los angeles times
Los Angeles Times: Page 3
See the summary for this topic on the main Los Angeles Times page.
All five of those arrested were counter-protesters who support illegal immigration.
Emily Bazar of USA Today offers "Illegal immigrants find refuge in holy places", all about the "new sanctuary movement" in which churches take in illegal aliens in an example of far-left false compassion.
Ah, pollaganda. Janet Hook screams "Large majority supports path to citizenship" about a new LAT/Bloomberg poll (link). Not only is that highly misleading, the Los Angeles Times is... wait for it... acting as a cheerleader for Bush:
Only 23% of adults surveyed opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to gain legal status.
Via this, Steve Lopez of the Los Angeles Times offers "Family crossed the border to success". The family in question is that of Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.
In the first broad international scrutiny of U.S. treatment of migrants, a United Nations human rights expert [Jorge A. Bustamante, U.N. "special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants"] took testimony about worker abuse, government raids, family separations and other issues as he wrapped up a two-day visit to Los Angeles on Thursday... [it was] undertaken at the invitation of the U.S. government.Watanabe forgot to mention that Schey has at least three links to the Mexican government, including collaborating with them on a project related to those visas.
"There is concern in the United Nations human rights community about rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the United States," said Bustamante, who will present his report to the world body in the next year.
..."The way the local police physically abused marchers [at the MacArthur Park riot] represents right there a violation of human rights," he said... Bustamante, a University of Notre Dame sociology professor who splits his time between his native Mexico and the United States... ...But Bustamante said he was concerned that the U.S. was not in actual compliance with some of its laws...
...At the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, immigration attorney Peter A. Schey told Bustamante that new migrant protections passed by the Republican-controlled Congress in 2000 still have not been implemented because of bureaucratic delays. Those protections would offer visas for migrant crime victims who cooperate with law enforcement in the investigation.
Bustamante also met with the National Immigration Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, who took the U.S. to task for detention centers. He also met with Jeffrey Ponting, "an attorney with the California Rural Legal Assistance program", as well as histrionic community activists.
...[an] unrealistic faction of Republicans, though willing to admit an extra 400,000 workers a year, is insisting that they stay only temporarily - that no matter how well they do in this country or what kind of roots they put down here, every single one of them must go home at the end of a three-yea
In earlier demagogic news, Louis Sahagun of the Los Angeles Times offered "L.A.
The National Lawyer's Guild is now saying that they're going to file a class action lawsuit against the LAPD and the City of Los Angeles over the riot which occured at yesterday's illegal immigration march in MacArthur Park. Apparently a group of protesters is currently holding a press conference; they're wearing masks and waving a Mexican flag as well as the flag of the FMLN (El Salvador's Farabundo Marti National Liberation Front).
Per Eric Leonard on KFI, the second, more militant illegal immigration march in MacArthur Park in Los Angeles has turned violent, with protesters throwing rocks at police, and the police responding with rubber bullets. A couple reporters were hit by the bullets. Breaking...
UPDATE: UPI says:
Witnesses said police wearing riot gear and wielding batons gave no warning before firing at rally participants gathered at MacArthur Park, CNN reported.
Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times offers the Page 1 story "A family's painful split decision". Over four pages she tells the tale of two long-term illegal aliens (Abel Munoz and Zulma Miranda) who had three children in the U.S. They originally entered with a temporary visa, which they overstayed. They apparently took bad legal advice and tried to correct their status, but were eventually ordered deported.
Tami Abdollah and Howard Blume of the Los Angeles Times take a "slightly different" tack on the lawsuit filed by Academia Semillas del Pueblo against Doug McIntyre of KABC ("L.A.
Robert Clark - the director of the movies "A Christmas Story" and "Porky's" - and his adult son were killed on Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) in Pacific Palisades (home of celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenegger) yesterday in head-on car collision. The driver of the other car was Hector Velazquez-Nava, who was driving without a license.
Now, Eric Leonard of KFI-AM reports that Nava is an illegal alien.
For a bit of levity relating to the New Bedford immigration raid of Michael Bianco Inc. - the plant almost everyone agrees was a sweatshop - I offer this:
Eight employees of Michael Bianco Inc., the company raided by federal immigration authorities last month, have invited local politicians to see conditions inside the factory for themselves.
