« March 2006 | Main | May 2006 »
AVWatch: patriotism is the last refuge of Antonio Villaraigosa
Antonio Villaraigosa, mayor of Los Angeles (Alta California), is swiftly backing away from the coming anti-illegal immigration backlash. As previously noted, he'll be out of town on Monday. And, while he supports the marches he wants students to stay in school. His latest pronouncements are that those foreign citizens who are marching in our streets should carry American flags and that the National Anthem should be sung in Spanish.
Just because those who are even more extreme than he will call him a "vendido" for those remarks, please don't be fooled. While he is for a large part simply an opportunistic empty suit, his actions from the 60s to just a week ago show his true radical nature.
UPDATE: Tony also says he might attend a rally in the afternoon; apparently his big meeting in Dallas will be rather short.
Posted to Los_Angeles at 10:00 PM | Comments (5)
Will Communists thank "conservatives" for helping them build a proletariat?
Here are pictures from an illegal immigration march in Lynwood (near Compton) earlier today.
Note the large number of placards from the Communist front group ANSWER LA. It's not just corporatists who profit or seek to profit off illegal immigration. Many on the far-left apparently see massive illegal immigration as a chance to build a proletariat and advance their ideologies. There are only so many native-born Americans who could help them build Communism; those groups would be rather foolish to turn down an imported proletariat. Note that ANSWER was involved in at least two near-riots involving illegal immigration: the Baldwin Park and Garden Grove incidents. And, note the play that "immigrants rights" is currently getting on their site (answerla.org), which also lists the organizers of this rally:
Hermandad Mexicana Nacional, Coalicion Latinoamericana, The Southeast Sun Newspaper, Consejo de Fedraciones Mexicanas, Club Ecuestre de Charros de Compton y Carson, Centro Azteca, Bert Corona Foudation, Camara Latinoamericana de Comercio de Lynwood, Frente Comunitario Sur, A.N.S.W.E.R. Coalition, Simon Bolivar Asociation and others.
Posted to Immigration at 09:00 PM | Comments (0)
Let's help Steve Lopez think
L.A. Times columnist Steve Lopez - at that link being snowed by a Mexican consul - offers "For One Migrant, March Is a Luxury". It concerns a housekeeper he met:
I met Hernandez, 39, a while back at a birthday party for my nanny's son. She and the nanny grew up in the same Honduran plantation town, came north for work and ended up sharing a small apartment with other adults and children.
I'd imagine that a large part of the Los Angeles Times' support for illegal immigration is simple selfish greed: their top employees are part of the "Nanny Employing Class", and they see no problem with several people sharing a small apartment just so they don't have to buy a Roomba or pay a little more for lettuce. It just makes everything so much easier to have a ready supply of servants, no?
As it turns out, the housekeeper is here on a legal worker permit, even though she initially entered illegally. And, she sends money home, which, when you consider all the other Hondurans in the U.S., props up the government of Honduras, helps them avoid reforms, takes a good chunk of their workforce, and encourages them to send us more people. Of course, when you actually look at the big picture things get a bit messy, and that's probably too complicated for someone who prefers telling heartwarming tales.
Then, Lopez goes on to enumerate the housekeeper's health problems that she can't attend to, and says this:
In other words, she could be the queen of the rallies scheduled for tomorrow.
Exactly how so, Steve? The rallies are in support of illegal immigration, not the legal variety. Or, do the supporters want on-demand citizenship for everyone and an end to any sort of legal worker program such as that used by the housekeeper? And, how exactly would any change in status help Hernandez with her problems?
In fact, what Lopez, the Times, and the organizers want would make things far, far worse. Millions upon millions more illegal aliens would come here, and among those would be untold thousands of competitors for the housekeeper's job.
The queen of the rallies should be those who profit off cheap labor, not the laborers themselves.
Posted to Immigration at 04:00 PM | Comments (1)
The "Immigrant" Rights Movement
Did you know there's a growing "Immigrant" Rights Movement? Of course, most Americans will refer to that "movement" as "foreign citizens who are here illegally marching in our streets making a show of force and demanding rights to which they aren't entitled", but many news/propaganda organizations seem to prefer the first term. And, not just because it's shorter but - of course - because it's highly misleading.
There are currently hundreds of articles in Google News that use the titular phrase. While many of the sources are far-left - and equate the "movement" with basically a socialistic revolution - some of them are more mainstream.
The phrase appears to have been in use for a long time but, of course, until recently we've never had hundreds of thousands of foreign nationals marching in our streets and thus it's never been applied to that specific situation.
The timeline supplied by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights might indicate that the phrase has been used for decades, as does the bibliography here. And, Refuse & Resist prints a 2002 letter refering to the phrase.
Returning to the present:
Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times offers "Bush Enters Anthem Fight on Language": "...the new Spanish version of the national anthem that was released on Friday as part of the growing immigrants' rights movement."
"Documented Immigrants Demand Vote in New York City" has a quote from Ron Hayduk: "If the immigrants' rights movement is today's civil rights movement... then noncitizen voting is today's suffrage movement."
Richard Fausset/Los Angeles Times offers "A new 'rights movement' builds slowly in South" (aka "Nervously, Latinos Protest in the South"): "The immigrant rights "movement," such that it is, is in its infancy in the South."
Marilyn Bechtel/People's Weekly World provides "S.F. march fills Market Street": "We are immigrants, day laborers, youth, students, women and men, and we all demand — legalization now!" said hunger striker Renee Saucedo, who heads the city's Day Labor Program. "We are so joyous to be ending our fast here with you," Saucedo said. "Together we are a powerful movement, not only here but all over this country," she added, emphasizing that the immigrant rights movement "is just getting started."
Katie Wilson/McMinnville (OR) News Register offers "Latino outpouring hits close to home": "...[rallies] are being held as part of a national immigration rights movement born out of opposition to a stalled House bill that would make felons out of an estimated 11 million immigrants living in the country without legal papers."
From the Socialist Worker Online editorial "Dawn of a new movement": "With the full Senate out to restrict rights in one form or another, it's all the more important for the new immigrant rights movement to put forward its own agenda."
Ed Morales/The Nation offers "The Media Is the Mensaje": "In Chicago, next door to anti-immigrant-bill sponsor James Sensenbrenner's home state of Wisconsin, the weekly La Raza has been central to a well-organized, vibrant immigrants' rights movement in a state that pioneered the use of Mexico's matricula consular as valid identification for the undocumented. A former La Raza reporter, Jorge Mujica, left the paper to become one of the main organizers of the movement there. The current editor in chief, Jorge Mederos, says the paper's front page has been devoted to the issue for several weeks." (See also "Links between the Democratic Party and the Mexican government" and "Senator Dick Durbin supports illegal aliens marching in our streets").
Joshua Hoyt, director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights quoted here: "We don't have a leader like Martin Luther King or Cesar Chavez, but this is now a national immigrant rights movement." (Note: he's linked to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.)
Wendy Suares/WLBT Jackson MS offers "Hundreds Rally For Justice For Immigrants": "Protests all across the country were held Monday in what's turning into a national Immigrants Rights movement. Mississippi's state capitol was no exception. Immigrants and their advocates gathered in Jackson in support of immigration reform and justice." (At least she's upfront about her biases.)
AP via KVOA offers "Strength of planned immigrant work boycott called into question" which, oddly enough, uses a somewhat accurate term: "a boycott would show the strength of the illegal-immigrant rights movement and could lead to favorable changes for illegal immigrants." Whether that was in the original AP article or they modified it is unknown.
Posted to Immigration at 08:41 AM | Comments (1)
Laura Wides-Munoz propaganda on frightened "immigrants"
Laura Wides-Munoz of the AP offers "Raid Rumors Fuel Fear Among Immigrants". The article isn't just heavily slanted in favor of illegal immigration. It goes even further and has the subtext that enforcing our immigration laws is not just cruel, but even similar to Nazism.Thousands of illegal immigrants stayed home this week amid rumors of immigration roundups that federal officials say were unfounded, leaving some industries scrambling for workers.If Mills' members hired only legal workers and/or paid all the costs associated with their workers, then that wouldn't be an issue. Of course, what's actually happening is that Mills' members who are employing illegal labor are getting cheap labor and sticking everyone else with the bill.
Len Mills, executive vice president of Associated General Contractors of South Florida, estimated at least 50 percent of workers on construction jobs in the region had not shown up for work.
"This is costing millions of dollars a day, and I don't know who is going to pay for it," he said.
Then, Godwin's Law is invoked:
"Everybody's edgy," said Chris Ruske, owner of a southern New Jersey nursery. "There's an awful lot of rhetoric, and you wonder what's true. You wonder if the immigration Gestapo are coming to get you."Isn't it extraordinarily inflammatory to compare the ICE to the Gestapo? Should the AP print such quotes without providing any sort of commentary or analysis? Should we assume that the AP is trying to poison the debate with comparisons between United States government agencies and the Nazis? (Ruske is also a columnist for a small paper.)
The AP then provides the opinions of a serious of questionable groups and individuals, without providing and information on their backgrounds:
The National Immigration Law Center called on organizations nationwide to sign a petition urging ICE to assure the public it won't make any immigration arrests during the protests.And:
"It is the ugliest of rumors because it has intimidated people who are already afraid. They are living in the shadows of society, wondering who is going to knock on the door," said the Rev. Allan Ramirez, pastor of the Brookville Dutch Reform Church in Long Island, N.Y.When Suffolk County (NY) executive Steven Levy tried to close down houses with dozens of illegal aliens, Ramirez refered to it as "ethnic cleansing." And, as the link in the quote shows, Mexican consul Arturo Sarukhan refers to him as a "friend" and they appear to have at least met on that issue.
