san francisco chronicle

san francisco chronicle: Page 1

Discussed in (click each link for the full post):

Nancy Pelosi: immigration enforcement separating families is "un-American" (Luis Gutierrez, Kelly Zito) - 03/08/09

Kelly Zito of the San Francisco Chronicle offers a heavily-biased, untrustworthy article ("Pelosi: End raids splitting immigrant families", link) about yesterday's "National Family Unity" event in San Francisco. That's part of a national tour designed to press for comprehensive immigration reform that's sponsored by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and led by Luis Gutierrez.

Because Zito doesn't provide full quotes and because she doesn't even once use the word "illegal" or even "undocumented", it's not clear just how stupid the remarks from Nancy Pelosi were:
"Our future is about our children," Pelosi told a crowd of mostly Latino families at St. Anthony's Church.

No matter if those families arrived two days ago or centuries ago, Pelosi said "that opportunity, that determination, that hope has made American more American."

She said, "Taking parents from their children ... that's un-American."
The easy way to show how Pelosi is wrong is to point out to her that the parents put themselves in the situation with their eyes open. They broke our laws and put their children at risk. Pelosi should ask those parents what they were thinking instead of blaming our laws. And, someone could point out to her that the "taking" is easily cured by the whole family returning to their country where at least the parents are citizens. And, someone could point out that it's horrific public policy to encourage mixed-status families, which her policy would do. Someone could present to her the example of a parent who's sent to jail making knock-off jeans. Is enforcing our laws against making knock-offs "un-American" as well?

What most people don't seem to realize is that Pelosi could have been easily discredited over this issue if someone had been there to ask her questions like that. An illegal immigration-supporting hack like Kelly Zitto isn't going to ask those questions; she's too busy trying to mislead people into thinking that we're dealing with legal immigrants. That leaves it up to us to ask those questions. I've been posting things like that for over two years, so maybe eventually others will take notice and do something.

3/18/09 UPDATE: This story is now getting some attention due to a Fox News story (link). There's a transcript of some of her remarks here; those remarks are on this video.

On this video she says, "The raids must end... the raids must end". She mentions SCHIP, which results in a loud cheer; another loud cheer follows when she discusses fighting to lift the five-year wait to receive benefits. She promotes them repeating their sob stories to the president and in the halls of congress.

On this, Walter Coleman (aka "Slim", protector of Elvira Arellano) wants people to fill out petitions listing their problems to be given to Obama. He, of course, hides his support for illegal activity behind a religious veneer.

Gutierrez takes an ahistorical swipe at WASPs and engages in the immigration tradition fallacy on this video.

Note that back in October 2003, Pelosi traveled to Mexico and accused her own government of conducting "terrorizing" immigration raids.

If you want to learn about immigration-related matters before Fox News gets around to them, subscribe to our feed.

Hilda Solis to prefer labor enforcement to immigration enforcement? (Tyche Hendricks) - 02/04/09

Tyche Hendricks of the San Francisco Chronicle offers "Obama's labor secretary pick backs enforcement" (link); the title isn't as misleading as one might first think since Hendricks is referring to Hilda Solis's position on labor enforcement and not on immigration enforcement; Solis is especially weak on the latter. However, the goal of the article seems to be to try to sell us a new way for the Democrats to have their cake and eat it too:

President Obama's pick for secretary of labor, Rep. Hilda Solis, could help shape a new approach to immigration control that emphasizes the robust enforcement of labor laws... Immigrant advocates hope that strengthening compliance with workplace health and safety laws and wage and hour standards - which Solis promised in her hearing before the labor committee in January - will protect workers in general and could reduce the likelihood that some employers will seek to profit by hiring undocumented workers...

And, that probably wouldn't work. As I said over three years ago:

Of course, all the millions of illegal aliens who'd come here to take advantage of this would then either: reduce many more jobs to near minimum wage, or they'd end up unemployed and obtaining welfare benefits, or they'd end up working illegally. Or, all three at various stages.

The only way to reduce illegal immigration and its impacts is to actually enforce the immigration laws. Anything else is just a scam.

