to have to follow up on this," Gilchrist said. "I had not seen before anything in Governor Huckabee's plan where repatriation and touch-back could involve only days, not years...
Jorge Bustamante/U.N./Notre Dame wants pro-illegal immigration boycott (earlier: dual citizenship to support Mexico's agenda in U.S.)
From this:Jorge Bustamante, the United Nations' Special Rapporteur on the human rights of migrants and a sociology professor at the University of Notre Dame, this week called Republican Party policies on immigration "immoral." Writing in the Mexico City daily Reforma, Bustamante said the Republican candidates share a in immigration stance that "lacks even the most minimum recognition of the demand for the Mexican migrant labor."He didn't suggest any specific companies, only suggesting an internet search. The second link describes how he met with Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the California Rural Legal Assistance program in May.
He called on Mexicans to harness "the real power we have as consumers" to boycott big companies that do business in Mexico and fund Republican candidacies...
But, in 1995 he went even further. In response to a possible presidential run by California governor Pete Wilson, he said:
I'm proposing to introduce an initiative that will facilitate permanent Mexican residents in the United States to become citizens of that country, so their increasing number will translate in a real possibility of more votes against Wilson in the next elections... ...This way if a Mexican by birth acquires U.S. citizenship, that fact would allow him to vote in the United States, without loosing his Mexican nationality... ...anyone who wants to defend the interests of Mexico in whichever country they reside, augment their political power in order to make it within that country's rules...
What Lawrence Downes/New York Times forgot to tell you, Part 2 (Phoenix furniture store protest)
For the backstory, see "Lawrence Downes/New York Times misleads & smears, and all to support illegal activity".In recent news, a pro-illegal immigration protester was arrested after allegedly pushing Michelle Dallacroce from Mothers Against Illegal Aliens at yesterday's weekly protest in front of the store.
And, the owner of the store has sent a letter to Phoenix mayor Phil Gordon (letter here). It includes, among other things, the following:
* We have reason to be concerned that citizen taxpayer dollars committed to subsidize [Salvador Reza]'s various operations and activities may have been used to fund his protest activities outside Pruitt's...That's certainly odd: Lawrence Downes' report only mentioned "hate speech" originating from one side, and didn't follow the money trail to see whether Reza is publicly funded and whether he's used part of that to sponsor the protests. In fact, Downes' report completely took his side of the matter. How odd.
* Reza and his affiliated "community activists" must immediately cease the smear campaign of false, misleading and reckless language against Pruitt's Furniture and the Sensing Family. Hate speech and incitement are unacceptable.
* ...your policies, decisions and actions have established a de facto day labor center in the area of [the corner with the furniture store]
Erica Vieyra/Olentangy H.S. teaches kids ignoring U.S. immigration laws is OK
Erica Vieyra is a Spanish teacher at Olentangy Liberty High School in Powell, Ohio (near Columbus and Cleveland), and one of her classes teaches children that ignoring U.S. immigration laws is acceptable behavior. The goal is to help them build "empathy" for "immigrants", but it's actually pro-illegal immigration propaganda that the school district should put an end to. The Office of the Superintendent (Dr. Scott Davis) is here, but I couldn't find an email; perhaps scott_davis *at* olentangy.k12.oh.us. Hers is erica_vieyra *at* olentangy.k12.oh.us. After reading about this case, please send them polite messages with your thoughts.This minor case also shows the danger of allowing those who put their ethnicity above our laws to obtain positions of power, whether high school teacher or an elected official.
From Holly Zachariah of the Columbus Dispatch (link):
The students had a role-play project: assume a Latino identity, build an imaginary life in your home country and develop a workable plan to immigrate to the United States.Related:
Try it legally, Erica Vieyra told her 40 senior Spanish students at Olentangy Liberty High School. Fill out the correct documents, follow the proper steps. And then, after they spent days completing the actual paperwork from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, she took out her red ink pad and stamped a big, fat DENIED across every request.
Now, she told the students, come illegally. Forge your documents, find a way across the border. Then, research real ads and find a place to live in Columbus. Figure out what it would cost, how to get food. Plan how to survive.
...Vieyra promised them that the process -- even in make-believe -- would frustrate them. But they would gain, she hoped, an understanding of what is one of the most important political and humanitarian issues facing the U.S. government today...
...But [Vieyra] cautions that the point isn't to sway the students, only to teach them a little empathy.
Brent Lueck/Cary Junior High plays "we're all immigrants"/Ellis Island game
Fifth grader asks Barack Obama tougher question on immigration & terrorism than MSM; Sunlen Miller/Teddy Davis/Nancy Flores/ABC News spin
An Iowa fifth-grader asked Barack Obama a raw version of a tough question about immigration and terrorism. Instead of discussing what parts of the question the kid got right - and what parts Obama's answer got wrong (pretty much all of it) - ABC News is now covering for Barack Obama and suggesting that the threat of terrorist infiltration doesn't exist [1].Here's the question:
"When you're elected president, what if like the illegal immigrants start to take action and start bombing and stuff?"Obama should have differentiated between economic-based illegal aliens, those who are coming here to commit crimes, and those who are coming here for reasons related to terrorism. He did not, and Sunlen Miller of ABC News plays along with his misleading statements:
Obama proceded to give Bowman a social sciences lesson, explaining "Immigrants are coming into the country and not blowing things up. They are usually working in meat packing plants, or working in restaurants or working in agriculture, picking vegetables..."He didn't give him a lesson, he misled the kid. He also demagogued a non sequitur about Romney and gave an advertisement for illegal activity. And, not just the audience but ABC News ate it up.
Someone in the crowd yelled "Mitt Romney," and Obama had his straight line.
"Yeah, they are mowing Mitt Romney's yard. I forgot about ol' Mitt, who's got the gall to running all these ads about illegal immigrants."
The crowd roared in laughter but Obama stopped himself there and went on. "We've got a problem with terrorists who are trying to kill us... That's a separate problem from immigrants," Obama assured Bowman.
The first report as well as the fuller "news" report [2] from Miller as well as Teddy Davis and Nancy Flores both try to trace this back to ads from Tom Tancredo and others.
What would make me extremely happy is if someone in the audience had pointed out all the ways that Obama was being misleading, and had then posted that to video sharing sites. That would have an impact not just on Obama's poll numbers, but the MSM as well.
[1] blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/12/obama-ol-mitt-h.html
[2] abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4003240
Michael Gerson turns on Mike Huckabee, spins LULAC/Tyson Foods meeting
Bush hack turned Washington Post hack Michael Gerson - at that link trying to push for Bush's immigration "reform" by calling the GOP base names - offers "Homespun Meets Hard-Line". Like yesterday's WaPo editorial he turns on Mike Huckabee because of the latter's new (supposed) tough stance on illegal immigration. A full discussion of everything wrong with the column isn't worth the time, however I will note this:
Contrast [a Jim Gilchrist statement] with Huckabee speaking in Little Rock at a meeting of Hispanic civil rights leaders two years ago: "I would hope that no matter who we are, or where we are from, that America should always be a place that opens its spirit to people who come because they want the best for their families." And Huckabee has accompanied his choice of new friends with an immigration plan that would require 12 million illegal immigrants to return home before applying for permanent status -- a completely unrealistic approach borrowed from anti-immigration activists.
I believe the "meeting of Hispanic civil rights leaders" Gerson is refering to is the one that featured not only the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) but Tyson Foods as well. LULAC is a once-mainstream, now-radicalized racial power group. They were at the National Latino Congreso, the spoke out in favor of bringing back the Fairness Doctrine, and their national treasurer even parroted the "the border crossed us" line (basically denying the U.S.'s territorial claims). They might also end up being involved in a class action against Tyson Chicken; the attorney in that case says Gerson's "civil rights" group might have conspired with Tyson Chicken to help them hire illegal aliens.
As for Huck's plan, the 120 days is unworkable, but since releasing the plan he's stated that those who left could come back within "days, maybe weeks".
Brent Lueck/Cary Junior High plays "we're all immigrants"/Ellis Island game
From this:After closely examining the immunization records and marriage and birth certificates of the eighth-grade "immigrant" with a magnifying glass, Brent Lueck asked him the important question.While the Irish and other groups certainly faced a great deal of prejudice, that doesn't mean that worries about what impact importing millions of Catholics into what was then an almost competely Protestant country would have was itself prejudice. This apparently far-left event was the culmination of a three-week class and I don't know what was in the class. However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it engaged in the logical fallacy of implying that today's immigration is the same as yesterday's, despite the conditions changing.
"You're from Ireland," he said. "Are you a Catholic?"
Lueck said he was worried that the "immigrant" might try to subvert America in the name of the pope. "I've got some issues with you, some loyalty issues."
It was just one example of the mock prejudice faced by about 120 eighth-grade students Friday at Cary Junior High [Illinois] taking part in a simulation of immigrant arrivals and experiences at Ellis Island...
Note also that he's been doing this for three years, and in 2004 I noted another example of the same thing from a town in Iowa. In that case, the logical fallacies were at least noted in the "news" report:
Students also learned how the lives of present-day immigrants mirror the struggles of new Americans from 100 years ago...
Vile: Washington Post turns on Mike Huckabee to support illegal immigration
The Washington Post offers a vile, spittle-flecked editorial called "The Immigration Swamp/As the presidential campaign intensifies, so does the nativist ferocity." They turn on Mike Huckabee for changing from a strong supporter of illegal immigration into someone who (supposedly) wants illegal aliens to return home within 120 days:
The idea that 12 million illegal residents of the United States can be induced to quit the country en masse within four months is absurd on its face -- a non-starter in logistical, humanitarian, political, diplomatic, commercial and economic terms that would leave an indelible stain on this country for years. Yet that is the wrathful centerpiece of Mike Huckabee's "Secure America Plan," which the Republican presidential candidate issued the other day in the course of his party's escalating enthusiasm for nastier-than-thou prescriptions to deal with illegal immigrants.
Then, they refer to the Minuteman Project as "a group of xenophobes who spend their time videotaping and harassing day laborers wherever they find them" and a group that engages in "vigilantism". They refer to Huck's (supposed) turn to the right side of things as a "cruel campaign of immigrant-bashing".
Then, it's off to selective reading land as they quote the Pew Hispanic Center study in which people claimed to have suffered discrimination. Then:
According to the latest FBI statistics, from 2006, hate crimes against Hispanics had increased by more than a third since 2003.
Unfortunately, the FBI doesn't seem to break out the race of the offender vs. the race of the victims, but they say there were a total of 853 "anti-Hispanic" crimes in 2006 (fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table7.html). Not only that, but when counting the offender's race they lump Hispanics as white; of known offenders, 3710 were white and 1026 were black (fbi.gov/ucr/hc2006/table3.html). But, some of those listed as white might in fact be Hispanic. And, from Earl Ofari Hutchison (link):
In fact, even though hate-crime laws were originally created to combat crimes by whites against minority groups, the majority of L.A. County's hate crimes against blacks in 2006 were suspected to have been committed by Latinos, and vice versa, according to the county Commission on Human Relations.
So, the WaPo appears to be stretching to smear. And, they make clear that their real reason for doing this is economic:
[Promotes "comprehensive immigration reform"; Huckabee's plan] suggests no realistic plan to address the economy's appetite for immigrant workers in the future, let alone those here now.
Someone should really follow the money on the WaPo; what do they or those to whom they're linked have to gain from the importation of cheap labor?
The editorial ends in as vile a manner as it began:
America has had its paroxysms of anti-immigrant fervor in the past, also accompanied by spasms of violence and persecution. Today, as in the past, the national atmosphere is subverting the discussion, drowning out reason. Look at the uproar that overwhelmed New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's sensible, safety-minded proposal to make illegal immigrants eligible for driver's licenses, and you will see logic defeated by posturing, political cowardice and the poisonous diatribes of talk radio. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who championed comprehensive reform, is now chastened by the ferocity of the demagogues who mischaracterized it as an "amnesty"; he says he "got the message" and will now speak only of enforcement in the near term. In such an ugly environment, the best one can hope for is candidates who can appeal to the nation's self-interest as well as its better instincts; who can explain that resolving the immigration mess through a comprehensive approach is not only an economic imperative but also the only realistic way out of a political swamp.
AOL takes pro-illegal immigration side, spreads AILA propaganda
AOL (America Online) has created a new immigration section for their AOL Latino channel. It features a blog with a La Opinion-style slant, such as refering to the Minuteman Project as "caza-inmigrantes" (migrant hunters) [1] That post also uses phrases like "indocumentados" and "antiinmigrantes" (refering to the rhetoric of Romney and Giuliani).
They're doing this in collaboration with the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), a far-left group. Documents from that group are available, such as "The Truth About the DREAM Act" [2], which contains such very doubtful claims as the assertion that the DREAM Act wouldn't increase illegal immigration. They also provide helpful links to "GobiernoUSA.gov".
Oddly enough, AOL doesn't seem to have made room for those who oppose illegal immigration. Finding nuggets at the site is left as an exercise, but unless we're willing to start a boycott of AOL there's probably not much that could be done.
[1] aollatinoblog.com/2007/12/13/los-minutemen-ya-tienen-candidato-y-no-es-tancredo/
[2] aollatinoblog.com/2007/11/13/the-truth-about-the-dream-act/
North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley wants to allow illegal aliens to attend community college
North Carolina governor Mike Easley wants illegal aliens to be able to attend community colleges in his state as out-of-state students. The previous policy of their CC system was to allow individual colleges to decide; now they must allow illegal aliens in. While this isn't as objectionable as those who would allow them to attend at the in-state rate or obtain other discounts, and while they say that it won't cost them money even if the numbers attending quadrupled (of course, that might be a low estimate), it's probably an initial step on the slippery slope. Plus, I don't like his Dick Durbin-esque tone. Says he:
"What people are upset about, they care deeply about their citizenship. It really means something to them... All the governors allow kids – illegal immigrants – to go to community colleges because they don't want to build an underclass in their state. All the states do that... We're not talking about 50-year-olds who are jumping the fence to go to school. We're talking about little kids who've grown up here through no fault of their own. They don't know where they were born... If you slam the door on them, you lose that talent. If you don't take advantage of it, it's just kind of dumb."
I don't know whose "citizenship" he was refering to, whether that of U.S. citizens, or that of the illegal aliens. In the first case, he's implying that U.S. citizens care too much about something that apparently he doesn't value as highly. And, that even applies in the second case and his remarks appear a bit "tranzi". As for "just kind of dumb", perhaps calling those residents of your state who oppose this plan "dumb" isn't the best strategy; I note that there are over 400 comments on the article, and I'd imagine that many or most are opposed to his plan. If he were thinking of the welfare of his state, he might consider encouraging those students to repatriate themselves or ask their home countries to pick up any bills they incur. Rep. Sue Myrick is opposed to the plan, as are other Republicans. Needless to say, the governor and other supporters are Democrats.
And, he even played a part in the decision by the general counsel of NC's CC system (David Sullivan):
Mr. Sullivan said his directive was based on a 1997 opinion by the state's attorney general at the time - Michael F. Easley, a Democrat who is now governor - which said that the colleges could not impose nonacademic criteria for admission.
Note: this issue has also generated one of the dumbest editorials on this issue I've ever read:
And yes, plenty of Latino Americans have broken the law in North Carolina, as have many company owners who rely on cheap labor to keep costs down. But all of them came here for the promise of a better life for themselves and future generations. And most of them aren't going anywhere.
Joseph Berger/NYT promotes DREAM Act, largely ignores impact
Joseph Berger of the New York Times offers "Debates Persist Over Subsidies for Immigrant College Students". It's in their "On Education" section, which is apparently exempt from their "tough" journalistic standards and thus the fact that it's basically an editorial in favor of the anti-American DREAM Act isn't that much of a concern.While not a PIIPP, it does come close in that it profiles two sympathetic students, both of whom - surprise! - are high achievers. The most noteworthy aspect is that he doesn't explore the downsides of the bill, which would include letting illegal aliens take college discounts from U.S. citizens. In fact, only one sentence - a quote from Mitt Romney ("Illegals are not going to get taxpayer-funded breaks that are better than our own citizens") - discusses the downsides of the bill. Berger "forgot" to include the part where Romney tried to point out that "there's only so much money to go around" and that giving discounts to illegal aliens takes them away from U.S. citizens.
And, in fact, near the end the article turns into an overt advertisement:
When illegal immigrants do graduate from college, they still cannot find skilled jobs except underground. For the undocumented, a Social Security card would trump a diploma. That's why champions of legalization for the undocumented are staking their hopes on the stalled federal Dream Act. The bill, an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, would explicitly grant illegal immigrants enrolling in college six years of conditional residency that would enable them to work, drive and possibly be eligible in more states for in-state tuition. What's better, it would enable a student who completes two years of college to apply for a permanent resident’s green card.Of course it's an amnesty, because that's how it will be perceived. And, it will send a loud message to millions of people around the world that all they need to do is come here illegally and we'll provide college discounts, even if it means taking them away from our own citizens.
Given how hard two years of college can be, that bill could hardly be considered an amnesty, particularly since the students were not to blame for their illegal entry in the first place.
Please write Clark Hoyt - Public Editor with your thoughts: public *at* nytimes.com
Flashback: Mike Huckabee was for amnesty in April 2007
Back on April 24, 2007, the Mike Huckabee campaign uploaded this video address, where he said he was against "amnesty", then went on to outline a plan that everyone in their right mind - voters as well as millions of prospective illegal aliens in foreign countries - would perceive to be amnesty:To address the question of what we should do about immigrants who entered the country illegally, I propose starting with the highest law of human behavior: do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.
But, that cannot mean amnesty. There must be consequences for illegal actions, for violation of our rule of law.
I propose that such individuals be required to register with state and federal authorities, pay financial penalties, and be given the choice of deportation or, undertaking the process of legal citizenship.
SPLC tries to stifle FAIR (Mexico links, CAP)
Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center offers "The Teflon Nativists/FAIR Marked by Ties to White Supremacy" (splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=846) with the news that it's "official": the SPLC has declared the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to be a "hate group". They mention how much press coverage FAIR has received, and they include a quote from Henry Fernandez of the Center for American Progress which helps show that their goal is to stifle FAIR:
"The sad fact is that attempts to reform our immigration system are being sabotaged by organizations fueled by hate... Many anti-immigrant leaders have backgrounds that should disqualify them from even participating in mainstream debate, yet the American press quotes them without ever noting their bizarre and often racist beliefs."
I'd imagine that the MSM will just eat this up without even looking into it, resulting in fewer press mentions and a reduced voice for those of us who support our laws. I'll let FAIR speak for themselves (if they deign to do so), but I'll point out a few things:
1. The SPLC is indirectly linked to the Mexican government (see their name's link above); I've never seen that mentioned in any of the "news" reports that take them as a semi-official source. Fernandez is also indirectly linked to that government (see his name's link).
2. Part of their designation rests on the fact that FAIR has received funding from an "infamous, racist eugenics foundation." That's a reference to the Pioneer Fund; in the same decade as they gave money to FAIR they also gave money to Stanford, the Tel Aviv University, the Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of Greater New York, and others.
3. Another part is because FAIR has supposedly put forth "racist conspiracy theories about Mexico's secret designs on the American Southwest". I don't know what FAIR has said, but the Mexican government has explicitly stated that they want to meddle in our internal politics and will be using non-profit organizations to do so. That translate to obtaining political power inside the U.S. and, should that process not be stopped, some form of de jure or de facto condominium.
4. Yet another part is because FAIR supposedly has an "alternative theory alleging secret plans to merge the United States, Mexico and Canada". I guess the SPLC missed Congressional testimony from an elite group advocating for that scheme, and all the other flashing neon signs pointing in that direction.
UPDATE: FAIR responds with just some of the things the SPLC got wrong here. Note especially this:
In light of the fact that FAIR has requested the SPLC to correct these errors on at least three different occasions dating back to 2001, the publication of this erroneous information appears to be willful and malicious.
UPDATE 2: On a sidenote, the SPLC's Intelligence Report has won the 2007 "In-Depth/Investigative Reporting" award from the Utne Reader (utne.com/print-article.aspx?id=13124).
Ryan Lizza: wrong about immigration
Ryan Lizza offers "Return of the Nativist/Behind the Republicans' anti-immigration frenzy". As you might guess from the author, the title, and the fact that it's in the New Yorker, it's wrong. However, thankfully, I have an intern who's read it for me, saving me the need to do so. Per him, it's a:
A classic dumbed-down Remnick-era New Yorker piece--remedial reading for U.W.S. cocooners. Lizza skips over all the wonkish aspects of the immigration debate (like whether "comprehensive" reform will actually work) as if they have nothing to do with the politics, paints opponents as unfeeling racists, ignores well-publicized evidence (e.g., from Carville and Greenberg) that Democrats might have political problems from supporting legalization, falls for the recent Pew hype and generally fits the issue into a comfortable Civil Rights template (moral moderates vs. pathetic bigots). Did I mention that it's a bad piece?
Secure Fence Act: a hoax and a scam? (Kay Bailey Hutchison, DHS)
I haven't been following the issues with the border fence*, and this article was written almost a month ago so I don't know if things have changed since then, however:...In the fall of 2006 when Congress passed and the President signed into law the Secure Fence Act, most Americans thought they understood what they were getting. The plain text of the law states that "the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide for [at] least 2 layers of reinforced fencing, the installation of additional physical barriers, roads, lighting, cameras, and sensors" along a specified range of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Act then stipulated the precise regions of the border, covering a total of 854 miles...The directives gave DHS a large amount of "flexibility", which they've used to apparently only build a small part of the fence. The article goes on to give evidence that DHS doesn't want to build the fence, and Hutchison makes another appearance to give DHS yet another instance of "flexibility".
But the very same day that the Senate passed the Secure Fence Act, Senate leaders had already hatched a plan to, in essence, un-do the Act. More precisely stated, Congress passed another law giving the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)discretion over how and where the fence would actually be built. That night, after the Secure Fence Act was passed, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison rose to the floor of the Senate and expressed her concern that the Act was too restrictive and would impose too much of a burden on Texas' border communities. Hutchison then submitted into the record two letters written earlier that day. The first was a letter she had received from Majority Leader Bill Frist earlier in the day addressing Sen. Hutchison's concerns; the second, Frist's letter to House and Senate leaders issuing specific legislative directives related to Hutchison's concerns...
* My belief is that a fence covering much of the border is part "boob bait for Bubba" and to a lesser extent a boondoggle. Fencing serves a purpose in many areas, but it isn't really necessary in many others. Unfortunately, too many people concentrate on things like this rather than the more important "hearts and minds" issues. If we can get to the point where politicians, reporters, religious leaders, and others realize that supporting illegal immigration in one way or another would greatly damage their careers, the situation will solve itself. And, we get to that point by publicly discrediting those who support or enable illegal immigration by revealing their lies and inability to think things through. See, for instance, John McCain's poll numbers.
UPDATE: On a related note, Senator Joe Lieberman wants DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to tell him why he wanted an environmental study on fencing in Texas, but waived environmental laws in Arizona: "While developing additional layers of border security is a priority for our nation, it should not impede our ability to also continue to be good environmental stewards".
Lawrence Downes/New York Times misleads & smears, and all to support illegal activity
[Update here]
Lawrence Downes offers an "Editorial Observer" article in the New York Times entitled "Showdown in Arizona, Where Mariachis and Minutemen Collide". It describes a running protest by illegal immigration supporters in front of the M. D. Pruitt furniture store in Phoenix. He had the temerity to try to keep day laborers off his property, employing off-duty sherriffs in the process. And, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been arresting illegal aliens in front of his store:
For the last seven weeks, a sidewalk protest here by Latino immigrants has blossomed into a feverish reality show, attracting Minutemen, mariachis, children dancing in Mexican folk costumes, white racists, United Nations observers, Phoenix police officers and Maricopa County sheriff's deputies.
I'm sure that some of those attending were indeed "white racists". And, I have little doubt that with enough searching I could find brown racists who also attended. Yet, for one odd reason or other Downes didn't mention that.
[The "weekly confrontation" is] a sideshow to something even uglier: what happens when immigration's complexities are handed to local law enforcers sympathetic to the fury of one side.
He's implying that those who support our laws are motivated only by "fury", and perhaps he might want to mention that, while illegal aliens have certain rights, the position of those who want to be employed illegally is somewhat invalidated.
Then, it's on to smearing Sheriff Joe Arpaio: "hunting undocumented immigrants is his specialty." For those laws that Downes supports, can anyone imagine him refering to the police "hunting" law-breakers? He also refers to Arpaio as a "business ally" of Pruitt, implying a quid pro quo; if that's not true then hopefully Downes will be sued.
Then, he promotes the efforts of Salvador Reza of the group Tonatierra (more). His group isn't identified, nor does Downes indicate that Reza is/was involved with running a day laborer center supported by local businesses (link).
Reza is this article's "person who says what the NYT wants to say": "Mr. Reza says he can't understand why America accepts global flows of companies, money and jobs but not workers." There are a multitude of reasons, but Downes just lets him speak unchallenged.
Then:
...one informed noncombatant, the Rev. Craig Geiger, pastor of a Lutheran church across the street, agrees.
While Geiger might be a "noncombatant" in this particular case, and while I wasn't able to find any far-left outbursts from him, the church newsletter is a bit interesting; perhaps Downes should have picked one up (mountofolivesaz.org/Newsletter.pdf). It includes the news that they were a "Hydration Center" in August, which is only followed by usual Bible phrases about "welcoming the stranger" that are used as religious justification for enabling illegal immigration. No word is provided on what exactly the "Hydration Center" did or whether it was located further south. Then, in a section entitled "A little know fact for that logical side of our brain", he promotes the study from Giovanni Peri purporting to show the effects of immigration on wages. Finally, there's a section entitled "An Immigration Lesson from the land", offering yet another religious justification for supporting "immigration".
Then, it's on to a possible lie:
"Monkeys coming through!" [a Minuteman with a bullhorn] shouted. His side rushed up to drown the music out: "Born in the U.S.A.! Born in the U.S.A.! K.K.K.! Viva la Migra! January First!"
Even if we assume that Downes has the quotes right, does he have any proof that that person was an actual member of a Minuteman group, or did he just make that up?
The article ends with Reza promising economic armageddon should illegal aliens leave the state.
Huckabee admits immigration plan has revolving door (amnesty or "guest" workers)
[Mike Pence-style update below]Mike Huckabee cannot be trusted on immigration matters. I'll say that again: Mike Huckabee cannot be trusted on immigration matters.
In fact, just after releasing a plan that unfortunately took in some people, he now admitted on Fox News Sunday (link, video below) what I suspected: his plan includes a revolving door whereby former illegal aliens would leave the U.S. only to return within "days, maybe weeks" as legal workers. He didn't specify whether they'd just be coming back as "guest" workers with no chance at citizenship, but considering that he's supported a "pathway to citizenship" in the past, and in his remarks he not only didn't renounce that "pathway" but sought to explain what it meant (in Clintonian terms), one can assume that he's not opposed to putting millions on the "pathway to citizenship".
Not only that, but at one point he used the same language as president Bush, refering to people coming here illegally just to "feed their families".
Furthermore, his plan to "seal" the border is as unworkable as his plan to get millions of people to register and return home in 120 days. In fact, given his demonstrated weakness - and the inability to round up those millions of illegal aliens who won't leave within the 120 days - there'd be a mad dash for the borders.
And, his concept of slapdash background checks might let untold numbers of terrorists and criminals come here as "guests" or potential citizens.
I will once more state: Mike Huckabee cannot be trusted on immigration matters.
After being asked by Chris Wallace whether there was an "inconsistency" between his past support for a "pathway to citizenship" and his current immigration plan, Mike Huckabee responded:
"I don't think there's an inconsistency. When I said a 'pathway' I didn't say what the pathway was. [He's not the only Man from Hope]UPDATE: During the Univision GOP debate, Huck said the following:
I now believe that the only thing that the American people are going to accept and frankly the only thing that makes sense is a pathway that sends people back to the starting point. But, this idea that waiting years, no, I don't agree with that.
In fact, look, if we can get a credit card application done within hours, if we can get passports done within days, if we can transact business over the internet anywhere in the world within seconds, do a background check instantaneously, it's our government that's failed and is dysfunctional.
It shouldn't take years to get a work permit to come here and pick lettuce. So, a part of the plan that I have is that we seal the borders, you don't have amnesty and sanctuary cities, you do have a pathway that gets you back home. But, that pathway to get back here legally doesn't take years.
It would take days, maybe weeks. And, then, people could come back in the workforce. Let me tell you why that's important. Two reasons. Number one: the American people say, do something, do it now. We don't want to have this country ignoring the illegal problem. I get it. Secondly, I want people who are in this country to hold their heads up high. You know, right now there are a lot of people who really are here because they're trying to feed their families. I don't begrudge them that. I say I thank God everyday I'm in a country that people are trying to break into not break out of, but let's give them the means by which they can get here through the door legally, and when they're they don't have to hide, they don't have to keep their heads down and hope nobody catches them. They have their heads held high. Everyone living within the borders of the United States ought to do so with dignity and with a sense of pride, not a sense of fear.
If you can get an American Express card in two weeks, it shouldn't take seven years to get a work permit to come to this country in order to work on a farm. So if our government is incapable of making that process in that length of time, then we should do it in a way to outsource it.This is similar to the Mike Pence plan of having "Ellis Island Centers" in other countries.
John Brummett/Arkansas News Bureau falls for NPR's Soviet-style question (Dem debate)
John Brummett of the Arkansas News Bureau (arkansasnews.com) offers "Gomer Pyle and the GOP", concerning the Soviet-style question that NPR asked at their recent debate; what's in the post about Bob Herbert applies in this case as well. Unlike Herbert, he goes on to "joke" about how the GOP candidates would answer the same question. He only reserves kind words for John McCain, who he says has "behaved responsibly" on this issue.
Bob Herbert/NYT condemns plan no one is calling for (NPR's Soviet-style question about turning in illegal aliens)
Bob Herbert of the New York Times offers "Spies Like You and Me", in which he valiantly speaks out against plans for average citizens to turn in suspected illegal aliens. His starting point for the condemnation was the question that NPR asked at their debate.
The only problem is that no national figure is calling on average citizens to call ICE on random dishwashers and such.
In fact, NPR's question was a strawman argument and helped show that they have no knowledge of this issue. It was also akin to Soviet-style debates, in which the Politburo wrote both the questions and the answers. Anyone in their right mind would know how the candidates would respond, and they did so in the expected fashion. "Do you agree that this Five Year Plan is the greatest plan yet?" was probably never answered with a "no".
Herbert is too stupid or too disingenuous to figure that out.
Click his name at the link and then click "Send an E-Mail to Bob Herbert" to ask him to specify which it is.
Sarah Weaton/NYT misleads about Huckabee in-state tuition, shows misplaced MSM priorities
Sarah Weaton of the New York Times offers "Huckabee Immigration Plan Emphasizes Security". Most of it consists of a summary of that scheme and, since the plan itself is almost as short as the article, why not just read the source?
She also misleads about this:
Mr. Huckabee has taken heat in recent weeks from his rivals for the Republican nomination, especially after his impassioned defense at a Nov. 28 debate of merit scholarships to children of illegal immigrants while he was governor of Arkansas. In that debate, he responded to attacks on his immigration record by saying, "We're a better country than to punish children for what their parents did."
As detailed at the last link:
1. Whatever The Huckster was refering to, the bill itself, as voted on, was for all post-secondary educational benefits, not just "merit scholarships".
2. The benefits were for illegal aliens themselves, irrespective of their parents' statuses.
And, Weaton also helps show just how misplaced the priorities of the MSM are:
[Mitt Romney] endured tough questioning from reporters in Des Moines yesterday about revelations last week that a yardwork company he employed was found for a second time to be using illegal immigrants... [after being "pressed", he "grew testy".]
Even another part of the NYT admits that this question has already been asked for "like, the millionth time" (link). So, why keep asking it, knowing you're going to get the same response?
And, of course, perhaps the NYT should actually try to analyze Huck's plan and get expert input and then subject him to "tough questioning" about his actual policy proposals. Apparently that's too much for those "reporters".
Oklahoma state Sen. Harry Coates complains about immigration law; family owns roofing company
Oklahoma state Senator Harry Coates is complaining about a new Oklahoma law (House Bill 1804) that tries to prevent illegal immigration in that state.Oddly enough, his family owns a roofing company (coatesroofing.com/satis_cust1.htm). This page says he was the owner, but his current status is unknown. And, of course, there's no indication that that company employs illegal aliens. From this:
Sen. Harry Coates on Thursday called fellow Republican Rep. Randy Terrill, author of Oklahoma's controversial immigration legislation, "a mad scientist and Oklahoma is his laboratory."
...At a state Capitol news conference, Coates called for repeal of sections of House Bill 1804, whose primary author was Terrill, R-Moore. Coates said he has both economic and moral concerns about the bill, portions of which went into effect Nov. 1.
"What people don't seem to realize is that the chilling effect of this law has resulted in the loss of both documented and undocumented employees," Coates said. "These are good jobs and they pay good wages, but few American workers are willing to take them."
Jack Gray, whose Oklahoma City roofing company has been in business more than 100 years, said he hasn't lost any business, "but we will not be able to bid on any future business. There are not enough Americans who are willing to work construction."
Howard Dean to GOP: "stop scapegoating immigrants" (supports illegal immigration)
Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean fully supports illegal immigration. Why do I say that? For many reasons, but the latest proof comes here:[Dean] said Republicans are targeting immigrants and told the Republican presidential candidates that the tone of their debates on the issue has become "outrageous."The top GOP contenders are mostly concerned about illegal immigration, with only minor proposals relating to legal immigration. And, all of them pretend to be opposed to illegal immigration. When Howard Dean falsely implies that what they're doing is "scapegoating", he's trying to prevent a debate about illegal immigration and he's enabling more illegal immigration. Thus, I don't think it's unfair in the least to say that he fully supports illegal immigration.
"Stop scapegoating immigrants and stop using immigration as a wedge issue."