And:
Elias Bermudez, an activist and talk show host for a Spanish-language radio station in Phoenix, said many believe they are being punished for participating in recent protests in favor of legalizing the status of many illegal immigrants.Bermudez tried to start a boycott by illegal aliens last year.
And, the article closes with the thoughts of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Note also that according to the Society of Professional Journalists, "Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent." The AP's headline writers have ignored that countless times, including the current case.
Posted to Immigration at 03:22 PM | Comments (9)
AVWatch: Antonio Villaraigosa and the illegal immigration march/boycott
Or: "Yo no soy marinero, soy capitan!"Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles' first Latino mayor in the modern era, will skip huge pro-immigration rallies planned for Monday to meet with pro football officials in Dallas, leaving organizers feeling like "a ship without a captain."Of course, it goes without saying that Reuters' wording is misleading. It would be more accurate if they had said "has long championed rights for both legal and illegal immigrants, especially those of the same race as he is" instead.
Oscar Sanchez, an organizer of the Great American Boycott in Los Angeles, said the mayor's office previously told the group he would speak at a downtown Los Angeles rally on Monday -- then backed out...
...A spokesman for Villaraigosa said the mayor had never promised to be present at Monday's immigration rallies -- part of a nationwide boycott and demonstration -- and that his Dallas trip had been in the works for a long time.
Villaraigosa, the son of a Mexican immigrant, has long championed immigrant rights. But he has urged restraint in the May Day event, asking protesters to be "lawful and respectful" and children to stay in school...
See also "May Day illegal immigration march/boycott: the supporters". Mexican elected officials are sending a delegation to meet with AV. Is that for a day other than Monday, or is that an additional reason why he'll be out of town?
Posted to Immigration at 12:02 PM | Comments (5)
"Guantanamo Detainee Caught At The Border"
From this unverified entry:
In connection with a lawsuit brought by the Associated Press, the Pentagon released thousands of pages of documents transcribed during tribunal hearings for the hundreds of terror suspects held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There is a lot of interesting information in those documents, including the allegations against one detainee who was caught while trying to sneak across the Mexican border.
Posted to Immigration_terror at 09:18 AM | Comments (7)
May Day illegal immigration march/boycott: the supporters
Who supports the May 1 illegal immigration boycott and/or the marches on that day? Let's keep track of them in this post.
The Democrats in the California state senate support both the march and the boycott.
UPDATES
--
5/2/06:
New Jersey Attorney General Zulima Farber attended and spoke at her local rally. She had attended a rally on April 23 as well. She's the first Hispanic to hold that post, but whether she's ethnically, ethically, or intellectually compromised is not known.
KTTV's Tony Valdez comes out in support of the reconquista. You can hear the interview by doing a find for his name in this listing.
Martin Sheen was at the MacArthur Park rally.
King County Executive Ron Sims lead the march in Seattle.
5/1/06:
Subcomandante Marcos has emerged from his place of concealment and marched in Mexico City in support of illegal aliens in the U.S. He and his entourage marched alongside union workers celebrating Labor Day, radicals waving banners showing Russian revolutionary heroes Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, middle-class families and some protesters dressed in clown costumes and banging drums. Thousands of them ended up in front of the U.S. consulate. One of the marchers has a message for you: "We remind the gringos that they are a country of immigrants. The work that gringos don't like to do is being done by Mexicans"
Mumia Abu-Jamal has thoughts: la.indymedia.org/news/2006/04/154845.php
Goya Foods suspended delivery everywhere except Florida, saying it wanted to express solidarity with immigrants who are its primary customers.
Here's a letter from the president of Ralph's Supermarkets. They support immigration "reform" and understand that some of their employees might want the day off. That major Southern California chain - where up until I saw that email I had spent hundreds of dollars - is owned by Kroger's. (If Kroger's doesn't support his email, they should fire him.) If you have a Ralph's card, Doug McIntyre is reportedly collecting them to be sent back.
Geraldo Rivera has reportedly reiterated his support for "his" people (almost all of whom aren't really of the same ethnicities as he is).
Barack Obama sides with the foreign citizens marching in our streets.
Smithfield Foods says "On May 1, A Day Without An Immigrant, we will be encouraging and assisting our employees to write their senators and representatives in Congress to ask them to pass just legislation that includes protections for legal immigrants and their employers, provides a path to citizenship for those who are willing to work, and does not separate family members. We believe this is the most effective action our employees can take to persuade Congress to make the right choices."
4/30/06: National Beef in Nebraska will close on Monday.
There's a long list of very minor players in the "Open Letter to White Communities" entitled "For May Day and Beyond: White People Step up for Immigrant Rights!" at binghamtonpmc.org/newswire/display/1992/index.php
There are socialistic flyers (no names) here: straycouches.com/mayday
The next five paragraphs were derived from this:
In each of New York City's five boroughs, thousands of workers are expected to take work breaks shortly after noon to link arms with shoppers, restaurant-goers and other supporters along city sidewalks for about 20 minutes. "This will symbolize the interdependence of all of us, not just immigrants, but all of society," said Chung-Wa Hong, executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition.
Perdue Farms will close six of their 14 plants.
Gallo Wines is giving its 150 employees the day off
Greg Schirf, owner of Wasatch Beers in Utah, said that when some of his Latino employees sheepishly asked if they could take off Monday, he responded: "How about this? We'll just take a company holiday. We'll call it 'Latino Appreciation Day.'" (The last two would be very easy boycott targets for the American side. There are a large number of wineries and breweries to choose from.)
Mahonrry Hidalgo, head of the immigration committee of New Jersey's Latino Leadership Alliance: "The marches are a tool, but they are being overused," said . Like civil rights boycotts of decades past, he said, "this could finally be the spark for our people to advance."
Different LULAC chapters seem to have slightly different opinions. New Mexico: LULAC officials in Las Cruces say even though they support the effort, they are asking students to stay in class and that workers who fear they may lose their job stay at work. From Oklahoma: [Ray] Madrid said LULAC [of Oklahoma] is not promoting a work stoppage, although some workers plan to stay home and boycott retailers. From Texas: ...Leading U.S. migrant advocacy groups are taking a diplomatic approach over the touchy boycott issue. Local representatives of the League of United Latin American Citizens and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund asked participants to do what they think is best, but to consider the ramifications... The message is quite different for youngsters: They're being asked to not skip school or lead walkouts... "They can join the rally after school," said Henry Rodríguez, Texas civil rights director for LULAC. The Odessa TX chapter isn't supporting the boycott. That in NoCal is: "If it's being done to put the fear of God in people, it's working," said Jerry Oquendo, Bay Area chapter president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, or LULAC. "We're going to tell our people not to be intimidated and to come out and rally (May 1). We'll do everything in our power to protect them." From a bit to the south: The local LULAC chapter is supporting the May 1 boycott - for workers - but has no plans to organize a local demonstration, according to San Benito County LULAC President Mickie Luna. From California comes this slightly not credible report: The call for the boycott has reached every corner of America and is expected to create an economic impact, according to a Los Angeles Coalition working along with the National Immigrant Solidarity Network, League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and other grass-roots organizations throughout the country.
Regarding the last link from the racist Pacific News Service, the article is from Milwaukee's conquistadornews.com, which was founded by the Goodson also mentioned in the article: Nelson Goodson and Ernesto Nava, both members of the March 23 Coalition, "A Day Without Latinos Peaceful March"... voted in consensus to proceed with the one day boycott nationwide... A strong message has been circulated by supporters of the boycott not to buy any products, gas, and other items from major stores and companies not related to or supporting the Hispanic community.
4/29/06: There's a long list of mostly low-level, fringe, and/or Usual Suspect supporters here: actionla.org/features/view.php?id=472 There are three groups with "Communist" and five with "Socialis". However, perhaps the most ironic are two groups from Quebec. And - of course - Ramsey Clark's International Action Center has signed on, as has the Revolutionary Communist Party-linked World Can't Wait. And, in a blast from the past, so has the Students for a Democratic Society. The two groups closest to the mainstream are the United People of Color Caucus of the National Lawyers Guild (if the whole NLG doesn't support what that Caucus supports, they shouldn't be using the NLG's name) and the Green Party USA. Regarding the latter, see "Greens Endorse May 1 Strike for Immigrant Rights".
4/28/06: All the political parties in Mexico's lower house have issued a similar declaration to that issued by their counterparts in Alta California. They're sending a delegation to Los Angeles to meet with mayor Antonio Villaraigosa. All of those who supported him should never be allowed to forget that they supported him. (The exact day when they're coming here is unknown, but Villaraigosa now says he'll be out of town on Monday.)
From this (copy here, also here): Joining illegal immigrants in their march on May 1: radical Islamic front groups the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), the Muslim Students Association (MSA), the Muslim American Society (MAS), and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)
From ever further to the left: maydayinthebay.dyndns.org. They want "Full, unconditional and immediate "amnesty" for all immigrants", "Free movement for all people", and more. There's no word on who's behind the group, but they subscribe to the 'Peoples' Global Action' ethos: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples'_Global_Action
And, from this: the National Federation of Asian American United Methodists, Methodists Associated to Represent the Cause of Hispanic Americans (MARCHA, get it?), Mark Nakagawa, pastor of Centenary United Methodist Church in Los Angeles, support the boycott.
