Congratulations! Team Lonewacko has selected this week's Unsigned 40+-targeting New Zealand-living former Russian Mezzo Soprano of The Week, and it's none other than Yulia Townsend! While she could not be reached for comment she is most assuredly proud of her award:
A former union representative who helped illegal workers get jobs at a Swift & Co. meatpacking plant in Marshalltown was found guilty of federal immigration charges today.
A jury found Braulio Pereyra-Gabino guilty of harboring illegal immigrants but acquitted him on other charges that included false use of a Social Security number and aggravated identity theft.
...Pereyra-Gabino was working as vice president of Local 1149 of the United Food and Commercial Workers union when he was arrested by federal immigration officials in July 2007.
Prosecutors contend that he told undocumented workers how to escape detection and protect their fake identities used to get jobs at the Marshalltown plant.
What he said during his "orientation speeches" at the link; note that a former Swift manager was sentenced to a year's probation, probably ruling out him dropping a dime on higher ups. And, perhaps that was by design.
New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Wednesday that he has seen an improvement in security along the U.S.-Mexico border... Problems remain, but increased policing by state and federal authorities has significantly helped...
Part of John McCain's (previous?) tactic to get amnesty involved the border being declared to be secure, something that would probably be done by border state governors like Richardson. And, they'd probably do it in as casual fashion as Richardson did yesterday.
He also announced various partnerships with the neighboring Mexican state of Chihuahua, some of which might be in the U.S. interest, some of which might not be.
The Washington Times - last seen imposing new, euphemism-friendly guidelines - offers the editorial "McCain's quest for the Hispanic vote". After a preliminary, and partially incorrect, intro describing the "Hispanic vote", they sink lower than they have in the past:
In an effort to attract Latinos and stem the tide of Hispanic disenchantment with the GOP, McCain's camp unveiled a Spanish web site this week, as reported by the Washington Times. The task of attracting Hispanics, while difficult, is not impossible. The majority of Latinos have conservative values; those beliefs can be used to the GOP's advantage. Mr. McCain's current tougher stand, which puts security first and denies blanket amnesty, is a good first step. Building a solid Latino coalition that can effectively communicate his plan - a plan that will ensure safety, security and a fair path to legal citizenship - is the next and most crucial one. In addition, Mr. McCain must recognize that Latino values are American values; he must clearly articulate his positions as a reflection of mutually shared convictions.
Pandering to race-based concerns is not the way to do things, especially because it will make future panders even worse and because it will give even more power to, in the WashTimes' own words, "Hispanic immigration activists". I.e., the National Council of La Raza, MALDEF, and so forth. Why would a Republican want to give in to those groups and give them any more power? The other parts of their suggestion involve demagoguing social issues like gay marriage and abortion. And, of course, they're sounding like president Bush and on down the line with their "blanket amnesty" word games. It's amnesty and it will be perceived as amnesty no matter what games McCain and the WashTimes want to play. And, the belief that part of our country belongs to another country, a belief shared by a good percentage of Mexican-Americans, is not in the least an "American value". That belief is not being confronted and opposed, and McCain would give those in the general sphere of those who hold those beliefs - such as the NCLR - more political power.
John McCain has "flip-flopped" on immigration. Except, it's not really a flip-flop because it's been his position all along, despite attempts by the Democratic Party and others (such as Media Matters) to pretend otherwise. On May 5, while announcing his new Spanish-language website, he said this:
"Unless we enact comprehensive immigration reform I don't think you can take it piecemeal... In other words... because as soon you and I start to talk about the highly skilled workers, our agricultural interest people are going to say, 'Look we need ag workers, too.' And then somebody’s going say, 'We need the DREAM Act,' and then somebody’s going to say, 'We’ve got to enforce our border.'"
His previous position was that the borders needed to be certified as secure first. But, even if he meant to do that, it would basically be a sham designed to making getting amnesty ("comprehensive immigration reform") easier. So, this isn't so much a flip-flop as simply a more explicit indication of what he really wants.
Needless to say, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) continues their charade and also reveals that they're still concept-challenged (link):
McCain said he would pursue comprehensive immigration reform as soon as he takes office. But in the same news conference, McCain also took the opposite position: saying that the borders have to be secured first. McCain touted a virtual fence today and said we could have secured the border if it wasn't for all the earmarks and pork spending in Washington. But as recently as March, McCain called the virtual fence a "failed effort" and a "disgrace." Asked whether state and local law enforcement agencies should be enforcing federal immigration laws, McCain said "I support the enforcement of every law that's on the books in the United States of America." But moments later McCain took the opposite position, blaming the federal government for having "failed to act" and asserting, "when I'm president, beginning in January 0f 2009 we will have a federal approach to what is a federal problem." ...Democratic National Committee spokesman Luis Miranda [says] "John McCain cannot have it both ways. He cannot pander to the right wing of his Party by promising an enforcement-only approach to immigration while telling Hispanics that he supports comprehensive reform.