On the bright side, Randel Johnson of the US Chamber of Commerce is quoted opposing any scheme like this, and if it were pushed that might cause a rift in the sleazy alliance between far-left illegal immigration supporters and business interests. University of Illinois economics Professor Barry Chiswick says the scheme probably won't work to reduce illegal immigration, instead suggesting the use of eVerify.

Hendricks quotes Don Kerwin from the Migration Policy Institute as supportive of such a scheme, and also quotes Nathan Newman of the Progressive States Network as saying:

"Hilda Solis understands these issues... Most complaints come from workers. If you want employers afraid to exploit workers, you don't want the kind of ICE enforcement that keeps workers scared to come forward. ... Labor law enforcement is the one (approach) that can make sure people aren't being pulled into this country by low wages."

With the lax control over immigration that Newman et al want, it's difficult to see how their plan wouldn't end in a disaster of most low-skill jobs falling to the minimum wage. Whose interests would such a plan serve?

San Francisco discovers concept of borders, may restrict homeless benefits to locals - 12/22/08

When it comes to taking benefits from U.S. citizens in order to give them to foreign citizens who are here illegally, the city of San Francisco is always willing to be useful idiots. However, sometimes even they realize there are limits to liberalism ("S.F. blames out-of-towners for endless homeless problem" by CW Nevius, link):
City officials are finally admitting what others have been saying for years: San Francisco is attracting huge numbers of homeless people from all over. Thousands of transient people, arriving from other counties, states and even countries, are overwhelming the city's homeless system.

Facing a crippling budget shortfall, officials at San Francisco's homeless agencies are proposing a radical idea - take care of the city's own first, and require newcomers to show proof of residency for aid.

"If a homeless family living in San Francisco doesn't get shelter, and somebody just off the bus does, it doesn't seem fair," said Trent Rhorer, director of the Department of Human Services...

Tino Cuellar/Stanford, Alexander Aleinikoff/Georgetown lead Obama's immigration transition team - 11/23/08

Tyche Hendricks of the San Francisco Chronicle offers "Stanford professor leads Obama immigration team" (link), with the news that Tino Cuellar - law professor at Stanford University - has been named as one of the two co-leaders of Barack Obama's transition team dealing with immigration.

John McCain ad was right and Barack Obama, MSM misled about BHO's kindergartener sex education bill - 09/16/08

Earlier this month the John McCain campaign released an ad (link, video link) saying in part:
"Obama's one accomplishment?

Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.

Learning about sex before learning to read?

Barack Obama.
This has led to a wide variety of BHO supporters - specifically those in the MSM - calling McCain a liar. To a certain extent, they have somewhat of a point: the bill might not be an "accomplishment" for BHO since he was just a supporter and not a co-sponsor and since it never passed. And, the McCain campaign might not have correctly contextualized some of the other quotes they provide in the ad relating to BHO's educational plans.

However, their complaints don't usually involve those points but instead revolve around the middle sentences quoted above; they try to pretend that kindergarteners were just covered by the bill in order to prevent abuse when in fact the bill was much more far-reaching than BHO and his helpers would have you believe. For an example of what Obama would have you believe, see this or this quote from campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki (link):
"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."
Now, for the truth about the bill, read this:
Within moments of the ad's appearance, the Obama campaign called it "shameful and downright perverse." The legislation in question, a bill [Senate Bill 99] in the Illinois State Senate that was supported but not sponsored by Obama, was, according to Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton, "written to protect young children from sexual predators" and had nothing to do with comprehensive sex education for kindergartners...

Newspaper, magazine, and television commentators quickly piled on. "The kindergarten ad flat-out lies," wrote the New York Times, arguing that "at most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." The Washington Post wrote that "McCain's 'Education' Spot is Dishonest, Deceptive." And in a column in The Hill, the influential blogger Josh Marshall called the sex-education spot "a rancid, race-baiting ad based on [a] lie. Willie Horton looks mild by comparison."
Read the rest, which includes a discussion of how what was originally meant for those in the sixth grade and up was changed to everyone in K-12 because urban areas might require different topics to be covered than more rural areas. The article also includes Byron York trying to get in touch with three of the four original sponsors and for some unknown reason or other not getting his calls returned. Only one of the four spoke with him about the bill:
After we discussed other aspects of the bill, I told [original co-sponsor state senator Iris Martinez] that reading the bill, I just didn't see it as being exclusively, or even mostly, about inappropriate touching. "I didn't see it that way, either," Martinez said. "It's just more information about a whole variety of things that have to go into a sex education class, the things that are outdated that you want to amend with things that are much more current."