--
And, from the provided sources:
(source: Reuters, 'May 1 protest aims to "close" cities')
Jorge Rodriguez, union organizer: "There will be 2 to 3 million people hitting the streets in Los Angeles alone. We're going to close down Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Tucson, Phoenix, Fresno... We want full amnesty, full legalization for anybody who is here (illegally)... That is the message that is going to be played out across the country on May 1." (While that's a common name, based on "Immigration fights don't take recess" he appears to be a Sacramento organizer with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, which "is affiliated with the AFL-CIO through AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees". Link.)
Chicago Catholic priests: "have helped organize protests, sending information to all 375 parishes in the archdiocese."
Cargill Inc., Tyson Foods Inc and Seaboard Corp "said they will close plants due to the planned rallies."
Cardinal Roger Mahony supports the march, but not the boycott: "Go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterword."
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa... has said he expects protesters to be "lawful and respectful" and children to stay in school.
Juan Jose Gutierrez, director of the Latino Movement USA: "This is going to be really big. We're going to have millions of people... We are not concerned at all [about a backlash]. We believe it's possible for Congress to get the message that the time to act is now." And, the next link has this quote: "Americans respect those who struggle, those who don't cow down... We can't (only) continue marching to make ourselves heard."
(AFP, Latin Hollywood actors back immigrant boycott
Edward James Olmos (who hugged your blogger - in a very manly fashion - while we were sweeping up after the L.A. riots and whose hug your blogger hereby renounces): "The protest will be very important, because it will teach a lesson to politicians and the rest of the United States."
Selma Hayek: Before departing on a European promotional tour, Hayek was considering how she could support the May 1 boycott, a source close to the actress said.
Gustavo Santaolalla ("Brokeback Mountain" composer from Argentina): "We have to demand respect and dignity, because we are all workers and because we are already part of the DNA of this country."
John Leguizamo (actor from Colombia) is "proud of the protests" and says "It is insulting that the law would call an immigrant a criminal... It's horrible."
National Council of La Raza ("National Council of The Race") does not oppose the May 1 action, but suggested that instead of taking the day off, marches take place after school or work.
Eva Longoria ("Desperate Housewives") has also spoken out for the cause, but is careful to see both sides of the benefits of immigration, as well as the need to secure the US border.
(source: Spanish 'Star-Spangled Banner' Draws Ire by Laura Wides-Munoz)
Adam Kidron (British music producer from Urban Box Office; U.S. resident for 16 years): Pro-immigration [sic] protests are planned around the country for Monday, and the record label is urging Hispanic radio stations nationwide to play the cut at 7 p.m. EDT Friday in a sign of solidarity.
Wyclef Jean, hip-hop star Pitbull and Puerto Rican singers Carlos Ponce and Olga Tanon (featured on the song)
Posted to Immigration at 05:10 AM | Comments (15)
55 percent of Mexican-Americans consider themselves Mexicans first
I don't have an original link for this, but according to "The menace of multiculturalism":
A poll for the Pew Hispanic Center finds that 55 percent of Americans of Mexican descent consider themselves Mexicans first. A similar study of Muslim immigrants in Los Angeles finds that only 10 percent think of themselves as Americans rather than citizens of the countries they abandoned for new lives here.
Posted to Immigration at 01:06 AM | Comments (3)
Fat suit + Empire State Building = fun!
From this:...Though he is thin, athletic and bald, [Jeb Ray Corliss IV of Malibu] was dressed in a so-called "fat suit," like that used by actors, and a one-piece wig and mask.Yes, that's right, he was trying to BASE jump off the ESB.
...Crammed into one of the Art Deco building's elevators with tourists, Corliss rode to the 86th floor and there slipped into the bathroom, police said.
He tossed the fat suit, police said, and secured his black parachute, knee pads and helmet -- equipped with a digital recorder and a wide-angle lens.
Then, he headed straight for the observation deck, 1,050 feet above the street.
Posted to WackyHumor at 12:17 AM | Comments (4)
California State Senate supports foreign citizens marching in our streets
In a shocking - but not surprising - move, the California State Senate has endorsed the May 1 illegal immigration boycott and march: SCR113. This isn't suprising considering that many California legislators frequently act more like their Mexican counterparts. It's only shocking that they would be so bold and that the resolution would be so utterly dishonest.
The full text of SCR 113 is included in the extended entry, and it conflates illegal aliens making a show of force with the civil rights movement, Arnold Schwarzenegger being elected governor, (presumably) legal immigrants who work and own businesses in Silicon Valley, and legal immigration in general.
Hopefully someone else will weigh in on what possible recourse there is in this matter. If a state senate stops representing that state and begins in effect supporting the agenda of a foreign government, could the federal government declare the state senate invalid in some way?
Note also that it passed 24-13 along party lines. Since Democrats voted for this, every Democratic Party leader should be asked whether they support the actions of their members.
And, even though they weren't going to be in session on Monday, the Assembly Democrats still wanted to collect their per-diem.
"California Senate votes to support immigration boycott" has quotes:
Sen. Gloria Romero says the boycott "is to educate people in California and across the United States about the tremendous contribution immigrants make on a daily basis to our society and economy... I ask us to simply recognize the existence of new Americans." And, from the next link: "It's one day ... for immigrants to tell the country peacefully, 'We matter ... (we're) not invisible'".
Sen. Martha Escutia: "Perhaps we ought to recognize the great American secret. We all rely on the labor of someone who is here illegally, and in essence we all become co-conspirators."
There are more quotes in the AP's "State Senate Supports Immigrant Walkout On Monday":
Sen. Gil Cedillo: likened the debate over immigrant rights to the fights over slavery, women's suffrage, the internment of Japanese during World War II, and the Vietnam War.
Sen. Richard Alarcon says: America wouldn't have been created without illegal action... "They dumped a bunch of tea in Boston harbor, illegally. God bless them."
Sen. Nell Soto: recalled watching as a child as immigration police swept up brown-skinned farmworkers, "not even asking if they were legal or illegal."
See also "California's Racial Iceberg" for more on California's problem with "American" politicians.
Authored by:
Gloria Romero
Gil Cedillo
Nell Soto
Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Joe Coto
Coauthor: Sen. Liz Figueroa
Coauthors: Assembly Members Rudy Bermudez, Ronald S. Calderon, Jenny Oropeza, Lori Saldana, Alberto Torrico
WHEREAS, May 1, 2006, is declared "The Great American Boycott 2006"
; and
WHEREAS, The United States has a tradition of historic boycotts,
including the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott that galvanized the
African-American community and resulted in the landmark 1956 United
States Supreme Court ruling against segregation; and
WHEREAS, The Great American Boycott 2006 observes that tradition
and is intended to draw attention to the contributions of immigrants
to the nation's economy, including $4.5 billion in state taxes in
California each year, and more than $30 billion in federal taxes; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants and their children comprise nearly half of the
population in this state and live in virtually all 58 counties in
California. More than one-quarter of all California residents are
foreign born, a rate higher than any other state in the country; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants participate in the workforce at rates higher
than the national average. Ninety percent of Latino and Asian male
immigrants are employed; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants comprise approximately one-third of the labor
force in California and figure prominently in key economic sectors in
California, including agriculture, manufacturing, and services; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants provide leadership and labor for the expansion
of California's growing economic sectors, from agriculture,
telecommunications, and information technology to health services and
housing construction; and
WHEREAS, Immigrants are among California's most productive
entrepreneurs and have created jobs for tens of thousands of
Californians. In San Jose alone, immigrant owners of technology
companies created more than 58,000 jobs and generated more than $17
billion in sales during the late 1990s; and
WHEREAS, The average immigrant-headed household in California
contributes over $2,600 annually to federal Social Security, $539
more than the national average; and
WHEREAS, Nearly 40 percent of California's foreign-born residents
are United States citizens; and
WHEREAS, There are currently 2.7 million immigrants in this state
who are eligible for naturalization, 3.3 million are legal permanent
residents, and millions more will soon be eligible for
naturalization; and
WHEREAS, California elected an immigrant to the highest post in
the State of California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, in the most
recent gubernatorial election; and
WHEREAS, The Senate of the State of California recognizes that The
Great American Boycott 2006 is to educate people in California and
across the United States about the tremendous contribution immigrants
make on a daily basis to our society and economy; now, therefore, be
it
Resolved by the Senate of the State of California, the Assembly
thereof concurring, That May 1, 2006, be recognized as The Great
American Boycott 2006; and be it further
Resolved, That the Secretary of the Senate transmit copies of this
resolution to the author for distribution.
Posted to California at 10:33 PM | Comments (2)
ADL's (latest) smear job on Minuteman Project
My sentiments exactly:ADL Engages In McCarthyismNote that for some reason Drudge was linking to this smear job from the ADL. The Anti-Defamation League was discussed last year in relation to a similar, shorter smear job, and also in this post about CSM reporter Brad Knickerbocker. And, they even tried something similar in November 2002: Group Lumps Conservatives with Klansmen and Neo-Nazis. Should anyone with any ability to reason and to understand logical fallacies believe anything they say?
What else can you their report entitled "Extremists Declare 'Open Season' on Immigrants: Hispanics Target of Incitement and Violence"? It goes on about Nazi and Klan violence and racist rhetoric – and having set the bait, pull a big switch and tar non-racist, non-violent opponents of illegal immigration as "extremists" and "vigilantes".