In his conference call, Dean also said that the legally-correct phrase "illegal aliens" - used in the U.S. Code - is an "outrageous phrase".
And:
Asked repeatedly by reporters about the split in his party [between those who support enforcement first and those who support "reform"], Mr. Dean sought to marginalize the enforcement-supporting Democrats, calling them "very, very few" and saying they aren't representative of his party.Dean brought along Luis Cortes Jr. from Esperanza USA.
"All the Democratic presidential candidates are clear" in supporting a path to citizenship for illegal aliens, he said, adding that the presidential nominee will set the party's position.
"You can take your cue from that," he said.
Michael Kinsley: simple-minded thoughts on immigration
Michael Kinsley offers "Kidding Ourselves About Immigration" in which he tries to present an argument for conflating all types of immigration together. You can click his name at the article to let him know what you think. The bottom line is that he's a sheltered Beltway insider who isn't familiar with this issue:
Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do, or should.
What he fails to mention is that many politicians claim to oppose illegal immigration, and then take steps to encourage and enable it, such as by giving benefits to illegal aliens or trying to block enforcement.
Another question: Why are you so upset about this particular form of lawbreaking? After all, there are lots of laws, not all of them enforced with vigor. The suspicion naturally arises that the illegality is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the immigration. There is an easy way to test this. Reducing illegal immigration is hard, but increasing legal immigration would be easy. If your view is that legal immigration is good and illegal immigration is bad, how about increasing legal immigration? How about doubling it? Any takers? So in the end, this is not really a debate about illegal immigration. This is a debate about immigration.
To a certain extent that's true. However, what Kinsley doesn't understand is that the illegallity is a vital part of the issue. While we shouldn't expect every law to be fully prosecuted, when millions of people are allowed to enter the U.S. illegally despite the wishes of the American public, one might wonder what's going on. Unfortunately, Kinsley doesn't seem to have figured out that massive illegal immigration is evidence of massive government corruption. Instead of doing their job, many politicians have decided to allow illegal immigration in some way so that they, their party, or their donors can benefit.
He then demonstrates yet more Beltway Cluelessness by saying that giving driver's licenses to illegal aliens is an "arcane" issue. Then:
On the Republican side, the candidates take turns accusing one another of committing some act of human decency toward illegals, and indignantly denying that they did any such thing.
That's certainly cute, but there are strong public policy arguments against doing things like giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens, and enabling illegal immigration is not a "decent" or humane thing to do.
Then, somewhat surprisingly, he admits that we have a right to determine how many are allowed to immigrate here and that "[t]here is no obligation to be fair to foreigners". Then, it's back to Cluelessland:
To characterize illegal immigrants as queue-jumping, lawbreaking scum is seriously unjust... [we're all immigrants drivel]
Most illegal aliens are, I'm sure, nice people. Unfortunately, massive illegal immigration has had a cultural impact that Kinsley doesn't discuss or doesn't know about. Many illegal aliens are used to buying fake documents and engaging in other sorts of illegal activity, and many don't see a problem with that ("If work is a crime, accuse me of committing a crime." and others). If legalized, would they suddenly forswear activity of that sort? Or, would they cut corners when it's convenient for them?
And, some of those coming here have no respect for our laws or our territorial claims. Or, in the case of Elvira Arellano, invent justifications for coming here illegally.
Then, it gets even worse, where he says that illegal aliens would win in an "American-values contest" against past immigrant groups. Considering that most illegal aliens are from Mexico, and considering that, per Zogby, a large majority of Mexicans think the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, I'd say that Kinsley has no idea what he's talking about.
Let me suggest that Kinsley hires an interpreter and goes out and asks twenty or thirty Mexican illegal aliens whether they'd sign on to the statement "I didn't cross the border, the border crossed me." And, he can find out from the same number of illegal aliens from all countries whether they think things like identity theft are major crimes. Then, he can engage his brain and get back to us.
Mike Huckabee's immigration plan announced
[UPDATES below] Mike Huckabee has released his immigration plan (link). It has as few details but isn't as strong as Mitt Romney's immigration plan. It's also not as detailed nor as strong as Fred Thompson's immigration plan. Last things first, the end of the plan says the following:This plan is partially modeled on a proposal by Mark Krikorian, Executive Director of the Center for Immigration Studies. ("Re: Immigration: Ten Points for a Successful Presidential Candidate," National Review, May 23, 2005.)Reading that first might be a good way to start; this shout out might have been a mistake on The Huckster's part if Krikorian has issues with the scheme.
Like others, Huck wants to build the fence (by 2010) and increase the numbers of Border Patrol agents. Like Rudy, he also wants a virtual fence. Then, things get complicated:
3. Prevent AmnestyFirst, the INS hasn't existed for over four years. So, I'm going to guess that whoever drew this up didn't really know what they're talking about. Second, I can just see how this plan would play among the current supporters of illegal immigration, from the New York Times to far-left racial power groups. In fact, I can practically hear the chants of "ethnic cleansing!" and see the images of boxcars right now.
Policies that promote or tolerate amnesty will be rejected.
Propose to provide all illegal immigrants a 120-day window to register with the Immigration and Naturalization Service and leave the country. Those who register and return to their home country will face no penalty if they later apply to immigrate or visit; those who do not return home will be, when caught, barred from future reentry for a period of 10 years.
And, I wonder whether those who do go home will then, in a similar fashion to the Mike Pence or Flake-Gutierrez plans ("touchback"), be able to immediately re-enter with a changed immigration status, i.e., amnesty. While there are many good questions this plan engenders, asking about that would be a good first question. And, someone more familiar with the specifics can discuss how under current law illegal aliens can likewise be barred from future reentry for 10 years.
And, I can imagine that millions of illegal aliens would not return home. What exactly does Huck plan to do in that case?
Then:
Employment is the chief draw for most illegal immigrants and denying them jobs is the centerpiece of an attrition strategy.OK, except what's outlined above isn't an "attrition strategy". It's a "mass exodus which will inflame the left and cause endless lawsuits by the ACLU et al" strategy.
Then, something that might turn into a national ID card, although no details are provided:
Institute a universal, mandatory citizenship verification system as part of the normal hiring process.This section has an asterix which references the recent no-match suit brought to us by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the ACLU:
Prevent the IRS and the Social Security Administration from accepting fraudulent Social Security numbers or numbers that don't match the employees' names.After supporting the Fair Tax and the Clear Act, Huckabee gets ironic:
Reject Mexico's "matricula consular" card, which functions as an illegal-immigrant identification card.In fact, Huckabee enabled Mexico to pass out thousands of those so far this year due to him pushing for a consulate to be built in Arkansas.
On the bright side, he says he wants to discourage dual citizenship; that may be similar to current attempts to discourage that.
And, he also says he wants to support legal immigration, end the visa lottery, cut back on chain migration (adult brothers and sisters), and increase high-skilled immigration.
Some of it sounds good, but the mass exodus part is doomed to fail and would probably end up being amnesty. And, of course, there's Huckabee's horrendous record to consider.
So, thanks, but no thanks.
UPDATE: Via this we learn the Mark Krikorian likes the plan. Unfortunately, I have to disagree. While parts of it are certainly good, I have little doubt that it won't be long before the usual suspects start weighing in on the mass exodus plan which, even if those here illegally wanted to take part in would be a logistical nightmare. Choosing a round figure of 12,000,000 illegal aliens over 120 days is 100,000 people per day (or more than 10,000 per working hour, since they'd have to register). And, somewhat less than half of those would be from countries other than Mexico. And, once again, there's everything Huckabee has said and done on this issue which would result in him providing a lot of leeway in his plan.
UPDATE 2: It took a while, but the left is starting their chants. New Democrat Network (Simon Rosenberg) says (ndnblog.org/?q=node/1584):
No matter how you feel about the morality of the plan, or its practicality, it is amazing that the man who may win the GOP nomination is calling for the forced expulsion of 5 percent of the current American workforce. The economic and societal chaos these kinds of plans would create is almost unimaginable."Booman" links to that (boomantribune.com/story/2007/12/8/112236/031) and goes even nutrootier, saying that Huck is vying (with Joe Biden's Iraq partition plan) for the "Adolf Eichmann Mass Relocation Award".
Top law firms unite to hamper immigration raids (Soros link)
Via this we learn that attorneys from top law firms such as Dechert LLP, Wilson Sonsini, Skadden-Arps and Orrick, Herrington & Suttcliffe are forming a "task force" to prevent ICE supposedly over-stepping their bounds when conducting immigration raids. All told there are 60 lawyers from 14 firms, and they're doing it pro "bono". Says Andrew Thomases of Dechert:
"All individuals have constitutional rights, and we want to make sure the rights are not violated, and the government is not violating the Fourth or Fifth Amendment when doing searches and seizures."
For their part, ICE says they abide by the law. While it's hard to criticize those who want to defend the Constitution, I don't see those same lawyers rushing to the defense of citizens whose rights are affected by illegal immigration.
The coordinator of the effort is Mark Silverman from San Francisco's Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a group that's received funding from George Soros and which was last seen appearing at a Rep. Barbara Lee event.
Revised SCHIP still has loophole allowing illegal aliens to receive benefits
From this:The revised children's health insurance bill that Congress is about to send to President Bush still has loopholes that both illegal aliens and ineligible legal immigrants could exploit to join the program, a new Heritage Foundation analysis shows.
Under the bill, those applying for the State Children's Health Insurance Program would not have to prove citizenship. Instead, they only would have to provide a valid Social Security number — something most legal immigrants and many illegal aliens already have, said Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, whose analysis is being released today...
Max Blumenthal lies about Tom Tancredo
Max Blumenthal offers "Tom Tancredo Hired Illegal Laborers to Renovate His McMansion" (alternet.org/story/69391). It's so full of misleading statements and lies it's difficult to know where to begin. However, the title itself contains a lie: Tancredo contracted with Creative Drywall Design of Denver; he didn't hire illegal aliens directly as the title states, the president of that company claims he thought they were legal workers, and lawyers advised of the case stated he didn't break any laws [1].Then, we move on to the subhead:
Anti-immigration zealot and GOP presidential candidate Tom Tancredo hired what he often refers to as "criminal aliens" to renovate his Colorado house.There's a difference between illegal aliens and criminal aliens, and I strongly suspect that the workers were just the former and not the latter. And, of course, he's not "anti-immigration".
Then, from the article:
When Tancredo hired a construction crew to transform his drab basement into a high-tech pleasure den in October 2001, however, he did not express concern that only two of its members spoke English. Nor did he bother to check the workers' documentation to see if they were legal residents of the United States. Had Tancredo done so, he would have learned that most of the crew consisted of undocumented immigrants, or "criminal aliens" as he likes to call them. Instead, Tancredo paid the crew $60,000 for its labor and waited innocently for the completion of his elaborate entertainment complex.1. As stated above, he contracted with a contractor [1].
2. He probably would have violated several state and federal laws if he had inquired about their status; in that case (as with Mitt Romney), the far-left would be accusing him of racial profiling and discrimination.
3. As stated above, Tancredo knows the difference between those who are just illegal aliens and those who are criminal aliens. He doesn't call the former with the latter term unless it applies.
During the renovation process, two illegal workers hired by Tancredo were alerted to his reputation for immigrant bashing. They went straight to the Denver Post to complain. Tancredo "doesn't want us here, but he'll take advantage of our sweat and our labor," one of the workers complained to the Post on September 19, 2002. "It's just not right."1. Once again, Tancredo didn't "hired" them directly [1].
2. An interesting question is who exactly "alerted" the workers; was it a setup?
3. The Post article followed and coincided with the Jesus Apodaca incident, in which the Denver Post collaborated with the Mexican consulate to push giving college discounts to illegal aliens. See the September 29, 2002 letter Tancredo wrote to the Post (link). They apparently wrote 24 stories about the issue... over nine days. More response here.
...Then defiance gave way to vitriol as the congressman dubbed undocumented immigrants, "the face of murder."Blumenthal is being extremely misleading; Tancredo wasn't refering to all "undocumented immigrants", but to coyotes, drug smugglers, and terrorists [2].
It continues, this time with mere smears (I didn't bother clicking to the second page to see if there are more lies):
Down on the border, Tancredo announced his support for the Minutemen, providing the anti-immigrant militia with a veneer of respectability while its pistol-packing members hunt for brown-skinned evildoers.Obviously, the use of the word "militia" is meant to convey an incorrect portrayal of their actions, as is the word "hunt", and of course, they're interested in evildoers of all skin colors.
UPDATE: Howie Klein linked to the Blumenthal article (downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/12/heath-shuler-joins-tom-tancredo-know.html), and I left a one-sentence comment linking to this post; the comment appeared and was then deleted. He's really afraid that his readers will learn the truth, isn't he.
UPDATE 2: I'm not going to bother registering to comment, but Pam Spaulding links to the article in the falsely-titled post "Tom Tancredo hired 'criminal aliens' to build his family's rec room" (pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=3807). She reposted that at Pandagon; let's see if they approve the comment I left: pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/12/02/ tom-tancredo-hired-criminal-aliens-to-build-his-familys-rec-room/
Footnotes in the extended entry.
[1] The article Blumenthal refers to is "Illegal labor aided Tancredo Workers say they redid basement for immigration critic" by Michael Riley, September 19, 2002. A copy is here.
Undocumented immigrants helped remodel U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo's Littleton basement, two of the workers told The Denver Post. The workers said they were among a crew of five or six people who labored for contractor Creative Drywall Design of Denver, creating a home theater with terraced seating, a billiards table and game area, and a bedroom for Tancredo, a Republican and one of the nation's most vocal immigration critics.[2] From a September 18, 2002 House floor speech (link):
All but one of the crew were undocumented immigrants from Latin America, according to two of the workers. The Denver Post is not naming the employees because of the possibility that identification might lead to legal proceedings against them.
Tancredo didn't break any laws, according to immigration lawyers briefed on the case. He never asked whether the workers - only two of whom spoke English - were in the country legally, said Eric Givan, project manager for the company.
The company's president said he believed all of his workers were in the country legally and that he had documentation from them on file. The two workers said their documentation was false...
As the contractor's client, Tancredo had no legal obligation to ask if all the workers were documented. In his floor speech Wednesday night, he said he couldn't legally ask that question.
"You can be sued under the Civil Rights Act if you go out and ask people who have been hired by someone else if they are here illegally or not," he said.
But a Justice Department lawyer disagreed. "If a person wants to feel more comfortable by asking a contractor to sign something assuring them that everyone who works for them is legal, they can do that because (the contractor) has that obligation in the first place," said the lawyer, who declined to be identified.
Creative Drywall owner J.J. Fukunaga said he has documents on file showing that each of the company's 15 employees is legally entitled to work in the U.S. The documents vary by employee but in some cases include copies of Social Security cards and driver's licenses, he said. When asked to show copies of those documents, he declined...
..."Tom Tancredo is no more breaking the law by having his basement refinished by a company that employs undocumented workers than anybody who goes into a McDonald's and gets served a Big Mac" by an undocumented immigrant, said Laura Lichter, a Boulder immigration attorney...
...What is the most discouraging or disconcerting aspect of this whole thing is that when trying to characterize and personify the illegal immigration issue by using the Apodacas, what you do is ignore another face of illegal immigration that is much, much uglier, much nastier. That is the face of illegal immigration that you confront on the borders of this country, both the Canadian border and the Mexican border. It is the face of murder, it is the face of infiltration into the country of people who are coming to do us great harm, it is the face of drug smuggling. It is the face of rape and robbery, because coyotes who often bring these people, in this case from Mexico, into the United States, they charge them sometimes $1,000 or $1,500 to bring them into the United States illegally, and when they get to the borders they rape the women, they steal the money, they force the people into the United States into some of the most inhospitable parts of the country in terms of the desert, and they die out there. This is an ugly thing...
Immigration "parliament" held in Mexico, with Americans; may lobby in Washington DC
On November 16 and 17 a group of activists from Mexico and the U.S. met in Mexico City for the "First Parliament of Mexican Migrant Leaders Living In The U.S.A.". This doesn't appear to have been an official Mexican government event, but many of those attending were apparently Mexican political leaders, and some of the Americans attending serve on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad (IME, www.ime.gob.mx), an advisory council to Mexico's president.
A roundup with links to Spanish-language sources is here. The event was organized by MX congressman Jose Jacques, who earlier this year met with Congressional Democrats to jointly support "comprehensive immigration reform" (Nancy Pelosi was scheduled but had "scheduling difficulties"). Elvira Arellano spoke and appeared to - surprise - cheat. In this case it was on her hunger strike. While they made a lot of proposals, according to that the one most likely to stick is a "Permanent Parliament" which might meet next year in Washington DC.
And, from this we learn that two attendees were "Rosa Marta Zarate, program coordinator for the San Bernardino nonprofit Librería del Pueblo, and Daniel Morales, of the Riverside-based National Alliance for Human Rights". The latter group is run by Armando Navarro.
According to this, Emma Lozano was also there.
Hundreds smuggled over Canadian border (from South Korea, Pakistan, India and Central America)
From this via this:A human smuggling operation based in Toronto and another in Montreal moved hundreds of immigrants into the U.S. [from Canada via somewhere between New York and Maine], with some paying $10,000 apiece, American prosecutors said Wednesday in announcing indictments against the groups...There's no indication of any terrorist link but one would imagine the smugglers weren't doing background checks on those they brought over.
[Thomas Anderson, U.S. attorney for Vermont] estimated the groups had brought hundreds of people into the U.S. from South Korea, Pakistan, India and Central America since 2004, though he did not have a specific figure. Some of those people paid as much as $10,000 for the smugglers' services, he said.
Officials said that some of the people brought into the United States had previous criminal records in this country, and that others were vulnerable to being preyed upon by the smugglers...
Lawyer Julie Pace sues Arizona over e-Verify, suggests filing late to crash system
Julie Pace and David Selden are lawyers with the Arizona firm Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, and they're representing a coalition of business groups fighting against a new Arizona law set to go in effect on January 1. The law would require employers to use the federal e-Verify system to verify the identities of new hires; if they knowingly hire illegal workers their business licenses could be suspended or revoked.From this:
If the judge upholds the law, lawyers plan to tell employers to sign up en masse during the last two weeks of December, Pace said. The notices will be sent out by e-mail through chambers of commerce and trade associations, she said.This provides a partial list of those being represented: Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation and the Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association.
Even if the computer system doesn't crash, the government doesn't have enough manpower to answer all the questions that will be generated as employers try to navigate the system for the first time, she said.
"If you have 100,000 people signing up in December, how are they going to handle it?" Pace asked.
This is similar to the fears some had that, under "comprehensive immigration reform", groups would encourage applicants to apply on a specific day of the week or the month in order to swamp the system and push through every application. And, her scheme is only slightly less repugnant than that of the H1-B lawyers featured on this infamous clip.
Non-citizens/illegal aliens voting in U.S. elections (Texas)
From this:After the review of data from Tarrant and Dallas Counties [homes of Dallas-Fort Worth, Texas], it appeared, at least on the surface, that some non-citizens were participating in U.S. elections.It goes on to present alternative explanations other than illegal aliens or legal visitors and immigrants voting, such as citizens not revealing their correct status in order to avoid jury duty. They also say that there's no check for citizenship status and the "only way to determine someone's citizenship is to see which box they checked on their voter registration card." State Representative Phil King tried to pass a bill requiring citizenship verification; Rep. Lon Burnam opposed it.
Since 1976, 1,900 people have been removed from the voter rolls because of their citizenship status in Dallas County. Of those, 221 had voter histories.
Tarrant County election data from 2004 and 2005 shows 43 people have been removed from the voter rolls, but none had voter histories.
Michael Conlon/Reuters misleads about misleading Alexander Ortega/UC illegal alien healthcare "study"
Michael Conlon of Reuters offers "Illegal immigrants not U.S. health care burden: study". The study in question (from Alexander Ortega of the University of California's School of Public Health) was derived from thousands of phone calls in 2003 with Latino illegal aliens or their family members.
Thus we see the first issue with the study: not all of those may have been telling the truth. The second is that they may have been unaware of the costs of their care and related issues; if Ortega had gone the extra step and contacted those from whom the illegal aliens had sought their care that would probably be mentioned. The article only mentions "doctor visits" as the metric that was used. And, 2003 was four years ago.
The other issues should be clear to even a hack like Conlon:
Illegal Latino immigrants do not cause a drag on the U.S. health care system as some critics have contended and in fact get less care than Latinos in the country legally, researchers said on Monday.
1. That begs the question: how much care do "Latinos in the country legally" get? Since we're comparing, we need to know what's being compared. Oddly enough, Conlon doesn't mention that.
2. And, most obviously, illegal aliens aren't supposed to be here. If they weren't here, we wouldn't have to spend any healthcare dollars on them. Thus, Conlon can't say they aren't a drag; the most he could say (if he were an honest reporter) would be that according to the flawed study they're less of a drag than others.
In addition, articles like this promote illegal immigration as a worthy model: not only do illegal aliens have job-related upsides like working cheaper and with less safety restrictions, but they use less healthcare as well. Only serfs would be better.
And, the mainstream media refuses to look into the non-financial costs of illegal immigration, such as the costs of massive government corruption. By presenting flawed studies such as this, they give an inaccurate portrait of the issue.
Gustavo Torres/CASA de Maryland, SVREP, Ward Churchill at Venezuala "revolution in the U.S." conference
The Venezuela International Book Fair took place earlier this month, and it included a "five-day rolling panel discussion" called "United States: A possible revolution" [1]:The 22 panelists, four or five of whom spoke each day, included political activists and writers from the United States expressing diverse political views, as well as a number of U.S. citizens living in Venezuela... The issues debated on the character of the working class and prospects for revolution in the United States sparked a political discussion that permeated the book fair...Note: Casa of Maryland is a publicly-funded group.
...In addition to the forum panelists mentioned below, others included Bernardo Alvarez, Venezuela's ambassador to the United States; former University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill; August Nimtz, a University of Minnesota political science professor; William Blum, an author who has written a number of books opposing U.S. foreign policy; ex-Maryknoll priest Charles Hardy; and Dada Maheshvarananda, yoga instructor and founder of the Prout Institute...
...Several panelists are active in work to expand rights for immigrants in the United States. These included Diogenes Abreu, a Dominican-born community organizer who currently lives in New York; Luis Rodriguez, a Chicano activist in California's San Fernando Valley; and Gustavo Torres, an organizer for the immigrant rights group Casa de Maryland...
Both Torres and Antonio Gonzalez, president of the Southwest Voter Education and Registration Project, said the road to "empowerment" is organizing Latinos to vote. "What does a revolutionary do in the U.S. today?" asked Gonzalez. "Take power wherever you can" by electing Latinos to city, state, and federal offices. His PowerPoint presentation highlighted the growing number of Latino voters.The SVREP is frequently presented by the MSM as a mainstream group; now we know better.
Others on the panel or in the audience included:
* Lee Sustar from the Socialist Worker newspaper
* "ex-Marine and founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War Jimmy Massey"
* Hector Pesquera, "a leader of the Hostosiano Independence Movement of Puerto Rico"
* Amiri Baraka and Amina Baraka (the former read a poem and provides some choice quotes)
And, there was dessert after the panel ended: a "video interview with Noam Chomsky".
[1] themilitant.com/2007/7145/714503.html
UPDATE: The correct name of the group is Southwest Voter Registration Education Project; it's reversed above.
Mike Huckabee: in-state tuition for "the children of illegal immigrants" (2005; actually for illegal aliens themselves)
An oft-repeated claim is that, as governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee wanted to give scholarships to "the children of illegal immigrants". That claim has appeared in several news stories, and it's partly false:1. The discounts were for students who were themselves illegal aliens. The immigration status of parents doesn't necessarily imply the status of their children; parents who are illegal aliens could have U.S. citizen children for instance.
2. Whether a potential college student who's 18 or older is a "child" is definitely an open question.
Whether the formulation is used as an attempt to hide what The Huckster supported or due to ignorance isn't clear. However, something like, "students who are illegal aliens" would be the more accurate description. (The bill was passed by the AR House, but failed in the Senate).
The earliest article available from the Google News archive with that formulation is "College aid for illegal immigrants bill passed by House" from Rob Moritz of the Arkansas News Bureau (link):
An emotional and teary-eyed Rep. Joyce Elliott, D-Little Rock, buried her head in her hands Monday afternoon after the House approved a measure that would make the children of illegal immigrants in Arkansas eligible for state college scholarships...The preamble to the bill itself (PDF) does mention "children of undocumented immigrants". However, the body of it makes it clear it was intended to apply to illegal aliens themselves:
...House Bill 1525 [sponsored by Elliot], which is endorsed by Gov. Mike Huckabee, now goes to the Senate...
"House members showed courage by dismissing the shrill, misleading, often inaccurate criticisms of this bill," Huckabee said in a statement. "They voted to create true opportunity for all graduates of Arkansas schools. It's the kind of message that gives our state a very different image from the one in 1957 when we said 'no' to opportunity for children."
..."I remember ever so clearly what it felt like to have the big boot of the government on my back, and I was a mere child," [Elliot, speaking of segregation] said. "For these kids today, it is not a memory, it's a way of life. They are living with the boot of the government on their back, and it's not fair because they've done nothing wrong."
Any tuition rate that is granted to residents of Arkansas shall be granted on the same terms to all persons, regardless of immigration status, who have attended a secondary educational institution in Arkansas for at least three (3) years and who have either graduated from an Arkansas high school or received a general education diploma in the state.They also had to file an affidavit stating that they had an "intent to legalize his or her immigration status". No penalties were indicated if they never followed through on their "intent".
Bush admin to submit new no-match rule... in March 2008
In October, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer blocked the Bush administration from enforcing a new "no-match" rule that they'd announced in August. Under "no-match", letters are sent to companies warning them that an employees' name doesn't match the Social Security number they provided. The letters have been sent out - and then ignored - for years, but the DHS was supposedly going to finally start targeting some firms for enforcement.
On Friday, the Bush administration announced that, while they still might appeal, their main course of action will be to try to come up a revised rule to meet the judge's objections, specifically relating to a survey of small businesses to determine the impact the rule would have (link). They'll try to have the survey done and issue the new rule by the end of March.
The restraining order was brought to us courtesy of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO, the American Civil Liberties Union, the San Francisco Labor Council, among others. And, expect those groups to continue enabling illegal immigration by suing over the revised rule:
"It's clear the government has given up defending an indefensible rule," said Lucas Guttentag, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, another group bringing the lawsuit. "But now they're hoping to rush through another half-baked rule without addressing the fundamental flaws. It's like putting lipstick on Frankenstein."
There's certainly the possibility that the Bush administration knows all this and wants the ACLU and those who profit from illegal activity to keep suing.
Related:
DHS, SDUT, Harry Reid on Charles Breyer no-match ruling (ACLU, CofC, AFL-CIO)
NYT almost follows the money on Western Union (U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Ken Salazar)
Jason DeParle almost follows the money on Western Union, a company that makes almost a billion dollars per year off legal and illegal immigrants sending money home ("remittances"): link. While it's a much better job than, for instance, Jill Capuzzo of that paper would have done, he doesn't go as far as he could. However, he does uncover some interesting contributions they've made:The company sponsored public forums to promote ["comprehensive immigration reform"] and donated $100,000 to a group unsuccessfully fighting Proposition 200 in Arizona, which requires proof of citizenship from people seeking to vote or collect certain public benefits.And, more sleaze practically drips from the page:
As the debate moved to Washington, Western Union gave money to many groups supporting legalization plans. The United States Chamber of Commerce received "in the high six figures," a Chamber official said, while an Illinois group [perhaps the Mexico-linked Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights; see this] used some Western Union money to bring busloads of immigrants to Capitol Hill. When a bipartisan Senate bill emerged last spring, company officials flew to Washington to lobby directly, urging Senator Ken Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, to support the measure. He did, though it ultimately failed.
"Most companies are afraid to speak up," said Frank Sharry, executive director of the National Immigration Forum, which has received $40,000 from Western Union in the past three years. "When it got hot, they stayed with it."
Many of his customers are in the country illegally. [Michael Lee, 35, who owns an electronics store called World Top Communications in New York’s Chinatown], who was once an illegal immigrant, said his business fell by about 40 percent last spring after a series of nationwide immigration raids...
Salo Eduardo Levy, Western Union's Mexico director, echoed that theme at a September meeting of industry executives. "We have customers calling agents before they go: 'Is it safe? Is La Migra around?'"
A 2006 survey by the Inter-American Development Bank found that illegal immigrants made up 41 percent of the Latin Americans in the United States who used money transfer companies.
[...in 1999 they held promotions in front of a U.S. detention center for illegal aliens and held events in Central America for those deported from the U.S...]
...["former company official who spoke only on the condition of anonymity" says:] "We knew that within a week they would be back on their way to the U.S."
[WU VP Fred Niehaus says they won't do things like that anymore]
Judy Woodruff/PBS lies about Romney, Giuliani ("anti-immigrant", Mark Shields, David Brooks)
On tonight's PBS News Hour, Judy Woodruff discussed political matters with Mark Shields and David Brooks [1]. And, she lied:
On the Republican side, you've got Romney and Giuliani trying to sort of out anti-immigrant one another.
Obviously, that's a false statement about both. Part of Romney's stock speech about this topic is to support legal immigration. And, Giuliani wants to "solve" illegal immigration by declaring a massive amnesty. Neither positions are in any way "anti-immigrant".
After that, David Brooks reiterated comments made in today's column (see the first link):
I think Rudy Giuliani is the most pro-immigration candidate probably running in the past 20 years, and now he's pretending to be something entirely different, to his discredit.
And, Mark Shield chimes in with this:
I would commend -- which I very rarely do, and I don't think I've ever done before -- commend David's column today in the New York Times on the subject of the Republicans, and particularly Giuliani on immigration.
Would it pain the NewsHour to have one person there who isn't a supporter of illegal activity in one way or another? Could they suggest that Judy Woodruff actually learns what she's trying to talk about and is able to use the correct words for things? If the two "debaters" and the host are all on the same side, is it a debate or something else?
Please contact both the NewsHour and the general PBS ombudsman with your thoughts:
pbs.org/newshour/letters.html
pbs.org/ombudsman/feedback.html
Related:
PBS NewsHour's Soviet-style immigration coverage
Anne Taylor Fleming not on immigration
PBS NewsHour: pro-illegal immigration, pro-amnesty bias
"Liberals" get "liberalism" fed back to them by the shovelful
PBS's Hypocrisy Revealed: PBS station opposes day-laborer center
[1] pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec07/sbcampaign_11-23.html
David Brooks pines for Rudy Giuliani's illegal immigration supporting days
David Brooks offers "The Real Rudy" (link), most of which consists of a series of now-infamous Rudy Giuliani pro-illegal immigration quotes. I half-expected him to try to explain them away, but I wasn't too surprised that he explicitly supports that side of Rudy, calling someone who supported illegal activity "moderate". And, he says that by currently at least making noises about opposing illegal immigration, both Rudy and Mitt Romney are "competing to drive away Hispanic votes". Brooks is too shallow and too much of a hack to admit that not all Hispanics support illegal activity, and that importing people who do support illegal activity out of racial solidarity reasons is not good public policy. On the other hand, those Republicans who support our immigration laws are refered to as "the narrowest slice of the old guard".
More in "David Brooks: What happened to the open-borders Rudy I used to know and love?":
...I bet if we adopt the entire Democratic platform we can make a real race of it before next year.
Perhaps Brooks is actually smarter than it might appear and he's highlighting these quotes as a way to hurt Rudy's chances. Although, I'd say the chances of him doing that are rather slim.
Chase, Citibank, Laredo National Bank get desk inside Mexican consulate in San Antonio
From this:The Consulate General of Mexico signed an agreement Monday with three U.S. banks that could make Mexican nationals more comfortable with the banking industry.Not all of those who'll become new customers for those banks are here illegally. However, the dodge the banks will use will be that they can't check someone's immigration status, even while they realize that those who use Matricula Consular cards (available from the friendly consulate) are most likely illegal aliens. Those banks will then donate a portion of their profits to politicians, who will then ensure that the banks continue to profit from indirect illegal activity.
Chase, Citibank and Laredo National Bank will take turns each day manning a desk in the Mexican Consulate on Navarro Street [in San Antonio]. They will answer questions for Mexican nationals about financial services and products with the hope of eventually turning them into customers at area branches.
"In other areas of the U.S. — New York, Los Angeles, Chicago — we have had a presence in consulates for years," said Inigo Arzac, assistant vice president and relationship manager for Citibank San Antonio...
Related:
Bank of "America" signs up customers at Dallas Mexican consulate
Ted Kennedy, William Delahunt try blocking immigration enforcement ("Lactation Memo")
The Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") has created a new, not-yet-public document called "Guidelines for Identifying Humanitarian Concerns among Administrative Arrestees When Conducting Worksite Enforcement Operations" (link). While it will be sold as a humanitarian effort, the goal strongly appears to be to be to hamper immigration enforcement and to help illegal aliens remain in the U.S.[The document outlines] elaborate steps federal agents should follow to quickly identify detainees who have children or those who should be released for other reasons, such as pregnancy or illness. They also guarantee access to legal counsel, emergency medical care, and social workers...This follows a so-called "Lactation Memo", a copy of which is available here. And, shortly before that came an Urban Institute/National Council of La Raza study opposing enforcement and even encouraging changes in favor of those charged with identity theft. Teddy Kennedy crows over his victory here. Obviously, if he really wanted to be humanitarian, he'd work to discourage illegal immigration rather than continually enabling it.
[Ted Kennedy]'s spokeswoman, Melissa Wagoner, said that "New Bedford was the catalyst, and illustrated the need for national reform." Wagoner's statement, which accompanied a copy of the guidelines sent to the Globe [by Kennedy's office], said the document was the product of discussions among the agency, Kennedy, and US Representative William D. Delahunt.