Apparently the private talks the White House has been having with various Senators regarding yet another illegal alien amnesty scheme have reached the point where they're starting to leak the plan in order to get feedback. It appears to be the "tough cop" version of the Flake-Gutierrez massive giveaway; the goal is presumably to get a compromise that most Democrats and many Republicans could support. Most Americans would not support any kind of amnesty if they were aware of the massive legal and continued illegal immigration that would result.
Since they apparently want feedback, I suggest letting them know what you think. The White House comments line is 202-456-1111, and the switchboard is at 202-456-1414.
According to David Espo of the AP, the plan:
would make it harder for millions of illegal immigrants to gain citizenship than under legislation passed by the Senate last year, according to officials in both parties... These officials said the administration also suggested barring future guest workers who enter the country legally from bringing family members with them - a proposal unlikely to survive intact... The officials spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not authorized to discuss about elements of a plan that was not yet public...
His sources are anonymous because they say the plan isn't yet public. One of them is probably Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez, who's a named source in the LAT article (below).
As described by several officials, the proposal would allow currently illegal immigrants to stay in the United States under a new Z visa. They could apply for so-called green cards [legal permanent resident status], taking their place in line alongside men and women who are in the country legally and want citizenship, and would be required to undergo periodic background checks while waiting...
One of the hidden bonuses of last year's Senate scheme was that former illegal aliens who were applying for citizenship would actually have been put in the line ahead of those who've been waiting for a chance to come here legally. And, of course, they'd get to live here all the while unlike those legal immigrants. Since the line is in effect serial, "alongside" needs to be further specified.
The length of their wait would depend on the number of green cards available - a feature that officials in both parties said would mean millions of illegal immigrants would have to wait far longer than under the Senate bill of last year. "It takes longer and they've got to go through the same channels as everybody else," said one Republican who had been briefed on the administration's proposal...
Nicole Gaouette of the Los Angeles Times - who writes like an unaware college newspaper "reporter" giddily transcribing the remarks of government officials - says:
Some illegal immigrants would be given legal status through an infinitely renewable "Z visa." [Georg Cantor, call your office] Those who want to become U.S. citizens would have to leave the country and return legally. A guest worker program would be created that does not allow participants to bring family members, remain in the U.S. or become citizens. And, to ensure that employers can check on whether job applicants are legal, databases at Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration would be linked... The Republican group is also considering several "triggers," or benchmarks, that would have to be met on improved border security, work-site enforcement and document verification before other changes could be made.
The Flake-Guitierrez amnesty scam contains a similar provision, as does the Mike Pence scam, but both of those are not tied to performance regarding reduced illegal immigration; rather, they're tied to having resources in place or as little as having plans ready. I have little doubt that the White House scheme will be similar.
The Los Angeles Times offers "The Southland's hidden Third World slums" about trailer parks in California's Coachella Valley (home of Palm Springs, Rancho Mirage, and other cities). We're told that one of the parks was dumping raw sewage into the Salton Sea, others have flowing sewage behind the trailers, many residents go without heat and even electricity, and, in short, three pages of horrors for we First Worlders.
From Louis Sahagun of the Los Angeles Times' "L.A. church offers migrants sanctuary" (link via this) we learn that Father Richard Estrada of the Our Lady Queen of Angels church ("La Placita";laplacita.org) in downtown Los Angeles is spending $1000 to build living quarters to house a family of illegal aliens facing deportation orders.
By "temporary", most people might think six months, maybe a year tops.
Watanabe, Gorman on "Unity Blueprint for Immigration Reform" (massive amnesty, questionable links) - 03/17/07
Teresa Watanabe and Anna Gorman of the Los Angeles Times offer "Immigrant advocates gear up". Several pro-illegal immigration groups have crafted a radical plan called the "Unity Blueprint for Immigration Reform". The "reporters" fail to note that one of the leaders behind the effort - Peter Schey of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law - has at least three links to the Mexican government and that one of the other groups involved - CHIRLA - has allegedly collaborated with that government. Others involved include LULAC, Nativo Lopez, and the AFL-CIO.