Posted to Immigration at 08:38 PM | Comments (1)
Loretta Nall: Bama Boobs and the Pot Party Party
Loretta Nall is a party gal with the party party, the United States Marijuana Party and she's running for governor of Alabama. Her BlogAd says, "the media covers her boobs and activist history, but what she really needs is your support to get on the ballot." I don't know if other articles rip holes in her stories at the first link, but it's an interesting scan nonetheless.
Posted to WarOnDrugs at 08:29 PM | Comments (1)
Majority of Americans want a viable third party
The Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press says that 53 percent of Americans want a third major political party. It was at 50 percent last June.While the two major parties appear to have a stranglehold on our political system, things can change and maybe even in time for 2008.
UPDATE: Rasmussen just released the results of their latest robo-poll:
...The survey also asked respondents how they would vote if "a third party candidate ran in 2008 and promised to build a barrier along the Mexican border and make enforcement of immigration law his top priority."While this is a very serious subject, if you'd like a laugh here are no less than two people who think this could be an opportunity for a libertarian candidate. Add a third person and they'd have as many as attended last year's LP convention.
With that option, support fell sharply for both major parties. The Democrats still come out on top with support from 31% of Americans. The third party candidate moved into a virtual tie at 30% while the GOP fell to 21%.
This result probably reflects unhappiness with both parties on the immigration issue rather than a true opportunity for a third party. Historically, issues that drive third party candidates get co-opted by one of the major parties as they demonstrate popular appeal. Most Americans favor a barrier along the border and enforcement of existing law prior to other reforms.
With the immigration issue candidate as an option, 36% of conservative voters opt for the Republican candidate while 35% take the third party option. Among political moderates, 34% pick the Democrat while 32% prefer the third party option.
Posted to Politics at 01:55 PM | Comments (5)
The People's Democratic Republic of Chicago declares open borders
From this:Calling federal immigration raids a "scare tactic" designed to intimidate "the new civil rights movement," the [Chicago] City Council on Wednesday demanded a moratorium on sweeps while Congress debates a new immigration policy.This Sun-Times shows which side it's on in the following two paragraphs:
Twenty-six immigrants employed by IFCO Systems in McKinley Park were arrested last week and taken to an INS office in Broadview. The Chicago workers were among 1,100 people arrested nationwide.Instead of "immigrants", the correct term would be either "illegal aliens" or "alleged illegal aliens". The use of the word "workers" could be seen as either a legitimate attempt not to keep using the same words over and over, or as a subliminal way to convey that "they're just here to work". And, of course, the INS no longer exists and is now BICE. They make the same mistake later in the article, so one wonders at their knowledge of this issue. Then, of course, there are the emotionally-laden words in the last paragraph.
They were released on their own recognizance after terrified family members and church leaders came to their rescue.
"I see this heartbreak every day. I see folks [who] have children born in America and have the possibility of being deported back to the country where their grandparents" were born, [Rules Committee Chairman Richard Mell (33rd)] said.There are only two ways to end the "heartbreak": either declare completely open borders and give citizenship away to anyone who asks, or enforce our immigration laws. What the alderman want will just lead to millions more illegal aliens and more "heartbreak".
Please contact the author of this piece at fspielman *at* suntimes.com
Posted to Immigration at 09:41 AM | Comments (6)
Bush favors a massive illegal alien amnesty. Should he switch parties?
Bush recently held a meeting of pro-illegal immigration Senators ("Bush, senators agree on alien citizenship, shut out critics"). According to Mel Martinez (R-FL):
"There was a pretty good consensus that what we have put into the Hagel-Martinez proposal here is the right way to go... I think he was very clear [on] pathway to citizenship, so long as it goes to the back of the line, and he even opened the door here for something we've haggled back and forth on, that you can shrink the time for people to become citizens by simply enlarging the number of green cards."
According to Sam Brownback (R-KS):
"[Bush] endorsed the concept of an earned citizenship."
However:
That would represent a substantial change on the part of the Bush administration, which just last year said it opposed a path to citizenship for those currently here illegally. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Senate Judiciary Committee in October the administration didn't support "a path through which they can get their permanent residence or citizenship," and Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao echoed that: "We feel that a pathway to citizenship would reward those who have violated our laws."
The WaPo's article "Privately, Bush Says He Favors Citizenship" has a similar sad tale to tell:
President Bush generally favors plans to give millions of illegal immigrants a chance at U.S. citizenship without leaving the country, but does not want to be more publicly supportive because of opposition among conservative House Republicans, according to senators who attended a recent White House meeting.
Since Bush, Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid, and Dick Durbin all see basically eye-to-eye on this issue, here's a dramatic solution to Bush's popularity woes: he should switch parties.
[1] Those at the meeting included:
Mel Martinez (R-FL)
Sam Brownback (R-KS)
Harry Reid (D-MX/NV)
Bill Frist (R-TN)
Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
Judd Gregg (R-NH)
Chuck Hagel(R-NE)
John McCain (R-AZ)
Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
Richard J. Durbin (D-IL)
Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick J. Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Lieberman (D-CT)
Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Barack Obama (D-IL)
Ken Salazar (D-CO)
Those who weren't invited were Cornyn and Kyl.
Posted to Immigration at 10:59 PM | Comments (4)
Jeb Bush: take college discounts from citizens, give them to illegal aliens
Florida governor Jeb Bush supports taking discounted college educations from American citizens and giving them to citizens of other countries who are here illegally. He also supports the associated devaluation of U.S. citizenship.
Details on what he wants in "Bush Wants In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants' Kids". Justification for what that represents provided here.
As their actions indicate, the Bush family seems to be more interested in a country of consumers than a country of citizens. Note this extra anti-American quote from Jeb that attempts to redefine what it means to be an American citizen:
"My point of view is: if you've been in this state for many years, you're valedictorian of your high school, that, and your parents have paid taxes and you maybe have been working and paid taxes, you're an in-state resident"
Posted to Immigration at 02:56 AM | Comments (7)
Senator Dick Durbin supports illegal aliens marching in our streets
In an interview with the Chicago site "La Raza" (not the NCLR), Senator Dick Durbin refered to the recent pro-illegal immigration marches:
These demonstrations are important, but they have to be peaceful and positive and continue reaching out and bringing in more people. As long as the face of this effort is the face of the family wanting to stay together and to make America a better place, we can win.
That should be considered an extremely scandalous if not traitorous comment. While many of those marching were citizens or legal immigrants, many or most were citizens of other countries. And, they were all marching in support of illegal immigration. Not only that, but he is siding with those foreign interests when he uses the word "we". Is he on the side of the vast majority of American citizens, or is he on the side of foreign citizens who made shows of force in our streets?
The interview is here: laraza.com/news.php?nid=32062&pag=1 A copy is here.
Please give his office a call and ask them to clarify whether he knows who he's supposed to represent:
durbin.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Posted to Immigration at 11:13 PM | Comments (1)
Bush laughs about his failure to stop illegal immigration
Earlier today president Bush spoke in Irvine and issued his stock spiel about immigration "reform". A transcript is here, including this:
But if you catch somebody from Central America coming back, you just can't send them back for a while, so there needs to be a place to detain them. We didn't have enough bed space. And so we had catch-and-release. We're asking people to go down there and do their job, and they find somebody from Central America sneaking in and they say, check back in with us in 45 days, come and see your immigration guy down there. (Laughter.) And they weren't checking back in after 45 days. (Laughter.) They were coming to work, see. They wanted to put food on the table for their families, and they weren't interested in checking back in.
I heard this excerpt and it's not just the audience that was laughing, Bush was saying the statements above expecting laughter to follow. While Congress plays a large role in not providing funds for detention space, so does the Bush administration. Despite recent calls to end "catch and release", their past actions make it clear that they more or less think it's all a big joke. Bush obviously cares more about those who want to employ those who are desperate enough to cross the border rather than what American citizens want and the rule of law.
Among other statements, Bush said this:
Now, my attitude is this: I think that people ought to be, obviously, here to work on a temporary basis. The definition of temporary will be decided in the halls of Congress.
As pointed out many times, "temporary" workers will be here forever. Quite a re-definition is apparently planned.
Note also that attendance was by invitation-only; if it had been otherwise he might have been asked a very embarrassing question or five instead of the puffball questions that they audience provided (or was provided with).
There were protesters outside (pictures here):
"Bush is a traitor to this country," [Barbara Coe, founder and chairwoman of the group California Coalition for Immigration Reform] said. "I am terrified for the future of my country and my children. It is our hope that this treacherous amnesty bill will be defeated and our further hope that our borders will be secured and the lives of our people protected."
"Traitor" is such a strong word, and, while I personally think it applies in the general sense I've been hesitant to use it because it's also very strictly defined in the legal sense. However, I have no such qualms about stating that Bush has broken his oath of office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Posted to Immigration at 02:49 PM | Comments (6)
Senator Bill Frist plans to sneak illegal alien amnesty through
From this:Republicans are planning to make end runs around opposition to a border security bill with the expected Senate approval of billions of dollars in immediate spending and with the Bush administration announcing an increase in workplace enforcement.Please contact as many Senators as possible and let them know you're opposed to any kind of amnesty, no matter how they try to hide it and no matter what they try to call it.