Sanctuary city proposed for Des Moines (Network Against Human Trafficking, Christine Hensley)
A very preliminary proposal to establish Des Moines, Iowa as a sanctuary city has been presented to Councilwoman Christine Hensley (link). It would seek to block that city from inquiring about someone's immigrations status or taking part in federal immigration raids. Hensley's position on the matter isn't clear, but she's at least naive enough to state who would profit from such a scheme:
Hensley said the impetus for the ordinance is illegal immigrants who fear raids and do not come to work, incurring costs on their employers.
She appears to have punted:
"What I suggested to them is there has to be a lot of discussion about it and whether or not there's really a problem."
The other councilmembers either couldn't be reached or said that haven't seen the plan. Two groups are pushing it, with "Alex Orozco, executive director of the Iowa-based Network Against Human Trafficking" refusing to name the other group. One might expect someone against human trafficking to oppose illegal immigration due to the fact that traffickers can take advantage of sanctuary policies and hide among illegal aliens, but apparently he has other goals.
You can contact the mayor and council here: ci.des-moines.ia.us/mayor_council/message/index.htm
11/20 FWIW UPDATE: From this:
"I absolutely and firmly oppose the concept of Des Moines becoming a sanctuary city," Hensley said. She and City Manager Rick Clark said they called the news conference to address a backlash from groups opposed to illegal immigration that began with news reports of the earlier meeting, which she said took place more than a month ago... The outcry included dozens of telephone calls to City Hall. U.S. Rep. Steve King, a Kiron Republican, said he would support efforts to limit federal money to Des Moines, according to an e-mail sent to the City Council by Lorna Davros, the council's administrative assistant... Representatives of national groups opposed to amnesty for immigration violations also called to express concern.
Campbell Brown/CNN asks simplistic question, gets stock Barack Obama answer (benefits for illegal aliens)
Last night's CNN Democratic debate is the Sovietski-style gift that keeps giving. Campbell Brown asked Barack Obama a question about immigration that wasn't specific enough, allowing him to simply give his stock reply. Should we assume that Brown is completely naive and wasn't aware that politicians have a habit of doing this? Or, should we assume that she was simply playing a setup role?
The question:
...you've supported various benefits for illegal immigrants, including driver's licenses and in-state college tuition... What do you say to those Americans who say they are losing out because you would give benefits to people who broke the laws of this country, who came here illegally?
A better question would have asked him whether it's good public policy to allow illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens, and would have included language in the question asking that he address that specific point. And, when he didn't answer the question the moderator would have interrupted his speech and asked again. (After his speech, Blitzer did to a certain extent by asking about driver's licenses for illegal aliens, which generated the Obama quote already discussed.)
If I had been asking questions, I would have continued to press that point until it was revealed that Obama is willing to throw U.S. citizens under the bus if he thinks he can get votes out of the deal.
Obama's answer contains some of the issues mentioned at the previous link:
I would say that they're justified in feeling frustrated because this administration -- the Bush administration -- has done nothing to control the problem that we have. We've had 5 million undocumented workers come over the borders since George Bush took office [see #3 at the previous link]. It has become an extraordinary problem, and the reason the American people are concerned is because they are seeing their own economic position slip away... And so what we have to do is create a comprehensive solution to the problem. [...issues stock legalization speech...]
So, his solution to the problem is to wave a magic wand and declare current illegal aliens to suddenly become legal workers, and that will fix the problem? Obviously, if Campbell Brown or Wolf Blitzer had been doing their jobs, they would have asked him to specify exactly how that would work.
Felipe Calderon's "League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States"
Here's the next grand plan of the Mexican government that will a) backfire, and b) reveal some in the U.S. to be little more than de facto agents of that government (link):Mexican President Felipe Calderon has forcefully inserted himself into the U.S. presidential campaign, denouncing the candidates for demonizing Mexican immigrants and announcing that the government would finance a public relations campaign aimed at reversing Americans' negative perceptions.And, I welcome this news, because we Americans love it when corrupt foreign countries try to spread propaganda inside our country. This move will also cast doubt on anyone who supports Mexico agenda from now on: are they part of Mexico's propaganda push? Are they being paid or at least directed by Mexico?
...[The Mexican government] also said it would back a proposal by the immigrants agency [the Institute of Mexicans Abroad] to organize a coalition of Mexican activists inside the United States to respond to political attacks on immigrants. The coalition would be called la Liga contra la Discriminación de los Mexicanos en Estados Unidos, or the League Against Discrimination of Mexicans in the United States.
But the most unusual initiative would budget an undisclosed amount for a campaign inside the United States to "win the battle of public opinion" by highlighting inspirational "success stories" of Mexican immigrants who had prospered in American society.
Calderon did not disclose details of the new campaign, but he said it would help the U.S. public recognize "the irreplaceable contribution of Mexicans to the United States, to its economy and its society."
A particular target will be the U.S. news media, where he said he would seek an "objective dialogue" on immigration.
"Strategies of simple confrontation and rudeness aggravate an anti-Mexican feeling," Calderon said, amplifying "the worse phobias even more."
Note that members of the IME helped organize last year's illegal immigration marches, as did a former Mexican consul general. And, just recently the Blue America PAC joined with a group whose president is with the IME to push amnesty.
In other news, Mexico is lowering the banking fees on remittances to Mexico City. Surely it was just a humanitarian move.
American Jewish Committee collaborates with Mexican government to support illegal immigration
Dianne Solis of the Dallas Morning News - someone not unfamiliar with downplaying meddling inside the U.S. by the Mexican governmnt - offers this:Leaders of a national Jewish group say the hate being directed at Mexican immigrants resonates with their own experience. So they've taken up the cause and convened a series of meetings and workshops with immigrant and Mexican-American leaders, including some from North Texas.Of course, an unbiased reporter would put "hate" in quotes or would say something like, "what they call hate". Solis is, of course, not a real reporter; she's pushing "the cause".
Laura Gonzalez, a Dallas college professor, and Jacobo Kupersztoch, a Dallas biologist, were among about three dozen Latinos from around the country who made the trek to Washington for sessions on organizing, fundraising and advocacy.In other words, they're part of the Mexican government: www.ime.gob.mx Later in the article it's revealed that both Kupersztoch and Gonzalez served on that board between 2003 and 2005, and that Gonzalez is "active in the League of Women Voters of Dallas". Kupersztoch wants to establish "phone trees" of retirees to contact Congress.
The American Jewish Committee co-sponsored the three-day workshop with Mexico's Institute for Mexicans Abroad, which includes an advisory council established by the country's Foreign Relations Ministry.
Question: are both subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act (usdoj.gov/criminal/fara)? Even if they aren't required to register under that Act, should the reader consider them de facto agents for the Mexican government? And, likewise with the AJC should they continue to associate themselves with the Mexican government.
Also mentioned:
* Dina Siegel Vann, AJC director of the Latino and Latin America initiative
* Jeffrey Sinensky, AJC's director of domestic policy
* Jorge Navarrete, "who served on the advisory board of the Institute for Mexicans Abroad"
They met with with Rep. Howard Berman; no word is provided on whether the IME was among those who attended that meeting. They also met with Mexican Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan.
Ramos/Compean drug smuggler arrested (for 2005 case)
From this:Osvaldo Aldrete Davila, the drug smuggler who was shot in the buttocks by El Paso Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean in 2005, was arrested on drug charges at the Zaragoza Bridge this morning, officials with the U.S. Attorney's office said.That was both after he was shot (February 2005) and given immunity, and if he had been charged earlier it might have changed the outcome of the case. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton says it was because he'd been working with the DEA to get new evidence (link).
Aldrete was arrested by agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General on a sealed indictment charging him with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, and with possession with intent to distribute marijuana in September and October 2005.
National League of Cities awards New Haven's IDs for illegal aliens scheme
New Haven, Connecticut is handing out ID cards to illegal aliens, and not only does their mayor John DeStefano have a possible financial incentive, but the city worker who pushed the plan through previously headed a non-profit that is/was collaborating with the Mexican government.
Now, the Washington DC lobbying group National League of Cities and their partner CH2M Hill have given them one of their "2007 Awards for Municipal Excellence":
The Elm City Immigration Project in New Haven is a series of innovative, comprehensive and far-reaching policies and initiatives aimed at strengthening the relationship between the city and its immigrant community while improving public safety... The award winners were selected by a panel of judges, including Karen Anderson, former president, National League of Cities; Janet Areson, Virginia Municipal League; Cy Behroozi, Brookings Institution; Jacqueline Byers, National Association of Counties; Del D. Borgsdorf, Greater Sarasota Chamber of Commerce; Saul Ramirez Jr., National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials; Carol Rhea, American Planning Association; and Toni Samuel, American Society of Public Administration.
Please let the president of the NLC (Indianapolis mayor Bart Peterson) know what you think of the NLC giving their imprimatur to NH's corrupt scheme: indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/contact.htm
Nutroots: Blue America PAC joins with Mexico-linked group to support illegal immigration (anti-Rahm Emanuel)
The Blue America PAC - a nutroots/netroots group composed of Firedoglake, Down with Tyranny (run by Howie Klein), Crooks and Liars, and Digby - has apparently decided to make Rahm Emanuel look mainstream by comparison. They're launching a campaign to "fight for the soul of the Democratic Party on immigration issue", i.e., to support massive illegal immigration and an amnesty [1]. Their first ad accuses Emanuel of "betraying" "immigrants" by not opposing the deportation of someone. While her case isn't explained - they usually aren't, at least factually - it sounds like she entered the U.S. illegally. [It gets even worse, see the UPDATE]
Further, Blue America is joining with the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, a group whose president is linked to the Mexican government.
I've left a total of three comments (one on FDL, two on DWT) pointing that link out, so clearly the fact that those bloggers are now in turn indirectly linked to the Mexican government isn't considered that big of an issue. I suggest pointing out their new link when they alone or together issue future pronouncements on this issue.
UPDATE: For completeness' sake, I'll point out that the comment I left at downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/11/rep-gutierrez-re-rahm-and-steny-we.html appeared and then disappeared; I added it again and it remains there as of 11/15. However, a similar comment I left at the later post downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/2007/11/rahm-emanuel-il-05-accountability.html appeared but isn't there now.
As for Blue America's victim of our immigration policies, she was using someone else's identity. Even Mark Brown's hugely sympathetic plea can't avoid the basic facts (link):
[Teresa Figueroa is] a convicted felon awaiting probable deportation... Two years ago, the real Lucia Peraida [the name Figueroa was using] complained to Elmhurst Police that somebody at Micron was using her name and Social Security number. Peraida, of Chicago, had learned this when the Internal Revenue Service accused her of failing to report income from Micron that left her with a $3,566 tax liability...
Oddly enough, the Blue America gang don't disclose that she was convicted of identity theft and that there was a victim. I'd suggest pointing that out to their readers if the opportunity presents itself.
[1] firedoglake.com/2007/11/14/blue-america-holding-rahm-accountable-on-immigration
Enrique Morones chickens out of Jim Gilchrist debate
Enrique Morones - a far-left, loose borders loon linked to the San Diego Democratic Party - "debated" Jim Gilchrist of the Minuteman Project at California State University, Long Beach yesterday (link). What actually happened is during Morones' opening remarks he encouraged everyone in the auditorium to walkout in protest, and he followed leaving Gilchrist alone on stage speaking to a few dozen attendees."We cannot tolerate this kind of behavior. What they're doing is a hate movement," Morones said, while objecting to the format of the debate, which had a friend of Gilchrist's as moderator...
Outside, students and professors gave speeches from a podium set up on the green about human rights and respect for diversity on campus – the message of the Campus Coalition Against Hate, which formed in the last two weeks in response to Gilchrist's visit...
"We didn't come together around immigration," said Norma Chinchilla, a professor of sociology and women's studies. "We came together around human rights and keeping our campus a place where hate does not take root."
San Francisco approves ID card; corruption in plain sight; Tom Ammiano?
The San Francisco Supervisors have approved a city ID card for everyone, including illegal aliens (link). While this will be sold as either a wacky plan from the far-left or a common-sense solution, the more likely reason this was pushed through is hiding in plain sight:[Bill author, supervisor Tom Ammiano] said banking institutions in San Francisco have signaled their willingness to accept the municipal ID card for the purpose of setting up accounts. He noted that people without bank accounts are frequently more vulnerable to theft and robbery.At least the first two banks listed as well as the Federal Reserve have in the past taken steps to profit from indirect illegal activity: the money that illegal aliens earn by working illegally. And, in fact, the Bush administration fought to allow banks to accept Mexico's ID card which is only of use to illegal aliens. And, from the Bank on San Francisco page (sfgov.org/site/bankonsf_index.asp?id=46628):
Officials with the city's Bank on San Francisco program, which helps people obtain bank accounts, said institutions such as Wells Fargo, Bank of America, Washington Mutual and US Bank had expressed interest in accepting the ID cards.
Bank on San Francisco is a city partnership with the Federal Reserve Bank. Although criteria for opening bank accounts are set in part through the USA Patriot Act, "to our knowledge that law is not a bar to a municipal ID," said David Augustine, spokesman for the city treasurer's office, which oversees the program.
Accept alternative forms of identification, such as consular identification cards. For many immigrants, the barrier to opening an account is having the proper documentation.The banks aren't going to earn that much off this; I'd imagine that due to the cost of living in Frisco they don't have a high illegal alien population (except for those living 20 to an apartment in shifts). However, this could be used as an entree to other cities, such as Los Angeles.
As for Ammiano, I'm not familiar with him and I don't know whether he's just a soft-brained far-leftie or whether he's trying to get a piece of the pie. However, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he's received donations from those banks or he has some sort of other link. Those who live in the area are strongly encouraged to follow the money. His fellow supervisor Gerardo Sandoval is a strong supporter of illegal immigration.
Note that New Haven, CT has their own municipal ID. Their mayor John DeStefano has a possible financial interest and the person in his office who pushed the ID (Kica Matos) previously headed a group (Junta for Progressive Action) that is/was collaborating with the Mexican government.
UPDATE: The "Case Study" PDF at the sfgov link above has some interesting nuggets on the Bank on San Francisco program. First, they've got a section for those "thinking about starting something similar to Bank on San Francisco in your community", and I'm sure some are. As for how it all started:
Anne Stuhldreher, a Fellow at the New America Foundation, approached staff of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom and City Treasurer Jose Cisneros with the initial concept. The Treasurer’s Office convened a working group of the staff of the Mayor and Treasurer, the Mayors Office of Community Development, New America Foundation, and EARN, a citywide nonprofit that helps low-income residents build assets. The Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco joined the group soon after hearing about the program.To participate in the program, banks have to accept those foreign IDs which are of use only to illegal aliens. And:
From further research, the working group learned that Latinos who are un-banked often don't realize that you do not need a social security number to open an account and that they can open accounts with Mexican or Guatemalan Identification cards.In other words, you don't have to be here legally to have a U.S. bank account.
As for government corruption at the federal level:
[at a meeting] Michael Frias, of the Federal Depository Insurance Corporation [sic], discussed how the New Alliance Task Force is helping banks learn about how they can accept the Matricula Consular Card and develop products and services to help Latino immigrants, save, send money to their home countries, and buy homes... The New Alliance Task Force is a partnership between the FDIC, the Mexican Consulate, banks, community-based organizations, federal regulators, the secondary market, and private mortgage insurance companies. The partnership has opened 50,000 new bank accounts totaling $100 million.In other words, something akin to a federal agency is collaborating with a foreign government to help nationals of that government who are here illegally get home loans, and is assisting banks to profit from money that was earned illegally.
Related:
Pro-illegal immigration performance art (funding by Bank of America and Wells Fargo)
Wells Fargo and illegal activity
remesamex.gob.mx features Bank of "America", Wells Fargo, and Western Union
Citibank "recruiting" illegal aliens for home loans
Thanks, Huckabee: business at Little Rock Mexican consulate is booming
Former Arkansas governor and current presidential candidate Mike Huckabee arranged for a Mexican Consulate to be built in Little Rock. And, business is booming! Per Jon Gambrell of the Associate Press (link):...In its first six months, the Mexican consulate based in Little Rock has seen the number of citizens it serves a day rise from 50 to 120, said consul Andres Chao. Now, Chao said the consulate plans to hire three or more new staffers in the coming year, anticipating demand will only grow [to as much as 300 per day].Please go to The Huckster's public appearances, ask him this question (youtube.com/watch?v=T5Dp7FaKIJo), and then upload his response.
...Most seek matricula consular identity cards or passports, while others come for legal protection or other needs.
So far, Chao said consulate employees have issued more than 10,000 documents since April...
More on Mike Huckabee's questionable Mexican consulate deal
From this:An Arkansas commercial developer confirmed his role in a no-cost "incentive deal" packaged by former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to attract a Mexican Consulate to Little Rock.Much more on the questionable nitty-gritty of the deal at the link.
...Bruce Burrow told WND his commercial real estate company acquired the land and developed the Mexican consulate building in Little Rock at the request of Huckabee [and at no profit in a "public-private" deal], in a deal the then-governor engineered to make sure he snared the Mexican consulate away from other states.
...Arkansas Republican state legislator Rick Green objected to Huckabee using taxpayer funds in the scheme.
...Green told WND that two legislative study groups he helped organize this past summer concluded Arkansas has more illegal immigrants per capita than any other state and that its Hispanic illegal immigrant population is the fastest growing of any state in the nation.
..."We estimated that $410 million per year from Arkansas is sent back to Mexico alone, just in remittance payments," Green noted.
Rick Sanchez/CNN lies to support illegal immigration (illegal aliens in military)
On this clip from Rick Sanchez of CNN (youtube.com/watch?v=amMV36RUhFo), he and William Gheen from ALIPAC (link) discuss illegal aliens and legal immigrants serving in the military. After a long cutaway report discussing a legal immigrant with a green card who was fast-tracked for citizenship, Sanchez falsely claims that he was an illegal alien. Sanchez also expresses confusion over the term "illegal alien", implying that it doesn't apply to those who've overstayed their visas. He also can't see the issue with foreign citizens who are here illegally serving in the military; Gheen's response discusses how some of those who were trained in the U.S. military have returned to their home countries as paramilitaries and similar.
Progressive States Network fighting the "Anti-Immigrant Movement" (Nathan Newman)
A little known group called the "Progressive States Network" is launching "The State Immigration Project" (progressivestates.org/content/714) and offers "Fighting the Anti-Immigrant Movement in the States" - authored by their policy director Nathan Newman - as their first artifact. They intend to support "state legislators and advocates working to promote a smart, humane immigration policy in the states". You can read the full version here: progressivestates.org/files/immigrationstrategy.html
As one might imagine, the summary (progressivestates.org/blog/716/fighting-the-anti-immigrant-movement-in-the-states) contains the seeds of its own destruction. First, of course, almost no one is "anti-immigrant"; that's simply a smear. Then, we find out who they're associating with:
We will also be holding a conference call on immigration this Thursday at 4pm EST to bring together both legislators and advocates to share their insights on progressive strategies on immigration for the 2008 session. The call will feature as speakers California Senator Gilbert Cedillo, Illinois Representative Cynthia Soto, Flavia Jimenez of the National Council of La Raza, Stephanie Luongo of Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and Nathan Newman, Policy Director for Progressive States Network.
Then, they discuss a feel-good campaign, including these points:
Emphasize the political costs of anti-immigrant political positions and the long-term political gains from humane, inclusive immigration politics
In other words, support identity politics and falsely imply that all Hispanics support illegal activity when it's engaged in by those of their race, and that the only way to get the mythical Hispanic vote is to support massive illegal activity.
Stress the facts that counter anti-immigrant lies
How ironic, considering that "anti-immigrant" is a lie in almost all cases.
Then, discussing their strategies:
If wage enforcement bills end up being attached to anti-immigrant bills, many in the business lobby will break their current alliances with anti-immigrant politicians.
Of course, what they fail to note is that the business lobby funds both the GOP and the Democrats, and that that lobby is a key part of the push for "reform". In fact, companies that profit from illegal activity fund groups like the NCLR, so perhaps this might not work out so well for some of their allies.
While state leaders and advocates need to highlight the studies that show that undocumented immigrants actually pay more in taxes than they use in public benefits, they also need to demand studies of the lost benefits to citizens and the costs to taxpayers from onerous anti-immigrant enforcement rules.
In brief, they're going to highlight studies that don't tell the whole cost of illegal immigration and they're going to try bribing the voters into supporting illegal immigration.
Despite the complete lack of evidence that non-citizens have illegally voted in US elections
That's a false statement; see the Dornan/Sanchez race.
Progressive leaders can highlight this reality by promoting policies that protect undocumented immigrant victims and witnesses of crime when they contact the police and encourage community policing efforts involving undocumented immigrant communities.
Ah, the sanctuary cities plank.
Elected leaders can build on traditional support from many African-American leaders to labor unions to forge alliances with forward-looking business leaders and religious leaders, including many evangelicals, who recognize that smart, humane immigration policies for our communities is a source of both moral and social strength.
Of course, those business leaders aren't "forward-looking" so much as they're corrupt and want to profit from illegal immigration. Likewise with the religious leaders who want to increase their flocks.
Peter Applebome/NYT: the horrors of unmowed lawns in Brewster, New York
Peter Applebome of the New York Times offers a slab of pro-illegal immigration propaganda called "When an Election Becomes a Forum on Immigration". It's even more explicitly biased than their standard fare; that might be because articles in their "Our Towns" section are exempt from their oh-so-rigorous standards on news "reporting".
The tale is set in Brewster, New York, which is enclosed by the Town of Southeast and is just north of Westchester County. Michael Rights, John Degnan, and an unnamed third person were vying to be supervisor of the Town, with Rights opposing the presence of Central American day laborers in Webster. Because the election was close, the absentee ballots will be recounted. It was a "loud, angry race"; Rights conducted a "high-decibel, high-dollar campaign" and issued "dark mailings and urgent robo-calls". In 2006, someone named Greg Ball ran a "virulently anti-immigrant State Assembly campaign".
Applebome's "local guy on the side of the New York Times who says the things they want to hear" is the "village historian", Denis Castelli. One of the quotes they give him ends with this:
"No one who speaks English wants to mow my lawn."
Oh, the horror. Now, some might say, "mow your own [expletive deleted] lawn." But, taking the high road, I'll suggest that if those day laborers left town tomorrow, Castelli's lawn would be mowed one way or another, either by himself or by an English speaker who now realizes that, absent competition from desperate foreigners, one can make a living or at least pick up college money by mowing lawns. Plus, it's more than a bit irresponsible of the town's historian to support all the financial and non-financial costs of those day laborers so that he can have a manicured lawn. Oddly enough, while Applebome has a quote from Rights discussing the "vast multibillion-dollar underground untaxed black market in human labor", he doesn't question those who support that market.
Howie Klein/FireDogLake promotes Josh Hoyt/ICIRR
Howie Klein at FireDogLake is welcoming Josh Hoyt (aka Joshua Hoyt), executive director of the ICIRR (Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights) to discuss matters with their visitors [1]. That group is a virulent supporter of illegal immigration, and they and their president Juan Salgado helped organize the major Chicago illegal immigration marches last year. Salgado also serves on an advisory committee to Mexico's president, and wrote this letter to Vicente Fox. By promoting him, the FireDogLake crew are in effect being useful idiots for the Mexican government. However, things might sort themselves out, with FDL being much more extreme than even the Democratic Party is willing to pander to:
Two weeks ago [Rahm Emanuel] sent a DCCC-connected candidate training a video of himself haranguing congressional candidates to "move right" on immigration or risk defeat at the hands of Republicans... While walking the picket line at the WGA strike at Fox today Jane and I came up with the idea of inviting Emanuel over to FDL to ask him why he thinks adopting Tom Tancredo's immigration ideas is a good idea and why he's unleashed Heath Shuler to do just that...
[1] firedoglake.com/2007/11/10/
blue-america-welcomes-josh-hoyt-lets-not-put-the-republicans-in-charge
Cynthia Tucker: Democrats should put immigration "reform" front and center
Cynthia Tucker has a laugh-a-line column called here "Democrats must take immigration reins and ride the high road". She plays the race card, saying among other things that the Republicans are "scapegoat[ing] foreigners", compares legalizing foreign citizens who are here illegally to the civil rights movement, and offers the stock false choice between a massive amnesty and mass deportations. And:
Still, here's some counterintuitive advice for the Democrats: Don't hedge. Lead. Do the right thing. Come out clearly and forcefully for putting illegal immigrants already in the country on a path to citizenship. This is no time to trim or triangulate. Show some spine. America is ready for reasoned leadership on this issue.
I have to agree: the Democratic Party should be even more explicit about their support for massive illegal activity. Of course, my thinking is the opposite of hers: that way it would be even easier to discredit them on this issue.
Then, if you haven't laughed at her enough she says:
But Americans also want to be assured that this is the last time a broad legalization option is offered to illegal immigrants. Democrats ought to make it clear that they'll enforce the borders and crack down on employers who hire illegally...
Based on the long history of both the GOP and the Democrats and their linked groups of supporting illegal activity, no claims that this would be the "last time" are in any way credible.
The major reason the Dems support illegal immigration is because they see the opportunity to pick up a lot of votes, and they're corrupt enough to encourage or enable illegal activity in order to get even more votes. Giving an amnesty would only reward the Democratic Party's corruption, and it would encourage more of it. Rather than fixing the Democratic Party's corruption, it would make it worse.
NY Sun: illegal alien day laborers leaving due to economic downturn
From our "FWIW" department comes this:
More than a dozen immigrant day laborers interviewed by the Sun say work has sputtered to a near halt in the past few months, and that making ends meet is becoming a more difficult task... Many of the immigrant day laborers came to the New York area to earn money and send it back to their native countries - transfers known as remittances. Now, many say they can no longer afford the transfers and some are reporting hunger and bouts of homelessness... Some immigrants interviewed by the Sun said they would return to their homeland as soon as they earned enough money for a one-way plane fare.
Michael Luo/NYT: Something stirring at Huckabee's (immigration mentioned!)
Michael Luo of the New York Times offers "From Back of G.O.P. Pack, Huckabee Is Stirring" (link):[horserace... process... horserace... stuffing... blather... padding...]He would be more easy to categorize politically if New York Times reporters would take advantage of the access they have to him to ask him tough questions about his positions, specifically his extremely weak positions on immigration. Perhaps Luo should have held off on writing this until he'd actually had the chance to ask Huck the questions it would take to clarify his positions.
He talks tough on securing the borders and refusing amnesty to illegal immigrants, but he championed a bill in Arkansas that would have made illegal immigrants eligible for in-state tuition and scholarships.
In short, he is difficult to categorize politically, even as he has sought to play up his conservative credentials for the primaries.
[horserace... process... horserace... stuffing... blather... padding...]
UPDATE: Luo claims he talked to The Huckster twice, and there are excerpts here. I left the following comment:
Huck didn't answer any real questions, he was just asked questions that allowed him to make a speech. I understand that reporters can't be familiar with everything, but at least try to keep up.
1. He says he opposes "amnesty", but that's just a word game. He supports something that millions of people in foreign countries will see as amnesty, and they'll try to come here. Point that out to him. If he says we'll have border security, point out that we don't have it now and point out all the forces - including those linked to Huck - that fight against such security.
2. Point out to him that giving ed. discounts to illegal aliens is an incentive for more illegal immigration and is thus bad public policy. He could just as well encourage those illegal aliens to go home and encourage their home countries to repatriate them. It's not like returning to their home countries is like they were being put in jail.
3. Also point out that there are only so many discounts, and giving discounts to illegal aliens takes them away from U.S. citizens.
His position is so weak that anyone who's familiar with these issues could drive him out of the race.
So, why isn't the NYT doing a public service (and its supposed job) by asking him real questions?
Robert Nix tries nixing Judge Correale Stevens' thoughts on immigration
From this:A state appeals judge has been accused of violating judicial conduct rules for advocating changes in immigration law.The person who filed the complaint is Robert Nix, identified by the Associated Press only as a "Philadelphia attorney". Readers will not be surprised to learn that there's much more: he's also chairman of the Pennsylvania Hispanic Republicans, he's on the board of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania, and he testified on the pro-illegal immigration side to the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
Superior Court Judge Correale Stevens "deliberately insinuated himself into the very middle of a high-profile, emotionally charged and highly divisive political debate on the issue of immigration reform," according to a complaint to the state Judicial Conduct Board...
...Stevens declined comment on the complaint Thursday, saying he had not been served with it, but defended the comments he made in September.
"What I spoke about is to encourage debate on the issue of illegal immigration as it affects the court system," he said...
Kevin Tracy deletes anti-Mike Huckabee comment (immigration)
I have no real idea who Kevin Tracy is, but the many widgets on his site lead me to suspect that he's a strong fan of Mike Huckabee (it's just a feeling I get). Yesterday he posted "Huckabee Immigration Facts" (ktracy.com/?p=587), which almost entirely consists of a Huck-supplied list of his current positions on the matter.
I left the following comment, and it appeared on the page without anything indicating that it was held for moderation. Now, for one strange reason or other, it's not on the page. Obviously, Tracy has the right to delete comments at this site, and no one cares what he does in any case, etc. Now, all The Huckster and his supporters have to do is extend that to every other site that discusses his record. (Comment linkified).
-------------
Bush, the NCLR, the AILA, the ACLU, and all their friends also "opposes and will never allow amnesty." They just want an "earned adjustment of status" (link).
As for the DREAM Act, he supported the state version of it.
As for the rest, come on. This guy is **even worse than Bush** on this issue. And, he even manages to be more sanctimonious than Bush.
Here's the 38-second introduction to just one of Huck's liabilities on this issue.
Note that everything in there is fully sourced, with links in the description and cites in the video itself.
I suggest switching him to independent and seeking the endorsement of the above-named groups on a platform of a Tyson's chicken in every pot.
-------------
Previously in this long series of bloggers not being able to face the Lonewacko heat:
Sister Toldjah edits, deletes comments
Washington Post: "How to Hire a Day Laborer" (Gary Jacobsen)
The Washington Post explicitly supports illegal immigration, so it shouldn't come as much of a surprise that on October 7 they printed a short article called "How to Hire a Day Laborer" by Gary Jacobsen, who's also a columnist for the Potomac News, a former Marine Corps colonel, and a former low-level college professor (mysite.verizon.net/resqxf3p). Chris Core from Washington DC radio station WMAL proceeded to discuss the column on the air, apparently accusing Jacobsen of hiring illegal aliens. Now, Jacobsen is suing for defamation:On the show, Core said that, in his column, Jacobsen "admitted to breaking the law concerning the hiring of illegal immigrants," Jacobsen said...He's right about that. On the other hand, the location where he picked them up is apparently a famous day laborer hangout (the 7-Eleven at Prince William Parkway and U.S. Route 1), and they seem to have conducted their entire conversation in Spanish. Now, certainly they could be Spanish-monolingual people who are here legally, and they could be among the 25% or so of day laborers who are not illegal aliens. But, someone who's familiar with his "work" says:
"I never said 'illegal aliens;' I said 'day laborers.' A day laborer could be a college kid trying to earn extra money," Jacobsen said...
However, Gary rarely refers to "illegal" when discussing illegal immigrants. He accuses his opponents of being "anti-immigrant," or "anti-Hispanic." Last week he claimed the Board voted to "withhold services from immigrants," rather than "illegal immigrants." Last month he said calling illegal immigrants criminals was false.The last also points out that what he obtained was a false bargain, for instance if his workers had been injured or had botched the job. A contractor in the comments on the WaPo story makes a similar point, ending with this only slightly over the top comment:
Too bad for Mr. Jacobsen slavery was abolished; he might have only been out the paint and the lunch.We probably are never going to find out whether those he hired are here illegally (and he might not have been required to ask them or file other paperwork), but one thing is clear: the Washington Post is trying to mainstream acceptance of wide-spread illegal activity and trying to encourage short-sighted folks like Jacobson to profit from it.
Related:
Judi Hasson/MSNBC: how to hire (most likely illegal) day labor
Is Kos right? Can the Democrats continue to support massive illegal activity and not pay for it at the ballot box?
Leader Kos offers "Yup, immigration not the GOP's savior", saying "the demonization of scary brown people -- has been a flop" and linking to this WaPo article. While I didn't read the latter, the Washington Post explicity supports illegal immigration, so there's a very good chance they put their own special spin on things.
However, it's obvious that Kos is wrong because there's no good argument for massive illegal activity. In fact, about the only "argument" those who support illegality can muster is that which Kos uses in his post: playing the race card. If the Dems were unable to play that card, their corrupt schemes would be evident and they wouldn't be able to push them. And, some in the GOP play that card as well.
Obviously, it's a very strong card and many people are cowed by it. And, some make things worse by giving legitimacy to childish "arguments" like Kos' by reflexively claiming they aren't racists (see the bit about LBJ here). The way to deal with it is to acknowledge that some opposition to illegal immigration may be racist, but to claim that opposition is per se racist is a logical fallacy. Kos is being illogical.
And, we can point out that by hiding behind the race card, Kos is in effect supporting everything that illegal immigration involves and entails, ranging from being an indicator of massive government corruption to giving foreign governments more political power inside to the U.S. all the way to border deaths. By enabling illegal immigration, Kos is helping - in his own small way - encourage more people to try to cross the desert, with some of them dying along the way.
And, what Kos fails to note (and probably doesn't realize) is that those who support illegal activity have been able to succeed in large part because they've been able to fix the debate. If the mainstream media were doing their jobs, they would have asked the presidential candidates about the huge glaring gaps in their immigration policies and would have revealed that almost all of the front-runners just can't think things through or are corrupt. That carries over to the presidential "debates"; some of those haven't featured any questions about immigration at all, and at the ones that did the questions were extremely lightweight.
And, what Kos doesn't mention is that the leadership of the GOP supports illegal immigration just as much as the leadership of the Democratic Party. In the past, that's caused them to work against members of their own party who oppose illegal immigration, even if it means losing a seat.
In summary, it's fairly easy for someone who's familiar with these issues and who's familiar with scoring points against an opponent and who isn't afraid to do that to discredit those who support illegal immigration and force them to lose support. However, the GOP leadership isn't about to push for that, and the corrupt mainstream media isn't going to do it either. That means that we need to do it by going to campaign appearances, asking tough questions about this issue, and then uploading the response.
The Democrats - and many Republicans - are extremely vulnerable on this issue. We just need to point it out to enough people.
Hillary Clinton opposes mass deportations, promotes illegal immigration (AP malfeasance)
I've been unable to find out which Associated Press "reporter" wrote this:
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that illegal immigrants are "everywhere in America" and that comprehensive immigration reform - not mass deportation - is the solution to the problem.
If the "reporter" had been doing their job, they would have pointed out to Hillary that no national figure is calling for mass deportations, and she's engaging in a strawman argument.
Clinton said the issue is a complicated one that has become distorted by politicians seeking electoral gains. "They are decent people," she said of illegal immigrants. "They're everywhere in America."
And they might vote! Oh, wait, she didn't say that, even if she might have been thinking it. While it's acceptable to say that most or almost all illegal aliens are "decent people", it's not acceptable to say that all are as she did. Unless we're talking about saints, every group of people has both good and bad members. And, unless she's going to follow statements like that with a statement like, "most of them are good people, but we have to support our laws and encourage them to return home", she's promoting giving them amnesty and is thus selling illegal immigration.
If you know someone in Iowa, please urge them to go to her appearances, ask her tough questions designed to reduce her credibility, and then upload the response to Youtube.
Sharon Pandak, Washington Post, illegal immigration losing in Prince William County, Virginia
With about 17% of the votes counted, Corey Stewart is ahead of Sharon Pandak for chairman of the Prince William County board of supervisors in Virginia (pwcgov.org/voterweb/UnofficialResuts.pdf). Things could change, but at this moment it looks like a win for Stewart.
Pandak, a Democrat, was the choice of the WaPo because they appreciated her "pragmatic" approach to illegal immigration. Stewart pushed through a resolution trying to reduce it; Pandak's approach would have allowed it to continue. Other parties who are no doubt upset with this news are Eric Byler and the other racial demagogues from 9500 Liberty.
UPDATE: The WaPo lost. Other elections were mixed, with illegal immigration supporters winning some, losing others.
Dianne Feinstein drops AgJobs amnesty, doesn't have the votes
According to this, Sen. Dianne Feinstein yesterday decided that she didn't have the votes to add the AgJobs farmworker amnesty to the Farm Bill:
"When we took a clear-eyed assessment of the politics of the farm bill and the defeat of the DREAM Act and comprehensive immigration reform, it became clear that our support could not sustain these competing forces... [because of this] we will continue to see labor shortages far into the future. Fruit will rot. Crops will go unharvested. Operations will be forced to cut back or move to Mexico."
Oh well. Perhaps that's for the best. Alternatively, she could push for farm mechanization rather than trying to import serf labor. The article also quotes Craig Regelbrugge, co-chair of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform, saying that he's been "working with Feinstein on the Ag Jobs effort". He says that in 1999 we became a net food importer.
Amnesty supporters take heart:
But Feinstein said she isn't giving up. She will ask Majority Leader Harry Reid to schedule floor time for Ag Jobs either later this year or early in 2008... When the comprehensive immigration bill failed in June, Reid promised Feinstein he'd allow Ag Jobs to come up for a vote on its own.
Andres Oppenheimer threatens "Latino intifada" without massive illegal alien amnesty
Andres Oppenheimer of the Miami Herald threatens the United States and gives the strongest argument yet made for never giving amnesty and for working to completely stop further illegal immigration in what's called here "Pressure on immigrants could erupt in anger":The rapid escalation of U.S. anti-immigration hysteria - fueled by ratings-hungry cable-television hotheads and leading Republican presidential hopefuls - is a dangerous trend: It may lead to a Latino intifada with the potential to rock this nation in the not-so-distant future.In effect, Oppenheimer is saying that we've been invaded and settled, and we must capitulate to avoid bloodshed. If we do capitulate, that will only lead to more and greater capitulations in the future. The only way out of this situation that preserves the structure of the U.S. is to back away slowly by gradually deporting illegal aliens, encouraging those here now to leave, and discouraging any more illegal immigration.
Remember the Palestinian intifada of the early 1990s, when thousands of frustrated young Palestinians took to the streets and threw stones at Israeli troops? Remember the French intifada of the summer of 2005, in which disenfranchised Muslim youths burned cars and stores in the suburbs of Paris?
If we are not careful, we may see something similar coming from the estimated 13 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, most of them Latino, who are increasingly vilified in the media, forced further into the underground by spineless politicians and not given any chance to legalize their status by a pusillanimous U.S. Congress.
We are creating an underclass of people who won't leave this country and, realistically, can't be deported. They and their children are living with no prospect of earning a legal status, no matter how hard they work for it. Many of them will become increasingly frustrated, angry, and some of them eventually may turn violent...
Related: John McCain: no amnesty for illegal aliens could lead to France-style riots
Holly Ramer, AP "reporter", helps John McCain spout massive immigration propaganda
Lawsuit claims Tyson Foods conspired with LULAC to hire illegal aliens
From this:The plaintiffs in a lawsuit accusing Tyson Foods Inc. of hiring illegal aliens to work at poultry plants are focusing on the meat producer's relationship with the League of Latin American Citizens. [Note: the two are also linked with Mike Huckabee]Of course, both Tyson Foods and LULAC deny the claims, but let's hope for the best.
The class-action suit in U. S. District Court in Eastern Tennessee [Trollinger v. Tyson] claims Springdale-based Tyson Foods knowingly hired illegal aliens to work for wages below what American workers would take. It was filed in April 2002 on behalf of former Tyson workers in several states, not including Arkansas.
..."We believe Tyson has used its relationship with LULAC to help carry out a 'willful blindness' policy of hiring illegal workers," said the plaintiffs' attorney, Howard W. Foster of Chicago. "Tyson is very close with LULAC, especially in Springdale, and we're alleging that the groups have agreed not to investigate workers who are suspected illegal aliens."
Related:
Arkansas Friendship Coalition: ACLU, Tyson Foods, ACORN join to support "immigration"
2/14/08 UPDATE: A suit against Tyson has been tossed; it may be the same or a different one.
James Pinkerton, Mark Potok, Doris Meissner oppose citizen action against illegal immigration
James Pinkerton of the Houston Chronicle offers "Taking border battle to the streets" about a local group (U.S. Border Watch) that protests in front of day laborer sites. While it's not as bad as other similar articles, he takes his lead from LBJ: he doesn't call them racists, he just makes them deny it. [see the update]Far from the halls of Congress and the front lines of the Southwest border, the divisive immigration debate is being played out in local neighborhoods, including the Houston area. A number of groups have upped the ante by moving from debate to confrontation, attempting to take immigration duties into their own hands.The latter is somewhat of a questionable statement: if they were unlawfully trying to enforce the laws they probably still wouldn't be doing what they're doing.
Then, it's time to roll in Mark Potok from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government. His group "monitors such organizations."
[The head of USBW]... repeats claims that 25 Americans citizens are killed each day by undocumented immigrants. Islamic terrorists are slipping across the Southwest border, he says, camouflaged as illegal immigrants.First, the 25 per day claim would have illegal aliens committing more than half of all murders, so that's obviously too high. Rep. Steve King says it's 12 per day, however an article I put more faith in says it's somewhere between about 4 and 6 (humanevents.com/article.php?id=10663). See also this. As for the Mideast schools, I haven't heard anything about that, but I certainly have heard about terrorists - or at least those from "Special Interest" countries learning Spanish in order to masquerade as Latin Americans. And, there are several reports about those from such countries - including at least two Hezbollah members - coming across our borders in this category. And, both Democratic and Republican House members have warned about terrorists infiltrating over the borders, including disguised as Mexicans and others from Latin America.
''There have been reports of Spanish-speaking schools popping up in the Middle East and teaching people in that part of the world to speak Spanish so they can blend in easily," Collier said.
Potok, with the poverty center, said those claims are common to this new breed of anti-illegal immigration activists. ''These are the paranoid fantasies of people with difficulty handling reality," he said.
Adding everything together, I'd have to say that the head of USBW - despite his incorrect figures - is more credible than Potok. Perhaps if Pinkerton wanted to do a better report he would have called both of them on their statements.
Then, we're treated to this:
Doris Meissner, who headed the Immigration and Naturalization Service during the Clinton era [and is now with the Migration Policy Institute when not attending secret NAU meetings], said groups such as Border Watch have proliferated due to frustration over the government's inability to control illegal immigration. And while Meissner characterized the groups as ''spot outbreaks," she considers them a threat.I'm not going to suggest reflexively considering what she considers to be a threat to be a blessing, but given her extremely poor history that's something to consider. See "Meissner's Gift to Criminal Aliens" (humanevents.com/article.php?id=323) and "Thwarting Homeland Security" (humanevents.com/article.php?id=238).
Then, Pinkerton tries to portray citizens doing their duty as a bad thing:
[After local religious leaders tried to start a day laborer hangout] Border Watch volunteers marched on the Chamber of Commerce, and scores of members dominated a September meeting on the proposed center.Oh, the horror of U.S. citizens - rather than citizens of other countries - protesting.
"All we wanted to do was get a place for day laborers to be safe, to get out of the sun and rain, to get a drink and go to the bathroom," [pastor Franklin Moore] said.Aww. Of course, he doesn't mention that most day laborers are illegal aliens, and the church is facilitating illegal activity.
Then, Pinkerton quotes one of the opponents; at least he mentions that he's worked with the "International Socialist Organization and the Progressive Workers Organizing Committee, among others".
MINOR UPDATE: According to this, what I refered to above about LBJ was actually an anti-LBJ satire from Paul Krassner.
Janet Murguia/NCLR misleads to support illegal immigration (Kansas City, Minuteman issue)
The National Council of La Raza ("The Race") is an extremist-funding group that in turn is funded by large corporations [1] that profit from illegal activity. Senator Chris Dodd even wants to give them millions of dollars.
They recently pulled their 2009 convention out of Kansas City, MO because a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps was appointed to that city's Parks Board. Local Hispanic leaders even went as far as trying to deliver a letter to that board member's house in what appears to be an attempt to intimidate her.
Now, their president, Janet Murguia, offers "La Raza left because it objects to extremism". She objects to the "extremism" of the MCDC and pretends it isn't about policy. Since her group continually supports illegal immigration, and the MCDC opposes it, that's highly questionable.
Here's the only thing she has to say about everything that's been involved in this issue, including the letter:
While I can't address every issue raised since the controversy erupted, the views and passion expressed - on both sides of the issue - deserve a response.
Obviously, someone else would address a possible act of intimidation, but I guess that's more than we should expect from her.
Then, she brings up a quote from MCDC leader Chris Simcox; I don't know the context, but it appears to have been originally reported by Gustavo Arellano, someone who has a clear agenda and, even if he got the quote accurate, doesn't provide any context [2].
Then, she discusses an original member of the Minuteman Project who was sending messages to a Nazi group... "privately". It should be obvious to anyone that none of the Minutemen groups want such connections, and I'm not going to even bother to verify that after her extra-curricular activities were discovered she was tossed from the group.
Then, she delves into the ADL's "Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream." The problems with part of that report are discussed at the link, and she helps point out yet another problem:
The founder of the Dustin Inman Society, D.A. King, said in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution that immigrants are "not here to mow your lawn — they're here to blow up your buildings and kill your children, and you, and me."
Bolding added. And, in fact, that's similar to what's in the ADL's report [3]:
Speaking at a Newton County (Georgia) Republican Party meeting in April 2007, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, King reportedly told attendees that undocumented immigrants are "not here to mow your lawn – they're here to blow up your buildings and kill your children, and you, and me."
Now, here's the kicker (which everyone knew was coming). The Southeast Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League, Bill Nigut, says [4]:
In a speech to a handful of Georgia Republicans in Covington earlier this year, King cleverly intertwined our legitimate fears of the threat from Islamic terrorists with a rant against undocumented Mexicans. At one point, according to a report in the Rockdale Citizen newspaper, he displayed a mock-up of a Mexican photo ID card, filled in with the name supplied by King: "Al Qaida Gonzalez." ...When he told the gathering that "They're not here to mow your lawn - they're here to blow up your buildings and kill your children, and you and me," King says he was speaking of the Islamic threat. But since Muslim yard services tend to be few and far between, his intentional mixing of images seems clear: He is out to create fear about all illegal immigrants, be they Islamic terrorists or Mexican gardeners.
So, now we see that King wasn't refering to "immigrants" (Murguia's word) or "undocumented immigrants" (the ADL's report's words), but to Islamist infiltrators. In other words, Murguia and the ADL report are highly misleading, and that was obviously intentional. (Further, the only "reporting" from the AJC that I could find is in a blog post, but I didn't check their archives.) At the last link, King says he was refering to this government report (PDF). (The Rockdale Citizen doesn't appear to have online archives: rockdalecitizen.com)
Obviously, both Janet Murguia and the ADL aren't just sloppy, what they say can't be trusted.
[1] discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=153
[2] ocweekly.com/news/news/see-tombstone-nab-a-mexican/21117/
[3] adl.org/civil_rights/anti_immigrant/da_king.asp
[4] mdjonline.com/content/index/showcontentitem/area/1/section/17/item/97577.html
Greg Siskind compares illegal alien harborers to Dutch in WWII, underground railroad
Greg Siskind [1] is a leading immigration lawyer (and AILA member). For someone who appears to be bright he writes some awfully stupid blog posts, such as the latest called "Hero or Harborer?" [2]:
[...discusses a Dutch woman who sheltered Jews during World War II as well as the Underground Railroad...] So what does this have to do with immigration? Because a lot of anti-immigrants are totally focused on the fact that unauthorized immigrants have broken the law and are also going after anyone who tries to help them. In the last Congress, the House of Representatives passed legislation that would have imprisoned people acting in a humanitarian capacity. Feeding or giving water to someone who has just walked through the desert - jail. Giving them a ride to the hospital? That would be unlawful transportation. Providing housing to a homeless unauthorized immigrant - that's illegal harboring. You get the picture.
Obviously, comparing those who are at the most economic refugees and who've paid smugglers to bring themselves here - or who've ignored the terms of their visas to stay here - to slaves and Jews during WWII should be beyond the pale. Just as obviously, for Siskind it isn't.
I'd also like to assume that he knows the details of HR4437 better than I do, however:
DNC radio ad lies about HR4437
Cardinal Roger Mahony admits to exaggerating about HR4437
Sensenbrenner to Catholic Bishops: please stop lying
CNN immigration poll misleads about HR4437
The Catholic Church's anti-HR4437 smokescreen (no soup kitchens here)
Soup Kitchen Watch
Churchmen, coyotes, and HR 4437
Will HR 4437 cause humanitarian groups to be prosecuted for giving emergency aid to illegal aliens?
UPDATE: Siskind himself leaves a comment. First, the part he quotes seems highly similar to current law, although there are probably differences. Second, Cardinal Roger Mahony said that under HR 4437 he might require documentation before giving Communion. However, he also said that was only "if you tease it out to its extreme". Indeed. In fact, I'm absolutely positive that about the only cases in which those who gave emergency aid would be charged would be if they did something else (like gave someone a lift to Chicago afterwards) or if an official was looking for a sneaky way to scuttle the law by creating public outrage against its application (see Chertoff's comments implying he would enrage the left.) Third, Sensenbrenner told the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops that he would work with them to mitigate their concerns (of course, I'm assuming they were just being disingenuous). Fourth, there's the matter of always asking for more than you want in negotiations: the final bill would have almost certainly have looked different from the original version. Fifth, a recent case that comes close to the scare tactics employed by Mahoney was thrown out, and in that case they appeared to go beyond just offering someone a glass of water:
nomoredeaths.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=38&Itemid=31
And, finally, if the law were applied to innocent religious leaders who were only providing humanitarian aid, there would be so much public outcry that the law would be repealed. Concerns about this are completely baseless.
[1] visalaw.com/gsiskind.html
[2] blogs.ilw.com/gregsiskind/2007/11/hero-or-harbore.html
Sharon Pandak, illegal immigration supporter
Sharon Pandak (D) is running against Corey Stewart for chairman of the Board of County Supervisors in Prince William County, Virginia. Stewart is locally famous for pushing through a Prop. 200/187-style anti-illegal immigration ordinance, and the vote will be on Tuesday.
The Washington Post - an explicit supporter of illegal immigration - gives her their endorsement in "Detoxifying Prince William" (link):
...She would also deal more effectively with the valid concerns raised by the presence of illegal immigrants, particularly in the Route 1 corridor and around Manassas -- not by posturing but by being serious about enforcing zoning codes...
That implies to me that the WaPo knows that she'd keep the cheap labor and potential votes flowing, and that's confirmed in this interview from 9500 Liberty (youtube.com/watch?v=rEvo8g9Z8Gk). While she doesn't come out directly for illegal immigration - and in fact says she opposes it - reading between the lines shows where she really stands.
She wants to "deal effectively with the federal government to address these issues"; that's code for "punt it to the feds and then watch as they do nothing".
She says "illegal immigration will only be solved when our borders are secured and employers quit knowingly hiring illegal aliens". That's yet another punt to the feds, and she - and the residents of PWC - might be waiting a long time for those to happen.
Then, she claims that the costs of engaging in citizenship checks for services is greater than the costs for the services themselves to all Hispanics in that county, saying:
So, what have we achieved by doing that?
One obvious thing - obvious to the rest of us but not to her - is that that county isn't countenancing illegal activity and is discouraging the additional illegal activity that would follow if the current activity is ignored. And, that's assuming that her figures are correct. And, of course, there are non-financial benefits from making sure that the law is followed, such as reducing political corruption and discouraging private corruption.
Please send her - and the Washington Post - down to defeat.
Nick Miroff promotes 9500Liberty pro-illegal immigration documentary (Eric Byler)
A documentary about the immigration situation in Northern Virginia from independent filmmakers Eric Byler, Annabel Park, and Jeff Man is currently being serialized on the web: youtube.com/9500Liberty. Nick Miroff of the Washington Post promotes it in "Raw Look at Immigration Crucible". Both he and a member of the local Minuteman Civil Defense Corps say they're balanced. However, a glance at the videos casts a great deal of doubt on that, and Miroff admits that both Byler and Park volunteered for the James Webb campaign. In fact:
"Watching George Allen look into the camera and point and say you are not the real Virginia, the real Virginia is the people who are laughing with me at you, reminded me of this whole thing that was never resolved," Byler said.
What a creative retelling of events. Whatever the issue with Macaca, the "real" statement wasn't directed at the cameraman: it was meant to draw a contrast between where Allen was and where Webb was at that moment, namely in Hollywood. Since Byler can't get that right, don't expect the videos to be much better.
A sample video is at: youtube.com/watch?v=k_Dw1ioGPGY Someone who might be refered to as an old coot objects to people speaking Spanish and has other old cootish concerns. For this the commentors on the video call him a racist. The overall impact of this segment is to portray Hispanics as oppressed victims of people like him.
However, the issues on that segment go much deeper, and both the filmmakers and Miroff appear to be too steeped in leftwing ideology to recognize those issues. Here's his first paragraph, refering to this video:
In one video, a man furious about hearing Spanish at a hardware store berates a group of Latino families with a lecture on American history, telling them "my ancestors were here before the Constitution." A little girl shyly reminds him: "The Indians were here before the Americans."
And, someone else says that the Europeans came here illegally. What Miroff and Byler don't pick up on is that we're importing people who think they have a race-based claim on our land. And, they're expressing that claim and using it as justification for coming here contrary to our laws.
That theme is also included in a clip called "Hispanic Children Will One Day Rise" (youtube.com/watch?v=HyzMOcjITvI); that's a quote from a black high school teacher (Patrick Garland) who spoke at a meeting of the Prince William County board after which they passed a Proposition 200-style ordinance (link). He spoke against the ordinance, and, on the video, he also says that, because we're a nation of immigrants, we're "in no position to say that this is our country."
Obviously, if we can't say who can come here, then we've not only got open borders we have no control over our country and in fact we no longer have a country.
Bearing in mind that YT is pretty much at the AOL level when it comes to political debate, the comments left on the videos show the dangers inherent in allowing mass immigration by those who can pretend to have some race-based right to come here at will. A few examples from different people are in the extended entry.
UPDATE: They've re-edited the old coot's episode here: youtube.com/watch?v=29WTKbpYhag
With that, they've revealed their hand: their goal is engaging in base racial demagoguery, not fostering debate.
"America is the land of immigrants" who has the right to say "this is our country" the Native Americans are the one who should be able to say it, not Anglo-American.
coming from an half african and mexican male.i love my people and this land was ours and don't tell me my people had nothing to do with building this country.we built this country.
by-the-way. that old man has no more claim to live here than any of thoseb legal hispanics, his people came to America and persecuted my ancestors [the filmmakers posted a reply saying they wanted to interview that poster]
That old white guy needs to go to school. Every race here except for the Natives shouldn't be here. It was rightfully their land before the white people.
BTW I am not hispanic but I feel for them.some parts of Mexico was forcefully taken in violence hence California,Colorado,Texas now U.S.A..
you said it, this land is stolen... so, Mexicans are just recovering it
the fact that europeans have been illegal in this country since 1492 doesnt seem to cross anyone's mind
They think they own the land that they are on right now, and think it always belonged to them. When in all actuality it belonged\belongs to the Indians.
The Native Americans were in the country first until a pack of people from another country decide to take it over. Some Hispanics (primarily Mexicans) are mixed of European and Native American blood, so technically his "we were here first" argument is completely invalidated by that fact alone.
When each group(Irish, German, Italian) came to this stolen country they had their languages they spoke and if you were in a deli or store you heard it. We slaughtered the Native Americans and as far as this side of the world Natives of South America were here first. We shot and killed and stole land from them. I dare you to find me a spoiled white kid who is willing to leave their ipod or X box to work when their parents hand them everything.
If that american guy actually studied HIS history he would know that the americans as we know it today KILLED all the natives and claimed this land as theirs.
Ayuda Business Coalition selling Virginia on profiting from illegal immigration
Virginia is holding elections on Tuesday, and a group called Ayuda Business Coalition will be running local ads on CNN which will in effect attempt to sell Virginians into supporting illegal activity:The centerpiece is an ad that claims to show what happened when Riverside, N.J., passed a resolution penalizing employers who had hired illegal immigrants. Images of empty buildings and signs of shop liquidations and closures flash across the screen. The ad explains that Riverside rescinded its measure one year later.In other words: support illegal activity, and profit. Members mentioned include Mariano Claudio, their executive director Mauricio Vivero. Other members include the head of the Salvadoran American Chamber of Commerce and Carlos Castro, the owner of Todos Market. This may be the same group mentioned in Pamela Constable/WaPo on Latinos who lose money when laws enforced.
"The moral: Virginia, let's be careful what we wish for," a narrator warns.
As for Riverside, see Ken Belson/Jill Capuzzo/NYT: corruption, illegal activity are great! Since I have no first-hand knowledge I can't definitively say that the New York Times was overselling the impact of that town's ordinance, I just highly suspect it.
While there's probably little payoff, it might be helpful if someone in Virginia could forward the ad to someone else in Riverside to see whether they've taken any "creative license" with their choice of storefronts and the like.
National Council of La Raza hides behind children to oppose immigration enforcement (raids, trauma, identity theft)
The extremist-funding National Council of La Raza ("The Race") has worked with the Urban Institute (info) to release a report entitled "Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America's Children" [1]. Reading it is to be transported into another universe.
It makes the claim that immigration raids result in harm to the children of the detained persons, but that's not all: they downplay the crime of identity theft and they appear to want anyone who's a parent to not just be released, but to be released from custody as early in the day as possible. And, while I didn't read every page, it doesn't appear that they ever point out that the persons responsible for this situation are the parents themselves: if they hadn't come here illegally or had children while here they would not have put their children in this situation. They also don't appear to discuss that there are hundreds of thousands of persons in jails and prisons whose actions have resulted in similar situations. However, if you don't believe in our immigration laws, everything in the report makes sense.
The overall goal of this effort is to hide behind children in order to tie the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement with so much red tape that they're unable to do their job. If NCLR really cared about the welfare of children, they'd work to discourage illegal immigration rather than strenuously encouraging it as they do now.
As ICE spokesman Tim Counts says:
"This report takes the bizarre position that ICE is somehow responsible for family disruption caused by parents who make poor decisions... Everyone understands that parents are responsible for their actions and the resulting impact on their families."
The cover features a weeping child from the Michael Bianco raid; not mentioned is that almost everyone agrees that was a sweatshop. From Page 4:
After the arrest or disappearance of their parents, children experienced feelings of abandonment and showed symptoms of emotional trauma, psychological duress, and mental health problems. Many lacked stability in child care and supervision. Families continued hiding and feared arrest if they ventured outside, increasing social isolation over time. Immigrant communities faced the fear of future raids, backlash from nonimmigrants, and the stigma of being labeled "illegal." The combination of fear, isolation, and economic hardship induced mental health problems such as depression, separation anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal thoughts.
Is it any surprise that they'd put "illegal" in quotes? From their recommendations for Congress:
Congress should revise the rules concerning release, deportation, and banishment of noncitizens charged with nonviolent offenses such as identity theft, so that arrested parents can be reunited with their children in cases where children face hardship.
I'm sure those citizens who are charged with identity theft wish the NCLR was on their side.
From the section where they try to tie ICE's hands:
ICE should consider how the show of force and treatment of arrestees affect children psychologically – including older children who may witness enforcement activities – and plan operations accordingly.
And, perhaps the looniest idea:
ICE should develop a consistent policy for release of parents arrested in enforcement operations. Single parents and primary caregivers of young children should be released early enough in the day so that school children and children in child care do not experience disruptions in care; they should not be held overnight. Parents should be released quickly even when there are two parents in the home because the second parent often cannot function alone.
Other advice for various agencies and non-profits follows; they want to build up a network designed to deal with the aftermath of raids but which in effect would serve as a massive support group for illegal activity.
Once again: if the NCLR wants to prevent such situations, they can start by supporting our immigration laws and discouraging illegal immigration. The fact that they don't do that shows that what they really want is no immigration enforcement at all. Note that Senator Chris Dodd wants to give this group millions of dollars; contact him and let him know what you think.
[1] PDF available here: nclr.org/content/publications/detail/49166/ Press release here: nclr.org/content/news/detail/49170/
Arkansas Friendship Coalition: ACLU, Tyson Foods, ACORN join to support "immigration"
The Arkansas Friendship Coalition (arfriendshipcoalition.org) is a new group formed by business and religious leaders, and their goal is to ensure that Arkansas doesn't establish Prop. 200/187-style laws as Oklahoma and Missouri have or are trying to do.
They're led by Rev. Steve Copley, and their members include the local American Civil Liberties Union (other locals are indirectly linked to the Mexican government), ACORN (far-left group; three members recently pleaded guilty for fraudulent voting registration), a Tyson Foods senior vice president (Archie Schaffer), two people from the Clinton School of Public Service (Skip Rutherford and Penelope Sur), and the publisher of the Arkansas Times (Alan Leveritt).
Now, I know what you're thinking: this is yet another group designed to support illegal immigration and make sure that Arkansas' cheap labor industries have workers. Banish that thought! [1]
In answer to critics, the Arkansas Friendship Coalition stresses that it is not putting out a welcome mat for illegals. It just wants federal immigration law to be overhauled, before state governors like [Mike Beebe] take it into their own hands.
Despite the pro-"immigrant" sales job AFC does on their home page, they're all about following the federal laws, and not about encouraging illegal immigration. Not at all!
There's a full list of their members here, and it includes several religious leaders. If you're in the area, the most effective thing you can do about groups like this is to work to publicly discredit those leaders by asking them tough questions (not just rants) about their support of the group and their goals. Find out whether they're receiving any form of payment from that group as well; even if they aren't, when they speak out in favor of illegal immigration tear their statements apart and show their congregation that they haven't thought this through all the way or that they're simply corrupt.
[1] economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10064271
AgJobs amnesty: on Farm Bill next week?
Dianne Feinstein might try to attach the AgJobs amnesty (info) to the Farm Bill, which apparently will be voted on next week. The estimates are that 1.5 million workers and 1.8 million of their family members would be legalized under the bill, and in order to take part they'd have to apply for citizenship.
The California Strawberry Commission and others are pushing for it, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund sent out an alert yesterday. Please help counteract their efforts by contacting your Senators; even if its chances are questionable this will help remind them of where most Americans stand on amnesties.
Marie Cocco's thinking abilities on full display (Washington Post WG)
Marie Cocco writes for the Washington Post Writer's Group, i.e., syndicated articles that apparently even the WaPo is afraid to print. An example of the latter is offered in "The Willie Hortons of 2008" [1] about Hillary Clinton's support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens. After initial race-baiting, she shows us her knowledge of this issue and her thinking abilities:
What, exactly, would conservatives do with the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants who are now here? Would they round them up and deport them all? Who would execute the raids?
This is the standard false choice between amnesty and mass deportations; even the New York Times has admitted a third choice: attrition (even if they lie about it). And, with Fred Thompson coming out for attrition, one has to wonder whether she's been paying attention.
What would this mass deportation cost? One think tank estimate, based on deporting 10 million, puts the price as high as $230 billion. How would this expense be met? Does the candidate favor a special, anti-immigrant tax to be paid by law-abiding Americans? (Now that would prompt some intriguing responses.)
Of course, it goes without saying that "anti-immigrant" is a false term. And, the "think tank estimate" was a joke study from the Center for American Progress a group linked to not just the Clintons but indirectly linked to the Mexican government. And, it used an extremely flawed methodology to arrive at its estimated cost.
And what of the estimated 3.1 million children of illegal immigrants who have been born in the United States? They are American citizens, entitled to every protection enjoyed by those whose hot rhetoric so excites the airwaves. The options are for these children to leave and live in a country that is not theirs, or break up families so children may remain here. So much for the family values of the family values crowd.
As for "family values", what exactly were the parents of those children thinking when they decided to put their children into such a situation? Surely, even Cocco can see it's bad public policy to further encourage illegal aliens to put even more children into such a situation.
[1] postwritersgroup.com/archives/cocc071101.htm
The ADL's definition of "hate" and "anti-immigrant" can't be trusted. (ALIPAC, others)
The Anti-Defamation League - which apparently at one time did some good, but which is now a far-left Gramscian enforcer and defender of illegal activity - has released a new report entitled "Immigrants Targeted: Extremist Rhetoric Moves into the Mainstream" [1]:
A closer look at the public record reveals that many ostensibly mainstream anti-illegal immigration organizations – including those who testified before Congress or frequently appeared on news programs – promote virulent anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant rhetoric. Some groups have fostered links with extremist groups.
They list several groups, but as will be shown, their definition of "hate" just can't be trusted. For example, consider this claim:
[Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee/ALIPAC president William Gheen] [2] also inflames anti-immigrant sentiment by falsely asserting that foreigners bring disease into the nation. During a June 2007 radio interview, he said, "We've got bedbugs back in all, almost all of our 58 [sic] states. We've got TB on the rise, we've got hepatitis, we've got HIV, we've got diseases like Chagas disease, which is a horrifying disease, but also, much like TB, is very, very difficult to treat at all, and it's coming in because of the, the lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and, and the end result is Americans are suffering, Americans are dying."
The ADL's claim that foreigners don't bring diseases into the U.S. is obviously false. And, let's turn to this May 23, 1989 article:
The rising wave of immigration from Central and South America increases the likelihood that Chagas' disease may become more common in the United States, experts said, unless blood banks routinely reject donors born in Central or South America or test their blood.
The source? Why none other than the scare mongerers at the New York Times (link). Finding other sources discussing those various diseases and immigration is left as an exercise. And, of course, immigrants at Ellis Island were checked for diseases, and there are laws on the books regulating immigrants and visitors who have various types of diseases.
Now, it's about to get ironic. Returning to the ADL:
At an August 2007 rally in North Carolina, Gheen stated, "Illegal aliens in this country have set up ethnic cleansing zones, ethnic cleansing zones where if you walk past the wrong sign post, the invisible line, you’re under the threat of death."
Then, let's look at this January 20, 2007 article:
Prudhomme was murdered because he identified himself as black (he was in fact mixed-race) in a neighborhood occupied by one of the many Latino street gangs in Los Angeles County. Incredibly, even though these gangs are fundamentally criminal enterprises interested mainly in money, gang experts inside and outside the government say that they are now engaged in a campaign of "ethnic cleansing" -- racial terror that is directed solely at African Americans.
The source? Brentin Mock, from the Intelligence Report of the Southern Poverty Law Center [3] [4].
(The SPLC is, of course, another group that likes to throw the "hate" charge around; perhaps the ADL could call the SPLC a hate group, and the SPLC could respond by calling the ADL a hate group, and then the could both lock arms in battle and fall into the abyss.)
Even the Los Angeles Times has noted something similar (link):
Authorities said the gang specifically tried to eliminate rival African American gangs in South L.A. and the Florence-Firestone area in an effort to "cleanse" the neighborhood. In doing so, they mistakenly harassed and attacked innocent African American residents, according to the indictment.
As has the Guardian (link):
It is a city of violence as a new race war escalates between new Hispanic gangs and older black groups, each trying to ethnically cleanse the other.
If you see any reporters quoting the ADL on this issue, please send them this link.
11/06/07 UPDATE: Janet Murguia helps us discover yet another misleading statement from the ADL; see that link.
And, from the Los Angeles Times' "Latin American scourge turning up in U.S. immigrants/In L.A., nation's first clinic opens to treat deadly insect-borne Chagas disease" (link):
A Los Angeles County hospital has opened the first clinic in the country devoted to studying and treating Chagas disease, a deadly parasitic illness that has long been the leading cause of heart failure in Latin America and is now being seen in immigrant communities in the United States... ...By the end of October, 253 people in 30 states had tested positive for the antibody, according to data compiled by the American Association of Blood Banks. The prevalence nationwide is estimated to be about 1 in 30,000 donors, and about 1 in 7,000 in Los Angeles, said Dr. Susan Stramer, executive scientific officer for the American Red Cross... ...Most donors who tested positive since screening began this year emigrated from high-risk areas, sometimes years ago, or were the children of such immigrants, said the Red Cross' Stramer in an e-mail. But in nine cases still under investigation, Stramer said, infection may have been transmitted by insects in the United States...
[1] adl.org/PresRele/CvlRt_32/5154_32.htm
[2] I'm not a member because I'm not a joiner. I also don't think their occasional highlighting of illegal aliens and crime is the right way to fight the issue. However, I don't think they deserve the treatment the ADL gives them.
[3] alternet.org/story/46855/
[4] splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=722 (same article as [2])
Mike Huckabee defends Mexico consulate deal (businesses agreed to pay Mexico's bills; law violated?)
Mike Huckabee is the new establishment favorite GOP presidential contender, and one reason is probably because he'd keep the cheap labor flowing. In fact, he encouraged Mexico to build a consulate in his state with the obvious intent of providing a workforce for Arkansas' low-wage employers. Jerome Corsi asked him to defend his actions:A lingering controversy over the role former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee played in establishing a Mexican consulate office in Little Rock financed by taxpayers and local businesses continues to follow the Republican presidential candidate's campaign, even as he enjoys a surge in polls.Others mentioned include his then-economic development adviser Robert Trevino, who was also an official with the League of United Latin American Citizens. Trevino later was appointed commissioner of Arkansas Rehabilitation Services; they leased space to Mexico in a state office building at $1 per year.
Critics in Arkansas contend Huckabee worked with some of the state's most prominent and politically powerful businesses to draw illegal immigrants to the state to accept low-paying jobs.
Huckabee strongly denied the charges in a telephone interview with WND yesterday...
And:
A July 21, 2006, memo from Trevino's office also documents that a consortium of Arkansas corporations had agreed to "support the consular presence" during the first three years, including what appears to be the costs of building for Mexico a permanent consular facility in Little Rock.Much more at the link. And, I urge everyone to go to the Huckster's campaign appearances and ask him this question:
UPDATE: "Legality of Huckabee's Mexican consulate deal questioned" has more, including the possibility that the scheme might have violated the law:
Ark. Code Ann. Section 22-2-114(C)(i) provides: "After July 1, 1975, no state agency shall enter into or renew or otherwise negotiate a lease between itself as lessor or lessee and a nongovernmental or other government lessor or lessee."And:
"Even more offensive, there was nothing in the lease or other agreements that would have prevented the Mexican consulate from providing legal assistance to illegal aliens," [Arkansas attorney Chip Sexton] told WND. "We have information that the Mexican consulate operating out of the Arkansas Rehabilitation Facility was providing legal assistance even to Mexican illegal aliens who were accused of committing violent crimes in Arkansas."
Richard Marosi/Ari Bloomekatz/LAT enable illegal immigration (San Diego fires)
As a cost-saving move, let me suggest that the Los Angeles Times outsources their coverage to the Western Growers Association, the Mexican government, or the Democratic Party. That way, "reporters" Richard Marosi and Ari Bloomekatz can achieve their true calling of selling used tires, and there'd be little difference between the outsourced version and that which they provide in "Evacuations raise deportation fears" about illegal aliens and the San Diego wild fires (link).
In fact, their article is remarkably similar to the other instances of this new subgenre, such as that from Leslie Berestein of the SDUT or Amy Isackson of NPR/KPBS. They rely on two quote sources already seen in those previous articles (Remy Bermudez and Enrique Morones) and about the only difference is that they've managed to be even more "liberal" (i.e., in effect supporting serf labor):
Disasters can magnify the marginalized status of people here illegally... Immigrant rights groups and the American Civil Liberties Union, however, claim that authorities have created a climate of intimidation through neglect and such policies as asking for identification at some shelters... ...The mere presence of Border Patrol was enough to scare off some immigrants... ...The ACLU and immigrant rights groups claim illegal immigrants were subjected to racial profiling at Qualcomm and were abused by some volunteers who questioned their legal status...
They don't mention that asking for ID is designed to help prevent fraud; even the AP has noted that. Real reporting would involve asking the ACLU exactly how they intend to prevent fraud (and perhaps whether they really believe in "to each according to his needs" or whether they want more).
[San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders], [spokesman Fred Sainz] said, has always looked out for the needs of the migrant community and has tried to protect them from encounters with Minutemen and other groups that oppose illegal immigration... "The mayor has bent over backward to protect the migrant population," said Sainz.
Not being familiar with that mayor, I don't know whether that's because he's a "liberal" or because he's actually bending over backwards to protect their crooked employers, or both.
The article ends with a plea to be more "sensitive" to the feelings of those who aren't supposed to be here in the first place; the use of the term "immigrant" is meant to mislead:
Critics say local and federal officials should be more sensitive to how immigrants might perceive things. A checkpoint that might seem inconvenient but understandable to a citizen could represent potential deportation to an immigrant, they say.
ACLU, Leslie Berestein, Amy Isackson defending looters because they're illegal aliens
On Wednesday, an alleged group of looters were arrested at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego; it was claimed that they were collecting supplies meant for the victims of the recent wild fires in order to resell them. Apparently one or more admitted they were stealing, and one person said it was for resale. Some were illegal aliens; when that was suspected the San Diego Police called the Border Patrol who then deported a few of them. A few others have been released.
The exact details, and everyone who was involved, isn't clear at this time (and probably never will be). However, one thing is crystal clear: Amy Isackson of NPR/KPBS, Leslie Berestein of the San Diego Union-Tribune, and the ACLU will reflexively support illegal aliens and try to prevent them from being deported. And, they'll ignore the fact that they've been charged with stealing supplies from fire victims.
First, here's Berestein with "Border Patrol presence at stadium causes anxiety" (link):
The apprehension and removal to Mexico of two couples, one with three children, after they were accused of looting at Qualcomm Stadium Wednesday has created unease among some of the Latino evacuees staying there... Andrea Guerrero, field and policy director for the American Civil Liberties Union in San Diego, said about 25 families who were staying at the stadium left after the incident because they were undocumented, or of mixed legal status... Guerrero said the police department should not have called Border Patrol agents, some of whom are stationed at the stadium assisting other law enforcement officers, unless formal criminal charges were filed. [SDPD spokeswoman Monica Munoz], however, said the department did not violate protocol and that the accused individuals admitted to stealing. [...one of the deported illegal aliens says she wasn't stealing...]
And, here's the similar "Arrest of Six Illegal Immigrants at Qualcomm Raises Concerns" from Isackson (link):
The arrest of six illegal immigrants at the Qualcomm Stadium evacuation site yesterday raises questions regarding how San Diego Police handle immigration issues. Civil rights activists are concerned police may be violating their own policy with respect to the Border Patrol... Kevin Keenan is Executive Director of the ACLU. He says he hopes police can resolve the discrepancy [vis-a-vis a sanctuary-style policy]...
For a point of reference, here's Gillian Flaccus of the Associated Press with "Thieves and scam artists try to take advantage of SoCal fires" (link):
At the stadium, volunteer Karen Huff said she and other volunteers alerted police earlier this week when they spotted a half-dozen people loading two pickup trucks with relief items. Police confronted the thieves and recovered the goods... "Thousands of dollars worth of stuff was being taken from these victims," Huff said. "It's the worst type of crime you can commit, when you take advantage of a situation like this." ...The Border Patrol detained eight people Wednesday who were suspected of stealing cots, blankets and dry goods, said San Diego police Capt. Bob Kanaski. Police officers questioned 15 people who were suspected of filling up two trucks and a sedan with stolen property and brought in the Border Patrol after surmising that some were illegal immigrants. The other seven were released... ...Authorities said some charlatans were coming to the disbursement center up to four or five times a day to stock up on supplies.
When even the AP is less biased, you've got a problem.
Illegal aliens steal evacuee supplies; NPR's Amy Isackson promotes serf labor
Six illegal aliens were allegedly caught stealing supplies in San Diege meant for wild fire evacuees. They brought trucks and came back for more, and one of their group said they were paid to do so. While there might be a somewhat understandable explanation, such as they were taking them to an ad hoc shelter somewhere else, I suspect that if there were such an explanation we would have heard it. If there isn't such an explanation, it shouldn't be surprising that some of those who've shown no respect for our immigration laws would show no respect for fire victims.
Meanwhile, Amy Isackson of NPR puts the pseudo-humanitarian, crypto-corporatist spin on a related issue in "Fires Highlight Safety Needs of Migrant Workers":
Jesus Gomez from Oaxaca was at his job at a nursery in San Diego's North County when the Witch fire roared in from the east. His crew kept working while wind whipped smoke and ash in their eyes... "They gave us masks, but still, our eyes were filling with dirt and ashes. So, we keep working, but then the police came in," Gomez says... He says his boss told him to stop working only after law enforcement gave the mandatory evacuation order... ...The Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement are lending 200 officers to law enforcement efforts during the fire... Just their presence in the streets ignites people's fear...
If all or most were legal workers or not enrolled in a "guest" worker program, situations like that would not occur. Instead of looking into that, the overall impact of the NPR report is to enable such working conditions. If Isackson wanted to prevent such working conditions, she'd support the Border Patrol rather than try to portray them as an invading army.
Also quoted: "immigrants rights activist Enrique Morones", someone who's a member of the Democratic Party of San Diego; a Mexican official joined him on a ride in support of illegal immigration.
Joe Klein of Time Magazine explicitly supports illegal immigration
It'd be great if every pundit was so forthright about their support for massive illegal activity. Here's Joe Klein of Time Magazine coming out explicitly in favor of illegal immigration [1]:It's long been my belief that the GOP hole card in 2008 is going to be a rancid furriner-bashing anti-illegal-immigrant smear campaign. Make no mistake, whatever lipstick they put on this pig, the bottom line is the same old know-nothing nativism that has been a minor American stain since the Protestants began to get worried about the Irish Catholic surge in the 1840s (among some of our earliest settlers, the only acceptable immigrants were slaves).I left the following comment:
I tend to be an extremist on this issue. I am wildly in favor of immigration, legal and illegal. I realize that national security--i.e. terrorism--requires that we secure the borders, and that's a good thing, if almost impossible. But as a New Yorker, I'm deeply grateful to the immigrants, many of them illegal, who saved the city by bringing commerce (and sales tax revenues) to some of the toughest neighborhoods in the 1970s and 1980s...
"furriner"? What other regional dialects would Joe Klein feel free at mocking? Please, provide us with a list.[1] time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/the_gop_in_2008_1.html
It's good to hear Klein explicitly coming out in support of massive illegal activity. By so doing, he's also a supporter of all it entails and implies: massive government corruption, identity theft, political power inside the U.S. for foreign governments, and so on.
And, of course, there are huge differences between then and now. For instance, 58% of Mexicans think the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico. That's not true of past groups. There are many other differences as well.
And, of course, Klein is engaging in a logical fallacy: just because some opponents of illegal activity might be racist doesn't mean that opposition to illegal activity is necessarily racist, as much as supporters of illegal activity like Klein would like it to be.
Should Time Magazine continue to employ someone who explicitly states his support for massive illegal activity? Write them and let them know what you think.
P.S. A partial list of recent Joe Klein lies is here [2].
[2] time-blog.com/swampland/2007/10/gop_debate_1.html (do a find for "recap")
Senate blocks DREAM Act
The DREAM Act was up for a cloture vote earlier today; the Democrats needed 60 votes to proceed, but they only came up with 52 versus 44 opposed.
UPDATE: The votes are here.
Those voting for it included current or former presidential contenders Joe Biden (D-DE), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Hillary Clinton (D-NY), and Barack Obama (D-IL).
Republicans voting for it were: Bob Bennett (R-UT), Norm Coleman (R-MN), Susan Collins (R-ME), Larry Craig (R-ID), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Trent Lott (R-MS), Dick Lugar (R-IN), and Mel Martinez (R-FL).
Democrats voting against it were: Max Baucus (D-MT), Robert Byrd (D-WV), Kent Conrad (D-ND), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Claire McCaskill (D-MO), Mark Pryor (D-AR), and Jon Tester (D-MT).
Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) voted for it, but Boxer didn't vote.
Chris Dodd (D-CT), Teddy Kennedy (D-MA), and John McCain (R-AZ) also didn't vote.
Fred Thompson releases good-sounding immigration plan (attrition)
Fred Thompson - someone who I don't entirely trust and who in fact doesn't appear to be exactly energetic - has released an immigration plan that actually sounds acceptable (link). First he says he's against amnesty, but aren't they all. But, the surprising bit is that he appears to actually mean it:
Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty.
Whether he actually means that is another matter. At the least, he's put something more detailed than Mitt Romney out there, and unlike Rudy Giuliani he doesn't appear to favor an amnesty. It will be interesting to see whether the GOP and Dem candidates try to change their plans in some way or how they try to attack it.
WAS IT COORDINATED? UPDATE: Both the Democratic National Committee ("DNC", link) and Rudy Giuliani (link) have taken remarkably similar swipes at Thompson's plan. Neither discuss anything about the plan itself, only pointing out his spotty Senate record.
Morris Dees/SPLC: Lou Dobbs will one day be "depicted like George Wallace" (Don Walton)
Don Walton of Lincoln, Nebraska's Journal Star offers a gushing report of a stop by Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (link). We're informed that he's "increasingly focused now on Latino immigrant worker rights". Of course, what he really wants to do is give foreign citizens additional rights. His organization also has an indirect link to the Mexican government. After meaningless chatter he issued a far-left rationalization for illegal immigration, promoted profiting from an imported serf class, and then issued his smear:...Latino workers, as well as other immigrants, come to the United States primarily for jobs, Dees said, sometimes migrating here because failed U.S. policies adversely affected conditions in their own countries.The New York Times has already compared opponents of the Senate amnesty to Wallace, and I have little doubt that far-lefties like Dees would love to rewrite history so Dobbs is seen in the least favorable light possible. Our goal should be to get the truth out about Morris Dees and his organization.
If there was a 30-day work stoppage by every undocumented worker, he said, the effects on the U.S. economy could be staggering.
They are part of the fabric now.
"America is great because of its diversity and differences, not in spite of them," he said.
One day, Dees said, CNN's Lou Dobbs "will be depicted like George Wallace," the Alabama governor who preached segregation and fanned the flames of racial animosity and division...
DREAM Act could be voted on Tuesday 10/23/07, call your Senators
From this:
By invoking Senate Rule XIV on S. 2205 [link], Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has paved the way for prompt (and ill-advised) floor action on the measure, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin's (D-Ill.) new stand-alone DREAM Act amnesty bill. The procedural move, made late last week, means that the DREAM Act may be brought to the Senate floor as early as Tuesday (October 23) without ever having been considered in committee.
Co-sponsors are Dick Lugar and Chuck Hagel; a couple of the worse provisions have been removed, but it remains a massive amnesty with huge loopholes (described at the first link).
UPDATE: The vote on this is Wednesday, so please keep calling and tell others to do the same. More of the horrific features of the amnesty are listed here. Millions could be amnestied under the scheme.
Desperate New York Times immigration editorial plays race card; afraid attrition might work?
Like clockwork, the New York Times offers yet another immigration editorial and, of course, they're still wrong ("Ain’t That America", link). Per them, not enacting comprehensive immigration "reform" is yet another in the long line of "greatest historical shames" perpetrated by the U.S. The national mood is slipping into "hatred and fear" against those "documented or not, who speak Spanish and are working-class or poor":
The evidence can be seen in any state or town that has passed constitutionally dubious laws to deny undocumented immigrants the basics of living, like housing or the right to gather or to seek work. It's in hot lines for citizens to turn in neighbors. It's on talk radio and blogs. It's on the campaign trail, where candidates are pressed to disown moderate positions. And it can be heard nearly every night on CNN, in the nativist drumming of Lou Dobbs, for whom immigration is an obsessive cause.
As evidenced by their coverage, supporting illegal immigration and cheap labor is an "obsessive cause" for the NYT. As for those questions, the fact that the NYT's "reporters" aren't out there taking the candidates to task for the gaping holes in their policies shows that they're just a propaganda source and not a real newspaper.
Then, after promoting Eliot Spitzer's scheme to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens, they offer three choices to solve the problem. The first is mass deportations, something that no national leaders are calling for. The second could have been written by either the Democrats or the Bush administration:
Find out who they are. Distinguish between criminals and people who just want to work. Get them on the books. Make them pay what they owe - not just the income, Social Security, sales and property taxes they already pay, but all their taxes, and a fine. Get a smooth legal flow of immigrants going, and then concentrate on catching and deporting bad people.
They can't even get that right: all of the amnesties so far proposed would have allowed terrorists and criminals to sneak through the cracks, with the latest Senate bill allowing the DHS to admit known gang members. At least one version would have forgiven two years of taxes. And, that "smooth legal flow" sounds vaguely like an attempt to flood the U.S. with cheap foreign labor.
Their last choice is a mischaracterization of attrition, and they appear to have done that because they're afraid it might work:
Catch the few you can, and harass and frighten the rest. Treat the entire group as a de facto class of criminals, and disrupt or shout down anyone or any plan seen as abetting their evildoing.
Most people who support attrition are obviously not guilty of what the NYT claims; they're simply playing the victim. In fact, the ones trying to do the "shouting down" are those on the NYT's side who continually try to racialize the issue, use misleading "news" reports (such as from the NYT), smear people like Lou Dobbs, and so on.
The New York Times doesn't want a real debate on this issue: they want to try to kneecap their opponents by calling them bigots rather than, for instance, doing real reporting on this issue and disclosing all the downsides of the "reform" they support or asking the presidential front-runners to defend their flawed policies.
Fox GOP October 21 debate had only two offhand immigration questions
Last night's Fox New GOP "debate" only had two, offhand questions about immigration matters, and one of those was in response to something Fred Thompson said (transcript link). Their September debate at least had a section devoted to the topic, even if all the questions they asked were weak.
Obviously, immigration is a vital topic and many Americans are concerned about it. Yet, all the media can offer is the occasional question designed simply to elicit stock responses and none that I've seen have been willing to ask the candidates about the specific flaws in their specific policies and in a way designed to avoid stock speeches. And, I have a great deal of trouble believing that that isn't intentional: asking tough questions about this topic would cost powerful forces money and power, so real questions are off the table.
I once again urge everyone reading this to go to campaign appearances, ask the questions the MSM won't ask, and then upload the response to video sharing sites. If enough people do that we can make immigration a campaign issue.
In the debate, Fred Thompson mentioned that he had voted against sanctuary cities and that Rudy Giuliani had sued to fight that. Rudy responds:
Oh, the simple fact is that New York City had a policy of allowing people who are illegal immigrants to report crime and to put their children in school. Otherwise, we reported every single illegal immigrant that committed a crime.
Everyone in the U.S. has probably already memorized what he said right after that:
The results had to be pretty darn good. I brought down crime by over 60 percent in New York City. I brought down homicide by 67 percent. I had the most legal city in the country. And I took the crime capital of America and I turned it into the safest large city in the country.
I wonder: if he becomes president will we have to have that paragraph tattooed on our foreheads?
The only formal question about immigration was to Tancredo:
...your health care plans seems intended to show how tough you would be on illegal immigration. Your concerns involve the illegal immigrants using our hospital emergency rooms. The RAND Corporation says that illegal immigrants account for about 1.5 percent of the nation's health care costs.
These debates are, in fact, "show debates" that might as well have taken place in the Soviet Union.
John McCain admits immigration "reform" hurt his campaign
Just to put a nice shiny bow on his cratered campaign, here he is on Fox News Sunday (link). After Chris Wallace asks him for his mistakes:
Well, a little straight talk - immigration reform was something that Americans, because they didn't trust the government - they have no trust or confidence in the government. They didn't believe us when we said we'd secure the borders. I got the message, we're going to secure the borders... ...So I think immigration reform, obviously, was something that hurt me with the base. That was probably primarily...
Note, of course, that he still supports "reform" (aka amnesty), he's just changed his tactics to get it.
Related:
E.J. Dionne, Chris Cillizza/WaPo realize: voters oppose illegal immigration (Niki Tsongas)
KC mayor Mark Funkhouser doesn't give in to La Raza demands; NCLR moves convention
The National Council of La Raza threatened to move their 2009 convention out of Kansas City, Missouri unless a member of that city's parks board - also a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps - either quit from the board or the group. Mayor Mark Funkhouser seemed to buckle a bit, but he didn't give in to their demands, and now the NCLR has unanimously decided to hold their convention in another city.
This is a good victory for those who - unlike the NCLR - support the enforcement of our immigration laws and those who oppose strong-arm tactics by groups that fund extremists.
This also marks one of the few times where I'll point approvingly to an Associated Press paragraph (link):
A national Hispanic civil rights organization said Saturday it will not hold its 2009 annual convention in Kansas City because an opponent of illegal immigration was appointed to the city's park board.
Gotta love the way they got that cause and effect in there.
Previously:
Tell KC mayor Mark Funkhouser: don't give in to National Council of La Raza
Kansas City Star to mayor: capitulate to racial power groups, money's at stake!
Mel Martinez quits as RNC chairman; Peter Wallsten/LAT offers pro-illegal immigration spin
As predicted and even sooner than was hoped, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) has quit as the head of the RNC. Don't let the door hit you, etc.Now comes Peter Wallsten of the Los Angeles Times to put the worst possible face on it ("Latino head of RNC resigns", link). While it reads like something Howard Dean could have written, even he might consider it race-baiting:
The Republican Party's highest-ranking Latino official abruptly resigned Friday, marking the latest casualty in the GOP's bitter internal fight over immigration and dealing another setback to President Bush's years-long effort to court Latino voters.I wasn't joking above: Howard Dean could have written those paragraphs. Must Latino voters be courted by hiring someone who's of the same race as they? Isn't that more of a Democratic/far-left assumption? Must they be courted by hiring someone who supports massive immigration? Isn't that assumption not only false but against the best interests of the U.S.? And, while Bush certainly seems to favor Hispanics over other groups, isn't his attempt to court the mythical Hispanic vote basically just because he's corrupt and his backers want cheap labor (and perhaps because he wants to get his hands on Mexico's oil). And, aren't Martinez' claims about the "tenor" basically just sleazy attempts to call the majority of members of his party bigots in order to cow them into supporting the importation of cheap labor?
The announcement by Sen. Mel Martinez of Florida that he was quitting as general chairman of the Republican National Committee came after he had expressed frustration over the tenor of the immigration debate within his party. Martinez will remain in his Senate post...
...The White House had engineered the ascent of the Cuban-born Martinez over the objections of many conservatives as part of an effort to repair the GOP's image among Latinos. That image suffered when Republican congressional leaders and conservative activists stymied administration-backed measures that would have created a path to citizenship for millions of illegal immigrants...
Those questions are obviously too honest for a dishonest "reporter" like Wallsten, who goes on to quote GOP consultant Lionel Sosa, who brings his own brand of poison to the issue. Wallsten doesn't disclose that Sosa is supporting Bill Richardson for president. He even did so in explictly racial terms: "Blood runs thicker than politics". Note that Wallsten himself wrote the article where he said that. This time around he says:
"Mel Martinez was a symbol of the party's outreach to Latinos, and that seems to be disappearing... It is not a good day for Latino Republicans, that's for sure."More poison follows:
Robert de Posada, president of the Republican-leaning Latino Coalition [and also linked to Western Union], said Martinez's departure is especially disheartening because it follows the resignation of another high-profile Latino in the GOP: former U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales.
"The message that it sends is Latinos are not welcome," De Posada said. "The radical conservative base has a temporary victory right now."
E.J. Dionne, Chris Cillizza/WaPo realize: voters oppose illegal immigration (Niki Tsongas)
Pundits have spilt a lot of ink trying to convince themselves that opposing illegal immigration is a losing political issue. Those include: Fred Barnes, Linda Chavez, Tamar Jacoby, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, Arlen Specter, and Michael Barone.Now, we turn to the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne ("Test Run For 2008", link). Note, of course, that the Washington Post explicitly supports illegal immigration:
In Massachusetts's 5th Congressional District -- a collection of mill towns and affluent and blue-collar suburbs north of Boston -- the surprise issue was illegal immigration. [Jim Ogonowski] made it the centerpiece of an anti-Washington campaign. An Ogonowski news release, for example, accused Tsongas of being "committed to giving cheap college to illegals at taxpayer expense."Earlier, Chris Cillizza of "The Fix" wrote (link):
...[Niki Tsongas], a community college dean, favored granting in-state tuition rates to the children of undocumented immigrants. In Ogonowski's translation of that, Tsongas believed that "Massachusetts taxpayers should foot the bill for the college tuition of the children of illegals."
Republicans think the immigration issue helped Ogonowski, so the country may be in for a lot more of this sort of thing next year. "Everywhere we went, people wanted to talk about immigration," said Matt Wylie, Ogonowski's general consultant. "It was just coming up over and over again."
[...SCHIP may have helped her win...]
[Ogonowski] also found fertile ground by calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration and decrying Tsongas' support for a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants as amnesty.
From the Back of the Pack to David Brooks' Heart (promotes Mike Huckabee)
As an indication of the cluelessness of our elites, David Brooks offers a paean to Mike Huckabee entitled "From the Back of the Pack" (link). Expect this attempt by our elites to push Huckabee to succeed about as well as their attempt to push through "comprehensive immigration reform". As an example of David Brooks' cluelessness, consider this:
[E]ach of the top-tier candidates makes certain parts of the party uncomfortable. Huckabee is the one candidate acceptable to all factions.
Except, of course, to the "faction" that supports enforcement of our immigration laws and that opposes illegal immigration. As discussed here for years, Huckabee has been a strong supporter of illegal immigration. And, he does it in a sanctimonious way that's even more annoying than George Bush.
I don't know the extent to which Huckabee's stance is known, but I very strongly urge everyone to go to his campaign appearances and ask him this question and then publicize his response.
Hispanic vote is a myth?
We already knew that. Now comes Steven Malanga from City Journal, writing in the Los Angeles Times (link):...The Latino vote for Bush was far from decisive, however, and it may be years before it plays a pivotal role in a national election. Latinos may represent about 14% of the U.S. population, but they constituted just 6% of the 2004 electorate -- 7.5 million voters out of 125 million. According to Census Bureau data, only 34% of the nation's adult Latino population registered to vote in 2004, and 28% voted. By contrast, 67% of the country's adult white, non-Latino population and 56% of its adult black population voted in 2004. Black voters outnumbered Latino voters nearly 2 to 1 in 2004.He makes other points that have been made here and elsewhere, namely that supporting a loose border policy is contrary to the interests of Hispanics, that a significant portion of Hispanics actually support our laws, and that pandering to the loose borders sentiment of those on the far-left might actually be counter-productive.
Exit polls taken during 2004 also indicate Latino support for Bush may have been exaggerated. In different polls, Bush's share of the Latino vote ranged from a high of 44% to a low of 33%. Yet subsequent academic studies have estimated Bush's actual level of Latino support at the lower end, somewhere between 35% and 37%. Seen in this context, the "swing" of voters from Bob Dole, who garnered 21% of the Latino vote in 1996, to George W. Bush was hardly historic. In 1984, Ronald Reagan captured 37% of the Latino vote -- a performance at least equal to Bush's.
This suggests that the key to winning Latino votes may be running good candidates, not pandering. Latino voters themselves seem to agree. A 2004 Washington Post poll found that immigration was the least important issue among Latino voters, with only 3.5% placing it at the top of their concerns...
As a gauge of Republican orthodoxy, let's turn to "Captain Ed" (link):
Republicans need to make the argument that tighter border security and immigration policy will help protect not just national security, but also jobs and wages for American citizens and legal residents. The GOP has a shared set of values on life issues with the Hispanic community, and a shared focus on strengthening the family. If we make those arguments, we can lift both the floor and the ceiling of our share of their vote, and do so without mindless pandering.
Mary Peters, Carlos Gutierrez, Mexican official team up to promote Mexican trucks in U.S.
From this:Bush administration officials [Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez] held a news conference with Mexico's transportation secretary [Luis Tellez] yesterday to respond to criticism of a program allowing Mexican trucks on U.S. roads, but critics in Congress who helped pass counter-legislation are unmoved...The press conference included a sideshow: an inspection of a U.S. and a Mexican truck. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) - who opposes the trucks for union-related reasons - said about that:
...By overwhelming margins, the Senate and the House adopted identical amendments into the Transportation/HUD Appropriations bill that would cut off federal funds for the truck project. The House passed the measure 411-3 while the Senate voted 75-23. The bill awaits consideration by a Joint Conference Committee...
"The information we need to ensure the safety of American drivers on American highways is not available... That includes vehicle inspection and drivers' records and accidents reports. None of that information is available. An 'inspection' of a hand-picked Mexican truck at a press conference doesn't change that."
DREAM Act might be coming back...
From this:
Now that the Senate has completed action on the CJS spending bill, senators have taken up the labor, health and human services spending bill (H.R. 3043). Some Capitol Hill sources are telling NumbersUSA that open borders senators may offer the DREAM Act amnesty as an amendment to that bill. Although we cannot confirm this, NumbersUSA members are nonetheless encouraged to contact their senators to stave off this possibility.
Depending on its current configuration, the DREAM Act may allow illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens, thereby depriving U.S. citizens of college educations and devaluing U.S. citizenship. It would be absurdly simple to discredit its backers by pointing that out; here's a sample question for Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and all its other supporters.
Holly Ramer, AP "reporter", helps John McCain spout massive immigration propaganda
Associated Press "reporter" Holly Ramer offers "Voter Confronts McCain on Immigration" (link), a slab of pro-massive immigration propaganda that helps show how corrupt the mainstream media is and how much of a propagandist and incompetent reporter she is. John McCain's comments also somewhat contradict his past statements:
[...McCain supports "reform" after the borders are secured...] That wasn't enough for a man who spoke up at the Hopkinton Town Hall, telling McCain that legal immigration could result in civil war in the next five years... "Do the people in Washington - the politicians and the lobbyists and the rich people writing the checks - do they understand the amount of anger the average European Christian, native-born American feels when they see their country turning into a multicultural chaos Tower of Babel?"
Certainly, a question like that will raise some eyebrows among those in Washington and other elites. But, if we're going to constantly discuss the Hispanic vote and politicians are going to feel free to pander to that supposed vote, then perhaps discussing "European Christians" shouldn't be out of bounds, even if pollsters would call them by a different name. And, a discussion of multiculturalism shouldn't be out of bounds either.
However, the intent is clear: the questioner is meant as an example of nativist sentiment. And, of course, rather than acknowledging the non-racist, non-nativist concerns of millions of Americans, McCain responded with politically-correct nothingness:
"I believe the greatest strength of America is the lady who holds her lamp behind the golden door that says send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses... And I am grateful to live in a nation that has been enriched by people coming to our nation from around the world... I will do everything in my power to secure the borders, but I love this nation and I love the people who have come from around the world."
Obviously, he didn't answer the underlying concerns about the impacts of massive immigration and multiculturalism. Surely, it's possible to "love the people" while at the same time oppose separatist sentiments and the like. All this raises a few questions:
1. Why didn't "reporter" Holly Ramer mention that McCain himself said that unless "reform" was enacted we could have Paris-style riots? That's not the same thing as a "civil war", but it's in the same ballpark.
2. Why didn't Ramer attempt to contextualize and amplify the question, as the AP would most likely do in the case of someone supporting massive immigration?
3. Why did the AP choose that question in the first place? Even the New York Times taped McCain being asked a better question, and surely McCain and others have been asked better questions. Why suddenly rush into print one question, unless of course the goal was to show "nativist" sentiment?
4. And, going directly to Ramer's competence as a reporter, shouldn't she have asked McCain whether he truly thought that reading a poem that was later tacked on to the Statue of Liberty is a proper answer to the question? Shouldn't she have offered a more palatable version of the question and pressed McCain, mentioning that there are indeed millions of Americans who are worried about the impact of massive immigration?
5. In line with #4, exactly how many tough questions on immigration has she ever asked McCain? Can we trust someone who - believe it or not - referred to McCain's blather as "trademark straight talk"? ("McCain faces immigration worries, vows to secure borders", August 11, 2007, link).
The solution to all of these issues is to go to campaign appearance, but ask better questions and then upload the responses to Youtube. That way we can completely disintermediate hack "reporters" like Holly Ramer.
Mitt Romney supports attrition by illegal aliens?
A blogger tried to ask Mitt Romney about his immigration positions:
...he did not address the question of the fate of the 12-20 million illegals in residence here... I tried to get near enough to ask about it. A flack intercepted me and said Mitt was not answering anymore questions, then asked me what I was going to ask. When I said it was about the illegals already here, the flack said they would just self deport...
At least he tried. Hopefully others will try to get a similar question asked, since the mainstream media is never going to try to find out exactly where Romney stands.
Here's a discussion of Romney's immigration positions, and here's a question for Mitt Romney that you can ask to try to nail down exactly where he stands. Please go to his campaign appearances and try to get him on tape answering that.
More questions for illegal immigration supporting religious leaders (Roger Mahoney, Bob Edgar)
On Monday the 8th, Cardinal Roger Mahony (aka "The Pedophile Protector") gave a speech at Notre Dame University in support of immigration reform. He said much the same as he's said before and apparently no one called him on it. For completeness' sake, here it is.
Meanwhile, back in August, Bob Edgar - outgoing head of the National Council of Churches - offered similar blather in support of massive illegal immigration (link). It included a paean to importing a foreign serf class:
Nearly everything we eat passes through the hands of an undocumented worker. Nearly every office and rest room in America's corporate towers are cleaned and sanitized by undocumented workers. Nearly every meat packing plant -- after breaking unions and cutting living wages for American citizens -- now employs mostly Latinos and many of them undocumented workers.
And, it engaged in the expected smear tactics:
Immigrants have become the contemporary scapegoat. Higher taxes, crowded schools, infectious diseases, all have been attributed to those who have come to America without the proper papers. It's time we call it for what it is-racism.
His selective quoting of the Bible and his comments are discussed here, which includes a few questions for him. Please go to public appearances by him and other religious leaders and ask them:
Unmentioned by Edgar are Scriptural teachings that uphold the authority of rulers to enforce laws, and the Apostle Paul's warning that "all things must be done in order." Even more disturbing was his blissful ignorance about ethical arguments against unregulated borders. How does unrestricted immigration affect America’s poor? And how does unrestricted immigration distort the economics and demographics of Mexico? Should Mexico's poor not have economic options other than having to relocate to another country? Will Mexico ever reform economically as long as the U.S. serves as its population safety valve?
Vicente Fox "Revolution of Hope" co-author: Bush-linked Rob Allyn
The co-author of Vicente Fox's book "Revolution of Hope" - which he's currently on tour promoting - is none other than Mexico's very own bought-and-paid-for propagandist, Rob Allyn. In 2005 he was paid $720,000 by the Mexican government to help show their side of massive immigration from that country. He's also friends with Ruben Navarrette Jr. and he's linked to the Bush family.
Says he:
"Because I agree passionately with what the president has to say about free trade and immigration and America, it's really easy for me to tell this story... That's what makes it worth the long hours and the time away from home. Besides, it was fun... ...It's completely anti-intuitive right now. The last thing people want to hear about is free trade and immigrant labor crossing the border..."
Center for American Progress' indirect Mexican government link (Henry Fernandez, Kica Matos)
Henry Fernandez, Senior Fellow at the Clinton-linked Center for American Progress, is hosting a CAP event entitled "Strange Bed Fellows? Anti-immigration Organizations and Hate Groups" on October 18 [1]. The panelists are Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (a group indirectly linked to the Mexican government) and Devin Burghart from the Center for New Community.
Luckily, I scrolled down to the bottom of the page and I saw this:
Fernandez lives with his wife Kica Matos and their son in New Haven, Connecticut.
Matos is the former head of Junta for Progressive Action, a group that's collaborated with the Mexican government. She now works for the city and she led the effort by that city to give out their own form of ID cards which are designed for use by illegal aliens. And, Fernandez is the former campaign manager for New Haven mayor John DeStefano, someone who may have a financial stake in illegal aliens opening bank accounts.
A question: what if the interests of Hillary Clinton and the Mexican government differ? Whose side will CAP come down on?
[1] americanprogress.org/events/2007/10/antiimmigrant.html
Tell KC mayor Mark Funkhouser: don't give in to National Council of La Raza
From this:The National Council of La Raza will keep its convention in Kansas City if a park board appointee quits her membership in an anti-illegal-immigration group.While he's supported her in the past, he answered "no comment" when asked whether he'd ask her to resign.
And Hispanic leaders expressed optimism Thursday that Mayor Mark Funkhouser was willing to consider asking appointee Frances Semler to drop her membership in the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps...
Please contact him at mayor *at* kcmo.org or (816) 513-3500 and tell him not to give in to a group that has links to and funds extremists.
Previously:
Kansas City Star to mayor: capitulate to racial power groups, money's at stake!
DHS, SDUT, Harry Reid on Charles Breyer no-match ruling (ACLU, CofC, AFL-CIO)
The San Diego Union-Tribune says "Appeal the ruling on illegal worker checks" (link) about Judge Charles Breyer siding with the ACLU, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the AFL-CIO against the interests of those who support our immigration laws:...Following [the no-match procedure] gives considerable protection against harsh sanctions for employers who know, or should know, of illegal hires. The no-match letter alerts them to that possibility. The Homeland Security brochure mailed with it outlines how to check and protect themselves. At no point must employers fire any worker, illegal or legal – if they are willing to risk eventually facing those sanctions.And, for the administration's side of things, "Captain Ed" did an interview (link):
That's only one discrepancy between Breyer's order and reality. But it's reason enough to appeal to lift the injunction and move on to the merits of this suit, brought by the ACLU, business and labor. It's an unusual alliance of organizations with zero interest in enforcing existing immigration law and reducing the jobs magnet that drives illegal immigration...
...Ms. Keehner took great pains to point out a couple of erroneous suppositions in the ruling. Foremost, the notion that no-match letters exert an undue burden on small businesses is nonsense. The regulation exempts businesses that employ less than 10 people, so mom & pop stores don't have to worry about it at all... [DHS Deputy Press Secretary Laura Keehner] assured me that the DHS plans to pursue relief from this injunction in both the appellate courts and in Congress, if necessary, to further refine the legislation. They see the no-match letters as a necessary method of protecting the integrity of the Social Security database, to ensure that people get credit for their legitimate contribution to the Social Security fund, and to enforce employer-based sanctions for illegal immigration.Since I'm not familiar with all aspects of the case, it's not clear whether the Clinton-appointed judge was being an activist, or whether the government simply failed to make their case. It's certainly a possibility that the virulently pro-cheap labor Bush administration intentionally botched the case, knowing that they'd receive a ruling like this and could then throw up their arms and claim they tried. Meanwhile, even more cheap labor can flow over the borders, enriching members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO, and conferring political power on the Democratic Party and the ACLU.
If you'd like to do something about this that a judge can't block, go out and discredit some politicians.
UPDATE: See also "[Harry Reid] Backs Decision to Block Immigration Enforcement Rule".
Rick Sanchez/CNN "Out in the Open" about support for illegal immigration
CNN has a new program that airs at 5pm Pacific/8pm Eastern entitled "Out in the Open" and hosted by Rick Sanchez, who they or he appear to be positioning as the CNN version of Geraldo Rivera (albeit with 100% less moustache and 20% even more doofusness).
Tonight's show will be live from Irving, Texas; the description:
Illegal immigrants allegedly doped with drugs just to make it easier to deport them! We bring this shocking claim 'Out in the Open.'
Most likely his report will be based on this CNN story. Two persons who were to be deported were involuntarily drugged; the ACLU is suing and trying to make it a class action. They may or may not have a point since it isn't clear what the rules are and the specific circumstances of each case. More here.
SCHIP and illegal aliens (shocker: a Center for American Progress fib?)
The State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP/S-CHIP) appears like it could be abused by illegal aliens to obtain benefits that they should not, under the bill, receive. Whether that's intentional or not isn't known. The bill was recently vetoed by president Bush. The House will try to override the veto next week (link).The bill is HR 976 (link). Section 605 ("No federal funding for illegal aliens") contains this one sentence:
Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents.However, Section 211 ("Verification of declaration of citizenship or nationality for purposes of eligibility for medicaid and chip") describes how eligibility for the program can be proven by providing a name and a social security number. That's then verified with the Commissioner of Social Security. That would allow illegal aliens and others to obtain benefits using someone else's name and SSN, just as long as they match:
In order to better understand the impact of these changes, on Friday I [presumably Jim McCrery, Ranking Member, Committee on Ways and Means] wrote a letter to the Social Security Administration, asking whether this type of process could detect and prevent legal and illegal aliens from improperly qualifying for Medicaid and SCHIP. In his response (copy attached), SSA Commissioner Astrue indicated that the new provision would fail to identify and therefore prevent the following categories of persons from illegally getting healthcare benefits through Medicaid or SCHIP:So, while the bill pretends to block illegal aliens from obtaining benefits, there's a huge loophole which many illegal aliens would seek to take advantage of. And, their apologists - those who profit from illegal immigration in some way - would seek to enable them to obtain those benefits.* Legal aliens who are not naturalized citizens;Commissioner Astrue's letter makes it explicitly clear that this new provision will not prevent legal and illegal aliens from violating our laws and qualifying for Medicaid and SCHIP.
* Illegal aliens fraudulently using another persons valid name and Social Security number;
* Individuals who have illegally overstayed a valid work permit.
Thus, we turn to Meredith King of the Clinton-linked Center for American Progress, which is more of a joke than a think tank. In her August 16, 2007 article [1] she said:
Hardline conservatives in the White House and Congress failed to defeat this progressive legislation. But undeterred, they are now falsely claiming that the House bill will allow undocumented immigrants access to public health insurance at the expense of tax paying citizens.Could the version of the bill she's discussing be different? Apparently not. The earliest version appears to be H.R.3269 from July 31, 2007 (link), and it contains a Section 211 nearly identical to that in the vetoed version.
She's not alone. The October 8 MetroWest Daily News (Massachusetts) editorial "Editorial: Twisting SCHIP facts" [2] says:
But a more blatant distortion comes from James Ogonowski, the Republican candidate for the 5th District Congressional seat in an Oct. 16 special election. "What bothers me the most is the benefits SCHIP gives to illegal immigrants," he wrote in an oped column in the Lawrence Eagle-Tribune... But he ought to read the bill before he votes on it, including this part: "SEC. 605. NO FEDERAL FUNDING FOR ILLEGAL ALIENS. Nothing in this Act allows Federal payment for individuals who are not legal residents."[1] americanprogress.org/issues/2007/08/schip_immigrants.html
[2] metrowestdailynews.com/opinion/x1251771357
Related:
ThinkProgress misrepresents Chertoff comment about environmental damage on border
Sleazy Think Progress, Anderson Cooper lie about Tom Tancredo
Media Matters for America plays word games re: their funding
Ruy Teixeira, polling "expert", agenda-driven hack
Judd Legum/Think Progress: propaganda is OK if for a good cause
More Center for American Progress piffle on immigration
Vicente Fox: FTAA common currency (Amero), Hillary for president, Bill Richardson, driver's licenses, lies about heathcare...
On Monday's Larry King show, former Mexican president Vicente Fox:* Said that the Free Trade Agreement of the Americans (FTAA; called in Spanish ACLA) on which he worked with president Bush was to, long-term, include a common "Latin American" currency. Since that agreement would apply to the U.S., the currency would apply here as well...
* Promoted immigration from Mexico, "guest" workers, and NAFTA...
* Lied about U.S. citizens not paying the healthcare costs for illegal aliens...
* Agreed with Felipe Calderon's claim that "Mexico does not stop at its border"...
* Promoted driver's licenses for illegal aliens...
* Said he wants Hillary Clinton to be president and called Bill Clinton a "great man"...
* Said that Bill Richardson was a "excellent man" and that "he's so Mexican in his interior"...
Transcript here; excerpts in the extended entry.
The first point resulted in this:
Former Mexican President Vicente Fox confirmed the existence of a plan conceived with President Bush to create a new regional currency in the Americas, in an interview last night on CNN's "Larry King Live."Fox' statement resulted in Les Kinsolving asking about it:
It possibly was the first time a leader of Mexico, Canada or the U.S. openly confirmed a plan for a regional currency. Fox explained the current regional trade agreement that encompasses the Western Hemisphere is intended to evolve into other previously hidden aspects of integration.
A spokeswoman for the White House has denied any knowledge of a discussion between President Bush and former Mexican President Vicente Fox where the two, as Fox confirmed, conceived a plan for a regional currency for the Americas.Whether that's worth a plugged Amero is left up to the reader's judgment.
Spokeswoman Dana Perino also said she's not aware of any plan for such a currency either...
FOX: ...And so I am not claiming for open borders to everybody. What I am claiming for is a decision, an intelligent decision with a vision to the future, because the United States needs that energy to support the elderly, to support the pension plans, to be competitive in front of Asia and China. And it's a must.
...KING: ...In his state of the union address [Calderon] said, "I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico."
Do you agree with that?
FOX: Yes. Yes. But I also put my feet on the ground or my boots on the ground. And I understand the problem. But we must deal with problems. We must deal with challenges...[blathers on...]
FOX: ...and give a driver's license, because you need a driver's license only to those who know how to drive, and you will be much more secure to have those guys driving with a driver's license, the insurance and everything all together, instead of them driving without a license and without any I.D.
..FOX: ...[promotes guest workers]
...KING: ...We have an e-mail question from Patricia, Oxnard, California: "Why should the American public have to pay for medical care of illegal immigrants from Mexico? Why shouldn't we be able to bill the government of Mexico for care given to their citizens?"
FOX: Patricia, let me tell you that you're not paying for medical care for undocumented workers...
FOX: ...what I see is fear dominating people here -- or some people here because it's still, I would say that a majority of your citizens would go along with a reform, done with a proper intelligence and solve this problem once and for all and convert it into win-win situation.
KING: [who does he want for president?]
FOX: A lady [i.e., Hillary] would be my choice... [Bill Clinton is a] Great man. [Jimmy Carter's great too] ...[his "Fox Center" is] associated with the Rand Corporation in Santa Monica, California, the largest think tank in the world. They are going to open an office in San Cristobal, in the farm by the side of the center so that we will work on developing knowledge and research together.
...[Bill Richardson is an] Excellent man. I mean, he's so Mexican in his interior, I like him a lot. And he's a good governor. Good man.
...KING: E-mail from Mrs. Gonzalez in Elizabeth, New Jersey. "Mr. Fox, I would like to know how you feel about the possibility of having a Latin America united with one currency?"
FOX: Long term, very long term. What we propose together, President Bush and myself, it's ALCA, which is a trade union for all of the Americas. And everything was running fluently until Hugo Chavez came. He decided to isolate himself. He decided to combat the idea and destroy the idea...
KING: It's going to be like the euro dollar, you mean?
FOX: Well, that would be long, long term. I think the processes to go, first step into is trading agreement. And then further on, a new vision, like we are trying to do with NAFTA.
KING: How is NAFTA doing?
FOX: Excellent. Mexico's seventh largest trading economy in the world... So we account for hundreds of thousands of jobs in this economy in the U.S.
Barack Obama endorses California DREAM Act; help discredit him
Barack Obama wants Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign Gil Cedillo's "California DREAM Act". From a statement (link):
"If Governor Schwarzenegger vetoes the Dream Act a second time, he will compound the immigration crisis by driving thousands of children who are on the right path into the shadows... We teach our children that in America you will thrive if you work hard and dream big. Governor Schwarzenegger now has the chance to demonstrate that instead of blaming one group for the challenges America faces, he can unite Californians and give children who play by the rules the opportunity to succeed."
If anyone can go to his campaign appearances and ask him this question and then publicizes the response, it just might end his candidacy. (That question is about the national version, but it applies just as well in this case.)
District Judge Charles Breyer blocks DHS no-match letters (ACLU, CofC, AFL-CIO)
Spencer Hsu of the Washington Post offers "Judge Bars Bush Crackdown on Illegal Workers" (link):A federal judge barred the Bush administration today from launching a planned crackdown on U.S. firms that hire illegal immigrants, warning of the plan's potentially "staggering" impact on law-abiding workers and companies.It's not that "unusual": such groups have been allied in their support for illegal activity for a long time. Note of course that this is being portrayed as a defeat for Bush, when he, the WaPo, and those who brought the suit are on the same side.
Issuing a firm rebuke of the White House, U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer of San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction against the government's plan to pressure employers to fire up to 8.7 million workers with suspect Social Security numbers starting this fall.
...Breyer said the plaintiffs, an unusual coalition that included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and the American Civil Liberties Union, had raised such serious questions about the plan to mail Social Security "no-match" letters to 140,000 U.S. employers that it should be blocked from proceeding.
..."The government's proposal to disseminate no-match letters affecting more than eight million workers will, under the mandated time line, result in the termination of employment to lawfully employed workers," the judge wrote. "Moreover the threat of criminal prosecution . . . reflects a major change in DHS [Department of Homeland Security] policy."The previous "policy" was to refuse to enforce the laws on the books. When they make a half-hearted attempt at enforcing the laws, corrupt businesses and far-left "civil rights" groups - together with a Clinton-appointed judge (fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=2719) - can't even let that happen. This will apparently be appealed, but if you'd like to do something more effective in the meantime, I suggest discrediting those who support illegal immigration.
Los Angeles Times editorial lies about California DREAM Act
The Los Angeles Times offers an editorial called "Make the Dream reality/Legislation to help undocumented California college students benefits everyone" (link) about Gil Cedillo's "California DREAM Act". In addition to admitting that what they write might "strike some as soft-hearted sophistry", it contains this lie:
Cedillo's bill doesn't jeopardize college for anyone -- it simply expands the universe of students we are willing to help.
Any dollar spent on educating illegal aliens is money that could be spent on educating U.S. citizens. By giving college discounts to illegal aliens, we're taking those discounts away from U.S. citizens and, thus, some U.S. citizens will not be able to go to college. There really is no way around that unless, as the Los Angeles Times seems to think, money grows on trees.
Bill O'Reilly asks Vicente Fox some tough questions
Tonya Reiman has enough material for weeks and weeks, as former Mexican president Vicente Fox was asked a few tough questions by Bill O'Reilly. He didn't go as far as I would have liked to have seen, but Fox was clearly taken aback by some of the questions:
Pamela Constable/WaPo on Latinos who lose money when laws enforced
Pamela Constable of the Washington Post offers "Latinos Unite Across Classes Against Curbs on Immigration" (link). It ends with this:
"I have always appreciated this country, and it really upsets me to hear about this law," said [middle class construction company employee Jesus Calva], who spoke briefly at last Tuesday's [Prince William County] hearing [about an anti-illegal immigration resolution]. Afterward, he strode outside, sat down on a curb and began to weep in frustration. "Even when I was illegal, I worked hard for everything I got, and I paid a lot of taxes," he said. "If they don't like us, why don't they just say so? I love my home, but I don't want to live in a place where I am hated."
Oh, no! The mean-spirited racist xenophobes have made him cry! Don't weep, Jesus! It's OK. Here, why don't we just open the borders so everyone of your same race can come here at will? Will that make it all better for you?
Plus, it will help all those businesses that Pamela Constable mentions earlier in her report, the ones run by those who - while hitherto shunning their lower-caste brethern - now realize that with immigration enforcement they'll lose money. At least they openly admit it's mostly about the money.
The affected businessmen include the owner of a real estate settlement company with a "mainly Latino clientele" (Jose Marinay), the owner of a variety store, and someone who "owns several cafes and clubs in Prince William" (Ruben Andrade). They've formed an unnamed coalition:
In August, a regional Latino business coalition was formed to seek subtler ways to fight anti-immigration measures, such as through personal lobbying and economic power. Coalition leaders said that it was hard to get some entrepreneurs involved but that more are being spurred to action by a mixture of self-interest, guilt and sympathy for those they once considered a lower class of immigrant... "This is definitely not business as usual. If people can't buy groceries, they can't buy cars or houses," said Marinay, a coalition official. Other members work in real estate, banking, entertainment and insurance. "We are a wealthy group, and we have invested millions in this region," he said. "Why can't we get these people off our backs? It's our own fault for not being united."
I guess "these people" refers to those U.S. citizens who support our laws, i.e., us.
The August 15 article "Businesses Vow to Fight Crackdown" by Nick Miroff and Krissah Williams (link) has more on the coalition, with most of their members supporting a boycott organized by Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. Unlike Constable's article, it's all about those businesses losing money.
If the Washington Post wanted to be a real news source - instead of just a propaganda rag for those who seek to indirectly profit from illegal activity - they'd discuss whether it's good public policy to encourage those who need illegal immigration to stay in business. Perhaps those business owners should be forced to look into above-board ways of making money.
National Latino Congreso: "No Human Being is Illegal", Nativo Lopez, Gil Cedillo, Kucinich, Cuban Five, Fairness Doctrine, and more!
The 2nd annual "National Latino Congreso" - a meeting of hundreds of "Latino organizational leaders, elected officials, and activists at all levels" is currently underway in Los Angeles (latinocongreso.org). Yesterday, Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times offered a whitewashed report here. Let's take a look at the groups involved and some of the loony resolutions that were passed. Expect the MSM coverage to be in line with Gorman's report: it will completely cover for far-left racial demagogues and avoid mentioning the loony resolutions.
Their "conveners' include:
* League of United Latin American Citizens
* Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (indirect link to the Mexican government)
* National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities
* National Day Laborer Organizing Network
* Southwest Voter Registration Education Project
* William C. Velasquez Institute
Their "co-conveners" include the California Nurses Association, Hermandad Mexicana Latinoamericana, and the Mexican American Political Association. Both the latter are associated with Nativo Lopez. They have 226 "endorsers", so discussing all of those would take a lot of time. But, one is the Communist Party USA, and most of the rest are far-left racial power groups.
The sheer number and sheer idiocy of the resolutions that were approved makes them likewise too difficult to cover in detail, however, they include:
* "No Human Being is Illegal" by Raul Anorve of "Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California" (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=41). If it were made U.S. law we would have literally open borders since we couldn't conduct immigration raids anymore and illegal aliens would have "full civil rights". It contains several grammatical mistakes and ends with:
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the that organizations represented by delegates of the 2007 National Latino Congreso urge the United States pass socially just legalization, including full labor and civil rights protections and family reunification; to place a moratorium on immigration raids, detentions and deportations, as well as their eventual abolition; and... [the NLC urges] the United States demilitarize the border, immigration control, and end immigration-police collaboration; to support initiatives and policies that ensure healthy and stable communities, including living wage jobs for all immigrants, working people and people of color... [the NLC urges] the United States redistribute funding and resources away from prison-building, policing and criminalization to social, health and education services, family reunification, ending the backlog in visas and applications for permanent residency and citizenship, and full civil and labor rights protections for all persons, regardless of their immigration or citizenship status.
Bear in mind: they approved that and all the other resolutions to be discussed.
* "Resolution to Urge the Bush Administration to Halt Immigration Raids" by Pablo Martinez of New Mexico LULAC (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=22). It's moderate by comparison to the last, but that's not saying much.
* "Resolution to Urge Congress to Repeal 287 (g) and Restructure Federal Funding to Target Drug Enforcement Operations and Place a Civilian Oversight Committee" by ibid (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=21).
* "Fair, Humane and Rational Immigration Reform" by Nativo Lopez of Mexican American Political Association (MAPA) (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=45). As you might guess, it's a very bad idea, and includes him calling for enactment of the "Unity Blueprint for Immigration Reform".
* "Resolution on the Five Cuban Political Prisoners" by Alicia Jrapko of the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban Five (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=12). When I said far-left, I meant it.
* "Support for Puerto Rico Self Determination" by Pablo Martinez of LULAC (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=96).
* "Unconstitutional Towing and Driver's License Resolution" by Gil Cedillo (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=26). It uses that possibly inaccurate recitation of events as a vehicle to support driver's licenses for illegal aliens; I wonder why they didn't just come right out and support that explicitly.
* "Decreasing the National Hispanic Dropout Rate Supporting the DREAM Act" by Luis Avila of the Somos America Coalition (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=129).
* "Restore the Fairness Doctrine Act", ibid, (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=126).
* "RESOLUTION TO DEMAND THAT THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HEAR THE CASE OF THE U.S. CITIZEN CHILDREN OF UNDOCUMENTED PARENTS" from Mr. Emma Lozano [sic] supposedly of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=125). She may be a part of that group, or that might be a mistake; the URL is to somosunpueblo (with an extra 's'):
[The NLC demands] that the U.S Supreme Court hear the Class Action Suit of the 5 million U.S. Citizen Children to prevent the enforcement of the removal of their parents fro the United States without first giving the children a fair opportunity to obtain a remedy for their hardship and redress for the implicit violation of their civil rights.
* 'Formal Position and Statement Denouncing Vigilantism of the "Minutemen Project"' by Yuri Jimenez of Kucinich For President 2008 (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=62):
WHEREAS the Minutemen Project encourages and incites hatred, violence, racism and discrimination in border States... THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the organizations represented by delegates of the 2007 National Latino Congreso formally denounce the Minutemen Project, and further declare their position that the Project promotes violence, hatred, racism and discrimination which are not representative traits of the honorable and just American society that has a rich legacy of immigration and inclusiveness.
The other Kucinich resolution approved condemned Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's illegal immigration hotline (latinocongreso.org/resolutions07approved.php?id=56).
Michael Chertoff/DHS "fisks" NYT/WaPo pro-illegal immigration editorials
From our "what universe is this again?" file comes this entry (dhs.gov/journal/leadership/2007/10/its-law.html) from the Department of Homeland Security "Leadership Journal", aka DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff's blog:Two editorials in today's Washington Post and New York Times offer a good illustration of the kind of obstacles our Department faces in dealing with the problem of illegal immigration.
The Washington Post writes [link] that our use of Social Security no-match letters to prevent the hiring of illegal workers actually harms legal workers as well. That is simply not true. Legal workers can provide any number of identity documents to establish or clarify their work eligibility, including a passport [other points]...
But the Post raises what I suspect is the real argument being mounted against the no-match rule [implies it's about the money, says opponents want him to "pursue a silent amnesty"]
The New York Times editorial staff also hyperventilates today about our efforts to apprehend criminal gang affiliates in the New York area as part of a nationwide initiative to take dangerous illegal aliens off the street... [opposes special interest groups trying to tie DHS's hands, but also promotes "comprehensive immigration reform"].
DHS revamping agriculture guest worker programs (crops rotting in fields, redefining "temporary")
Nicole Gaouette of the Los Angeles Times offers "U.S. lets in more immigrants for farms" (link):With a nationwide farmworker shortage threatening to leave unharvested fruits and vegetables rotting in fields, the Bush administration has begun quietly rewriting federal regulations to eliminate barriers that restrict how foreign laborers can legally be brought into the country."Family farm" or politically-connected major albeit non-corporate grower? Perhaps if the LAT wanted to do some real reporting they might consider looking into her links.
...On all sides of the farm industry, the administration's behind-the-scenes initiative to revamp H-2A farmworker visas is fraught with anxiety. Advocates for immigrants fear the changes will come at the expense of worker protections because the administration has received and is reportedly acting on extensive input from farm lobbyists. And farmers in areas such as the San Joaquin Valley, which is experiencing a 20% labor shortfall, worry the administration's changes will not happen soon enough for the 2008 growing season.
"It's like a ticking time bomb that's going to go off," said Luawanna Hallstrom, chief operating officer of Harry Singh & Sons, a third-generation family farm in Oceanside that grows tomatoes. "I'm looking at my fellow farmers and saying, 'Oh my God, what's going on?' "
Officials at the three federal agencies are scrutinizing the regulations to see whether they can adjust the farmworker program, an unwieldy system used by less than 2% of American farms to bring in foreign workers. They are considering a series of changes, including lengthening the time workers can stay, expanding the types of work they can do, simplifying how their applications are processed, and redefining terms such as "temporary."Orwell would be proud.
The agencies are also working on possible changes to a separate visa program, H-2B, which brings in seasonal workers for resorts, clam-shucking operations and horse stables, among other businesses.All of which are vital to our economy.
...The changes to the H-2A visa program comprise one of more than two dozen initiatives the administration announced in August. Most of the initiatives dealt with increased enforcement, the most prominent being a measure that would force employers to either fire workers for whom they've received "no match" notification (indicating their W-2 data don't match Social Security Administration records) or face punitive action from the Department of Homeland Security. When Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced the enforcement push, he also acknowledged the problems that agriculture reported.
...Industry lobbyists have sent the Bush administration a set of detailed suggestions for overhauling the H-2A program through administrative changes, which could take weeks to put in place, and through changes in the regulations, a process that takes months.
Some of the suggestions under consideration include changing the procedures farmers must use to try to hire U.S. citizens first. Currently farmers have to advertise the jobs, then submit applications to Labor and Homeland Security to bring in foreign workers. Growers would prefer to move to a system in which they pledged that they had done all they could to recruit U.S. workers, but no longer had to submit an application to Labor.
Other changes under consideration would simplify the detailed H-2A housing requirements, extend the definition of "temporary" beyond 10 months, and expand the definition of "agricultural" workers to include such industries as meatpacking and poultry processing.
Diane Sawyer/Good Morning America in Mexico on Columbus Day
On Monday, October 8 (Columbus Day), Diane Sawyer from Good Morning America (newsbusters.org/node/14050) will be "reporting" from Mexico on immigration. Why, the segment practically writes itself. While I don't watch the show and won't be tuning in, I expect it will basically be a "nation of immigrants" propaganda piece and she won't be featuring anything remotely approaching real reporting, such as Mexico's role in encouraging emigration in order to profit from the money that illegal aliens in the U.S. send home.
UPDATE: Here's the transcript of a biased report from Claire Shipman that ran on today's GMA:
newsbusters.org/blogs/
scott-whitlock/2007/10/05/abc-frets-local-governments-going-too-far-against-illegals
(Link in that form because I've twice tried to register for their site and twice heard nothing back.)
10/8/07 UPDATE: Things went largely as expected, while it wasn't a complete puff piece (she asked Felipe Calderon about remittances) it was basically propaganda designed to support those who, in one way or another, are profiting from illegal immigration. Transcript here:
newsbusters.org/blogs/
scott-whitlock/2007/10/08/abc-blames-angry-emotional-americans-immigration-debate
New York Times editorial: stop the "ugly" immigration raids!
Someone has to do it, so let's look at the latest New York Times immigration editorial entitled "Stop the Raids" (link). Because of recent and apparently sloppy immigration raids on Long Island, the NYT is now calling for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to be much more careful. However, it's pretty easy to see that no matter how careful they were - perhaps even going as far as allowing the ACLU and the Mexican government to tag along for the ride - the NYT would find something to complain about. Because, for them, what's important is that there are 12 to 20 million people here who are enriching crooked businesses and confering political power, and sending those people home would cost those businesses money and cost politicians power.
Armed squads bursting into homes in the dead of night with shotguns and automatic weapons, terrorizing families and taking away anyone who lacks identity papers, even if they have raided the wrong house. It may sound like Baghdad, but it is the suburbs of New York City, the latest among hundreds of communities around the country where federal agents have been invading homes and workplaces in search of immigrants to deport... Federal officials say the raids are a focused campaign to catch gang members and other fugitives. That would be good if Immigration and Customs Enforcement were carefully extracting the dangerous criminal sliver from a population of 12 million illegal immigrants.
Yes, take the "criminal sliver", but leave the rest since they're making money for someone.
The NYT is a supporter of immigration "reform", which would include ramped-up enforcement. So, either the NYT would look the other way when post-"reform" enforcement "terrorizes" people, or they'd just keep printing editorials like this in an attempt to discourage post-"reform" raids. Their characterization of ICE enforcement actions as something approaching the Gestapo isn't exactly a hopeful sign for those who think they'd support future enforcement.
Related:
New York Times editorial: pass anti-American DREAM Act
NYT editorial: supports illegal activity; acknowledges attrition; "pest control"
New York Times compares Senate bill opponents to George Wallace
NYT editorial: Senate bill bad; "Know-Nothings" hate illegal aliens
NYT: mainstream immigration positions are "fringe"
NYT hides behind "terrorized" illegal aliens to support massive immigration
New York Times' worst immigration editorial ever: "They Are America"
Signs of Delusion in New York Times Immigration Editorial
Want identity theft with that? (Reno McDonald's immigration raid)
From this:A puzzling W-2 form prompted last week's raids on eleven McDonald's stores in Reno and Fernley.A manager at the same location was also using someone else's ID. There were 54 arrests in the raid, with just eight already having been deported. Sixteen are still in custody... and thirty were released for "humanitarian" reasons and will (supposedly) appear before judges next week.
A Fernley [Nevada] woman, whose name was not immediately available, became suspicious when she received a W-2 form early this year that reported more income than she had earned.
The woman soon discovered someone at the Fernley McDonald's where she used to work had been using her identity.
Meanwhile, the "Casa Latina Centro de Informacion" (president: Gilbert Cortez) organized a march - and a boycott - today in solidarity with illegal aliens, including those who engaged in identity theft. The Hispanic Club at Sparks High School also held a protest (link).
From this 9/30 report (link):
..."Huelga! Huelga! Huelga!" the group [of about 60 people] chanted as it stood and applauded near the end of a meeting Saturday at El Cordero de Dios Assemblies of God Church in Reno. Huelga is Spanish for "strike."I note that in April, Hillary Clinton co-chair Raul Yzaguirre (former president of the National Council of La Raza) visited Reno [1] for a scarcely-attended meeting with local "Hispanic community leaders, many employed at University of Nevada, Reno". No word on whether any of the groups above attended, but if anyone has a guest list that would be very helpful.
The group also called for a boycott of Reno radio station KKOH and its afternoon talk show host, Bill Manders, who it argued is not compassionate towards undocumented Latinos. A KKOH representative nor Manders could not be reached for comment.
..."We feel we Latinos have been bushwhacked, charred and ICE'd by our government," said Gilbert Cortez, president of Casa Latina Centro de Informacion, one of the groups that organized the meeting. "This land belongs to God and not to the United States."
...[Reno businessman Luther Mack, owner of the restaurants] said he originally hired the workers and was surprised that people would lash out at him and his business on their behalf.
...Luis Caceres, general director of the Sociedad De Salvadorenos Unidos De Nevada Cooperando Con Atiquizaya, said the proposed action is to draw attention to the fact that immigrant workers are here to work and raise families.
"If work is a crime, accuse me of committing a crime," he said. "Because of the reform that didn't pass, we're paying for it. Our families are being divided and our people are being prosecuted because they didn't have any papers."
[1] hispanictips.com/2007/04/23/ clinton-aide-raul-yzaguirre-reno-discuss-hispanic-issues
Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Oakland) town hall immigration meeting Sat. Oct 6 2007
Rep. Barbara Lee will be holding two immigration meetings this Saturday. Both will include representatives of the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, but the other guests appear a bit... "pro-immigration". Details here. Partial guest list:
* Immigrant Legal Resource Center
* Asian Law Caucus
* Catholic Charities of the East Bay
* Asian Pacific Environmental Network
* Filipinos for Affirmative Action
* Oakland Chinatown Chamber of Commerce
* Spanish Speaking Citizens Foundation
If you're in the area, see if you can ask her a question or two.
ThinkProgress misrepresents Chertoff comment about environmental damage on border
The Clinton-linked site ThinkProgress offers the post "Chertoff: Immigrants 'degrade the environment'" [1] about the following comment from DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff (link):
"Illegal migrants really degrade the environment. I've seen pictures of human waste, garbage, discarded bottles and other human artifact in pristine areas... And believe me, that is the worst thing you can do to the environment."
First of all, he's not only correct, but even the Los Angeles Times has noticed the problem:
...At Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge, 2 1/2 million pounds of garbage is scattered through broad valleys and desert arroyos every year, according to Roger DiRosa, the refuge manager...
Secondly, Think Progress has shown once again that they're the kindergarten version of other smear merchants such as MediaMatters. Some things should be obvious to everyone, but apparently are not to the 76 people who've left content-free comments on their entry:
1. Cheroff was referring to "illegal migrants", not "immigrants". There are only 27 words separating the two phrases in their post, so give them points for boldness.
2. Think Progress failed to direct their readers to any articles backing up Chertoff's claims, such as the LAT one above.
3. Bush and Chertoff are only supporting the fence (to the limited extent they are) in order to obtain an amnesty; they're on the Democratic Party's side in this matter.
4. And, both Think Progress and the Bush administration are on the side of those who profit from illegal activity and not on the side of the great majority of Americans.
[1] thinkprogress.org/2007/10/01/chertoff-immigrants-degrade-the-environment/
Calderon makes demands; Mexicans have "right to work" in U.S.; admits harm to Mexico of emigration
From this:Mexican President Felipe Calderon told U.S. governors Thursday that immigration is an inevitable, natural phenomenon and he urged the U.S. Congress to approve reforms that would allow more Mexicans to work legally north of the border.The last is probably a good thing from the perspective of Mexico's leaders: the "best people" might press for change.
Calderon demanded that the United States respect "the right to work wherever one can make the greatest contribution."
"Immigration is a natural phenomenon that is economically and socially inevitable"...
In a rare acknowledgment of the costs of migration for Mexico, Calderon said his country "doesn't not celebrate migration ... our best people are the ones who go."
Richardson and Perry were absent, but never fear because the U.S. was ably represented by two of our super-tough politicians - including Janet Napolitano - who vehemently spoke out against Calderon's comments, nearly causing an international incident:
Describing his many visits to Mexico since his first one 40 years ago, [California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger] lifted a line from his movie "Terminator," quipping, "I always look forward to saying, 'I'll be back."Well, maybe not. Of course, if there were fewer Mexican partisans in California and the U.S., it might make Arnie a little more comfortable about not being such a wimp.
And, from our Extreme Irony file:
[Eduardo Bours, governor of the border state of Sonora] also called for a crackdown on U.S. weapons that "cross the border all too easily." Calderon said weapons illicitly smuggled in from the U.S. had been responsible for killing dozens of Mexican policemen.That's certainly a bad thing, but illegal aliens from Mexico have been responsible for tens of thousands of violent crimes here in the U.S.
Let's discredit Deacon Sam Dunning (Houston day laborer center)
Something called the "Cypress Creek Interfaith Coalition for Economic Development" wants to establish a day laborer site in northwest Houston; their members include the Cypress Creek Christian Church (associate pastor: Franklin Moore) and perhaps the Catholic Church. A public meeting was held last night, and the following clip has Deacon Sam Dunning from the Houston Archdiocese of the Catholic Church (diogh.org/socialjustice_sec_socialjustice.htm) supporting the center and taking questions from the audience. He appears to be quite a piece of work, and I encourage all those in the Houston area to publicly ask him tougher questions based on his statements and designed to discredit him:
In addition to the questions here and here, some possibilities include:
* Are you claiming that Mexicans are "oppressed and persecuted" as the Jews were in Egypt? (Are you serious?)
* "Reform" would mandate enforcement, yet you compare enforcing our current laws to slavery and segregation. Once again, are you serious?
* Can't Mexicans obtain a "good life" in Mexico? Considering that five billion or so people are worse off than Mexicans, what about their chances at a "good life"? Isn't it absurd for you to suggest that the only way for Mexicans to have a "good life" is to come to the U.S.?
* Aren't there huge differences between past immigration and the current variety? Doesn't the Mexican government have a great deal of political power inside the U.S. due to, among other things, politicians and non-profits having links to that government and serving to varying degrees as de facto agents for that government? Doesn't that qualify as, to a certain extent, the Mexican government "colonizing" parts of the U.S.?
11/03/07 UPDATE: The AP offers what's called here "More Illegal Immigrant Women Taking Domestic Jobs":
..."These people can be very, very vulnerable, particularly if they're not documented," said Sam Dunning, who oversees social justice programs for the Roman Catholic archdiocese of Galveston-Houston. "If there's any dispute over working conditions, they have very little recourse..."
It sounds like Dunning should oppose illegal immigration then. Instead, he supports it.
Local enforcement of immigration laws protested in Irving, Texas (Mexican consul, Hector Flores)
From Sep. 21's "Irving mayor defends increased deportations" (link):Deportations in this city have skyrocketed in the last several months – from 262 in all of 2006 to 1,338 through mid-September... "In this city, one has to be extra careful," [local Mexican consul Enrique Hubbard Urrea] told Al Dia . "And if possible, avoid going through there, because we suspect, and with good reason, that people are being detained simply because of their appearance." ...At least 1,600 people have been turned over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement since June 2006 as part of the Criminal Alien Program, which provides for round-the-clock communication with federal authorities and is designed to detain illegal immigrants who have been accused of a crime.Note that Irving doesn't participate in the 287g program; they mayor opposes the use of that program and the city council hasn't approved it. Now, as if on cue:
Angered over a record number of recent deportations in Irving, more than 1,000 protesters waved U.S. flags and chanted "We are America" as they rallied Wednesday night at City Hall.I wouldn't be surprised at all to learn that there was some sort of coordination between the Mexican consul and those who organized this protest, but I have no proof.
Demonstrators called for Irving officials to put a moratorium on turning over suspected illegal immigrants to federal officials until immigration laws are reformed nationally. They also urged people to call Mayor Herbert Gears and ask him to stop deporting people from the city's jail.
"We need to raise our voice and we need to ask for changes about the things we don't like here," said Hector Flores, a leader in Irving's Hispanic community [and a real piece of work who's past president of the League of United Latin American Citizens]...
...And community leader Carlos Quintanilla said he would organize a boycott of Irving businesses if the city persisted.
..."We're not just hurting people driving without driver's licenses," said Luis DeLaGarza, a political consultant who helped organize the rally. "We are hurting the economy in Irving. We need to have immigration reform."
Two people from the anti-illegal immigration side were arrested at the event; whether they misbehaved or something else happened isn't clear.
UPDATE: There's video here (warning: may lock up browser). The ends of two altercations are shown, with one counter-protester slapping at two protesters, and another counter-protester with his hand on the neck of another protester. What preceeded those incidents isn't shown (gosh, that's surprising), and both may have been provoked. Unfortunately, this illustrates yet again that many of those opposed to illegal immigration haven't learned how to play the game. That includes video taping everything that happens as it's happening, and may also include not fighting back and then suing. Who knows what could be "discovered".
Kathleen Henehan/Media Matters promotes economic benefits of illegal immigration
"K.H." of Media Matters for America - presumably Kathleen Henehan - discusses a recent Los Angeles Times guest editorial from Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies in a post entitled 'In LA Times op-ed, Krikorian cherry-picked "anecdotal evidence" on immigration crackdown' (mediamatters.org/items/200709260011). The post is beyond tedious, and here's the summary:
In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, claimed that there is "extensive anecdotal evidence" that "more illegal aliens are going home, leading to improved conditions for American workers and communities." He cited five newspaper articles for support, but four of those articles also reported that the departure of illegal immigrants might have caused or may yet cause local businesses to experience a drop in revenue and eliminate jobs.
She goes on to sound just like the Wall Street Journal, George Bush, or paid hacks as they attempt to portray Agrigeddon should illegal aliens leave or be deported. Those on the left side of things may want to note that MMFA is on the side of corrupt businesses and others who profit from illegal activity in order to pay a lower wage or otherwise make more money.
Kathleen Henehan also approvingly quotes from a January 17 Wall Street Journal article that includes the following:
[t]he plant has struggled with high turnover among black workers, lower productivity and pay disputes between the new employees and labor contractors.
Thankfully - at least according to the subtext provided by MMFA - they're being replaced with Hmong imports from Minnesota and Wisconsin. Maybe Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson would like to weigh in on the interesting things that MMFA supports.
Governor Tim Kaine appoints extremist to Virginia Commission on Immigration?
I haven't researched this, but from this:A local delegate has asked Democratic Gov. Timothy M. Kaine to re-think his appointment of the head of the Virginia-based Muslim American Society to the Virginia Commission on Immigration.Video of an Omeish speech at the link or here.
Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Woodstock, wrote to Kaine earlier today, saying he was concerned about the appointment of Dr. Esam S. Omeish, a Northern Virginia physician and the group's president, to the panel. The commission was created earlier this year to study the impact of illegal immigration on the commonwealth.
The Muslim American Society has significant ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a group founded in Egypt, Gilbert said.
UPDATE: Whether he jumped or was pushed, Omeish is now off the Commission. Tim Kaine has released the following statement:
"I have accepted Dr. Esam Omeish's resignation as one of the 10 gubernatorial appointees to the 20-member Virginia Commission on Immigration. Dr. Omeish is a respected physician and community leader, yet I have been made aware of certain statements he has made which concern me...
Ken Belson/Jill Capuzzo/NYT: corruption, illegal activity are great!
Ken Belson and Jill Capuzzo of the New York Times offer a slab of pro-corruption, pro-illegal immigration propaganda in "Towns Rethink Laws Against Illegal Immigrants".
Apparently, Riverside, New Jersey has suffered economically after enacting an anti-illegal immigration ordinance (which they recently rescinded), and the NYT offers the most dire portrait they can:
With the departure of so many people, the local economy suffered. Hair salons, restaurants and corner shops that catered to the immigrants saw business plummet; several closed. Once-boarded-up storefronts downtown were boarded up again.
What about those businesses that weren't seeking to profit from an influx of "immigrants"? How are they doing? That's not answered.
And, there certainly is a lot of money to be made off illegal activity, but whether it's good to encourage that is another thing. There are also the other costs that Riverside doesn't have to pay after "so many" people left, such as increased educational and health costs. And, there are the non-financial costs, such as illegal immigration being an indicator of government corruption. Oddly, the NYT's crack reporters didn't factor any of those costs into the equation.
As for the ACLU, PFAW and others seeking to in effect enrich themselves by bankrupting small towns, this is all they have to say:
Meanwhile, the town was hit with two lawsuits challenging the law. Legal bills began to pile up, straining the town's already tight budget.
Wouldn't real reporters look into the ACLU's activities in this matter in a bit more depth, rather than creating a slanted report designed to apologize for illegal activity?
As for the "victims", they only quote four, all of whom would profit with increased illegal immigration:
Angelina Guedes, a Brazilian-born beautician, opened A Touch From Brazil... Luis Ordonez's River Dance Music Store, which sells Western Union wire transfers, cellphones and perfume... Bruce Behmke opened the R & B Laundromat in 2003 after he saw immigrants hauling trash bags full of clothing to a laundry a mile away... Regina Collinsgru, who runs The Positive Press, a local newspaper, and whose husband was among a wave of Portuguese immigrants who came here in the 1960s.
In her previous report (first link above), Capuzzo spun such wire transfers like so:
[another shop has] a bustling Western Union office, where many of the immigrants can stay in contact with relatives back home...
"Staying in contact" by sending money to their home countries, encouraging corruption in the U.S. as U.S. companies profit from illegal immigration, and incentivizing foreign countries to keep sending us people legally or illegally, that is.
The bottom line is that what Ken Belson and Jill Capuzzo write cannot be trusted; they're simply propagandists for the illegal immigration-supporting New York Times.
Those buying the propaganda include the following:
"Classically Liberal":
freestudents.blogspot.com/2007/09/town-that-threw-out-immigrants-reverses.html
"Thoreau":
highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2007/09/26/7217
David Weigel of Reason Magazine:
reason.com/blog/show/122687.html
UPDATE: From our "self-starters"/reverse assimilation file comes this additional paragraph from the article:
On the town's leafy side streets, some residents admired the pluck of newcomers who often worked six days a week, and a few even took up Capoeira, the Brazilian martial art.
How wonderfully multicultural of them. And in New Jersey too! Compare this snippet from the NYT editorial promoting Mexicanos Sin Fronteras:
You didn't think they [MSF] were just going to roll over, did you? They're immigrants: smart, industrious self-starters, like your grandparents.
George Soros linked to illegal immigration marches? (Actually, try the Mexican government)
Investor's Business Daily offers "The Soros Threat To Democracy". The part about immigration isn't entirely accurate, and they may have fallen for puffery by George Soros' Open Society Institute:
Didn't the mainstream media report that 2006's vast immigration rallies across the country began as a spontaneous uprising of 2 million angry Mexican-flag waving illegal immigrants demanding U.S. citizenship in Los Angeles, egged on only by a local Spanish-language radio announcer? ...Turns out that wasn't what happened, either. Soros' OSI had money-muscle there, too, through its $17 million Justice Fund. The fund lists 19 projects in 2006. One was vaguely described involvement in the immigration rallies. Another project funded illegal immigrant activist groups for subsequent court cases... So what looked like a wildfire grassroots movement really was a manipulation from OSI's glassy Manhattan offices. The public had no way of knowing until the release of OSI's 2006 annual report.
First, if I recall correctly, the first large march was that on March 10 in Chicago. That was followed by a Los Angeles event on March 25, organized by the March 25 Coalition.
Second, while I'd be ecstatic to find out that Soros was involved in those marches, at this point the more worrisome issue is that many of the organizers of the Chicago marches have links to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties. The issue the MSM refuses to look into is whether those organizers are in fact Mexican proxies, much the same as the U.S. has used proxies to organize demonstrations and spread propaganda in other countries.
As for Soros, the 2006 annual report is here:
soros.org/resources/articles_publications/publications/annual_20070731
Unrelated to the marches, they disclose that they fund the far-left NLG:
Several OSI grantees, including the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Immigrant Defense Project of the New York State Defenders Association, and the National Immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild, mounted a coordinated litigation effort that culminated in a major U.S. Supreme Court victory in the case of Lopez v. Gonzales.
As for the marches, they offer no specifics on their involvement. However, they do lie by omitting the magic word ("illegal") and by pretending that illegal aliens were marching for their rights. In fact, they were marching for additional rights:
Hundreds of thousands of people from immigrant communities demonstrated in cities across the nation for recognition of their rights as people living and working in the United States. Alliances of immigrants' rights groups, faithbased organizations, civil rights groups, and others helped mobilize the massive rallies that increased immigrants' visibility and highlighted their economic and political power. They also had a positive influence on the debate over illegal immigration in Congress, changing its focus from almost exclusively enforcement to also including opportunities for immigrants to legalize their status and reunify family members.
If someone can find a list of actual organizations that Soros has funded in the immigration field that would be very helpful.
Obama immigration interview: he'd make situation far worse (Kevin Johnson/UC Davis)
Professors Kevin Johnson (lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration), Jennifer Chacon, and Bill Hing of UC Davis have scored a true coup for the blogosphere: an interview about immigration with Barack Obama! Of course, it probably helped that all three of them "have served as members of an Immigration Policy Group for the Obama campaign". Another help was that the questions are complete puffballs and they didn't have any followup questions despite the answers being mostly stock replies and full of holes. I suspect that the "interview" (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/09/exclusive-barac.html) was conducted via email and with a staffer, perhaps with the staffer simply copying and pasting from past Obama statements.
The interview does, however, reveal that Obama would make things even worse than previously suspected.
I will not stop pushing Congress to pass comprehensive reform this year... [opposes point-based immigration] We also need to bring the 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows. We need to be realistic about the fact that they are here, we can't deport them, and they have become an integral part of our society. [standard amnesty provision blather, says he'll work for amnesty in first year of his term]
There are mostly likely more than 12 million here, and while we can't deport all of them tomorrow we can cause a large percentage to go home simply by enforcing our laws. He should have been called at least on that.
[reiterates opposition to point-based system, drops name of Senator Menendez]... The point system instead of family visas betrays American family values, the same values that the family-based preferences in our immigration law are designed to enforce. It gave no preference to an immigrant with a brother or sister or even a parent who is a United States citizen unless the immigrant met some minimum and arbitrary threshold on education and skills.
Maybe it's in our best interests as a country to bring in those who do in fact have something above a grammar school education and who have some skills so they can contribute to the U.S. I guess that decreases the likelihood that they'd vote Democratic, so what's in the best interests of the U.S. flies right out the window.
[Johnson et al falsely imply that increased enforcement leads to border deaths; in his response, Obama dances around his forced support for the fence and slightly contradicts them on their implication but is afraid to take them on on that issue.] ...Additional fencing on the border is not a comprehensive solution, but it sometimes helps deter people from taking the risk of entering illegally.
His response to the question of what to do about Elvira Arellano is such a classic of political doublespeak that I'll include it in full:
I've met with Elvira Arellano and her son, and I understand the challenges that they and millions of other undocumented immigrants face. Although I do not condone Ms. Arellano's defiance of the law, her plight is representative of a broken immigration system. [copy and paste begins] We need comprehensive immigration reform that creates a system that is fair, consistent, compassionate, and emphasizes both maintaining the rule of law and the security of our borders while working to keep families together. I will not stop pushing Congress to pass comprehensive reform this year. Part of this issue involves family reunification, an issue which I have fought for in the Senate, most recently working with Senator Menendez and others during the most recent debate to ensure that families were not left out of immigration reform. If President Bush cannot lead on this issue, I will, by reviving our national discussion on comprehensive reform in my first year in the White House and working diligently toward a solution rooted in pragmatism, the rule of law, and our history as a nation of immigrants.
Note that everything after the first two sentences is basically a copy and paste from what "Obama" (or his staffer) "said" earlier in the "interview".
More copying-and-pasting ensues in the response to the question about Hazleton, PA; that brackets this:
[...supports "comprehensive reform"...] The anti-immigrant law passed by Mayor Barletta was unconstitutional and unworkable – and it underscores the need for comprehensive immigration reform so local communities do not continue to take matters into their own hands... [...supports "comprehensive reform"...]
His response to the final question, one about assimilation, is vague although it contains an anti-Obama nugget at the end. He says he wants to pass the anti-American DREAM Act and then throws in his other plans just for a bonus: establishing universal healthcare, ending the Iraq war, etc., etc. Then, he drops the name of Luis Gutierrez, with whom he wrote the Citizenship Promotion Act. See the link for the issues with that. Then, he goes off on an education tear, with a Latino emphasis.
Then, a bit of a bombshell:
I am a supporter of transitional bilingual education to help our English language learners thrive.
From that I assume he supports allowing the Mexican government to spread their propaganda to U.S. public school children.
That shouldn't come as a surprise, considering that he marched in the May 1, 2006 illegal immigration march in Chicago, the one that was organized by several people linked to the Mexican government and Mexican political parties.
The bottom line is this: he would be a complete disaster as president. What we can do about this is go to his campaign appearances and ask him real questions (the kind that Kevin Johnson et al won't), and then upload his responses. That will help further reduce his popularity, it will put pressure on his competitors to reform their stances on immigration, and it will also help put pressure on the MSM and on academic hacks to ask real questions.
UPDATE: Sometimes even I reach MSM levels. I misread his statement above regarding bilingual education as "transnational" rather than the "transitional" that he actually said. Supporting the second is certainly problematic, but not anywhere near as problematic as supporting what I originally thought.
John Edwards: path to citizenship for *everyone* living in the U.S.
From this (scroll) we get this self-evidently lunatic quote from John Edwards (9/17 Service Employees International Union political action conference):
"We're going to ensure that every single person living in the United States of America has a completely achievable path to American citizenship so that they don't live in the shadows."
It'd be nice if we still had reporters rather than simply transcriptionists. They could have first asked Edwards what he means by "living in the U.S.A." What timeframe does that imply? Could someone live here for a day and then get on the "path"? Or, would it have to be a few weeks or a few months?
Then, they could have told the hairhead about the tremendous pressure that would put on our borders by the millions and millions and millions more who would try to come here and live for however little time it takes to get on the "path".
Any reporter who talks to Edwards should ask him about that, and any reporter who talks to him about immigration matters but who fails to ask him about that is simply a hack. I suspect we'll see many examples in the coming weeks.
DOJ sues Illinois over statewide sanctuary policy (Blagojevich)
From a U.S. Department of Justice press release [1]:The Department of Justice today filed a lawsuit in federal district court seeking to invalidate an Illinois state law that attempts to prevent employers from using DHS's E-Verify system, which allows them to check in real-time whether new hires are authorized to work in the United States. The lawsuit seeks a declaration that a law passed earlier this year by the Illinois legislature and signed by the Governor [Rod Blagojevich] that prohibits employers from enrolling in the Department's E-Verify system is invalid.Rep. Peter Roskam says:
"E-verify or the Basic Pilot Program, authorized by Congress, is the on-line system that allows employers to verify whether new hires are allowed to work in the United States," said Carl Nichols, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Civil Division. "Today's lawsuit seeks to invalidate an Illinois state law that frustrates our ability to assist employers in making sure their workforce is legal, and in doing so conflicts with federal law."
"Governor Blagojevich and the Illinois Legislature are acting against the best interest of Illinois workers, Illinois families, and against the safety of our nation... It is unbelievable that a legislative body would prohibit honest employers the right to voluntarily verify the citizenship status of their workers. It is against the law to hire an illegal alien and the federal E-Verify system is currently the best means available for employers to ensure compliance... Governor Blagojevich is attempting to preempt federal law by creating a virtual sanctuary within the State of Illinois for illegal aliens."A few more links on this here; links to the complaint and the legislation here. The last includes an interview with Michael Chertoff about this.
Previously:
Rod Blagojevich, Luis Gutierrez, and the alleged FALN terrorist
Illinois House approves driver's licenses for illegal aliens
Will Rod Blagojevich pro-illegal immigration scheme violate law?
FBI probes Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich; hiring kickback?
Blagojevich-linked group agitating illegal aliens, calls for general strike
Blagojevich stand behind NOI member on Illinois hate crimes commission
Blagojevich gives illegal aliens better deal than veterans
Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich gets a $720,000 heated driveway
[1] usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2007/September/07_civ_757.html
New York Times editorial: pass anti-American DREAM Act
From the 9/20 New York Times editorial called "Pass the Dream Act" (link):
...The idea is modest and smart, but modest and smart usually don’t get very far these days. The anti-immigrant forces that buried the Senate’s comprehensive reforms under a wave of faxes and phone calls are at it again over the revival of this small part of that much bigger bill. They are convinced that giving a break to blameless young men and women - maybe about a million - who want to earn a college degree or serve in the military weakens the country instead of strengthening it. Their hostility to nurturing a new cohort of American citizens, their reflexive "no" even to this limited attempt at immigration decency, lays bare the bankruptcy of their self-defeating passions... Passage would also give encouragement to the budding activists on college campuses around the country who have rallied behind the Dream Act for themselves and their schoolmates...
1. This appeared on the same day that Dick Durbin made his changes which may have somewhat reduced the hugely negative impacts of the bill. Before those changes, the DREAM Act still allowed illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens. And, it was a massive amnesty with no upper age limit and could have amnestied far more than the million that the NYT claims (maybe that's why they say "maybe").
2. Needless to say, the NYT is trying to smear those opposed to massive illegal activity as not only being "anti-immigrant", but being ruled by their "passions" rather than reason.
3. All of the "activism" I've seen relating to the DREAM Act is either dishonest (the endless string of PIIPPs) or based entirely on emotion, illogical thought, and ethnic solidarity. None of that should be encouraged.
Esmeralda Bermudez spins Mexican textbooks in Oregon public schools
Esmeralda Bermudez of the Oregonian offers "Mexican lesson plans crossing the border". The Mexican government - with the assistance of useful idiots and others - has managed to get their curriculum [1] used in three Oregon high schools. This is only the latest similar incident [2].Although she was defended by her paper for another article [3], the current article is completely missing any hint that this would be in any way a bad thing. One would think that, faced with a subject like this, Bermudez might consider phoning a few people who oppose illegal immigration and/or Mexico's agenda to find out what they think. Apparently she's not that kind of reporter. This case also illustrates that there are powerful forces - including those in government and the media - who oppose assimilation and who, for ethnic reasons or others, wittingly assist Mexico with its goals.
The Associated Press appears to have rewritten her report to fashion something misleadingly titled "Oregon Schools Adopt Mexican Curriculum, Stirring Debate" (link). As with the apparently original article, there is no debate, only promotion.
For the "debate" see the entry from KGW here. Most of those leaving comments are opposed; if Bermudez were in any way a real reporter rather than just a hack, couldn't she have found some opposition?
From the original article:
Conversations are under way between the Oregon Department of Education and Mexico's secretary of public education to align the curriculums of Oregon and Mexico so many courses in Mexico will be valid here and vice versa. The innovative move puts Oregon on par with other educators nationwide who have launched similar ventures in Yakima; San Diego, Calif.; and Austin, Texas.Spoken like a true useful idiot. Write him and let him know what you think: patrick.burk@state.or.us
..."[Bilingual aides and such are] not enough," said Patrick Burk, chief policy officer with the superintendent's office of the Oregon Department of Education, adding that the goal is to "minimize disruption" for immigrant Latinos.
"The availability of resources is astounding," said Burk, who flew to Mexico with a team of Oregon curriculum officials in August to discuss making equivalency standards official. "We're able to serve the students so much better if we're working together."
...In Washington, nearly 30 schools have already implemented Mexico's curriculum into the classrooms. Yakima School District was among the first, drawing educators from across the state who traveled to the schools to learn about the new method.Others quoted:
"We're seeing them score higher," on standardized tests, said Jorge Herrera, the coordinator who manages the programs for the state. "And more are staying in school." Annually, staffing the programs in Yakima schools costs an estimated $60,000, he said...
* Patricia Ramos, "the director of national affairs for Mexico's Institute for Adult Education and National Advisory of Education for Life and Work"
* Dale Bernardini, "a teacher who handles programming of Oregon and Mexico's partnership for Reynolds School District"
* Tim King, "director of Clackamas Middle College and Clackamas Web Academy"
* Francisco Rico, teacher at Reynolds High School
If you're in those school districts, discuss this issue with those people directly, pointing out the downsides of what they're involved in. If they don't relent, work to publicly discredit them or recall them from office. The same goes for those at the state level: attend their public meetings and ask them detailed questions about this issue designed to drive them from office.
[1] The program is named "community plazas" and includes history and other books and a website.
[2] Heather MacDonald discussed this issue here. Other localities using these or similar books from a foreign government include Minnesota and Los Angeles. Compare the current coverage to that offered by another ethnically-compromised "reporter", Rachel Uranga. Earlier this year Louis E. V. Nevaer promoted the textbooks.
[3] On August 24, 2007, Therese Bottomly, the Oregonian's "managing editor/readership and standards" offered "Immigration article provokes backlash" about one of the reporter's prior efforts. Not only can't she find anything wrong with Bermudez' coverage, and not only does she attempt to portray opponents to illegal activity as angry racists ("Suffice it to say, most of it was tinged with anger and some of it with outright racism"), but she offers a quote:
Peter Bhatia, executive editor of The Oregonian, says, "We certainly appreciate the passion around this issue and while our coverage has not been perfect it has been truthful and fair. We cannot and will not edit the newspaper to suit any agenda, pro or anti. Nor will we back off in covering this important issue. We are very fortunate to have a capable, talented and tough reporter on the story, Esme Bermudez. She will continue to serve our readers well in dissecting the complexities of the immigration debate."Just as long as you only want to hear Mexico's side of things, that is.
Columbia University welcomes Ahmadinejad; Columbia Political Union rejects Minuteman speaker
Via this we learn that at the same time as Columbia University and their president Lee Bollinger wants Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to engage in a speech at Columbia (link), the student-led Columbia Political Union is denying a similar right to Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist.
The CPU's executive board (cupolitics.org/leadership/eboard.html) voted on Monday night to deny a return engagement to Gilchrist. As you may recall, he was forced off the stage by violent far-left groups last year.
From their statement (blog.cupolitics.org/node/291):
After several productive conversations with other student leaders and our advisors, and after lengthy discussions among our Executive Board members, it has become clear that this event cannot take the form we had originally hoped it would and could not effectively accomplish the goals we had hoped it might.
Gilchrist says that a majority of their members as well as deans wanted him to speak. However, Professor David Eisenbach may have been one of those who helped pull the plug.
UPDATE: Not so fast: Eisenbach is looking like one of the good guys, telling AP about the decision to uninvite Gilchrist:
"The health of a free society and a university depends on the free expression of ideas. Only through a free expression of ideas can we reach the truth."
And:
"Of course I imagine there will be a protest, a large and potentially disruptive one—though I don't know about that—and certainly I will be helping to organize it," Judd, reached by phone Monday afternoon, said of the invitation... "I would really like to know what the hell he [Eisenbach] thinks he's doing," [International Socialist Organization President David Judd, SEAS '08] added... Lauren Steinberg, CC '09 and CUCR's director of operations, said she hadn't heard of the invitation before today [9/17]... "Personally, I really hope he's not coming," Steinberg said. "I mean, it was a fun time last year, but I don't need it to happen again."
Their plan was initially to invite Karina Garcia to debate Gilchrist, but apparently she refused.
Dick Durbin modifies DREAM Act; calls still needed
From this:Sen. Richard J. Durbin, trying to win support to pass his proposal to give legal status to illegal aliens who go to college or join the military [the DREAM Act], said yesterday he has dropped from his plan a mandate for in-state tuition rates and is promising to impose an age limit to cut the number of people who would be eligible...Sen. John Cornyn - who voted for it in conference - says it won't survive cloture. However, calls are still needed to help avoid "changes of heart." There's a list of those who need phone calls here.
...He has agreed to impose an age ceiling of 30 to limit the pool of eligibility, answering critics who said it was too open, and he is considering changes to confidentiality rules governing applications...
..."I would be opposed to it and will work against it," said Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican.
Even Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who was one of the most vocal Republican champions of the president's immigration bill, was noncommittal yesterday...
Mitt Romney releases immigration policy document (er, kinda)
Mitt Romney has released a momentous 70-page tome called "Strategy for a Stronger America" (link). It consists of ten sections about his various proposals. In rather large print, with lots of pictures. No footnotes for him!
The immigration section includes the following quote:
"We must reform the current immigration laws so we can secure our borders, implement a mandatory biometrically-enabled and tamperproof documentation and employment-verification system, and increase legal immigration into America."
That pretty clearly sounds like a national ID card for everyone, and even the PDF isn't internally consistent:
Issue a biometrically-enabled and tamperproof card to non-citizens and create a national database for non-citizens so employers can easily verify their legal status in this country.
It's a relief it would (at least according to the second statement) be just for non-citizens. However, as with Rudy Giuliani he's database-mad and as with Rudy's plan even if it only started with non-citizens it would eventually become a national ID for everyone, including citizens.
And, we get three one-paragraph-only sections that, while they probably have their own issues, aren't as problematic:
Secure The Border.
Punish Sanctuary Cities.
Encourage Legal Immigration.
The "Improve Interior Enforcement" section raises a bit of a red flag, perhaps with reason:
Provide resources to enforce immigration laws throughout the nation, and crackdown on employers who continue to hire illegals with stiffer fines and penalties.
Somehow the "continue" part has me a bit worried: after what? After Romney is elected? Or, after a "guest" worker program or after an amnesty?
Wait, what was I thinking? He's against amnesty!
Reject Amnesty. Do not give amnesty or any special pathway to those who have come to this country illegally.
The problems with that statement are discussed at the link, as is a question you can ask Romney to find out exactly where he stands. We know the MSM isn't going to ask, so it's up to us to do it.
Stephen Wall/San Bernardino Sun promotes DREAM Act
Stephen Wall of the San Bernardino Sun offers what's called around here a "PIIPP": a "Pro-Illegal Immigration Puff Piece". This one - like most of the others - is designed to promote the anti-American DREAM Act, a bill that would let illegal aliens take college discounts from U.S. citizens. The bill is currently attached to a defense bill and everyone is urged to call their Senators and stress your opposition.As for Wall's propaganda, if you aren't familiar with these type of articles, look at the two examples presented side-by-side here. Then compare them with his and consider - despite the quotes in the article from critics - whether he's a reporter or just a hack:
Maria Duarte is clinging to her dream of becoming a social worker.
But she will need the support of Congress to achieve her goal.
Duarte, a 20-year-old Cal State San Bernardino student, is one of the thousands of illegal immigrants who could become legal residents and eventually citizens under a bill pending in Congress...
...Even if she graduates from college, Duarte's degree will be worthless unless she can become a legal resident. Besides social work, she is thinking about entering the field of criminal justice and becoming an FBI agent...
Corporatist Nuns for Illegal Activity! (escorts for illegal alien farmworkers)
From our "I'm beyond being shocked at the level that some religious 'leaders' will go to support illegal activity" comes this:Similar fears have prompted the staff of Catholic Charities in the Diocese of Rochester, N.Y., to consider organizing escort services for the immigrants who work in the region's farms and dairies.I don't really want to see a nun doing the perp walk, so hopefully their parishioners can help prevent that from happening. The best way to do that is to let your local religious "leaders" know that if they support illegal immigration you will publicly challenge their position and show the other parishioners how wrong they are.
Mercy Sister Janet Korn, social justice awareness coordinator for Catholic Charities, said some area farmers now escort their workers when they go into town for shopping or other business. The workers – and their employers – fear that they'll be targeted for questioning and potential arrest by virtue of their appearance.
...The Catholic Charities staff has discussed formalizing a program to offer such escorts, modeled after services provided to natives of El Salvador who returned to the still-volatile country to reclaim their homes and property when the civil war ended in the early 1990s.
Sister Korn said there are fears that escorts might be charged with crimes for transporting illegal immigrants, so discussions are proceeding cautiously...
Ten Senators against DREAM Act; please call the rest
So far, NumbersUSA has found 10 Senators who say they'll oppose the DREAM Act, a massive amnesty that will also make it possible for illegal aliens to take college discounts from U.S. citizens:
Alabama: Sessions
Arizona: Kyl
Georgia: Chambliss; Isakson
Kansas: Roberts
Kentucky: Bunning
Louisiana: Vitter
North Carolina: Burr
Oklahoma: Inhofe
Tennesee: Corker
The phone numbers for the other senators are listed here; please give them a call and ask everyone you know to do the same.
Devona Walker/NewsOK sells dire consequences of no-match; illegal aliens leaving Oklahoma?
Devona Walker of NewsOK offers the stock "Immigration crackdown called devastating to economy" about illegal aliens apparently leaving Oklahoma because of a new law (two other examples here). She brings on two people to paint a dire picture of economic disaster. Oddly enough, both are Hispanic and profit from the presence of large numbers of Hispanics, legal or illegal. Odd! She also brings on Tamar Jacoby.Then, she offers what appears to be an intentional attempt to deceive:
Even those here lawfully feel they are being targeted.Terrill says it only deals with illegal immigration, but the first and fourth paragraphs above will give the reader the false impression that he's targeting legal immigrants as well.
"It makes them feel like, 'I'm not wanted here,'" [a Hispanic restaurant owner] added.
Randy Terrill, R-Moore, co-sponsored Oklahoma's own immigration enforcement legislation - largely considered one of the toughest in the nation - set to go into effect Nov. 1.
For him, that's the point.
"We are talking about people who have entered this country illegally, and are now making demands for rights, specifically the right to pursue employment, for which they are not eligible," Terrill said.
Hillary Clinton healthcare plan begins with possible Big Lie
See if you can spot the possible whopper contained in Hillary Clinton's new healthcare plan (new report here, described at her site here):
Hillary Clinton unveiled the third part of her plan to ensure that all Americans have affordable, quality health insurance... ...her American Health Choices Plan will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans. This Plan covers every American - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured...
I'm going to guess that her plan would also cover illegal aliens, and if that's true then she's lying. Illegal aliens and legal immigrants are not "Americans"; they're foreign citizens: Mexicans, Brazilians, and so forth.
If it does in fact include illegal aliens, here's an accurate version of the above:
Hillary Clinton unveiled the third part of her plan to ensure that all "Americans" with that word defined to include all American citizens together with everyone that Mexico and other countries can send us have affordable, quality health insurance... ...her Residing-in-America Health Choices Plan will secure, simplify and ensure choice in health coverage for all Americans and everyone else who can make it over the border. This Plan covers every American and many more besides, just as long as they can make it through the desert or overstay their visa - finally addressing the needs of the 47 million uninsured including those illegal aliens that the Democratic Party has helped come here...
UPDATE: Via this we learn the somewhat surprising news that someone from the MSM asked Hillary's people about this issue. If it was CNN that asked they probably would have mentioned that, so it was probably another source:
Senior policy adviser Laurie Rubiner [says:] "That's one we're going to have to think through a little bit... We have not dealt with every single detail with this plan"... ...When asked if it would be safe to assume that the Democratic frontrunner, at this point, has no position on coverage for illegal immigrants advisers answered "yes" and said the plan does not "at this point" deal with that issue.
I could make a joke about Hillary waiting until her co-chair Fabian Nunez hears back from the Mexican government, but instead I'd like to point out how pathetic it is that a presidential candidate has unveiled a major plan and doesn't have or won't disclose how it intends to deal with a possible major downside to the plan.
UPDATE 2: From this:
The new Clinton plan doesn't include the words "citizen" nor "immigrant," but does refer to "Americans" 30 times. A Clinton spokesman said the plan doesn't cover illegal immigrants; he didn't respond to a follow-up inquiry asking about other noncitizens such as residents with green cards.
I don't entirely trust in the solidity of those statements because they're appearing in an obscure part of the WSJ and the spokesman isn't named. There's always the chance she could back off from those statements.
Wall Street Journal still pushing Hispanic vote chimera
The Wall Street Journal offers what is probably a daily attempt to support importing cheap labor in "Hispanics and the GOP" (possible author: Stephen Moore). It's difficult to point out all that's wrong with it or how similar it is to past efforts, but let's consider this bit:
While GOP candidates debated the urgency of erecting a fence from California to Texas along the Mexican border, Democrats debated in Spanish on Univision.
Actually, (to the chagrin of Bill Richardson), they "debated" in English. It was translated into Spanish. And, Richardson practically had a sign around his neck saying, "vote for me, I'm Raza". And, both Hillary and Obama were asked to defend their voting for the fence. And, leftie Elena Maria Salinas asked questions that indicated her support for illegal immigration, which the Dems answered as one would expect. Would the WSJ have the GOP reduce itself to that level?
To reverse current trends, the GOP need not resort to ethnic pandering, which is the left's metier.
I fail to see how they could avoid stooping to ethnic pandering, if they're going to support massive immigration from one region and especially from one country. And, that also means giving in to the racial power demands of "community leaders" who've made it clear that they put their race ahead of their country. So, how would the WSJ do it?
But Republicans would help their cause tremendously if the party at the very least adopted a welcoming stance toward Latino newcomers... Tone matters in politics, and getting people to vote for you is easier when you're not likening them to Islamic terrorists, or implying that Latino men are hard-wired for gang-banging.
Nice strawman. I'm not aware of GOP leaders that do that. Chuck Schumer did produce a video showing illegal aliens climbing over a fence and discussing the threat of terrorists infiltrating the U.S., which he quickly pulled because a couple racial demagogues complained. Should the GOP engage in such gutless behavior? Should the GOP turn a blind eye to terrorist infiltration because racial demagogues want them to turn a blind eye to massive illegal immigration by others of the same race?
There's much more, including this:
Republican pols may decide to follow Mr. Tancredo, Lou Dobbs, Fox News populists and obsessive bloggers down this path, but it's likely to lead to political defeat.
Oh well. Even if I were a member of a party I'd put what's in the best interests of the U.S. first, and I invite the WSJ to consider doing the same.
Truther (lamely) confronts Rudy Giuliani, why can't we?
There have been several videos featuring "Truthers" more or less lamely "confronting" presidential candidates about 9/11. While one featuring John Kerry featured an actual dialog (and more or less a brush off), most of them involve the Truthers yelling questions at the candidate which are then ignored. And, most people are generally going to automatically throw most of their questions into the tinfoil hat category.
It would be great if people other than Truthers could be encouraged to go to appearances and ask real questions about immigration and do it in a way designed to discredit the candidates.
For an example of how not to do things, see Rudy Giuliani's appearance at "Steak Stuffers" in Tulsa (written up here):
One would think that asking Rudy about whatever statements he made about the safety of the air on the WTC pile would be a slam dunk, since 60 Minutes featured a segment about that last week. However, Joe Picorale from Tulsa Truth didn't exactly helping himself by:
1. Not trying to get a question in during a question period. Obviously, this is difficult since the candidates are a bit aloof, but surely they could choose occasions when the candidates are willing to answer questions rather than simply shouting their questions at the candidates' back or as he gets into an SUV.
2. Not highlighting the reporters spoken to (including one from the AP). If someone has actual facts, and that reporter doesn't mention them, then one can ask the reporter why and discuss their failure to discuss those facts.
3. Not having a handout listing Giuliani's statements. I have no idea what he said about the safety of the air around the pile, but that would seem to be a necessary first step.
4. Verging a bit into conspiracy theories, such as Rudy's supposed foreknowledge of one of the buildings' collapse. As with #3, that quote and a cite could be included in the handout.
Amnesty comes back on Monday, and what you can do about it
From this:President Bush's comprehensive immigration reform, defeated in June, will make a second appearance this week when the Senate takes up various pro-amnesty amendments submitted to the Department of Defense funding bill, H.R. 1585, which is scheduled for debate.Previous coverage of this latest push here. Grassfire is apparently starting some sort of campaign this week.
While not "comprehensive" reform, the latest initiative attempts to pass key provisions of the earlier immigration measure piece by piece by attaching amendments to unrelated bills, a process critics characterize as "stealth."
Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin, D-Ill., has re-introduced another version of his "Dream Act," this time as an amendment (SA 2237) to the DOD funding bill...
NumbersUSA has more details, and you can send a free FAX.
As usual, I'll point out that the way to actually have long-lasting change is to discredit pro-amnesty politicians. Dick Durbin would be a wonderful choice if he has any public appearances, but the presidential candidates are great choices as well.
All you need to do is go to their public appearances, ask them tough questions about their stances, and then upload their responses to Youtube. The idea is to ask them questions that make them look as bad as possible. If that's done enough times, it will have a very salubrious impact on not just the immigration issue but on many other issues as well.
Rudy Giuliani's "foreigners-only" (national) ID card
I've previously discussed how Rudy Giuliani's scheme to "stop illegal immigration" (one of his Twelve Commitments) by requiring a "foreigners-only" ID card would either fail or would eventually become a national biometric ID.
Here's another way that his card would morph from being just for foreigners to being for citizens as well. Consider the following quote (link):
"You then have a tamper-proof ID card for all the people that are in the United States [1]. They have to get a tamper-proof ID card when they come in, or if they hear they have to get one."
Many of those who "come in" are going to eventually become citizens. What happens then? Do they get to magically throw away their biometric IDs? After having a track record of using a biometric ID as a non-citizen, it's going to be extremely difficult to wipe the record, and there will be a great deal of pressure to require that former non-citizen continue using their card.
[1] I'll assume he just misspoke and he doesn't mean "all the people that are in the United States", since he's made it clear that it would just be for foreigners in past statements. (Although, that could have been a slip).
Randal Archibold discovers consequence of NYT policies: border deaths
Randal Archibold of the New York Times offers the two-screener "At the U.S. Border, the Desert Takes a Rising Toll", mostly about one Mexican who tried and failed to be smuggled across the desert, dying along the way. While the emotionalism isn't as incredibly high as it could be, it certainly appears to be an attempt to make the reader want to do something to end these border deaths.
And, in fact, there are only two things that would greatly reduce the number:
1. Open the border completely and pass out citizenships or at least work permits at the border, or
2. Stringently enforce our immigration laws so even people in deepest Mexico realize that trying to cross won't work: they won't be able to find work and they won't have access to non-emergency public services.
The U.S. is never going to do the first, leaving the second as the only realistic option to reduce the number of incidents.
Oddly enough, the New York Times is somewhere between the two. In fact, by excusing illegal immigration every chance they get, they help the U.S. become a sort of attractive nuisance [1]. Every time someone tries to build a fence around a neighbor's swimming pool, the NYT advocates cutting holes in the fence.
In brief, the NYT is partly responsible for the border deaths they decry.
Robert Nix and Luis Mendoza would make fine Democrats (Lou Barletta invite)
Perhaps some people should consider their political options:Leaders from two statewide groups of Latino Republicans are criticizing the Lancaster County Republican Committee for inviting Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta to speak today at a donor luncheon.Nix, who's of Mexican descent, was mentioned here about similar comments he made at a meeting of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
Robert S. Nix, chairman of the Pennsylvania Hispanic Republicans, and Luis Mendoza, chairman of the Republican National Hispanic Assembly's Pennsylvania chapter, slammed the local GOP, accusing it of acting against Latino interests...
Both have their own reasons for opposing Barletta, but I wonder whether they'd have those same reasons if most of the illegal aliens in the area were Chinese. I tend to doubt it, and I strongly suspect that their primary interest is in obtaining race-based power or something similar.
Perhaps the Democratic Party might be a better vehicle for both of them to achieve whatever their goals are.
UFCW, Mexico-linked Peter Schey sue DHS over immigration raids (4th Amendment, yeah sure)
From a UFCW press release (link):The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union (UFCW), today, sought court intervention to protect the 4th Amendment rights of all Americans and enjoin the government from illegally arresting and detaining workers including U.S. citizens and legal residents while at their workplace.The suit concerns raids conducted at Swift Foods; note that Schey repurposed one of his sites into the Swift Raid Collaborative.
The lawsuit - filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas - names the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency as defendants. The suit calls for an injunction against the excessive, illegal and unnecessary worksite raids conducted by ICE agents...
...Peter Schey, President of the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and the lead counsel in the UFCW litigation said, "The Department of Homeland Security routinely violates the Constitution and federal law when it conducts work place raids to detect undocumented workers by engaging in mass detentions of all workers without any basis for believing that they have violated any laws. Such mass detentions have long been considered unlawful by the U.S. courts. While the Department of Homeland Security has a legitimate function to perform enforcing the nation’s immigration laws, it cannot do so by running roughshod over the well-established constitutional rights of U.S. citizens and lawful resident workers. If DHS Secretary Chertoff is unwilling or unable to stop the unconstitutional conduct of his agents, then we are sure the federal courts will step in to do so."
Perhaps one way to deal with this issue is for UFCW members to publicly ask their leaders whether they have any qualms about working with someone who has at least three links to the Mexican government and whose motives may involve something other than defending the Constitution.
Thomas Donohue, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, doesn't like you too much
Here's a quote from Thomas Donohue:
"You know, when you come to immigration and trade -- I've sort of come to the point that I don't blame the politicians as much as I blame their constituents."
Per the link, this was in an August 31, 2007 Federal News Service article called "Remarks by Thomas Donohue, President and CEO, U.S. Chamber of Commerce; Topic: The Chamber of Commerce's Trade Priorities for This Fall".
Pandering prescribed: Bush admin hack learns Univision, Spanish media biased against GOP
Leslie Sanchez ("director of the White House Initiative on Hispanic Education from 2001-2003") reads Univision's site and finds out that they're biased against the GOP, despite all the pandering that the Republicans have done. While she doesn't indicate anything beyond outreaching to the Spanish media, one can assume that she wants the GOP to try to out-pander the Democrats by stressing social issues (abortion, etc.) and promising immigration "reform" (aka, an amnesty). Needless to say, that won't work: no matter how the GOP panders, the Dems will always be able to offer a better pander. What the GOP needs to do is take on Univision and point out the ways that they and the Dems are wrong; with a Bush administration that usually acts like the Dems, that's a bit difficult....If their views were presented fairly, it's likely that Republicans would connect with Hispanic voters. That may be why the network's news coverage often downplays issues that make Hispanics dislike Democrats (abortion, same-sex marriage, taxes) and sensationalizes the immigration issue as a way of demonizing Republicans -- even those who are not anti-immigrant.
Rudy Giuliani, who is attacked by some for making New York a "sanctuary city" for illegal immigrants during his time as mayor, was blasted as anti-inmigrante in a recent op-ed by star reporter Maria Elena Salinas on Univision's Web site. Apparently the mayor earned the label because he was tough on crime and supports border security, notwithstanding the fact that he carried 43% of New York City's Hispanic vote (a bloc that tends to be heavily Democratic) when he ran for re-election in 1997.
...Univision isn't alone. Bias is a problem throughout Spanish media. In South Carolina, Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican and supporter of the failed comprehensive immigration reform bill, was surprised to see a December 2005 headline in El Periodico Latino that, when translated, read: "BAD NEWS FOR IMMIGRANTS: Congressman Inglis will support President Bush's position on immigration." Of course, the Bush plan was the most pro-immigration proposal on the table.
Univision is the largest and most important part of the Spanish-language media, yet it features some of the most unbalanced political news coverage on television and it continues its leftward drift. Marcela Salazar, a former staffer for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was hired recently as the producer on Univision's new political show, "Al Punto," which is hosted by two left-wing journalists. A Democratic friend of mine, who works as a strategist for a Democratic presidential campaign, told me last week: "She'll do us a lot of good there."
Socialists block immigration enforcement in Los Angeles, agitate illegal aliens?
This report from the Socialist Worker needs to be taken with a grain of salt, but at least it indicates what they want to do:The typically arrogant agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) found themselves on the defensive in Los Angeles in the face of a small number of confident and determined community members who stood up to them early on September 6.
After watching ICE stake out and begin to intimidate a close-knit South Central LA neighborhood at 6:30 a.m. with six vehicles and numerous agents, Cristina Hernandez, her family and friends succeeded in driving the agents away and saving the family that agents tried to apprehend and deport...
...ICE agents had entered a nearby apartment and were preparing to arrest the occupants, who were unable to produce documents. But the commotion on the street, created by an increasingly confident Hernandez and her family, apparently caused the agents in the apartment to stop what they were doing and leave the premises. As soon as they left, the family escaped...
...As soon as ICE drove away, Hernandez got on the phone and called her comrades and allies in the local Emergency Response Network (ERN), formed several months ago to allow activists to respond at a moment’s notice to ICE raids and other anti-immigrant attacks.
ERN activists quickly organized an afternoon protest and press conference, which drew five Spanish-language media outlets and about 25 activists and concerned neighbors...
Two arrested at immigration protest (Nancy Pelosi, Elvira Arellano)
Elvira Arellano is truly the gift that keeps on giving, even when she's thousands of miles away:An 8-year-old boy led 200 chanting, singing immigration activists to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office today armed with a letter begging the California Democrat to take action to stop deportations.Emma Lozano proceeded to tape the letter to the door. According to this there were two arrests for disordly conduct. Not only that, but Pelosi is in Oregon. And, they were carrying a large Mexican and a large Puerto Rican flag.
Saul Arellano, the son of recently deported illegal alien Elvira Arellano, marched through the halls of Congress to reach Mrs. Pelosi's quarters on the second floor of the Cannon House Office Building accompanied by a klatch of TV cameras. He had just come from a press conference in the Rayburn House Office Building where his mother was compared with civil rights activists such as Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and slavery abolitionist Harriet Tubman...
...Once at the speaker's office, however, the child ran into a problem: Mrs. Pelosi's office was already occupied by about 40 anti-war protestors who weren't budging. The bewildered child stopped dead in his tracks while immigration activists clustered around and a security guard inside the congresswoman's office shut the door...
UPDATE: A Lou Dobbs report on the incident is here. In DC, Rev. Walter Coleman compares immigration enforcement to "ethnic cleansing", and, at a related protest in Chicago, Carl Rosen from the United Electrical Workers union promises "large demonstrations" from "many, many workers" if DHS goes ahead with their no-match letters plan.
Jeff Sessions warns: AgJOBS, DREAM Act amnesties as amendments
From this:Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., a leading immigration policy critic, said Wednesday that amendments planned for upcoming legislation could put more than 4 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship.Senator Harry Reid recently promised Feinstein to make AgJOBS part of the Farm Bill, and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) is apparently negotiating with Feinstein on that.
...Sessions warned colleagues in a letter that legislation (S 774) labeled the DREAM Act that would allow states to provide college benefits to illegal immigrants could be offered as an amendment to the fiscal 2008 Defense appropriations bill (HR 3222) later this month. The measure could benefit 1.3 million illegal immigrants.
More alarming to Sessions was that Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., plans to offer an amendment to the five-year farm bill that could come to the floor in October that could legalize 1.5 million farm workers [the AgJOBS amnesty, S 340]. The Congressional Budget Office estimated they would bring another 1.8 million relatives into the country with them...
UPDATE: More here involving Sen. Dick Durbin.
New York Times editorial promotes Mexicanos Sin Fronteras
On the 9th, the New York Times offered the editorial "Is It Fixed Yet?". Frankly, pointing out all the ways the New York Times immigration editorials are wrong is getting a bit tiresome, so instead I'm going to outsource most of it to former NYC mayor Ed Koch who, surprisingly, is supportive of attrition (reducing the numbers of illegal aliens here by enforcing our laws).
However, this bit from the current screed must be noted here:
...a crackdown in Prince William County, Va., inspired a boycott and a fiery march last week led by a testy group called Mexicanos Sin Fronteras. You didn't think they were just going to roll over, did you? They're immigrants: smart, industrious self-starters, like your grandparents.
The site at the last link has several entries about that "testy" group, for instance in this category.
And, the WaPo even had a profile of those "self-starters":
Today, [Mexicans Without Borders leader Ricardo Juarez] and his wife, Patricia, live with [his brother Alex Juarez], his wife and their three children in a two-story Woodbridge home. A photo of early 20th-century Mexican revolutionary Emiliano Zapata hangs in the den, casting a burning stare from beneath a large sombrero... Zapata's modern-day acolytes, the leftist rebels of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation, have shaped Juarez's worldview and inspired his organizational strategies -- minus the ski masks and AK-47s. Although Juarez certainly does not advocate armed struggle in the Virginia suburbs, he has worked with Zapatista-affiliated activist organizations, according to Juarez and Web sites, and shares the rebel group's contention that U.S. free-trade polices hurt Latin America's poor and drive emigration.
Testy indeed.
Is Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota) a liar? (fruit, vegetable prices would double!)
I'm pretty sure that Collin Peterson (D-Minnesota) is a liar, but we won't know for sure until the "worst" happens:Consumers could see the price of fruits and vegetables double if the nation does not address a looming farm labor shortage in the wake of tightening immigration enforcement, House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson said [collinpeterson.house.gov].If the price of lettuce shot up, fewer people would buy lettuce. It's not like it's an essential part of our diet. Other, less serf-labor-intensive crops would take its place. And, foreign producers would see an opportunity and start shipping their product to the U.S. Likewise for all the other types of fruits and vegetables that would be affected.
Peterson, D-Minn., told producers attending the Kansas State Fair this weekend that the agriculture committee will focus on the immigration issue as it strives to do its part to make sure there is adequate labor. He said some crops will not be harvested this year unless something is done...
Other than normal inflation, I think it would be extraordinarily difficult for those prices to double, and I suggest that all those who would vote for him remember that he's willing to lie to support corrupt businesses.
Colin Powell: corrupt, incompetent, illegal immigration supporter
If anyone would realize the dangers of having not just loose borders but millions of unassimilated foreign citizens in the U.S., I'd hope it would be the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Yet, here's Colin Powell:
"America could not survive without immigration. Even the undocumented immigrants are contributing to our economy. That's the country my parents came to. That's the image we have to portray to the rest of the world: kind, generous, a nation of nations, touched by every nation, and we touch every nation in return. That's what people still want to believe about us. They still want to come here. We've lost a bit of the image, but we haven't lost the reality yet. And we can fix the image by reflecting a welcoming attitude -- and by not taking counsel of our fears and scaring ourselves to death that everybody coming in is going to blow up something. It ain't the case."
First, there are three things he's mashing all together into one: illegal immigration, the legal variety, and the difficulty legitimate visitors have of obtaining visas. Those are three entirely separate issues, but they're one in his mind.
Second, as a military planner he falls far short. John McCain admitted that massive illegal immigration forces us to choose between giving an amnesty and France-style riots.
Colin Powell would subject the U.S. to the same horrific choice.
Is Powell paid to promote immigration including of the illegal variety, is he unable to think things through, or does he feel that such a choice is acceptable given the relatively small amount generated by illegal aliens, almost all of whom are low-skilled workers? In any case, he's not qualified for any public office.
California Rural Legal Assistance Corp. in hot water (illegal aliens)
From this:Investigators subpoenaed records from a prominent California legal aid group to determine whether it has violated federal rules by using taxpayer money to perform work for illegal aliens.Previously:
The California Rural Legal Assistance Corp. (CRLA), which is fighting the subpoena, has until next week to explain to a judge in Washington why it should not turn over client records to the federal Legal Services Corp.
Inspector general investigators say they've been stymied in the probe into whether the California legal group focuses its resources on farm worker and Latino issues while limiting services to inner-city residents and others, according to court filings.
"Immigration Bill Would Make Taxpayers Pay Legal Bills of Illegal Aliens Seeking Amnesty"
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation making signs for day laborers?
California Rural Legal Assistance violated federal law?
In regards to the latter, Jose Padilla (the one who runs CRLA) was apparently cleared by the IRS.
Democratic debate September 9 (Quebec)
[UPDATE: Nuggets from the transcript.]
The Democratic candidates for president are currently pandering debating on Quebec TV Univision.
The first immigration question I've seen was a question from crack "reporter" Maria Elana Salinas. She wanted to know whether the candidates support a "wall" (muro) on the border with Mexico, but not with Canada. The answer, of course, is obvious. However, the answers received from Clinton and Obama - as much as I was able to make out because of the translator - were just their stock BS about supporting "comprehensive immigration reform". I believe Hillary put something in there about supporting a virtual fence where it makes sense.
However, neither they nor Dodd pointed out the obvious. And, if we can't even state the obvious anymore than we've got a problem.
PANDER UPDATE: The next immigration question was whether they'd work for "immigration reform" if elected president. Well, duh. They responded by pledging to do it immediately.
The next question was whether they'd block the immigration raids; I believe Richardson responded yes.
Then, whether "undocumented workers" are necessary, followed by what they're going to do about "anti-immigrant" and "anti-Hispanic" sentiment. Hillary responded by possibly lying about HR 4437; Obama is now discussing Cesar Chavez. More discussion of the questions asked here.
Note: I think Bill Richardson is wearing Man Tan all the better to pander; Obama looks a bit dyspeptic; in case it wasn't entirely clear what this was all about, one of Univision's pages has a subtitle: "Precandidatos reconocieron poder hispano" ("candidates meet Hispanic power"); also, both Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich seem to be quite popular...
It would be tremendously helpful to get the English-language-only feed and use that to create Youtube videos. Hopefully their pandering went just a bit too far and it can be used to end at least one of their campaigns.
I can't stress that last point enough. If one of the Dems is forced out of the race or loses a lot of support because of their immigration stance, everything will change.
Chris Dodd: millions for "Raza Development Fund" (NCLR)
Senator and presidential contender Chris Dodd is the sole sponsor of S. 1923 (link), a bill that would give millions of dollars to the National Council of La Raza's "Raza Development Fund" and other groups. This is similar to a House bill from Rep. Ruben Hinojosa.
Under Dodd's scheme, they'd get $5 million in 2008 and $10 million in the next two years:
The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may make a grant to the Raza Development Fund 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.
The bill does contain a sop to our laws:
None of the funds made available under this Act may be used to provide direct housing assistance to any person not lawfully present in the United States.
I suspect that either the funds will be made indirectly, or they just won't check.
Here's how the NCLR describes the Fund (nclr.org/content/programs/detail/895):
[RDF] is a support corporation of the National Council of La Raza, established in 1998 as the community development lending arm of NCLR. The mission of RDF's Hope Fund is to provide flexible but high-quality loans, along with technical assistance, to entities that provide services and opportunities to low-income Latino families, a mission that is consistent with and complementary to the mission of NCLR. Since its inception, RDF has become the largest Latino Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI) in the United States.
They're a bit less circumspect than the bill, which only says it's for "substantial[ly]" Hispanic neighborhoods; the NCLR comes right out and says it's just for Latinos.
9/2/08 UPDATE: For an unknown reason, the head of the RDF was an invited speaker at the GOP's convention.
Kansas City Star to mayor: capitulate to racial power groups, money's at stake!
The National Council of La Raza ("The Race") - a group that opposes immigration enforcement and that funds extremists - recently threatened not to hold their yearly convention in Kansas City because the mayor appointed a member of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps [the group run by Chris Simcox; minutemanhq.com] to the board of the parks department. Racial power advocates even went as far as trying to deliver a letter to the door of that MCDC member; while they claim otherwise, intimidation may have been their goal.This page has more on that incident (including a link to the Myspace page of one of those involved), although the organizations to which the door-knockers belong is not clear. It would be tremendously helpful to get documented proof that one or more are members of - or even leaders of - the NCLR or the AILA (note, of course, that just because a group uses "La Raza" in their name that doesn't mean they're the NCLR).
Now comes the Kansas City Star with a profile in cowardice and corruption to urge the mayor to capitulate to these racial power groups:
Enough is enough. Mayor Mark Funkhouser must swallow his pride and remove Frances Semler from Kansas City’s Board of Parks and Recreation Commissioners.Perhaps they should spell out exactly what they mean by "vigilante actions"; are they accusing the MCDC of committing crimes? And, of course, it's the Kansas City Star that needs to stand up for principles; the "civil rights organizations" are just looking to flex their race-based power.
As mayor, it is his responsibility to look out for the interests of the entire city. Driving away tourists and major conventions is not fiscally responsible, clear-headed thinking...
...Now two major civil rights organizations are standing up for their principles, saying they won't patronize a city that honors a member of a group linked to vigilante actions along the country's southern border...
Rod Blagojevich, Luis Gutierrez, and the alleged FALN terrorist
From this:A high-ranking official in Gov. [Rod Blagojevich]'s office spent nearly two years in a federal prison for refusing to aid a government terrorism probe into a series of bombings in Chicago and New York City.
Steven Guerra, Blagojevich's $120,000-a-year deputy chief of staff for community services, was identified by federal prosecutors as a member of the Puerto Rican separatist group, FALN, which was behind a wave of violence and killings in the 1970s and early 1980s...
Gov. Blagojevich's office said Guerra disclosed his felony conviction to the administration before his 2003 hiring. Aides said the governor intends to stand by Guerra. He was recommended for the job by Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), who lobbied President Bill Clinton to grant clemency to 11 imprisoned FALN members in 1999...
Peter Prengaman, Travis Loller spin "reconquista"
Peter Prengaman and Travis Loller of the Associated Press offer "Anti-Immigration Forces Warn of Plot" (original AP title). It discusses those that favor some form of "reconquista" and those who oppose them and tries to downplay the influence that those favoring "reconquista" have. On the other hand, it's good to see the AP at least acknowledging that such sentiments exist and publicizing them. And, surprisingly, the article could actually have been worse.
On the far fringes of the pro-immigration movement, some Hispanic activists openly yearn for the day when immigrants rise up and retake the American Southwest, more than 150 years after the U.S. annexed it.
However, near the end of the article they discuss the MEChA document "El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan" and bring on someone from the CSUN chapter to say that was just from the time when people were radical. And, they reveal that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and former California Lt. Governor Cruz Bustamante were members; while they don't indicate when that was, most people will hopefully realize that that was during MEChA's (supposed) radical phase. The fact that two leading California politicians were at least at one time seeped in radicalism doesn't seem that "far fringe" to me.
To help throw water on concerns, they bring on Tamar Jacoby and Mark Potok of the SPLC. The first is identified only as a "senior fellow with the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank", and not as what we know her as: an amnestibot. And, Potok is identified as with an organization that "tracks and monitors hate groups". That will tend to associate those opposed to reconquista sentiments as "haters". They also fail to note that the SPLC has an indirect link to the Mexican government.
They also seem to be somewhat misrepresenting the concerns of the late Rep. Charlie Norwood, then bring on the group that he opposed for their response:
Cecilia Munoz, senior vice president for [National Council of La Raza], said the accusations of a radical separatist agenda are "a little like accusing the NAACP of being the Black Panthers." ..."We've been trying to play by the rules and have a polite policy debate about how to reform immigration," she said. "And everybody else has got their gloves off and is hitting below the belt."
I don't know whether Norwood was accusing the NCLR itself of having an explicit "radical separatist agenda" so much as he was pointing out that they have a cozy relationship with some who do. And, he wanted them to denounce any such agenda. Oddly enough, Prengaman and Loller fail to dwell on the fact that the NCLR consistently opposes enforcement of our immigration laws and that they've funded at least one MEChA chapter as well as the "reconquista charter school".
San Francisco: ID cards for illegal aliens (Tom Ammiano, Gavin Newsom, banks)
San Francisco ("Frisco") is a true humanitarian city, a city that cares. Their latest proposal has nothing to do with making some people money or obtaining race-based power! Don't bother following the money and/or power trail, it isn't there. They just care about undocumented persons:San Francisco Supervisor Tom Ammiano is drafting legislation to create a city identification card for immigrants unable to get traditional ID cards, a move likely to anger advocates of tougher immigration enforcement.Once again, I urge the MSM not to follow the money.
The cards would be accepted by all city agencies and organizations that receive city funding. Ammiano plans to introduce the legislation within a couple of weeks. He also is trying to persuade financial institutions to allow residents to use the cards to open accounts.
...Mayor Gavin Newsom has been resolute in defending San Francisco's sanctuary status, and on Thursday his spokesman said Newsom supports Ammiano's idea for a card, which could be used for libraries, golf courses, public transportation and other services.
Also quoted: "immigrant-rights advocate" Renee Saucedo, "co-director of the San Francisco Day Labor Program, a project of La Raza Centra Legal."
GAO report: DHS not meeting goals
From this:A report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress, says the Department of Homeland Security has failed to meet half its performance expectations since it was established in 2003...According to the DHS, the GAO used a "flawed methodology", and they've issued a rebuttal. The GAO report is in this PDF.
..."There were 171 different performance expectations of which we judged that 78 were generally achieved, 83 generally not achieved, and 10 that we did not assess."
The GAO says the Homeland Security Department made the least progress toward some of the fundamental goals set after the 2001 attacks, including improving emergency preparedness and eliminating bureaucratic and technical barriers to information sharing.
The GAO finds moderate progress made in such areas as immigration enforcement, transportation security, and securing critical infrastructure, including bridges and power plants.
The report says the only area where significant progress has been achieved has been in maritime security...
CBP orders lax border checks under heavy traffic in El Paso
From this:U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers in Texas have been ordered to abbreviate national security checks at one of the nation"s busiest ports of entry to speed up travel between the United States and Mexico, according to official documents and multiple interviews with agents.The first policy was in an August 16 "memorandum from CBP El Paso field office Director Luis Garcia". The second was apparently unwritten policy for years, and agents were surprised that "CBP Chief George Carpenter, shift commander" had written it down.
...If wait time is 60 to 120 minutes or more - the average wait at the numerous crossings - they are to query only the driver and ensure that the license plate is correct...
...Officers, who speculated the guidelines were created to counter complaints from businesses in the region that are angry over delays at the border, said pedestrian crossings are even more vulnerable...
...Rosemary Jenks, immigration lawyer and government relations director for Numbers U.S.A., said the directives in the El Paso memo violate federal law...
...Other documents obtained by the paper also show that customs officers in the El Paso sector have been told to "not deny permits" of entry to any person entering the United States, regardless of indicators that they've overstayed their visa in the past...
The Flake-Gutierrez STRIVE Act amnesty returns...
The Flake-Gutierrez STRIVE Act - a House amnesty scheme - was discussed at hearings of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law today (chaired by former i