Please write readers.rep *at* latimes.com and suggest they include such material facts in future reports. The Project Director of the UCLA Downtown Labor Center (labor.ucla.edu/dlc) is also an endorser; let's ask them what they think about that: chancellor *at* conet.ucla.edu
As for the "blueprint", it's even worse than might be imagined. You can see it here: mapa.org/_03_07/reform.pdf
First of all, one wonders why the guy in the upper right is grimacing, and why he has his hand in that position. Was he holding a flag that they airbrushed out?
Then, we get to their demands. Take a deep breath:
- Entrenching anchor babies. Anyone who had a child here could petition for citizenship; no need to wait until the child is 21.
- Make illegal aliens a protected class under civil rights law.
- Legalize everyone except those who've committed "serious crimes".
- Legalize everyone under TPS status.
- Raise the numbers of visas to match labor needs based on "reliable economic indicators".
- No expansion of "guest" worker plans.
- No more time-based ban on those who've entered illegally or overstayed their visas.
- No U.S. military on the border.
- "Make enforcement of laws to prevent vigilantism a priority and monitor vigilante activity."
- "Make border enforcement solely a federal function."
- "Repeal the Secure Fence Act of 2006 in its entirety."
- "Enact legislation prohibiting mass non-individualized detentions of citizens and immigrants at work sites and elsewhere." (no more raids like the recent show raids)
- "Repeal the recent law that bars States from issuing drivers licenses to undocumented immigrant drivers."
There's much more, but including all their demands would take up too much space. After reading this, I have to wonder whether they're serious or not, since these demands are extremely radical and could have been written by the Mexican government itself. For all we know, they indeed had input into the process. Even one of the endorsers admits the ideas are extreme:
"Why shouldn't we ask for everything?" said Pablo Alvarado, president of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network. "These are our dreams."
And we see them pointing to examples of recent propaganda:
Activists said the blueprint reflected consistent academic research showing that immigration is good for America, that current visa levels are artificially low and that a large underclass of illegal migrants serves no one except unscrupulous employers who exploit them. They acknowledged that many of the provisions would be seen as politically unrealistic but said they expressed their highest hopes for immigration reform.
In addition to Schey and Alvarado, Nativo Lopez of the Mexican American Political Association has some involvement. Their campaign manager is Clarissa Martinez De Castro. And, while I thought they were at least somewhat rational:
The blueprint has won the backing of the AFL-CIO and other major labor unions by rejecting guest workers in favor of more permanent visas for foreign laborers, subject to stronger workplace protections and stricter tests on whether Americans are available for those jobs.
Others signing it are:
* Maria Elena Durazo
Executive Secretary-Treasurer, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO
* Father Richard Estrada
Our Lady Queen of Angels, Los Angeles
* Antonio Gonzalez
President, William C. Velasquez Institute
* Dolores Huerta
President, Dolores Huerta Foundation & Co-Founder of the United Farmworkers Union
* Victor Narro
Project Director, UCLA Downtown Labor Center
* Rosa Rosales
National President, League of United Latin American Citizens
* Angelica Salas
Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrants Rights of Los Angeles
* Angela Sanbrano
Executive Director, Central American Resource Center (Los Angeles) and President of the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities
Of interest also is how all these groups are linked together:
The draft blueprint developed at the initial meeting was further considered and improved upon following discussion at the National Latino Leadership Summit on Immigration Policy held in Phoenix on February 3, 2007. That meeting was jointly convened by the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (CHRCL), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF), the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the William Velasquez Institute (WCVI), the Mexican American Political Association (MAPA), the National Alliance of Latin American and Caribbean Communities (NALACC), and the Labor Council for Latin American Advancement (LCLAA). The summit meeting was attended by approximately fifty organizations from around the country involved in immigration reform work... The draft blueprint was next considered and improved upon following discussion at a meeting of the Border Human Rights Working Group in San Antonio, Texas, on February 12-13, 2007. The Border Human Rights Working Group is a collaborative project of over fifty NGOs, CBOs, legal services providers, and faith-based organizations working along the border in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
The lider of the editorial board of the Los Angeles Times, Andres Martinez, has announced changes to their lineup. Some, such as CFRer Max Boot are out; some, such as Gregory Rodriguez, remain; and there are some new contributing editors  including:
* Tamar Jacoby. What more needs to be said?
* Gustavo Arellano of the OC Weekly.