Party leaders hope the moves will satisfy voters concerned about illegal immigration and pave the way for more comprehensive reforms, such as a guest-worker program and a path to U.S. citizenship.
...Majority Leader Bill Frist plans to include even more money in Mr. Gregg's proposal, aides said.
"Frist wants to make clear to conservatives that security isn't forgotten as the Senate handles broad-based immigration reform," a leadership aide said. "Spending money now helps Republicans with the base this fall."
Mr. Frist then will work for passage of a proposal by Sens. Mel Martinez, Florida Republican, and Chuck Hagel, Nebraska Republican, that would offer a path to citizenship for illegal aliens who have been in the country for more than two years.
Mr. McClellan yesterday called the Hagel-Martinez plan "a good agreement."
The main Senate Switchboard is (202) 224-3121 or (888) 355-3588. A complete list of numbers is here. You can also send free FAXes here.
Posted to Immigration at 01:34 PM | Comments (3)
The UN's "Borderless" World
From this:[The United Nations'] bureaucrats envision a "borderless" world where immigration is treated as an international human rights issue and used as a global development tool to encourage free movement of the developing countries' poor to developed nations. This philosophy underlies their preparations for the United Nations High Level Dialogue concerning international migration and development, scheduled to take place in conjunction with the fall 2006 General Assembly session...
The UN bureaucrats' aggressive push into the immigration debate fits in with their dogmatic belief that international treaties should trump national sovereignty prerogatives – in this case, a UN treaty that codifies the internationalization of immigration policy called the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their Families...
...The United Nations wants to change all that by seeking to position the right to freely migrate from poor to richer lands as a fundamental human right deserving of universal recognition. Indeed, they view internationally managed migration as an effective means to socially engineer the end of wealth disparities existing between the world's most developed countries and the world's developing countries. "Migration must become an integral part of global development strategies", said a report prepared last fall by the Global Commission on International Migration set up with Kofi Annan's assistance to help prepare the way for this fall's United Nations High Level Dialogue. Using the euphemism 'irregular migration' to refer to illegal aliens, the Commission warned that restrictive national policies are "neither desirable nor feasible, and may jeopardize the rights of migrants and refugees..."
Posted to Politics at 12:24 PM | Comments (1)
Illegal immigration marches vs. our sovereignty
On the 17th came Heather MacDonald's "Postmodern 'Rights' en Los Estados Unidos":With last month's mass demonstrations of illegal aliens, the United States has entered the era of postmodern rights. The protesters looked like conventional rights demonstrators, with their raised fists, chants, and banners. But unlike political protesters of the past, the illegal-alien marchers invoked no legal basis for their claims. Their argument boils down to: "We are here, therefore we have a right to the immigration status we desire." Like the postmodern signifier, this legal claim refers to nothing outside of itself; it is, in the jargon of deconstruction, a presence based on an absence.
The consequences of this novel argument are not insignificant: the demise of nation-states and of the rule of law. Remember: The only basis for the illegals' demands is: "I am here." The "I am here" argument could be made by anyone anywhere — a Moroccan sneaking into Sweden could make the same demand for legal status. In one stroke, the border-breaking lobby has nullified the entire edifice of American immigration law and with it, sovereignty itself. None of the distinctions in that law matter, the advocates say. The conditions for legal entry? Null and void. The democratically chosen priorities for who may enter the country and who not? Give me a break! In other words, the United States has no right to decide who may come across its borders and what legal status an alien may obtain upon arrival. Those decisions remain solely the prerogative of the alien himself. The border no longer exists...
Posted to Immigration at 06:48 AM | Comments (1)
Rocky Mountain News, The Denver Post offer "infomercials" for illegal immigration
From this:When you read the local news sections of the Rocky Mountain News or The Denver Post these days, it's sometimes like reading an infomercial for illegal immigration.
I analyzed the staff-written news stories about illegal immigration which appeared in the Denver dailies from April 8 through April 15. I counted the number of paragraphs presenting the "pro" side for illegal aliens, and the number of paragraphs which presented the other side.
In the News, the ratio of pro-con paragraphs was about 4- to-1; in the Post it was 3-to-1...
Posted to Immigration at 04:17 AM | Comments (1)
Venezuela has mobile consulates
As discussed many times, Mexico has mobile consulates that they set up in small towns in order to provide Matricula Consular cards and other services to their citizens, many or most of whom are here illegally.
Now, Daniel Connolly of the AP offers a nary-a-dissenting-word article with the news that Venezuela had a mobile consulate in Little Rock, Arkansas. No word is provided on that country's position on illegal immigration, but Honduras made their position clear:
"We always tell them, it doesn't matter if you are legal or illegal in this country, you have to have your Honduran passport," said Fabio Murillo, a chancellor with the consulate of Honduras in Chicago.
Posted to Immigration_consul at 02:09 AM | Comments (1)
Los Angeles' Rube Goldbergian, inadvertent way to reduce illegal immigration
The article "How L.A. kept out a million migrants" informs us that a million or so illegal aliens who would have come to Los Angeles actually went elsewhere.
This is not because we took the straightforward tack of enforcing our immigration laws. Rather, it's because of:
* too few low-wage jobs, word of which made it back to sending countries (who knew?), resulting in fewer coming.
* the minimum wage rose, driving low-wage employers into other states. * while our immigration laws weren't enforced (the horror!), our industrial laws were enforced, resulting in sweatshops shutting down.
* attempts to shut down tenement buildings
* lack of affordable housing due to NIMBYs
Now, think of where we'd be if in addition to the above we'd also helped enforce our immigration laws rather than serving as a sanctuary city.
Posted to Immigration at 11:58 PM | Comments (0)
CFR/NAF: End illegal immigration by ending U.S.
Steven Hill of the CFR-linked "New America Foundation" offers "Time for a Tex-Mex Marshall Plan". In brief, he proposes ending illegal immigration by ending the U.S.: creating an "American-Mexican union" out of the two previously independent, sovereign countries with borders and things like that. (Fear not, un-Canadian hosers: Canada would be jealous and "not wishing to be left out, would ask for inclusion").
Of course, we'll need to give Mexico "massive subsidies" in order to get them to reform (of course, most of that would go to corrupt officials and criminals, but whatever). However, the upside is that "[f]ewer Mexicans would then want to emigrate north. Instead, they'd stay home, becoming consumers of U.S. products."
If all of this sounds like an un-American joke, unfortunately, it isn't. After all, he was able to get it printed in the Washington Post. And, here's the board for the Foundation:
newamerica.net/index.cfm?pg=boardof&DeptID=12
See also Crack Based Editorials and note that one of NAF's fellows is Gregory Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Times.
Treason is so specifically-defined, so it's unclear whether those who attempt to make Hill's dream a reality would be traitors or not. But, should anyone who proposes such ideas really be considered an American at all? They aren't proposing, for instance, adding a new state to the union. What they're proposing would replace the U.S. with some other entity, with a new set of laws and reporting at least partially to Mexican and Canadian officials. Shouldn't they be considered akin to those who wanted to establish Communism in the U.S.?
Posted to Immigration at 07:55 PM | Comments (3)
Mexican village artisans plead with U.S.: enforce your laws
From this page from an artisans group in Mexico:Please: Close the United States Border to Illegal Migration. Help us to Keep Our Husbands Home with our FamiliesI didn't look into whether this is an attempt to sell their wares, a hoax, or whether it's genuine. But, I suspect the latter.
Dear friends in the United States....
We are Mexican women from villages in the southern Mexico state of Guerrero.
Our brothers and husbands have left us for work in the US.
We strongly support closing the US-Mexico border to illegal entry.
We did not want our men to leave and we want them to return to us...
(Via this)
Posted to Immigration at 12:21 PM | Comments (1)
Dianne Solis, Alfredo Corchado, Dallas Morning News downplay Mexican meddling
Those reporters offer "Latino leaders to discuss 'Great American Boycott' in Mexico City" which contains this wildly inaccurate paragraph:
In March, as student walkouts and protests spread across the United States, the Mexican government ordered its 46 consulates to stay away from the marches, fearing a backlash among anti-immigrant groups. With a tragic history of foreign interventions in Mexico, the Mexican government long ago adopted a strict policy of non-interference in policy debates of the United States, in the hopes that the United States would do the same.
That paragraph could have been written by Rob Allyn himself: the Mexican government continually attempts to insert itself into internal U.S. policy decisions, especially those related to their citizens who are in our country illegally. (Next to that, the use of "anti-immigrant" is just a minor matter).
Dozens of examples of Mexico meddling in our internal politics could be provided, but for a start see "Mexico's Undiplomatic Diplomats" by Heather MacDonald. See "The Big Show on the Border" for examples of their consular officials traveling the backroads of the U.S., passing out Matricula Consular cards to their citizens who are here illegally. Then, there's the cases of Richfield Minnesota, Napa California, St. Clair County Michigan, and countless others.
In the article, Solis and Corchado go on to state that the "Institute of Mexicans Abroad" is a "historical exception", of which there have been "some". Obviously, there have been many, many more than just "some".
Since I couldn't find their ombudsman, I think this might be the correct person to contact: Linda Leavell Senior Editor - News lleavell *at* dallasnews.com
Posted to Immigration at 11:14 AM | Comments (0)
Links between the Democratic Party and the Mexican government
Many Democratic politicians and pundits supported the recent illegal immigration marches, and some Democratic politicians appeared at some of the rallies or even helped organize some of them.
And, some other organizers of the rallies have various kinds of links to the government of Mexico.