So, I asked, you didn't see it specifically as being about inappropriate touching?

"Absolutely not."
That doesn't mean that the parts involving kindergarteners wouldn't be restricted to just inappropriate touching. However, the age range was lowered specifically to allow different school districts to offer teaching appropriate to their areas, and thus those in lower grades could be taught much more than BHO is letting on. For a discussion of that, see this or this.

A list of just some of those who've helped Barack Obama hide the truth about the bill is in the extended entry:



* Adam Nagourney and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times say the ad "misleadingly accused Obama of endorsing sex education for kindergarten students" (link)

* A New York Times editorial falsely states "At most, kindergarteners were to be taught the dangers of sexual predators." (link) What they could have been taught was left up to the localities.

* Following the party line boilerplate, Paul Krugman says 'In reality, he supported legislation calling for "age and developmentally appropriate education"; in the case of young children, that would have meant guidance to help them avoid sexual predators.'

* Larry Rohter of the New York Times pretends the ad was implying that "comprehensive" meant that kindergarteners would receive the information as high school students; he's probably the only person coming to that conclusion. He also takes Obama's word for his understanding of the bill rather than discussing what the bill actually says and what others intended by it (link).

* Emi Kolawole of FactCheck correctly points out some of the minor errors in the ad, but says 'It's true that the phrase "comprehensive sex education" appeared in the bill, but little else in McCain's claim is accurate.' (link)

* Michael Scherer of Time says "[t]he sex-education bill in question had called only for age-appropriate instruction..."

* Brave New Films promotes a Planned Parenthood ad (alternet.org/blogs/video/98697/ planned_parenthood_rips_into_mccain_for_sex-ed_smear_campaign): 'In an ad, they say that Obama was helping children protect themselves from sex offenders, while McCain seemingly doesn't care.'

* Nedra Pickler and Charles Babbington of the Associated Press claim that the ad "misrepresent[ed] [BHO's] position on sex education for kindergartners." (link). That's not completely inaccurate, but it fails to note that BHO either hasn't read, hasn't understood, or is misrepresenting the bill.

* Joe Garofali of the San Francisco Chronicle falsely states 'Obama doesn't support explicit sex education for kindergarteners. The bill -- which never was passed out of the Illinois legislature --included teaching "age-appropriate sex education" -- you know, what is inappropriate touching, that sort of stuff'. (link)

* Richard Cohen offered "The Ugly New McCain" (link) and called the ad a "lie". That referenced a McCain appearance on The View (!) where Joy Behar called it a lie as well.

* "Hilzoy" of the Washington Monthly pretends it was just about inappropriate touching (link).

* Joe Sudbay tries to pretend it was just about preventing abuse (americablog.com/2008/09/mccain-got-nasty-defending-his-negative.html)

* Democratic consultant Mark Mellman says "There is not an iota of reality in McCain's attack on Obama's supporting comprehensive sex education for kindergartners. As we all know, he voted to help children avoid sexual predators."

* A Tampa Bay Tribune editorial says 'The facts: Obama, while a state lawmaker in Illinois, supported a measure to provide older students with age and developmentally appropriate sex education. Younger children, such as those kindergarten-age, would be taught "age-appropriate" things such as how to protect themselves from sexual predators.'

* A Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial says "There is no evidence that Obama supported explicit sex education in kindergarten, as a McCain ad implied."

* Not even understanding BHO talking points, Cox Newspapers columnist Tom Teepen says 'No, as an Illinois state legislator Obama did not push for "comprehensive sex education" for kindergarteners. He supported a proposal for age appropriate sex education -- which, for kindergarteners, would have meant only making them aware of the possibility of sex abuse and teaching them means to counter it.'

UPDATE:
* Darrell West from the Brookings Institution falsely states "The McCain campaign ran another spot erroneously claiming Obama favored comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners." (link)

* It's an Anderson Cooper from CNN and "FactCheck" two-fer. CNN aired a "Fact Checking" episode that hewed to the party line (link):
[RANDI KAYE, CNN CORRESPONDENT]: Did Obama want to teach sex education to kindergartners? Not really. The programming question was intended to teach kids how to avoid sexual predators, says the nonpartisan group FactCheck.org.

VIVECA NOVAK, FACTCHECK.ORG: What he wanted to do was increase the range of some -- some sort of sex education, K-12. But the kind of thing he was interested in having kids at a young age learn about was inappropriate sexual advances that might be made against them.
What BHO says he wants and what was in the bill he voted for are, of course, two entirely different things.

Does Tanya Schevitz understand and support fundamental American concepts? (Chris Patti, Claudia Keith) - 09/16/08

Tanya Schevitz of the San Francisco Chronicle offers "Undocumented students' college aid in jeopardy" (link) about the recent ruling reinstating a suit over the California law giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens. That law is explicitly anti-American: it gives citizens of foreign countries who are here illegally a better deal than some U.S. citizens, and laws like that prevent some U.S. citizens from going to college. In other words, illegal aliens take a chance at college from U.S. citizens. Such laws are a direct attack on the fundamental concept of citizenship.

The title of the article is about what you'd expect from San Francisco in general: putting the interests of foreign citizens ahead of U.S. citizens. While Tanya Schevitz might not be the one that come up with headline, the article itself is as bad as the title.

Before getting out your handkerchiefs, Tanya Shevitz does do one service: letting us in on the fact that the politicians who crafted the law (AB540) did it in such a way as to evade the spirit of federal law:

"The central issue in the case is whether or not the criteria for in-state fees is based on residency or not, and the Legislature carefully constructed the statute so that it was not based on residency," [University of California attorney Chris Patti] said. "It is based on whether you went to a California high school and graduated from a California high school, and those criteria are not based on residency."

The rest of the article wholy sympathizes with those illegal aliens who would be affected and doesn't show any concern for those U.S. citizens who will have their college educations taken away from them:

A state appellate court has put a financial cloud over the future of tens of thousands of undocumented California college students... ...If the law is struck down, it has the potential to financially devastate undocumented students, who are not eligible for state or federal aid. For many, it may mean the difference between attending school and dropping out, Patti said... ...The ruling was disturbing news to those undocumented students who need the subsidy to stay in school...

Unlike Schvitz, my concern is with the U.S. citizens who are victimized by laws like this. Those who are "undocumented" should be encouraged to repatriate themselves and their home countries should be encouraged in one way or another to take care of them. Needless to say, the California State University doesn't agree:

"What we are concerned about are the students who are caught in the middle of this legal dispute," said CSU spokeswoman Claudia Keith.

Near the end of the article Tonya Shevitz plays a common trick in articles like this, quoting a sympathetic "undocumented" victim. As has been done in countless other articles, the "undocumented immigrant" doesn't give her last name, and also stresses that she's only used to the U.S. Considering all the other articles containing those exact same components, a real reporter might consider whether they were being played:

Gesel, who declined to give her last name because of her immigration status, has lived in California since she was 9 but is an undocumented immigrant from Mexico with no path to legal status under current immigration laws... "We were raised in this country. Most of our life is here," she said.

Considering the number of times that something very similar to the above has been used in other articles, does anyone think Schveitz is a real reporter?

Note also that Tyche Hendricks was involved in some way with the article.

Send your polite thoughts to tschevitz *at* sfchronicle.com

Gavin Newsom's San Francisco violated federal law? Perks for illegal aliens, and much more - 08/03/08

Apparently the thought of "Governor Gavin Newsom" is as scary to the San Francisco Chronicle as it is to the rest of us, because they've actually done some real reporting on Frisco's sanctuary policy and their habit of supporting illegal immigration.

First up is "Illegal immigrant arrested 5 times before feds told", about a 26-year-old crack dealer's trips through the revolving door (link).

Then there's "S.F. fund aids teen felons who are illegals" (link):

As San Francisco's juvenile justice system shielded young illegal immigrant felons from possible deportation, Mayor Gavin Newsom's office gave grants totaling more than $650,000 to nonprofit agencies to provide the underage offenders with free services - everything from immigration attorneys to housing assistance to "arts and cultural affirmation activities," city records show... Joseph Russoniello, the U.S. attorney for the northern district of California and a critic of San Francisco's past policy of not turning over undocumented juvenile immigrant felons for deportation, said the mayor's office was funding programs that might be violating federal law... "What it means to me," he said, "is they took the concept of sanctuary, and they applied it in a way that it is as close to harboring as I've ever seen."

In related news, Judicial Watch has filed a California Public Records Request for details on the recent triple murder allegedly performed by an illegal alien (link).

Barack Obama reiterates support for driver's licenses for illegal aliens (Carolyn Lochhead) - 01/28/08

Carolyn Lochhead of the San Francisco Chronicle offers this:
Sen. Barack Obama easily won the African American vote in South Carolina, but to woo California Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

It's a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It's also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama's stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in California, where driver's licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.
She's actually right about most of that, but she forgot to include New York governor Eliot Spitzer in her list of casualties. It also isn't clear from her article who exactly is renewing Obama's support for those who've broken our laws; no quotes from Obama or an official spokesman are provided.

It's also not entirely true that "Latinos... want them". Latinos who are here legally can already get them. As for those who put their race ahead of the best interests of their country, see page 14 of the 2007 Pew Hispanic Survey (pewhispanic.org/files/reports/84.pdf). Respondents were asked whether there should be a check for immigration status before granting a license. 85% of non-Hispanics said yes, as did 40% of all Hispanics. A majority of native-born Hispanics (56%) said yes, but a majority of foreign-born Hispanics (66%) said no. Whether any of the latter included illegal aliens isn't clear.

So, just as long as Obama goes for the foreign-born Hispanics (perhaps including illegal aliens), he's got it made. It's only the other 75%+ of American citizens he needs to worry about.

The article also quotes Gil Cedillo and former Clinton administration official Federico Pena, who's now a supporter of Obama. In 2006 he led a group that tried to thwart a Proposition 187-style measure in Colorado and the spokeswoman for that group was the vile Polly Baca, meaning that Pena is linked at least tangentially linked into the Western Union gravy train.

More on Obama's immigration issues here.

Latino, Irish Catholics in illegal immigration march (Archdiocese of San Francisco, Irish government) - 06/10/07

It's not just the Mexican government that meddles in our internal politics in order to support illegal immigration. The Irish government partly funds a group called the "Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform" [1], and yesterday some of their affiliates organized a march in San Francisco featuring 300 Latino and Irish Catholics demanding immigration "reform" (the falsely-titled "Irish, Latino Catholics march for immigrant rights" by Jill Tucker, link).

The sponsors of the event: the Archdiocese of San Francisco, Catholic Charities CYO, the Interfaith Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the Irish Immigration Pastoral Center and the San Francisco Organizing Project. After the march a mass was held by Archbishop George Niederauer, and Rev. Brandon McBride spoke at the march.

The IIPC is linked to the ILIR; from sfiipc.org:

As many of you will know, we have also in 2006 become involved in the national campaign for comprehensive immigration reform for our undocumented Irish and indeed all undocumented immigrants to the US. Through our involvement with the US Catholic Conference of Bishops' Justice for Immigrants campaign and the Irish Lobby for Immigration Reform, we have been in a position to keep our community updated and educated on the progression of the legislation through government.

And, from a news release at the site of California Assemblywoman Fiona Ma:

Fr. Brendan McBride from the Irish Immigration Pastoral Center (IIPC) introduced State Assembly Member Fiona Ma, who cancelled a prior engagement in Sacramento to attend the ILIR event. After donning a "Legalize the Irish" shirt, Ma thanked everyone for their attendance and pledged her commitment to immigration reform.

She's proud of being a useful idiot for a group linked to a foreign government?

[1] The ILIR is run by Niall O'Dowd, publisher of the Irish Voice newspaper. They've enjoyed access to politicians that other groups only dream of; at their site there's a picture of them with John McCain (irishlobbyusa.org/people.php), and they've also met with Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton. And, here's a picture of Frisco mayor Gavin Newsom wearing one of their "Legalize the Irish" t-shirts. That link includes audio (cached) of ILIR vice chair Ciaran Staunton joking about working under a fake SSN:

Someone told you, you wouldn't get a job without a Social Security number. You made one up. You got your job.

Maybe we should take that recording to campaign appearances by Clinton or McCain and see whether they appreciate the joke by the group they've supported in the past.

Lawsuit over crime victim visas; Juliana Barbassa/AP, Tyche Hendricks ignore Mexico link - 03/08/07

Juliana Barbassa of the Associated Press informs us:
Attorneys for undocumented immigrants who have suffered violent crimes sued the federal government Wednesday for failing to issue protective visas approved by Congress more than six years ago.

The 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act created a visa category allowing such victims who cooperate with law enforcement to remain in the country and eventually apply for permanent residency... [visas not implemented yet]

..."We finally decided that without the intervention of the federal courts, we could easily be waiting for another six years before an application form is made available," said Peter A. Schey, president of the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law and lead counsel for the lawsuit filed in San Francisco...
What the AP forgot to mention is that Schey's group is collaborating with the Mexican government on a website project associated with these visas (vocesunidas.org). Similarly forgetful was Tyche Hendricks of the San Francisco Chronicle in "Special visas sought for some illegals", link. The AP has a history of not mentioning Schey's links to Mexico: Peter Prengaman did it in September, an un-bylined story did it in August, and Martha Mendoza did it last May.

In the middle of the page at vocesunidas.org it says:
A collaborative project of the Direccion General de Proteccion y Asuntos Consulares of the Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores of the Government of Mexico and the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law.
And, from vocesunidas.org/lawsuit_fact_sheet
On March 6, 2007, a coalition of civil rights organizations and immigrant victims of violent crimes, including the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the Central American Resource Center (CARECEN), Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, Catholic Charities of San Francisco, International Instutute of the East Bay. Friendly House (Phoenix, Az), and Sanctuary for Families (New York), which jointly serve thousands of immigrant families with domestic violence survivors and victims of violent crimes, filed a class action federal lawsuit...
It's odd how that backstory - as well as Schey's other links to the Mexican government - were not even mentioned in those two articles. The AP story even includes a link to the CHRCL's site.

Everyone please write these sources and suggest they tell their readers the whole truth:

feedback *at* ap.org
readerrep *at* sfchronicle.com

California's future not fully 100% doom and gloom - 06/02/05

No, there is the fairly good possibility that things will not end in the complete meltdown of the state and it eventually physically separating itself from the mainland and being crushed by the Pacific, a new report reveals.

According to the Public Policy Institute of California's new report "California 2025: It's Your Choice" (ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=600), by that year we'll have 8 to 10 million more people living here, with a severly strained infrastructure to match:

Arnold gives far-lefties the faints - 04/19/05

LAT:
SAN FRANCISCO - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Tuesday urged that the U.S. "close the borders" to combat illegal immigration, though an aide quickly clarified his comment, explaining that the governor merely wants the borders better policed.

Schwarzenegger, taking questions at the Newspaper Assn. of America convention, described border security as a "lax situation" and urged tougher measures...
The LAT ends with the relatively measured thoughts of CA state Sen. Gil Cedillo. Gil "one bill gil" Cedillo is the sponsor of innumerable bills to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. Posts about him start in "Actors, writers and musicians want you to pay all the costs for their cheap labor". In addition to stating that we should give driver's licenses to illegal aliens because "they were here first," here's another one of his quotes:
"Latinos have displaced other work communities - clothing, hotel, and restaurant industries that used to be done by blacks and anglos... Since Latinos are now central to union revitalization, through immigration and high birth rates unions can be partisan for full Latino empowerment."
Carla Marinucci of the San Francisco Chronicle reports:
Democrats were quick to react to the governor's statement with outrage. Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez issued a statement saying Schwarzenegger should "ratchet down this rhetoric and retreat from this narrow-minded approach to immigration."

Nunez argued that the idea reflects the approach of "political extremists, not rational policy-makers,'" and said that "even President Bush rejects the idea of a closed border with Mexico."
You can read up on Nunez here and here. Tell me who's the extremist.

The Chronical also includes outraged quotes from the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.