The Los Angeles Times has an unsigned editorial called "Let illegal immigrants get licenses". They don't have an detailed list of reasons why we should do that, and they don't answer the large number of objections.
Erika Hayasaki of the Los Angeles Times offers "Debit cards for immigrants". As she makes clear in her piece, those "immigrants" are almost certainly illegal aliens. And, the article doesn't read like a news report at all, but rather like an infomercial for the card.
"At face value the program seems to be problematic," said Russ Knocke, a [Department of Homeland Security] spokesman. "It seems to be lending itself to possibilities of perpetrating identity theft or creating more risk for money laundering."Then, almost at the bottom of the article, we're treated to the news that another bank knows exactly who it's dealing with:
...[Rep. Tom Tancredo] said he sent a letter to U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales and Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff asking them to look into the program.
"I hope the administration will shut down this reckless and illegal program before Bank of America extends a line of credit to a potential terrorist," said Tancredo, a hard-line foe of illegal immigration...
Since then, Wells has opened more than 1 million accounts for Mexicans using the consular card. It also accepts Guatemalan, Argentine and Colombian identity cards. The assumption is that most immigrants using the cards to identify themselves are here illegally, Wells Fargo spokeswoman Trigg said, but the bank doesn't ask.
...In 2002, Reid (D-Nev.) paid $10,000 to a pension fund controlled by Clair Haycock, a Las Vegas lubricants distributor and his friend for 50 years.
During a recent visit to the Gomezes' tidy Los Angeles apartment, all four family members spoke of the importance of hard work and education. Cesar and Thania's father, Felipe Gomez, who came here illegally in 1990, said his main motivation was to give his two children opportunities.This follows a slight promotion of the DREAM Act, and while there might have been others this is the first article I can recall that sought out the parents of those who would be given college discounts under that anti-American bill. Unfortunately, Watanabe didn't ask him the follow-up questions: "so, what you're saying is that all those benefits we give to illegal aliens served as an incentive? And, without those incentives, you wouldn't have come here, right? And, as long as we continue to offer such incentives, more people will come here illegally, right?"
Indeed, Gomez said, he wouldn't have brought his children here if they could not have attended public schools.
Cesar Gomez works full time, volunteers with the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) and last year marched for immigrant rights.I tend to strongly suspect that Watanabe was introduced to him through CARECEN, but unfortunately she doesn't disclose how that happened. And, while illegal aliens do have human rights, those rights aren't to be confused (as he does) with citizenship or legal resident rights. If he's a citizen of Mexico or another country, he should talk to them about his citizenship rights. Needless to say, Watanabe ends on his misleading statements rather than challenging them.
"Whatever sentiments people have toward immigrants," Cesar said, "everyone is human and deserves equal rights and equal opportunities — especially in this great country, especially those who have tried so hard to stay ahead."
Andres Martinez is the editor of the Los Angeles Times editorial board, and I believe he is the author of the unsigned editorial "Left out in '08: Arnold Schwarzenegger can't run for president because the founding fathers didn't want a foreign king." While there's no real burning need to allow naturalized citizens to serve as president, the LAT wants to tinker with the Constitution and make it happen anyway.
They inform us that past fears no longer apply:
Last week, two Long Beach (CA) police officers were shot by long-term criminal Oscar Gallegos and they remain in stable but critical condition. Yesterday Gallegos was shot and killed in a gun battle with Santa Ana cops.
According to KFI's Eric Leonard, Gallegos was an illegal alien.
The Los Angeles Times offers the unsigned editorial (perhaps written by Andres Martinez) "Off the fence", which discusses New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's immigration speech. They call it "thoughtful" and a "rebuke to Republican immigrant bashers". Obviously, that's muddled thinking, but that's what you expect from the LAT.
Elizabeth Mehren of the Los Angeles Times offers "Workers a thorny issue for Romney":
[List below updated 12/11/07]
"People have to understand what we're talking about here. The president of the United States is an internationalist... He is going to do what he can to create a place where the idea of America is just that – it's an idea. It's not an actual place defined by borders. I mean this is where this guy is really going... I know this is dramatic – or maybe somebody would say overly dramatic – but I'm telling you, that everything I see leads me to believe that this whole idea of the North American Union, it's not something that just is written about by right-wing fringe kooks. It is something in the head of the president of the United States, the president of Mexico, I think the prime minister of Canada buys into it... And they would just tell you, 'Well, sure, it's a natural thing. It's part of the great globalization ... of the economy.' They assume it's a natural, evolutionary event that's going to occur here. I hope they're wrong and I'm going to try my best to make sure they're wrong. But I'm telling you the tide is great. The tide is moving in their direction. We have to say that."
This has resulted in various people calling Tancredo names or disputing that such a plan is underway. And, some of them dispute that such a plan exists, but then say that such an idea isn't so bad after all. While it's certainly possible to disagree with Tancredo's assessment, all of the comments I've seen involve some form of name-calling and none of them discuss the issue on its merits. In some cases this might be actual pro-NAU propaganda, in others it might be due to opposition to Tancredo's support for our immigration laws, in others it might be a knee-jerk defense of Bush, and in some it might be due to the fact that many bloggers aren't, shall we say, that good at research and analysis.
* Judd Legum of Think Progress says: "You might think the right would immediately repudiate this kind of conspiracy theory. You'd be wrong." As could be expected from that site, most of the comments are name-calling. Some however support the NAU concept.
* Steve Benen of The Carpetbagger says: "Now, far be it for me to defend the president against an unhinged attack from a far-right lawmaker, but does anyone seriously believe that the Bush White House wants to dissolve U.S. borders altogether?" At least two out of five comments, while calling names, provide facts on the SPP.
* "AllahPundit" says: "Oh Lord... We get e-mails from those people all the time. We... do not publish them... Update: HotAir commenters (most of them) agree: Tancredo’s a prophet whose only crime is seeing too clearly the nefarious machinations towards one-world government that are happening under our very noses!" (HotAir is run by Michelle Malkin; the first post I made to her immigration blog concerned the SPP. Her position on this matter isn't known.)
* "Captain Ed" (who isn't a real captain) says: "Tom Tancredo reminds people today why he will forever remain a fringe element in American politics... This is absurd. George Bush may not have responded very well to immigration concerns from his base, but he's done more than his father, Bill Clinton, and even Ronald Reagan in bolstering border security. Tancredo is engaging in mindless demagoguery with these doomsday descriptions, and moving closer to the realms of paranoia." Most of those commenting disagree.
* John Podhoretz says: "I speculate in my book, Can She Be Stopped?, that Tancredo will run as a third-party candidate in 2008. Sounds like he'd be perfect to top Lyndon LaRouche's ticket. If you are serious about the importance of immigration restriction, you'd best be looking for a leader who hasn't chosen to place himself beyond the political fringe."
* Mark Steyn says: "Chances of an EU-style sovereignty pooling arrangement in North America? Zero per cent – whatever Tom Tancredo and the CFR say."
* SeeDubya from Junkyard Blog mockingly refers to "internationalist conspiracy", "sweet, sweet New World Order", "Illuminati endgame", and pretends that the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board supports U.S. sovereignty.
* MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy calls Tancredo various names such as "barking moonbat".
* Alexander McClure at Wizbang Politics says: "...I hope the White House throws all of its resources into this race to make sure that Tancredo also goes into retirement. He is an embarrasment to the party."
* John Hawkins at Right Wing News had a debate with Jerome Corsi on the topic. While Hawkins is not a Bush apologist in the Captain Ed/RedState/BlogsForBush mold, he is on the wrong side of this issue.
* "Appalacian Scribe" John Norris Brown says: "Why anyone gives this nutcase credibility is beyond me."
* Ragnar Danneskjold at the Jawa Report says: One would think that a U.S. Congressman would realize that any statement that starts with "I know this is dramatic" and proceeds to defend the ideas of "right-wing fringe kooks" is pretty unlikely to go anywhere good.
* Ezra of People for the American Way's Right Wing Watch says, among other things (rightwingwatch.org/2007/03/phyllis_schlafl_2.html):
...the Eagle Forum published a list of questions for its supporters to ask candidates on the trail, ranging from Schlafly's theory of "supremacist judges" to the John Birch-esque "North American Union." She says her plan is working, according to "Swift Vet" co-author and fellow "North American Union" enthusiast Jerome Corsi...
A few links are included in that excerpt, including one linking the first "North American Union" to Wikipedia's entry on "black helicopters".
* Joshua Holland, staff writer for Alternet, joins the list with "Debunking the North American Union Conspiracy Theory" (alternet.org/audits/54184). He can't even get past the second paragraph without violating Godwin's Rule:
The North American Union story is an offspring of the John Birch Society right, with its attendant xenophobia and paranoia. It comes complete with a shadowy international cabal intent on stabbing decent, hard-working Americans in the back -- Dolchstoss!
He mentions the Council of Canadians, without mentioning that they're a leftwing group and thus tend to disprove his contention that the NAU "story" is just a rightwing issue. And, he mentions some of the "dots" making up the NAU "story", but he just can't connect them.
* Chris Hayes of The Nation offers "The NAFTA Superhighway" and says that highway is fictional. Some of the letters say he's full of it, with one claiming that Katrina vanden Heuvel is a member of the CFR [11/05/10 UPDATE: Katrina vanden Heuvel is indeed a member of the CFR].
* Both join Vice President Dick Cheney in claiming there's no such highway.
* In early August 2007, Stephen Colbert had a little bit of "fun": youtube.com/watch?v=Ookak1IQJ3U
* Seattle Times columnist Bruce Ramsey offers "Bet your bottom amero that U.S. sovereignty is safe". He bases his conclusion that there's no plan to create a NAU by asking... "the government's chief negotiator on trade, Susan Schwab". She tells him it's just an "urban legend". And, he believes what she says. The JBS - mentioned in his piece - responds here.
* The Fox News "all stars" (Fred Barnes, Juan Williams, and Charles Krauthammer with host Brit Hume) play the Bush quote and then have a bit of fun here: youtube.com/watch?v=TT4tBvRDy38 Krauthammer whitewashes the Bilderberg conferences, saying that he went to one. He compares those who think the NAU is possible to those who believe that Elvis is still alive. Barnes and Williams join in with the "fun". Just because these three idiots say people aren't pushing for it shouldn't be taken as proof that it is being pushed, but...
11/27/07 UPDATE: Drake Bennett of the Boston Globe offers "The amero conspiracy": ...The NAU may be the quintessential conspiracy theory for our time, according to scholars studying what the historian Richard Hofstadter famously called the "paranoid style" in American politics. The theory elegantly weaves old fears and new realities into one coherent and all-encompassing plan... [etc. etc.]...
12/03/07 UPDATE: Gretel Kovach of Newsweek offers a very weak debunking attempt of the NAFTA Superhighway and the NAU in "Highway To Hell?" (newsweek.com/id/73372). That's linked to by the Washington Post's "Fact Checker", Michael Dobbs (blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/12/a_superhighway_to_nowhere.html), who offers his own weak attempt. And, on 11/30/07, Stephen Braun of the Los Angeles Times offered "Paul believes in threat of North American superhighway" (link). It's similar to the WaPo's "Fact Checker" article, including a Stephen Colbert "joke". And:
Federal and state highway and trade officials and transportation consultants reacted Thursday with befuddlement and amusement. The fearsome secret international highway project Paul described does not exist, they said... ...the Trilateral Commission [is] an enduring bugaboo of conspiracy theorists... As alarms about NAFTA's illusory highway have spread across the Web, the issue's whiff of paranoia has ignited sparks of humor... [Colbert "joke"]
12/09/07 UPDATE: Matt Stearns of McClatchy Newspapers offers his own "debunking".
12/11/07 UPDATE: The SPLC has also tried to cast doubts on these schemes.
Duke Helfand of the Los Angeles Times offers a hagiography of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in "Mayor to reap spoils of election victories".
He has a vision "of an eco-friendly metropolis with less traffic, more affordable housing, new trees and perhaps a subway to the sea." And, Aztlan! Except, that's not mentioned.
It acknowledges one of the reasons AV might have avoided endorsing Phil Angelides until late:
As regular readers know, illegal immigration supporters will go to any depth to promote amnesty and similar schemes. One meme you can expect to hear over the coming months is that the recent losses by Randy Graf and J.D. Hayworth in Arizona mean that voters want "comprehensive immigration reform".
The quickest example of how that's wrong is presented by the fact that no less than four anti-illegal immigration propositions in Arizona passed by wide margins. And, in Graf's case he got shafted by the national GOP (whose contributors would have lost money if he'd won).