While that's not enough to claim that the Democratic Party has direct links to the Mexican government, they are clearly part of the same network. And, that should be disturbing to the millions of more moderate members of that party.
Here are the current known links:
Chicago: One of the organizers of the Chicago immigration march "serves on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an advisory council to Mexican President Vicente Fox." Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez, and Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley all appeared at the rally, and all are Democrats.
Georgia: An organizer of the Georgia boycott is a former consul general of Mexico. Another group involved in organizing that was the Georgia Association of Latino Elected Officials, whose founders include Sam Zamarripa and Pedro Marin. Both are indeed elected officials and Democrats.
Los Angeles: One of the organizers of the L.A. rally - also involved on the national protests - allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government. Former member of the racial separatist group MEChA - and Democratic Mayor of Los Angeles - Antonio Villaraigosa supported both the marches and the later walkouts by students. Shortly after taking office he traveled to Mexico and supported illegal immigration; he also collaborated with Mexican president Zedillo to preven Proposition 187 from being enacted.
Unfortunately, because the news media is as corrupt as many politicians we may never find out whether there was any sort of direct collaboration between the Mexican government and any Democratic politicians. So, if the reader attends any appearances featuring those politicians or other Democratic leaders, please ask them to clarify where they stand.
More links as they're discovered...
Posted to Immigration at 05:01 AM | Comments (4)
DNC radio ad lies about HR4437
From this:
A Democratic National Committee (DNC) radio ad claims Republicans would "criminalize...churches just for giving communion" to illegal aliens. The claim is nonsense. The House bill to which the ad refers [HR4437] doesn't say that. Both the Republican sponsors of the bill and the Bush administration have made clear that's not the bill's intent...
Posted to Immigration at 09:19 PM | Comments (3)
Chicago protests against ICE's show immigration raid
Supporters of illegal immigration hastily convened a protest in front of DHS's office in Chicago to speak out against yesterday's once-in-a-blue-moon enforcement action.The report from CBS 2's Sylvia Gomez is here, and that from ABC 7's John Garcia is here. The former reported on the big Chicago march of 3/10, and she appears to have let her ethnicity interfere with whatever journalistic presumptions she might have. Garcia wasn't featured in that previous post, but he makes up for lost mentions here with his report.
In Gomez' report (video at the link) comes this:
"What he is doing is intimidating all the working class immigrants of the United States," said one activist.Oddly, you need to watch the video to get the speaker's name: Omar Lopez. There's more information on him in a SunTimes article about the big Chicago protest ("Chicago 'Giant' put rest of country on notice"):
[The first meeting of March 10 organizers] was called by Arreola, 41, a high school custodian, official in an umbrella group of Michoacan clubs and an organizer in the Service Employees International Union Local 73. The other convener was Omar Lopez, 61, who runs a group that combats AIDS in the Latino community and serves on the Institute for Mexicans Abroad, an advisory council to Mexican President Vicente Fox.Well, that's certainly an interesting link, no?
Let's say an American who's protesting immigration laws in France is on some advisory council reporting to president Bush. Wouldn't the French suspect he might be a proxy of the U.S. government?
Why didn't Gomez ask him about that in her report? Isn't it safe to assume that either she or her station have some sort of a conflict of some kind? Should anyone trust anything from her or that station?
Continuing:
But illegal immigrant advocates are calling this action and crackdown immoral and they are outraged. They are asking immigration officials to halt action until Congress comes up with its new laws because it might allow some immigrants to remain in the U.S.Assuming America loses and those new laws are passed, what happens when millions of new illegal aliens come to the U.S. in an attempt to take part in future amnesties? Won't those same groups that protested these raids simply protest future raids? Shouldn't they just be honest and admit that they want open borders?
In addition to a member of an advisory council to the president of a foreign country, another group involved was the union "Unite Here!". (In an unrelated incident, someone wearing a t-shirt from that group reached down from the stage and grabbed the hat of the lady who was attacked by union thugs at an anti-Schwarzenegger rally in October.)
Posted to Immigration at 04:10 AM | Comments (6)
Gas hits $3.00; Bush approval at 33%
One of the cheaper gas stations in central Hollywood is at $3.05; one of the perennially cheapest gas stations in the general area, the Arco at Riverside and Fletcher, is at $3.01. In far-away Beverly Hills, br'er Drudge is currently featuring a shot of gas at over $4.00.
Meanwhile, and probably somewhat related to that as well as to immigration-related matters, Our Leader's popularity is at 33% according to a Fox poll.
Posted to Los_Angeles at 10:57 PM | Comments (2)
Deepa Ranganathan/Sacramento Bee pro-illegal immigration propaganda
Searching through blogs, I ran across a new-to-me site, which says:This Sacramento Bee article really made me start to think about my position on illegal immigration. I'm a strong opponent of general amnesty and extending government services to illegal aliens... That being said, when I read this article, I really felt for the two students whose stories appear in the article...I am currently swearing on a stack of Bibles that I did not look at the article before leaving this comment:
I didn't even bother reading the article because I've seen dozens like it, as a glance at my pro-illegal immigration propaganda category will show.Only after leaving that did I look at the article, and... I was right! According to "reporter" Deepa Ranganathan:
Without reading the article, I'm going to bet it starts with a sentence like, "Esmeralda is a high school honors student with a keen interest in becoming a lawyer." Then, we're informed that she's "undocumented".
Then, like a golden ray of bat pee, the solution shines forth: the DREAM Act or similar.
Please bear this in mind: every discounted college education given to an illegal alien is one less given to a U.S. citizen. A discount is taken from a U.S. citizen and given to a citizen of another country. As a side effect, that lowers the worth of U.S. citizenship.
If you care about "Esmeralda" or whatever the poster child they feature in such propaganda, start a private fund.
Beto's rage is nearly palpable.To all the "Daves" of the world: this is propaganda. They're playing with your emotions in order to get you to support amnesty for illegal aliens.
The 22-year-old once dreamed of becoming a firefighter or a police officer. He wanted an assignment in a tough neighborhood, like the block in south Sacramento where he grew up.
Beto's family smuggled him over the Mexican border illegally when he was 5...
...Two bills recently introduced in Congress seek radically different outcomes for undocumented U.S. residents...
Note also that this 'tale of two immigration bills' is very similar to the tack taken by Tyche Hendricks in another propaganda piece.
Please write publiceditor *at* sacbee.com with your thoughts.
Posted to Immigration_piipps at 09:43 PM | Comments (3)
Illegal immigration supporters split over May 1 boycott
Rachel Swarns of the New York Times informs us in "Immigrant Groups Plan Campaign to Bring Legal Changes" that:
1. There's a split among illegal immigration supporters. Some groups continue to support the "Great American Boycott of 2006", while others, including those in the "National Capital Immigration Coalition", oppose the boycott.
2. The illegal immigration-supporting groups plan to "transform the immigrant community into a powerful, organized political force" and plan to encourage voting by "immigrants".
Regarding the second, "immigrants" can't vote. Only native-born or naturalized citizens can vote. In fact, the whole report from Rachel Swarns is so full of the use of inaccurate or imprecise terms that it's little more than an attempt to mislead their readers.
Consider, for instance, this paragraph:
The debate over how to harness the emerging immigrant activism comes as politicians, church leaders and advocacy groups continue to marvel at the large numbers of immigrants, most of them Hispanic, who have turned out in recent weeks to demonstrate against a House bill, which was passed in December, that would criminalize illegal immigrants and those who help them.
Almost all - not "most" - of those marching were Hispanic, and most of those were Mexican citizens or Mexican-Americans. And, the assertion that HR4437 would "criminalize... those who help [illegal immigrants]" is not entirely accurate: that help would need to be provided knowingly or recklessly.
The WaPo offers a similar report in "Fearing Backlash, Some Immigration Activists Aren't Backing Boycott" by Darryl Fears.
Those apparently in the National Capital Immigration Coalition include:
* Casa de Maryland, which was recently involved in a bit of a kerfluffle. According to Gustavo Torres: "We are going to target [the Minuteman Project members] in a specific way... [by taking their own pictures]... Then we are going to picket their houses, and the schools of their kids, and go to their work
* The Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, which allegedly has collaborated with the Mexican government.
* The Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, which was also apparently involved in a smear against Jim Oberweis.
Needless to say, neither the NYT nor the WaPo provide any background on the groups that they feature.
We're also informed that CHIRLA - alleged at the link above to have collaborated with the Mexican government - is going to try to get illegal aliens to perform community service as a way of softening you up:
"It is critical for us, that we really, as we move forward, take actions that are embraced by the American public, that touch the hearts and minds of the American public, that they get to know us, that they understand who we are," [Anjelica Salas, executive director of CHIRLA] said at a news conference here.
If the NYT or the WaPo ever decide to tell the truth about immigration matters, most Americans might indeed understand exactly who all those groups are.
Posted to Immigration at 09:39 AM | Comments (5)
"Mexicans migrate to 'their land'" (reconquista)
From this:Native Utahn David Timmins makes it clear up front that he has no personal issue with Mexico or the Mexican people. During a well-traveled career as a U.S. foreign service officer, he lived for a time in Mexico and says he enjoyed his posting there immensely.Related from 2002:
But in light of the current consternation over immigration, the Harvard-educated diplomat thinks it's applicable to the debate to bring up something he learned while he lived south of the border.