Obviously, their "opposite positions" aren't opposite at all.
Yesterday on his show, Rush Limbaugh said this about an event where he ran into Bill Clinton and someone else:
I shook his hand, he left, comes back, the mayor of Los Angeles, I thought it was a Secret Service agent, maybe a shoeshine guy. Turns out he gives me his card, I said, "Oh, my gosh, it's the mayor of Los Angeles." I stood up, I said, "Hello, Mr. Villaraigosa."
The evil airheads at ThinkProgress claim this is an "Ethnically-Charged Insult" (thinkprogress.org/2008/05/06/media-limbaugh-villaraigosa), when in fact it appears to have another explanation. I don't know whether Rush has clarified what he was thinking of, but a commenter on that TP thread points to this story from April in which a Missoula, Montana shoeshiner wanted to give Barack Obama a shoeshine and was told to back off by Secret Service agents. The meeting above occured months before the April incident, but both had already occured when Rush made the statement above.
For ThinkProgress, getting things wrong in this way is the normal course of affairs. One might think that someone working for Conde Nast Portfolio might not be just as bad, yet Jeff Bercovici of that site thinks different (portfolio.com/views/blogs/mixed-media/2008/05/06/la-mayor-to-answer-limbaughs-race-swipe):
Hey, you know what's a riot? Comparing one of the country's foremost Latino politicians to "a shoeshine guy" because of his race.
Somehow I think the April incident is a much stronger explanation. Note also that neither TP nor CNP are discussing the endless line of Villar issues, from his past leadership of a racial separatist group to him congratulating former Mexican president Zedillo on helping block Prop. 187.
"What can I tell you? It's the same kind of nasty, bigoted, racist type of comment that has become so prevalent in today's society, as practiced by Lou Dobbs, as practiced by [Sean] Hannity, [Bill] O'Reilly, [Michael] Savage -- all these guys who are appealing to a particular bigoted audience, and fanning the fires of bigotry and racism by doing these kinds of things without real concern about the consequences of their words. And the consequences are that these kinds of comments have helped in raising the rate of crimes against Latinos 35 percent in last three years." (He attributes that figure to the FBI.) "These guys have no civility in their makeup, no compassion, and very little intelligence when it comes to opening their mouths."
Bercovici can't seem to get anything right. Whatever Nogales said, he wasn't referring to crimes in general but to hate crimes. And, as discussed at the link, the 35% was designed to deceive. A real reporter would have gotten the types of crimes right and would have looked into the statistics.
Speaking to reporters in Phoenix, McCain said Hispanic citizens want America's borders secured and illegal immigrants to be treated humanely.
He added that low-income Hispanic citizens are vulnerable to losing their jobs to the lower wages accepted by illegal immigrants.
However, per this he acknowledged "that Latinos had been discouraged by the harsh anti-immigration tone during parts of the Republican primaries".
There wasn't really a "harsh anti-immigration tone" coming from the previous GOP candidates, he's just playing the role of Howard Dean and making that up. And, it's possible to secure our borders, treat illegal aliens humanely, and avoid a harsh tone: we simply enforce the current laws. That will result in many or most illegal aliens returning home and reforming their own countries, which is the most humane solution of all. McCain is peddling false compassion, trying to pretend that allowing 14% of a country's workforce to move here is good policy.
"Feliz Cinco de Mayo" from John McCain, as he launches a Spanish-language section of his website: johnmccain.com/espanol
There's a "hablando claro" ("straight talk") link at the top which should give background on his policies, and I was expecting it to say something in Spanish that he wouldn't say on his main site. Unfortunately it leads to the English side of things, so we'll have to wait and see. This is supposedly part of his outreach to Hispanics, but one wonders exactly why he would do that by celebrating a Mexican holiday (which is a minor one in Mexico). St. Patrick's Day isn't really a celebration of the country of Ireland and Columbus Day isn't a celebration of the country of Italy, yet Cinco de Mayo is definitely a celebration of the country of Mexico. The closest analog would be if McCain tried to reach out to the Franco-American vote by celebrating Bastille Day, but I'm going to guess that almost no one knows when that was. And, needless to say, why Puerto Ricans, Hondurans, or Cubans would feel any link with a Mexican battle isn't clear.
"everything about our Hispanic voters is tailor-made to the Republican message... I am confident that I will do very well... I know their patriotism, I know the respect for the family, the advocacy for pro-life, I know the small business aspect of our Hispanic voters."
And, to show how much he knows, he's going to speak to a far-left identity politics organization closely linked to not only the Democratic Party but to those who promote irredentism. A Democrat could have said the same thing, although it must be admitted that they would have racialized it even more and stressed other topics. And, one wonders whether he'd engage in such boosterism about other races and ethnicities. And, one wonders whether he'd point out some of the downsides, such as the fact that millions of the Mexicans in the U.S. think the U.S. Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico.
Massive immigration supporter Frank Sharry - formerly of the National Immigration Forum and now with America's Voice - stopped by FireDogLake earlier today for a chat with their readers: firedoglake.com/2008/05/04/fdl-welcomes-frank-sharry-of-americas-voice
While he answered questions from others, he failed to answer a few I posed despite the fact that few others asked him anything and he had over 20 minutes to think up a good response; more below.
He also gave what will hopefully turn out to be spectacularly bad advice:
On the one hand, I do think it will matter hugely if progressive forces -- if labor, and immigrant advocates, and Latinos, and African Americans, -- if we close ranks, and Democrats get on offense [against "nativist sentiment"], that's going to matter hugely. ...the way to deal with the right-wing echo chamber is to marginalize them through a combination of political power and winning the argument over who has the better solution... We increasingly are and will take them on. There's an anti-hate approach that's part of the strategy. But from my point of view, the real key is to have the netroots take this on as an issue. I think we pretty much have the upper hand in the mainstream print press. And I think eventually we want to make cartoon figures out of TV talkers like who are cartoon characters.
There really isn't much of an argument in favor of massive and/or illegal immigration; the only way some make that argument is through being misleading in one way or another. And, many bloggers do post in support of illegal immigration, then get comments on those threads pointing out how they're wrong. While some new voices might join in, they'll soon leave as they see their credibility fall. And, it's good to see that Sharry at least partially agrees with me on the biases of the "print press".
Here's the comment I left, in case Sharry drops by and wants to leave a comment or something. Comments can be left 24/7, no waiting. Alternatively, those who attend his public appearances should try to ask him these or the many other questions he should answer (links added):
1. Approximately how much did your former group (the NIF) obtain from companies that profit from illegal immigration? I know they got at least $40,000 from Western Union, a company that illegal aliens use to send money to their home countries. Can you give us a ballpark figure on any other money received from other companies that profit from illegal immigration?
2. Would you agree that illegal immigration is an indicator of government corruption, and that anyone who supports illegal immigration through things like discouraging enforcement of our laws is supporting government corruption?
3. The ACLU is working directly with the Mexican government, and other non-profits have direct or indirect links as well. And, Calderon recently stated that they’re going to be using U.S. non-profits to push their agenda inside the U.S. Will you denounce such meddling in our internal politics?
The San Francisco Chronicle's Day in Pictures section highlights the incorrectly spelled sign from the anti-illegal immigration protester discussed in the post about Nico Pitney of the Huffington Post, saying:
Excellent point: In Houston, a Texan protesting amnesty for illegal immigrants argues that anyone who can't master English doesn't deserve to live in America.
How horribly smug. However, the upshot is that the SF Chronicle doesn't feel much of a bond with those in other areas of the country who aren't like them and who oppose massive illegal activity. Taken literally, they would strip her of her citizenship simply for supporting a change of the law that they oppose or simply for opposing massive illegal immigration.
None of the DIP pages are bylined, so please contact their ombudsman and let him know what you think: readerrep *at* sfchronicle.com
Nico Pitney is the Huffington Post's "National Editor". Until around August of last year he was Deputy Research Director at the Center for American Progress and the Managing Editor of ThinkProgress. And, yes, those are very strong warning signs considering that CAP seems to screen its hires for childishness and stupidity. Nowadays he's helping drive the HuffPost even further down, and, yes, unbelievable as it might seem, it's possible for them to be even lower than they are now. He's made just 15 posts since December (huffingtonpost.com/the-news/reporting/nico-pitney), with the latest being called "Anti-Immigration Protester Needs A Spell-Check" (huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/04/whoops-anti-immigration-p_n_100043.html). A May Day 2008 anti-illegal immigration protester in Houston held up a sign saying "Make English America's offical Language", with "official" being spelled wrong. It was taken by Johnny Hanson of the Houston Chronicle and considering that it's available in that incorrect form on their site I'm going to assume that it wasn't photoshopped.
The sign is certainly ironic, but the point being made is extremely minor. And, Pitney incorrectly states that the protester is "Anti-Immigration", when in fact she's at a protest for illegal immigration and the sign's directive wouldn't impact those immigrants who learn English. I'll leave it up to someone else to figure out whether "spell-check" is the correct form in this context.
I left the comment in the extended entry, which hasn't been approved and probably won't be considering that comments left after it were approved. However, plenty of other ThinkProgress-style comments have been approved: "All graduates from the Dan Quayle School for Spelling!", "It was good of her to highlight the word with 2 underscores too. Love the busy shirt as well.", "makes one proud to bea an Amerikan ;-)", etc. The jokes just keep coming, but only a couple make - or are allowed to make by the moderator - the point I made.
Arianna has been embarrassed by comments left on her site's posts before, and she might want to reconsider whether having lightweights like Nico Pitney throw out red meat is the direction she wants to go in. It might be good for the traffic, but it's not so good for the reputation.
Non-"liberal" coverage of immigration, Iraq, terrorism, multiculturalism, Los Angeles, California, privacy, and occasionally celebrities and wacky humor...