"Mexicans see the Western U.S. as part of Mexico that was stolen from them 150 years ago," he says. "They believe this with all their heart."
It's his view that the thousands flooding across the border every month don't see themselves illegally immigrating into a foreign land.
They see themselves coming home.
And we're the illegals....
Zogby's poll found that 58 percent of Mexicans agree with the statement, "the territory of the United States' Southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico." Only 28 percent disagree, and 14 percent are unsure.8/22/07 UPDATE: From this Aug. 18, 2005 report:
The surveys of Mexican citizens by the Pew Hispanic Center also found that increased education and an improved standard of living won't dampen the stampede of illegals coming across the border.
The two surveys conducted in Mexico asked: "If at this moment you had the means and opportunity to go to live in the USA, would you go?" Almost half - 46 percent - said yes.
When asked if they would be inclined to work and live in the USA "without authorization," meaning illegally, 21 percent said they would.
Showing that interest in emigrating isn't confined to the poor, more than one-third of Mexican college graduates said they would move to the U.S. if they could, and more than one in eight said they'd be willing to migrate even if they had to enter the country illegally.
Posted to Immigration at 03:14 AM | Comments (4)
Show immigration raid conducted; "1600 down, 14,998,400 more too go"
The allegedly pregnant head of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Julie Myers informs us of the following alleged fact:
"ICE has no tolerance for corporate officers who harbor illegal aliens for their work force. Today's nationwide enforcement actions show how we will use all our investigative tools to bring these individuals to justice, no matter how large or small their company."
The raid was of IFCO Systems, a pallet manufacturer. Seven executives were arrested as well as hundreds of workers.
Not only is this just a drop in the bucket after five years of the Bush administration strongly encouraging illegal immigration, it is most likely just "boob bait for Bubba". As an example of the latter, here's a Bubba who buys it or is trying to sell it.
I also half expect some politician - most likely a Democrat - to come out in opposition to the raids, most likely out of "humanitarian" grounds. Past example: Nancy Pelosi's comment on the WalMart raid, which was 2.5 years ago.
(Last half of title via comment at the PP thread from this guy)
Posted to Immigration at 11:02 PM | Comments (1)
May 1 Immigration March and Boycott flyer
Here's a flyer for the upcoming May 1 illegal immigration march and boycott:
Yes, it's a fake. But, it's pretty accurate too. Feel free to email the link to the photo or repost it elsewhere.
The large size is here.
Posted to Immigration at 09:53 PM | Comments (112)
AZ Daily Star regrets hate speech headline
The Arizona Daily Star's ombudsman is contrite:"Republicans Hate Latinos" read the headline on Friday's front-page in red, all-capital letters. No attribution. Just stated as fact.For the details on the hate speechathon, see "High School Students Forced To Listen To Pro-Illegal Immigration Propaganda" (Dolores Huerta)
That quote has been in the news since labor activist Dolores Huerta used the phrase in an April 3 speech at Tucson High School. The statement appeared as a quotation above four photos, including one of Huerta.
Yet in the Star's presentation, the quote was not attributed, instead presented as fact and in eye-catching red...
(Via this)
Posted to Immigration at 07:58 PM | Comments (2)
"High School Students Forced To Listen To Pro-Illegal Immigration Propaganda" (Dolores Huerta)
From this:Americans better start waking up and doing something about the madness that's occurring in our nation's high schools and elementary schools. Youngsters are being subjected to left-wing propaganda, and when teachers and principals are caught, they start two-stepping around the issue.
For instance, a Tucson high school student is scheduled to appear before Arizona lawmakers to tell how she was forced by school officials to listen to a pro-immigrant speech by a speaker spewing left-wing propaganda to students without rebuttal.
In addition, lawmakers are investigating why Tucson school buses were used to provide transportation for student protesters at a pro-illegal immigration rally. The mother of a Buena High School student, in Sierra Vista, Arizona said her son's baseball team was supposed to play a Tucson high school but the game was cancelled. The Buena students learned that the game was cancelled because the Tucson high school bus was being used to take students to an anti-Sensenbrenner bill rally. Rep. Sensenbrenner is one of the sponsors of a tough illegal immigration and border security bill.
Senior Mon-yee Fung, 17, sat in a school assembly where the co-founder of the United Farm Workers Union, Dolores Huerta, spoke. But she could not leave after Huerta began making remarks such as "Republicans hate Latinos."
"I wanted to listen to what they had to say, but all they had to say was hate speak," Fung, head of the school's Teenage Republicans Club, told The Tucson Citizen.
Posted to Immigration at 11:46 AM | Comments (4)
Elite vs. popular opinion on legal immigration: not so complicated
From this:Here's a puzzle: All nonadvocacy surveys of public opinion show only tiny minorities - commonly about 10 to 20 percent - favoring increased legal immigration. Last month's national survey by the Pew Center for the People and the Press is typical, reporting only 17 percent in this camp.It's really not as complicated as it might seem. In fact, I've cleverly annotated the following paragraph from the article in order to help illustrate why Senators and many House members might support massive immigration:
Yet the two opposing bills that have been roiling the Senate both include little- scrutinized provisions that would greatly increase permanent legal immigration. These survived quietly, largely ignored by politicians and the press, while emotional debate and commentary focused on illegal immigrants and temporary workers...
The most recent [Chicago Council on Foreign Relations 'elites vs. popular opinion' poll], from 2004, shows that 33 percent of the "leaders" group wanted to increase legal immigration, vs. only 11 percent of the public opinion sample. Only 10 percent of the leaders group wanted to decrease the level of legal immigration, while fully 54 percent of the public opinion sample supported such decreases...
...Members of the US Senate - an elite among elites - do seem to be quite insulated from the views that pollsters routinely find among broad public opinion. On this issue senators may be even further disconnected from those who elect them as they are also surrounded by flocks of immigration lobbyists representing small but well-organized and heavily financed interest groups...
The$e intere$t group$ are regional, economic, ethnic, and ideological. Prominent among them: agribu$ine$$ companie$ in California and the $outhwe$t; employer$ of mo$tly low-wage labor $uch a$ hotel$ and re$taurant$; a few union$ with large percentage$ of immigrant member$; $ome high-tech companie$; $ome ethnic and religiou$ lobby group$; $ome higher education group$; and ideological libertarian$ of both the right and the left.Yes, that's a pretty ugly paragraph, but so is political corruption.
Related: "Who's responsible for illegal immigration?"
Posted to Immigration at 05:35 AM | Comments (0)
Would illegal immigration supporters favor slavery if they could?
If slavery weren't considered morally abhorrent, would those companies, media sources, and politicians that currently support illegal immigration instead support slavery? Well, probably not. And, frankly, probably the only reason they wouldn't support it is because "A Welfare State With Illegal Immigration Offers Companies a Better Deal Than Slavery".
Posted to Immigration at 02:17 AM | Comments (4)
Hugh Hewitt straw ballot excludes Tancredo
Insty directs our attention to Hugh Hewitt, who's conducting a straw poll for the 2008 presidential race.
The lucky choices are:
George Allen
Sam Brownback
Bill Frist
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Mitt Romney
Isn't the omission of Rep. Tom Tancredo rather curious? Well, not if you know how the BushBot mind works.
Posted to Bloggage at 08:30 PM | Comments (3)
Pulitzer Prize for Propaganda
The Pulitzer Prizes have been announced. If they wanted to be a bit closer to the past and present reality, they'd have a Propaganda category. What would that look like? Let's imagine:
Best Propaganda: This year's award goes to several newspapers: the Washington Post, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, USA Today, San Diego Union-Tribune, and many more for their reporting on illegal aliens taking Katrina jobs from American hurricane victims. Even though those papers probably weren't working together, their coverage seemed like it. They offered several stories on American citizens being warehoused in hotels outside New Orleans, while illegal aliens from Mexico and other countries were brought in to do work that those Americans should have been doing. The propaganda associated with this effort is some of the most un-American the Prize Board has ever seen, and we congratulate those sources for their efforts
Best Propaganda (Runner-up): Jeff Franks of Reuters for "Immigrants find opportunity in ruined New Orleans". That piece contains this odious anti-American bit: "The immigrant workers do not feel too threatened by competition from the local Americans. They point to the back of the parking lot where the only "gringos" in sight are sleeping on sheets of cardboard or sitting on wooden boxes, surrounded by empty beer cans and booze bottles." The Prize Board concludes that Jeff Franks writes like he could be working for one of America's enemies, and we wish him the best of luck in next year's competition.
Lifetime Achievement Award: This year's award goes to Nina Bernstein of the New York Times. She's actually been spreading propaganda even longer than last year's winner Bart Jones, and it's good to see her finally win it.
Posted to Miscellania at 08:01 PM | Comments (1)
Deep inside the mind of the other side
If you haven't been to an old-school carnival with the freaks and the fun house mirrors and all lately, take a trip to these two posts to enjoy the same effect:
* Bradford Plumer offers "Letting immigrants vote"
* "vegankid", writing from somewhere in NC, describes a recent immigration protest:
vegankid.solidaritydesign.net/2006/04/12/a-que-hora-soy-person
Stay away from the cotton candy.
Posted to Immigration at 04:11 PM | Comments (0)
What "liberals" who support illegal immigration support
The AP article "U.S. Firms Recruit Cheap Labor in Mexico" doesn't offer extensive coverage of its titular subject, but it does contain one way that various Chinese restaurants were able to make sure that "liberals" and others got cheap food:...In one case, a single smuggler allegedly earned $900,000 over 15 months placing 6,000 migrants in jobs at Chinese restaurants across the upper Midwest.The only way to stop things like that is to enforce our immigration laws. Anyone who opposes enforcement of our immigration laws only encourages such abuse.
Shan Wei Yu, a 51-year-old Chinese-American, was sentenced in December to nine years in federal prison on charges involving the transportation of 40 of those migrants. Investigations involving the others continue.
Rick Hilzendager, special agent for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Grand Forks, N.D., said Yu connected 6,000 migrants from Latin America with jobs in Chinese restaurants in Illinois, Michigan, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wisconsin.
...Yu allegedly charged a $150 finder's fee for each migrant while the drivers earned $300 per worker. Restaurant owners deducted the $450 from workers' first-month paychecks of $1,000.
...Nick Chase, assistant U.S. attorney in North Dakota, said Yu even offered to replace workers free of charge if one left within two weeks of starting.
"It was a 2-for-1 special — like a pizza," Chase said. "Everything about it was ugly."
The employees, housed in cramped apartments provided by employers, worked 14-hour days and had little outside contact. The case broke open in August 2004 after two Mexican migrants working at the Buffet House in Grand Forks fled poor conditions and were picked up along a highway by Border Patrol agents...
Posted to Immigration at 02:25 PM | Comments (1)
"Contractors Often Play a Key Role in the Hiring of Illegal Immigrants"
Anna Gorman offers this article which contains a highly misleading statement:When federal authorities catch illegal immigrants on the job, some U.S. employers have a ready explanation for how they came to be hired: It wasn't us. It was a contractor.So, you go after the contractor then. It's not like they have a special immunity. While many contractors will no doubt be fly-by-night, if enough of them are prosecuted many fewer will want to take the risk. That will encourage contractors to make sure they hire legal workers.
...For now, work site raids and prosecution are infrequent, except where immigration authorities perceive a national security risk. But even as pressure builds in Congress to crack down on the hiring of undocumented workers, the involvement of contractors and subcontractors could make enforcement nearly impossible, labor experts, government officials and immigration policy critics say.
Under current federal law, companies face criminal or civil sanctions only if they knowingly employ undocumented workers.
"An easy defense … would be to say that they used this subcontractor who they assumed was checking the documents," said Jennifer Silliman, assistant special agent in charge with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Diego. "It gives a level of deniability."
Posted to Immigration at 12:19 PM | Comments (0)
Cardinal Roger Mahony: no boycott. Is he agitating foreign citizens in our country?
From this:Cardinal Roger Mahony, an outspoken supporter of congressional proposals to allow illegal immigrants to become citizens, is urging immigrants not to participate in a worker and student boycott planned for May 1.It's good that he's opposed to the boycott. However, isn't he encouraging foreign citizens to march in our streets? Isn't he agitating foreign nationals who are in our country illegally? Are there laws against such behavior, or would those only apply if he advocates violence or breaking the law concerning the protest itself?
The planned boycott, coming on the heels of massive nationwide protests, calls on students and workers to stay home in support of immigrant rights.
"I believe that we can make May 1st a win-win day here in Southern California: go to work, go to school, and then join thousands of us at a major rally afterward," Mahony said in a statement released late Sunday.
Mahony suggested employers and schools set aside an hour on May 1 to discuss immigration reform. He also suggested they encourage employees and students to write letters to Congress urging sweeping reform...
Note, of course, that Mahoney is giving cover to those who want to propagandize this issue in schools. What chance is there of there being a fair debate on this issue among those schools that heed his call?
And, will those companies that commit various acts of abuse against illegal aliens in their employ conduct such sessions?
As usual, Catholic readers are strongly encouraged to discuss Mahoney's plans with their church leaders and point out all of the things Mahoney effectively supports, as detailed in Cardinal Roger Mahoney admits to exaggerating about HR4437.
Posted to Immigration at 10:15 AM | Comments (3)
Zogby: 52% oppose illegal alien amnesty
According to a Zogby poll taken between March 31 and April 3, 52% oppose amnesty for illegal aliens, with only 32% favoring it.
Posted to Immigration at 10:07 AM | Comments (1)
NYT: Many don't like illegal aliens marching in our streets
David D. Kirkpatrick offers "Demonstrations on Immigration Harden a Divide":..."The size and magnitude of the demonstrations had some kind of backfire effect," said John McLaughlin, a Republican pollster who said he was working for 26 House members and seven senators seeking re-election. "The Republicans that are tough on immigration are doing well right now..."Of course, the NYT has its own issues to deal with. Such as the idea that those who don't support strong efforts to reduce illegal immigration have a "moderate" position:
Mike Hellon, one of the more moderate candidates in the current primary [to replace "guest" worker advocate Jim Kolbe], said: "The marches have hardened positions on both sides. People who really want the border closed — who want to put troops down there — are more passionate than ever, and the other side is more sympathetic." He added, "It does escalate the risk factor for a moderate like me."And, the NYT also has this:
But many Hispanics said opinions had changed dramatically in the past few weeks, partly because of the hostility they perceived in some proposals from Mr. Hayworth and other conservatives.One way to read that - and perhaps the intended way - is that J.D. Hayworth has advocated shooting people crossing the border. Somehow I doubt that he has, and the only people who've done that are on the fringe of the fringe. How could the NYT let such a statement go unopposed? Well, because they're the NYT.
"When people are talking about shooting people who come across the border," said Harry Garewal, chief executive of the Arizona Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, "yeah, I think that causes some angst."
We learn that supposedly many Hispanics see HR4437 as anti-Hispanic and are thus engaging in shows of ethnic power by marching in the streets. Obviously, those who profit from such beliefs are the Democrats as well as those Republicans who support illegal immigration.
The article also includes a quote from proud former MEChA member Rep. Raul Grijalva in which he promises demographic retribution:
"You might be getting a momentary bump [from being opposed to massive illegal immigration] but in the long run you are going to lose."Needless to say, the NYT doesn't disclose Grijalva's past membership in that racial separatist group, nor do they spend any time discussing the propriety of an argument based on demographic hegemony.
Please write public *at* nytimes.com and ask them to correct the many errors in their reporting.
Posted to Immigration at 09:56 AM | Comments (3)
"What Would Mexico Do with Protesting Illegals?"
Obviously, no other country (that wants to remain a country and not just a territory) would allow millions of foreign citizens to enter their country illegally and then march through their streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled.Unfortunately, because of corrupt "liberals" and "conservatives", we are perhaps the only country in the history of the world that has allowed something like that to happen and then has done nothing to prevent it from happening again.
For the likely response of Mexico to illegal aliens from America marching in their streets, see this article from Heather MacDonald:
What would Mexico do? The answer is easy: deport them on the spot. In 2002, a dozen American college students, in Mexico legally, participated peacefully in an environmental protest against a planned airport outside of Mexico City. They swiftly found themselves deported as law-breakers for interfering in Mexico’s internal affairs...
You have to admire the Mexican elites. They have a clear-sighted understanding of their country's national interest - which lies above all in getting as many Mexican citizens as possible into the U.S. for their billions of dollars in remittances - and they're unapologetic about pursuing it. Mass demonstrations that include illegal residents demanding that Mexico override its laws to accommodate them wouldn't cow those elites for an instant. Too bad American officials can't summon the same commitment to the wishes of the American people, who overwhelmingly oppose the rewarding of law breaking. The U.S. government isn't about to deport the thousands of illegals who will be exploiting the American right to protest today, but it should at least not be swayed by their mass show of force.
Posted to Immigration at 06:00 AM | Comments (1)
Reconquista introduction, video
The WashTimes offers an overview in "Mexican aliens seek to retake 'stolen' land" that even Kevin Drum could understand:La reconquista, a radical movement calling for Mexico to "reconquer" America's Southwest, has stepped out of the shadows at recent immigration-reform protests nationwide as marchers held signs saying, "Uncle Sam Stole Our Land!" and waved Mexico's flag.
Even as organizers urged marchers to display U.S. flags, the theme of reclaiming "stolen" land remained strong. One popular banner read: "If you think I'm illegal because I'm a Mexican, learn the true history because I'm in my homeland." ...A three-minute videotape made by the Immigration Watchdog Web site plays speeches by Hispanic professors and elected officials making references to Aztlan and the idea of a demographic takeover.
"We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. The explosion is in our population," Jose Angel Gutierrez, political science professor at the University of Texas at Arlington, said on the videotape.
In an interview, Mr. Gutierrez said there was "no viable" reconquista movement. He blamed interest in the issue on closed-border groups and "right-wing blogs" such as American Patrol and L.A. Watchdog, but those Web sites are getting plenty of ammunition from groups like La Voz de Aztlan, a Whittier, Calif.-based news service that advocates a separatist state while criticizing Jews and "gringos."
Then there's the Mexica Movement, which wants to "reconstruct" the United States as an "indigenous" nation called Anahuac. Professor Charles Truxillo of the University of New Mexico envisions a sovereign Hispanic nation called the Republica del Norte that would encompass Northern Mexico, Baja California, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas.
MEChA, an acronym for the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, has come under fire for revolutionary language in its "El Plan de Aztlan," a founding document that declares "the independence of our mestizo nation," decries the "brutal gringo invasion," and says that land "rightfully ours will be fought for and defended."
What's notable about MEChA is its otherwise mainstream image. Most Hispanic leaders, including Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigo