« July 2006 | Main | September 2006 »

August 31, 2006

Arizona: GOP backs losing Steve Huffman over Randy Graf

Illegal immigration supporting Rep. Jim Kolbe is retiring and in the race for his former seat:
...the National Republican Congressional Committee is spending more than $122,000 on television ads for state Rep. Steve Huffman. The primary is Sept. 12...

Huffman faces Randy Graf, a conservative former state lawmaker, and Mike Hellon, a former Arizona Republican Party chairman.
For all the inside baseball, see this blog. The GOP has tried to say that only Huffman could win against the Democrat, but he's campaigned dirty and hasn't received much support from his fellow representatives. And, Graf is well ahead of him in the polls. So, why would the GOP continue to throw money at someone who looks like a loser? Perhaps the fact that Graf is strong on opposition to illegal immigration might be a clue:
The NRCC ad introduces Huffman as "the conservative choice" of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a candidate who backs an immigration policy that "puts security first."
In the unlikely case that you need a translation of that statement, see this:
[Huffman says:] "I'm not willing to run for office and say that all we need to do is secure the border and shouldn't worry about the impact on the economy... I'm not willing to cripple our economy just to play to people's fears."

Huffman then hits many of the points of the moderates: more enforcement, aided by a guest worker program to move would-be workers from deserts and into the process of legal immigration.

"If our Border Patrol can just focus their attention on the bad-news guys who can't come through legally, then their job will be much safer and easier," he says....
Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, the same line was spieled by (in separate articles) John Fund, a WSJ editorial, Tamar Jacoby and David Brooks. Huffman also plays the same semantic games with the word "ammesty" as Bush. And, he was "hand-picked" by Kolbe.

If the GOP wasn't completely corrupt they could find a solution to the dilemma. As it is, they might end up supporting the likely Democratic opponent: former state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords. She's been endorsed by Raul Grijalva, so she probably won't cost the GOP's contributors any money.

UPDATE: The GOP candidates (Graf, Antenori, Hellon, and Jenkins but not, of course, Huffman) have released a joint statement declaring their "unified outrage at the highly unusual actions" taken by the NRCC:
...On March 30, 2006, RNC Chairman Ken Mehiman visited Tucson to attend a local party fundraiser. During his visit, Mehlman held a private meeting with the five declared candidates for Congress or their representatives. Present at that meeting were Frank Antenori, Randy Graf, Mike Hellon, and Mike Jenkins. Steve Huffman sent a representative, his former treasurer, Bill Arnold. At that private meeting, Mehlman made it clear that the national Republican Party would stay out of the primary race, promising to help whomever the voters of the Eighth Congressional District chose as their candidate for Congress in the upcoming General Election. Those sentiments were echoed by NRCC officials during private meetings in Washington, D.C. with some candidates in this race. Sadly, the promises that were made have been broken.

Additionally, the funds expended by the NRCC are monies reserved to defeat Democrats in the fall, and are not used to work against other Republican candidates in the primary. That right is usually - and should always be - reserved for the voters. What's more, these funds are raised from hardworking Republicans across the country, folks who support Republican principles. These donors would be shocked to know that their contributions are being used to defeat credible Republican candidates here in Arizona. We call on the NRCC to immediately stop using Republican fundraising dollars to defeat fellow Republicans. This primary campaign should remain above the belt and outside the Beltway...

Posted to Immigration at 06:21 AM | Comments (1)

Trend: pretend California voters support driver's licenses for illegal aliens

The article "Voters back governor, poll shows" from Steve Geissinger of the "Medianews Sacramento Bureau" contains the following:
Immigration issues, which concern voters most, also may cost Schwarzenegger with his opposition to driver's licenses for illegal immigrants and dispatching of troops to the Mexican border.

Latino voters favored Angelides over the governor 39 percent to 25 percent in the poll.
Those two paragraphs should have probably been tied together in order to make it clearer that about the only group that might oppose the less wimpy version of Arnold's immigration stance are Hispanics who support illegal immigration. As even "One Bill Gil" Cedillo admits, 70% of California voters oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

This is not as misleading as the other recent article from the Los Angeles Times' Jordan Rau. Nevertheless, I'm going to call this part of a new trend.

Another, funnier part of the article was discussed here.

Posted to Immigration at 02:21 AM | Comments (2)

August 30, 2006

Phil Angelides to be barbecued by voters

A Public Policy Institute of California poll finds that Arnold Schwarzenegger leads the only-slightly-worse challenger Phil Angelides by 45 to 32 percent. Informed of the results, Angelides said the following:

"Arnold Schwarzenegger is known by 100 percent of the world... Despite all his attacks, despite $20 million spent against me, distorting the truth, trying to smear me, Arnold Schwarzenegger is stuck at 45 percent... [...asked why even Democrats are switching to Arnold, he said:] You know, it's summertime, people are barbecuing, they're spending time with their families, and the fact is, Democrats are coming home, they're going to come home."

Posted to California at 11:06 PM | Comments (1)

Is Jim Burns nuttier than Badnarik?

Jim Burns - for all 299,999,999 million of you who didn't know - is a 2008 Libertarian party presidential candidate. An interview with him asks an extremely hypothetical question:

How would your administration deal with the threat of illegal immigration?

The answer:

I believe that people should be allowed to live any way they choose so long as they allow other to do the same. That means, among other things, they should be allowed to trade with whom they choose and go where they choose. One of the major reasons the United States is a great nation is that we have free trade and freedom of travel within our very large territory. We do not need the permission of the government to come and go or buy or sell, and we are the better for it. When I lived in Oregon, many years ago, many of the people wanted to keep the Californians out of Oregon. As I see it, if they had had the power, the people of Oregon would have been much the worst off for it.

Of course, if they wanted to do it, Burns might be forced to use state power to make them let anyone who wanted to live in Oregon move there.

The problems that many people see with immigration are that it cost the tax payer money to provide, among other things, education and medical care to illegal immigrants. The solution is not to restrict freedom of travel, rather not to have the government provide medical care and education. Just as it is not fair for the people of Banger, Maine to be forced to provide medical care and education for people in San Diego, California, so to it is wrong to force U.S. tax payers to provide people from other countries with medical care and education. The problem is not "illegal immigration," the problem is government taking from some people in order to give it to other people (always taking some of it for themselves or using it to buy favor to get re-elected). When I am President, I will promote free trade and freedom of travel.

The odds of Burns becoming president are about 20 billion to 1, but in any case, his "freedom of travel" would allow any foreign country to send us millions of people with sinister intent. Those millions wouldn't have to be sent as an openly invading force; they could just be "immigrants". And, they'd be coming from a stronger country that wasn't just a group of people living in a territory; they'd be coming from a country that could make and carry out plans. Those foreign citizens could then form a political bloc in one part of the U.S. and even claim a part of the U.S.'s formerly "very large territory" for the country to which they owe an allegiance. Just as "liberalism" carries the seeds of its own destruction by protecting those who do not support "liberalism", libertarianism would be considered a weakness by stronger countries and they would assuredly take advantage of it.

In other words, Burns' "freedom of travel" scheme would result in the U.S. losing territory and perhaps having a drastically changed political system as well.

His scheme should be considered on the same level as that of those starry-eyed pacifists who, in a jungle environment, would become another tribe's slaves or dinner.

Note also that Reason Magazine shares his same dream of "freedom of travel". No one who believes in such a concept should be taken seriously and no one should for a moment think that they have the U.S.'s best interests at heart.

Posted to Politics at 08:10 PM | Comments (2)

"Immigration Not A Major Issue For Latinos: Good News For GOP"

From this:
A year of controversy over the immigration issue has had scant impact on the Hispanic vote, a new Democratic survey has found.

Voter loyalties among that group remain frozen where they were last election, with Hispanics tending Democratic about 2-to-1.

If anything, Democrats may have a problem turning out Hispanics to vote in an off-year election.

That's according to a poll of 984 Hispanic likely voters by Democracy Corps, a group run by former Bill Clinton strategist James Carville and pollster Stanley Greenberg...

..."Our polls show the same thing," said Joe Garcia, director of the Hispanic Strategy Center for NDN, formerly the New Democrat Network...

Posted to Immigration at 03:27 PM | Comments (1)

Suzanne Gamboa/AP on immigration ads

Suzanne Gamboa of the Associated Press offers "Immigration ads a problem for campaigns":

Capturing the immigration debate in political ads this campaign season - without upsetting Hispanics - is proving tricky for the parties and candidates.

Heaven forbid that we should discuss such a vital topic in a straightforward way and by so doing offend anyone's fragile sensibilities.

Of course, Gamboa doesn't present evidence that anyone other than self-appointed leaders and others with a conflict of interest might be "upset". And, she doesn't discuss at all the group that issued the press release "Self-Appointed Latino Spokespeople Would Sacrifice National Security to Promote Illegal Immigration".

She discusses the anti-Stephen Laffey ad, saying it "set off grumbling in the Latino community," but the only two "community" members she can find opposed to the ad are the Democratic National Committee's Hispanic Caucus and Rhode Island state Sen. Juan M. Pichardo (who, despite being Dominican-American, is apparently standing in solidarity with illegal aliens from Mexico).

And, she offers the thoughts of Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, ("National Council of The Race") a group that's considered mainstream but is not:

"Both parties are crossing the line... The issue of what to do about immigration is fair game for this election, demonizing an entire community is not."

Then, she discusses how Houston City Councilwoman Carol Alvarado was outraged by the DSCC's since-disappeared Internet-only ad 'Secure'.

And:

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., has an ad on his re-election campaign Web site praising his anti-terrorism work. The ad includes an image of him standing in the desert near two white SUVs, similar to those used by the Border Patrol. Critics say the scene looks like the U.S.-Mexican border.

Has anyone besides some unknown leftie at TPMCafe even discussed that ad? If one subset of Americans takes offense at someone trying to reduce the possibility of terrorist infiltration via our southern border, is the problem with us or with that subset of Americans? If "community leaders" don't want to discuss border security except in the most childlike terms, aren't they leading their followers down the wrong path?

While Kyl is generally wrong about immigration, he has at least had some grown-up concerns:

Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona tonight demanding the United States launch an official investigation into the shocking border incursions by the Mexican military, and Governor Rick Perry of Texas is also demanding an investigation into the incident.

If two seconds of a possible BP SUV cause those "community leaders" to be upset, they may need smelling salts after that.

Two others quoted are "Lorena Chambers, founder of Chambers Lopez & Gaitan, an advertising company" and "Frank Guerra, founder of Guerra DeBerry Coody marketing and communications".

Posted to Immigration at 01:54 PM | Comments (2)

Maywood SOS protest, Round Two

There are already four updates to the post about the SOS protest in Maywood CA that saw a Mexican flag being raised over a U.S. Post Office, and the updates keep coming.

The L.A. Daily News' Bridget Johnson offers "Something's wrong with immigration protests" (also here with pictures):
...And if immigration proponents have been trying to pass off reconquista claims - the belief that immigrants want to take back "Aztlan" - as paranoid, these protesters weren't helping. One sign proclaimed "Stolen continent" - yet displayed two continents, North and South America. "White racists this is our continent" read one sign. Another said, "We will never live in peace until we get the European squatters off our lands."

...A couple of times, unwelcome people came into the counter-protesting crowd to take photos or video, and were quickly surrounded by an angry crowd and pelted with water bottles and debris. Shouts of "you little white b-" were directed at a blond woman; a man yelled "Get out of here, this is our town" through a bullhorn to others.

Some wearing lucha libre masks and some with bandannas obscuring their faces, counter-protesters tried to get close to the SOS demonstrators by cutting down side streets leading to Slauson, and were angry when the cops were already there. Others manned the front lines with signs depicting Arnold Schwarzenegger as a Nazi, chanting "Minutemen! Resist! They're the real terrorists."

Toward the end of the counter-demonstration, those protesters raised the Mexican flag on the pole in front of the U.S. Post Office. Don Silva of SOS said one woman with his group was assaulted while trying to move through the opposition crowd, and some of their cars had tires slashed and were vandalized...

...But when you have virulent protests that include a pre-teen boy yelling "f- that white b-" at a passing fair-skinned woman - me - something is seriously wrong. Especially when it comes from the side holding a banner that proclaimed "Say NO to racism."
And, WND offers pictures and links in "Mexican flag flies at U.S. post office":
The [KRLA] radio listener, volunteering for Save our State, said that when she arrived at the rally she was rushed by counter-protesters who called out, "Death to the Minutemen."

"They pushed me around and told me if I was to take one step further, they would beat the s*** out of me," Sandra said. "I looked to the back of me and there were about four police officers leaning on their vehicle just watching, doing nothing!"

As she stepped forward, Sandra said, the counter-protesters stole her sign and ripped it up as another threw water on her.

A police officer eventually escorted her to her group...
UPDATE: There's a radio interview with some of the participants here.

Posted to Immigration at 11:28 AM | Comments (8)

Palm Beach Post's joke editorial about Senate amnesty

The Palm Beach Post offers an editorial that would be funny if it weren't so utterly pathetic: "Real immigration reform also comes at good price". Like the S.F. Chronical, they call for an "honest" accounting of the costs vs. benefits of giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens. And:

For example, one provision that has wide support in the Senate calls for fining immigrants who sign up for the government program $2,000 for illegally entering the country. The idea could generate billions.

If we really wanted to make the long green, we should just open the floodgates now, then wait a year or two and declare a massive amnesty for everyone. Think of the profits.

An honest accounting of the Senate plan - allowing for the needed security upgrades and the offsets brought by new taxes and fees - shows that the net cost to the government would be about $4 billion over 10 years.

Their version of "honest" is obtained by subtracting the $78 billion for security from the projection of $126 billion. Leaving $48 billion, from which the projected income of $44 billion is subtracted. As Homer Simpson would say, we'd be stupid not to do it.

The number that House Republicans don't want to talk about is 12 million. That's the estimated population of illegal immigrants, and the House GOP still doesn't have a plan for dealing with it.

Many pro-American House Republicans do indeed have a plan: start enforcing the laws, whether something like HR4437 or the current laws. That will reduce the number of illegal aliens currently here and disencentivize others from coming.

As if the preceding wasn't enough, the PBP stretches the limits of credulity with this:

The Center for American Progress, a Washington-based think tank, puts the cost of arresting, processing and deporting all the illegal immigrants in the country at between $206 billion and $230 billion. The estimate is theoretical because it's hard to find a rational person who believes that mass deportation is possible. Which says a lot about House Republicans.

CAP is affiliated with the Clintons, and as discussed at the link the study they mention is as much a joke as their editorial. And, of course, no mainstream Republican is calling for mass deportations.

Does the Palm Beach Post expect anyone to take them seriously?

Posted to Immigration at 08:18 AM | Comments (3)

California Assembly passes Cedillo's "full student aid for illegal aliens" bill

California already gives illegal aliens the same in-state tuition discounts that U.S. citizens who are residents of California receive. Now, the state Assembly has passed a bill that goes a step further and gives illegal aliens the same rights to financial aid as citizens.

The bill is SB 160 (the "California Dream Act") and was authored by state senator Gil Cedillo with the assistance of Gloria Romero. It now goes to the Senate for their stamp of approval.

From this:

Students who came to the country illegally could apply for state financial aid when they attend California colleges and universities under legislation approved Tuesday by the Assembly in a party-line vote... Supporters said immigrant children who have graduated and completed at least three years of high school in California should not be penalized for their parents' decision to bring them to the U.S. illegally.

This explanation is just for the "liberals" out there: When allocating limited resources, someone's always going to get "penalized". There is only a limited amount of such financial aid, and there will always be more applicants for that aid than there is aid money.

So, to put it another way, those supporters think we should give some of those benefits to foreign citizens even if U.S. citizens are "penalized", and the opponents think we should reserve those benefits for U.S. citizens. If we don't do that, aren't we continuing down the dangerous slope of devaluing U.S. citizenship? Those who've supported this bill don't just represent U.S. citizens, they also represent citizens of Mexico. Everyone in the state would be better off if they would renounce their U.S. citizenships and run for office in Mexico.

From the current version of the bill:

This bill would enact the California Dream Act, which would require the Trustees of the California State University and the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, and would request the Regents of the University of California, to establish procedures and forms that enable persons who are exempt from paying nonresident tuition under the provision described above, or who meet equivalent requirements adopted by the regents, to apply for, and participate in, all student aid programs administered by these segments to the full extent permitted by federal law. This provision would apply to the University of California only if the regents, by appropriate resolution, act to make it applicable.

Regarding one bit of federal law, there's this:

A district shall waive the fees of a person who is exempt from paying nonresident tuition under Section 68130.5, and who otherwise qualifies for a waiver under this section, under regulations and procedures adopted by the board of governors. The Legislature finds and declares that this subdivision is a state law within the meaning of subsection (d) of Section 1621 of Title 8 of the United States Code.

Subsection (d) of Section 1621 of Title 8 says this:

A State may provide that an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States is eligible for any State or local public benefit for which such alien would otherwise be ineligible under subsection (a) of this section only through the enactment of a State law after August 22, 1996, which affirmatively provides for such eligibility.

Now, let's look at 1623 (also covered here):

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

One way to take that is that the current in-state tuition scheme has to be offered to every U.S. citizen no matter where they live or else California is violating federal law. In that case the new financial aid scheme just furthers that violation. I'll leave it to someone else to look into whether they think they're taking advantage of a loophole.

Previously: Gil Cedillo/SB 160: free community college for illegal aliens

Posted to Immigration at 05:18 AM | Comments (4)

Assembly passes Cedillo's drivers licenses for illegal aliens bill (SB 1162)

The California Assembly has passed Gil Cedillo's latest attempt to give driver's license to illegal aliens, SB 1162. This is just a week after the Democrat-controlled Assembly Appropriations Committe shelved his earlier attempt.

Needless to say, that minor setback didn't deter "One Bill Gil" from his life's work of giving U.S. benefits to Mexican citizens as he weaved, bobbed, and "gutted and amended" SB1162 to transform it into its current form.

In January, it was just about a minimum wage increase (link) and had nothing in there about driving. Now, compare that version to the latest, with vast tracts of struck-through text and italicized sections.

The Senate must pass it by Thursday, and it will probably be vetoed by Arnold even despite his weakened state. Nevertheless, a few phone calls might not hurt. Perhaps you could suggest that they remind themselves of which country they're supposed to represent.

And, Assemblyman Alberto Torrico, D-Newark has a message for Republicans. They should deal with the "reality" that illegal immigrants are driving. And:

"These people are living in this country, they're working in this country, they're paying taxes... If you want to keep track of immigrants and you're scared of terrorism, vote for this bill."

Yes, indeed! Why, it's almost as if he's speaking directly to me, and his finely-honed logic has certainly convinced me that he's not just supporting this issue in order to gain more race-based political power.

And, Jordan Rau of the Los Angeles Times has some "facts" for us to consider:

The [DLs for IAs] and health insurance bills have been the projects of passion for two rank-and-file Democrats in the Legislature, and are strongly supported by two key party constituencies: liberals and Latinos.

Actually, both groups "strongly support[ing]" drivers licenses for illegal aliens is not entirely accurate. Even "One Bill Gil" admits that 70% of voters oppose what he keeps trying to do. Given that fact, "strong support" by those two groups is impossible. Rau also doesn't mention the curious way in which he changed a minimum wage bill into yet another "vehicle" for his "passion". Write: readers.rep *at* latimes.com

Posted to Immigration_dls at 12:25 AM | Comments (0)

August 29, 2006

Arnold: California not the Zinfandel State

Sen. Carole Migden (D-Frisco) wanted to name Zinfandel as California's "historic wine". She originally wanted to name it "California's official wine", but we know that's actually those high-pitched sounds coming from the Legislature itself and anyway the wine industries bitched about it.

In his gutsiest decision yet (apparently Maria took the leash off by accident or something), Arnold Schwarzenegger has vetoed her attempt. He didn't want to be unfair to all the other fine wines - many of them not so wimpy-sounding - that the state produces.

Posted to California at 10:50 PM | Comments (0)

Teamsters come out against "NAFTA superhighway"

From this:
The NAFTA superhighway, a north-south interstate trade corridor linking Mexico, Canada and the U.S., would mean U.S. truckers replaced by Mexicans, more unsafe rigs on American roads and more drivers relying on drugs for their long hauls, charges the International Brotherhood of Teamsters – the latest group to weigh in against the Bush administration plan.

The August issue of Teamster magazine features a cover story on the plan for an enlarged I-35 that will reach north from the drug capital border town of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, 1,600 miles to Canada through San Antonio, Austin, Dallas, Kansas City, Minneapolis and Duluth, while I-69 originating at the same crossing will shoot north to Michigan and across the Canadian border...
Some of the interviews from the magazine don't entirely add up; some Mexican drivers say they drive 4500 km (around 2800 miles) in five or six nights but they need "magic dust" to do it. Your own blogger did 1250 miles in less than 48 hours, no magic involved. Yes, some of that was faster than most trucks drive, but I also took three short hikes along the way.

Details, details! In this case it's only the thought that matters, and perhaps the Teamsters can convince other unions to come around to a more American position than that they currently hold, and perhaps some unions might even somewhat reduce their support for illegal immigration.

Posted to NAU at 11:50 AM | Comments (1)

Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission seems a little biased

The Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission (link) held a "special meeting" in Hazleton to discuss illegal immigration. The guest list was highly biased; so too are the report by Kent Jackson and so too is at least the head of the Commission:
...Since 1991, the commission has opposed English-only laws, Chairman Stephen Glassman said.

Glassman said Hazleton enacted its law under the perception that illegal immigration fuels crime and adds to the cost of running city government, but those perceptions are unsupported by data, he said.

Immigrants, regardless of their legal status, might contribute more to government than the government spends to serve them, he said...
1. Kent may have committed a cardinal sin; Glassman apparently prefers "Chairperson" to "Chairman".

2. I'm pretty sure the Chairperson's statistics are wrong.

3. One wonders how far we've fallen when a government official is promoting the idea that it's somehow acceptable for the government to profit from illegal activity. Since most people and organizations try to maximize their profits, should the government encourage even more illegal activity, so as to increase their take?

At a guest posting at the ACLU of PA's blog, Glassman says "[a]s a law enforcement agency, the Commission does not, of course, condone or support illegal immigration." Of course, the rest of his post does in effect support illegal immigration, as do his comments above.

And, here's another quote:
"Even though this may not have been the intent of Geno's, the presence of the sign harkens back to a time when signs stating, 'no colored allowed,' 'Whites only,' 'no Jews,' or 'no Italians or Irish need apply,' often greeted patrons of public places."
The other guests included:

* Dr. Agapito Lopez of the Governor's Advisory Commission on Latino Affairs (an earlier quote from him: "We will acculturate, we will adapt to your rules, we will follow your laws, but we will never assimilate.")

Robert Nix of Phoenix Strategies in Philadelphia ("We need immigrants for our future. It seems communities taking immigration into their own hands are barking up the wrong tree.") However, what the article fails to note is that Nix is or was on the board of the Hispanic Bar Association of Pennsylvania (link).

Another guest made some "interesting" comments; I'll leave it to someone else to search for his name in order to discover a possible reason why.

And, rounding out the roster was someone from the National Immigration Law Center.

Posted to Immigration at 06:54 AM | Comments (0)

"A North American United Nations?"

From Rep. Ron Paul:
Globalists and one-world promoters never seem to tire of coming up with ways to undermine the sovereignty of the United States. The most recent attempt comes in the form of the misnamed "Security and Prosperity Partnership Of North America (SPP)." In reality, this new "partnership" will likely make us far less secure and certainly less prosperous.

...Congressional oversight of what might be one of the most significant developments in recent history is non-existent. Congress has had no role at all in a "dialogue" that many see as a plan for a North American union.

...Critics of NAFTA and CAFTA warned at the time that the agreements were actually a move toward more government control over international trade and an eventual merging of North America into a border-free area. Proponents of these agreements dismissed this as preposterous and conspiratorial. Now we see that the criticisms appear to be justified.

...Though the US administration insists that the SPP does not undermine US sovereignty, how else can one take statements like this? How can establishing a "trilateral regulatory cooperation" not undermine our national sovereignty?

[...NAFTA superhighway...]

...This all adds up to not only more and bigger government, but to the establishment of an unelected mega-government. As the SPP website itself admits, "The Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America represents a broad and ambitious agenda." I hope my colleagues in Congress and American citizens will join me in opposing any "broad and ambitious" effort to undermine the security and sovereignty of the United States.
He also says that one of their other proposals seems similar to the Codex Alimentarius proposal, something that I hadn't heard of before.

Posted to NAU at 05:01 AM | Comments (0)

Send an email about Ramos/Compean Border Patrol case

As discussed previously, Ramos and Compean are two Border Patrol agents who appear to have been railroaded by our own federal government. You can read the details on the matter and send an email to George Bush, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff here. Other actions discussed at the previous link.

Posted to Immigration at 02:46 AM | Comments (0)

August 28, 2006

Farmers Branch: will Hector Flores violate fair housing laws?

Farmers Branch is a Dallas suburb that's been considering enacting a Hazelton-style ordinance designed to reduce the number of illegal immigrants moving to their city.

Needless to say, various local groups including "Hector Flores, immediate past national president of the League of Latin American Citizens" are playing not just the race card but going further, saying that "the suggestions are an attempt to rid the city of all Hispanics".

Ironically but not unexpectedly, what they propose to counter the ordinance certainly seems racist. Let's see if the title of the article by Stephanie Sandoval gives us a clue: "Group to encourage Hispanics to buy homes in Farmers Branch". Is that racist? Well, let's see: would a headline entitled "Group to encourage Whites to buy homes in Maywood" ever fly?

Let's look at the article and see if the proposal is racist:
One City Council member's idea to limit illegal immigrants in Farmers Branch has prompted a plan by opponents to promote and sell homes in the city to Hispanics - including illegal immigrants.

A group of Hispanic and civil rights groups Monday announced Compre Farmers Branch, a consortium of real estate agents, lending institutions and others aimed at helping Hispanics buy homes in Farmers Branch.

They're hoping Hispanics will buy all 157 homes they say are on the market in that city - including the home of City Council member Tim O'Hare...
I wonder, what would happen if a non-Hispanic wanted in on the deal? What an interesting opportunity for a local investigative reporter with a hidden camera, provided they are very very careful about following all relevant laws.

Flores was featured here before in "LULAC criticizes Mexico's pro-illegal immigration propaganda". Most people who are unfamiliar with that organization might think they were complaining about Mexico spreading their propaganda in the U.S. In fact, here's a quote from Mr. Flores:
"The Mexican government should have worked to provide this opportunity to a Hispanic business. LULAC is always trying to find ways to open the doors for Hispanics; the Mexican government should do the same."
I kid you not.

Posted to Immigration at 10:39 PM | Comments (1)

MRC: "How TV Promotes Illegal Immigration"

Via this comes the Media Research Center's "Election in the Streets". From the summary here:

[It] demonstrates that ABC, CBS, and NBC behaved like protester publicists in late March, April, and May, in complete contradiction to public opinion polls showing America had a serious problem with the tide of illegal immigration. Gooey stories about illegal aliens "emerging from the shadows" to fight for their "rights" piled up the soundbites for amnesty, and the protest organizers somehow evaded ever being described as liberals or leftists, despite talking about the "fascist clauses" in the Sensenbrenner bill. Check it out before the next round of protests heats up next weekend...

Posted to Immigration at 01:01 PM | Comments (1)

S.F. Chronical: CBO should be honest about benefits of a massive amnesty

I have words of advice for the San Francisco Chronical: be careful what you wish for:
Last week, the allegedly "nonpartisan" Congressional Budget Office declared that the cost of implementing the immigration-reform plan approved by the U.S. Senate would be a staggering $126 billion over 10 years...

...But the report leaves out the economic contributions immigrants will make to the economy that might far outweigh any benefits they might receive. It also doesn't take into account the Social Security taxes newly legalized immigrants will pay at precisely the time that the Baby Boom generation begins retiring.

Those who want to play the immigration "cost" card should be willing to be honest not only about the costs, but also the benefits of legalizing immigrants to the U.S. economy.
Some of those costs are listed in "CBO Estimate of Senate Amnesty Grossly Understated, Asserts FAIR" (excerpt here). I look forward to the Chron discussing those costs in a future editorial, as well as the impact any amnesty will have on increased illegal immigration and other non-financial costs.

Posted to Immigration at 12:57 PM | Comments (3)

Democratic National Committee Press Release Mentions Immigration

The Democratic National Committee has issued a press release entitled "Americans Less Safe Because of Bush Administration's Shortsightedness and Failed Leadership Says DNC":

...BORDERS: Millions Wasted On Inadequate Border Security Efforts. Millions of tax dollars have been wasted as a result of failed border security technology initiatives that have been undertaken by the Department - the Integrated Surveillance Intelligence System and the America's Shield Initiatives. The Administration has failed to provide promised funding for Border Patrol agents (20 percent short), detention bed spaces (20 percent short), and the Immigration and Customs agent resources called for by the 9/11 Act (75 percent short). ("The State of Homeland Security, 2006" prepared by the Democratic Staff of the Committee on Homeland Security; 2/06)...

Their figures are probably right, but they aren't telling the whole story. Such as how the Democratic Party makes some of that border security necessary by constantly supporting illegal immigration.

They do the latter by constantly trying to give illegal aliens benefits, in some cases benefits not available to some U.S. citizens. And, they do that by supporting illegal aliens marching in our streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled. And, they do it by refusing to fully call the Bush administration to task, rather than simply issuing half-hearted, almost-hidden comments like those above.

Posted to Immigration at 02:04 AM | Comments (1)

August 27, 2006

Washington Post promotes cheap labor in Virginia, gets busted

On the front page of the August 7 Washington Post, the article "Constructing Lives off the Soccer Field Latino League Team Owners Attract Athletes With Jobs, Housing" by Nick Miroff promoted, among other things, immigrants (whether legal or illegal is not known) being "stabled" (their word) in "cramped, dormitory-style accommodations" and spending "almost all their hours together, either working, practicing or playing in games".

As described here, someone looked into the company that was promoted and couldn't find a business license. And, this comes on the heels of Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell saying this at a public meeting:

"Many Virginia and American business people say that they cannot find a sufficient quantity of American citizens to do some of the dirty, hard jobs."

An American who had had to leave the area responded and pointed out just how wrong he is:

...All of us normal, blue collar folks can't earn a decent wage anymore doing blue collar work around here. It's impossible to do. The construction industry's been taken over by illegal immigrants. You can't make money in it any more. They've undercut the wages. You can go ask anybody who has worked construction and they'll tell you the same thing. They're undercutting everybody. And the way the undercut is, they don't play by the same rules as everybody else. It's like you said, it's an underground economy. And what's the state of Virginia doing to penalize employers who knowingly employ illegal immigrants?

More excerpts at the link.

Posted to Immigration at 02:17 PM | Comments (2)

"A Progressive and Populist Position on Illegal Immigration"

Democratic visitors might want to take a look at this article. For instance this bit:

...The other problem with Democrats, liberals and progressives is their willingness to put the welfare of illegal immigrants above the rights and needs of current and future American citizens. I am nauseated by the stupidity and lack of patriotism by these peoples' willingness to sacrifice the prosperity of working- and middle-class Americans – their fellow citizens. George Lakoff has remarkable standing and credentials as a progressive thinker. Yet his recent writings on this immigration issue reveal total disregard for his fellow American CITIZENS...

Posted to Immigration at 01:14 PM | Comments (1)

Sheldon Drobny blows lid off Huffington Post comments system

Air America Radio co-founder Sheldon Drobny is a contributor to the Huffington Post, and he's posted several threads lately where he criticizes Bill Maher for apparently planning to have Ann Coulter on his show. In one post he called him a "sell out", and supposedly Arianna herself gave him a call. And, that was supposedly the first time that The Huff herself had called him.

There's no word on what prompted Arianna's call, but one can imagine that it followed a long, tearful conversation with Maher himself.

In the latest post, Drobny describes the Huffington Post "backstage" screen, which is apparently a blog posting screen provided to contributors. In case it disappears, here's the relevant bits:
...Besides having the tools to post, you get information about approved and unapproved comments. Unapproved comments eventually show up at an almost 100% rate...

Below is the status of comments from my recent posts all criticizing Maher and the Hollywood folks:
My Response To Some Comments On Recent Posts
(Comments: 14 approved, 73 unapproved)
Air America Complaint Department
(Comments: 58 approved, 9 unapproved)
Bill Maher: A Retraction Clarification
(Comments: 82 approved, 2 unapproved)
Bill Maher Retraction
(Comments: 11 approved, )
Bill Maher: Another Hollywood Sellout
(Comments: 103 approved, 1 unapproved)
As you can see, almost all of the comments were eventually approved. My latest post showing Hitchins fingering the Maher audience was posted 08.26.2006 at 03:51pm and yet 73 of the 87 posts have been held back for nearly 19 hours. The same thing happened with the other Maher/Hollywood posts. In the past, I have had many posts that got lots of comments that were all approved within a couple of hours. The whole point of getting comments posted on the various blogs is to keep the action going and increase the average time of each person on the blog...

...I need an explanation for the fact that Maher benefited from the unusual hold back delays of the commentors posts about Bill Maher. The blogosphere is supposed to be the highest form of free speech and with all the F words and C words I see on the Huffpo comments, it is hard for me to believe that Huffpo gives serious review of comments that need to be withheld. It is possible that Huffpo is having technical difficulties which need to be explained to its contributors. But, that aside, we don't want censorship or cronyism on the blogosphere...
I omitted the bits where he discussed his mad forensic accounting skillz.

Also, a few months ago I sent an email to another contributor about a comment I left that wasn't approved. That unnamed person, despite being a far-left loon, to his/her credit did write back with the news that he/she had no way to approve or disapprove comments. (OK, OK, it was Nora Ephron). That squares with what Sheldon says, but they didn't mention the count of approved comments; perhaps that was added later.

UPDATE: I should have seen this coming. His post has now been prepended with a seemingly acceptable explanation: two of their comment-approvers were on vacation and they were just backlogged with their discussion-stopping comments approval process.

Posted to Bloggage at 10:59 AM | Comments (2)

August 26, 2006

Mexican flag raised over Maywood, CA (SOS protest)

The Save Our State group held an anti-illegal immigration protest in Maywood, California earlier today. According to various posts in their forums (1,2) there were allegedly a few incidents, including:

- An elderly couple being swarmed and having to go into an auto parts store and then be escorted out by police to avoid the crowd... (picture at one of the links)

- One of their female members being roughed up...

- Several of their cars being vandalized with spray paint and given flat tires.

And, at this link you can see a picture of the Mexican flag being raised over the Maywood Post Office, as in United States Post Office.

As it says in the front page (no permalink yet) of la.indymedia.org: "Sat., 2:00pm Counter-protesters raise Mexican flag up Maywood post office flag pole Caller reports 100 counters and 30 SOS-MM still facing off in Maywood near post office. A small group of counters have replaced the US flag at Maywood post office with a Mexican flag. Police tried to pull the Mexican flag down but the ropes got stuck and it still flies at this time."

In the pictures, the "counters" are seen with the usual banners from ANSWER LA and from various reconquista groups ("White racists this is out continent", "We are Indigenous! The ONLY owners of this continent", etc.)

Reading these reports I'm continuously reminded of this John Derbyshire summary of what he was told by someone involved with immigration enforcement:

Grass roots immigration-enforcement groups: They are babes in the wood. The La Raza types run rings round them. They easily fall into factional squabbling. They attract kooky fringe types, and don't know how to get rid of them. The enemy has all the heavy artillery: AILA, Republican elites, pretty much the entire Democratic Party (though there were some kind words for James Webb), all the media, the universities, etc.

SOS might indeed have some fringe members, and they also have a problem with realizing who the real enemy is. It isn't the "Mexica Movement". Rather, it's those in the "mainstream" who come close to their views, such as Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa or state Senator Gil Cedillo. And, it includes those who shelter or lie about such groups, such as the media.

They complain in their forums that a KABC reporter didn't want to cover one of their members supposedly getting shoved around. Leaving aside the question of why they let one of their female members get into that situation in the first place, shouldn't they have been videotaping everything that went on? And, shouldn't they also have videotaped the KABC reporter refusing to cover this matter? Shouldn't they be trying to discredit those in the mainstream who are the ones with actual power instead of engaging in low-level street protests with loonies and Communists?

UPDATE: There are more pictures here from the L.A. Daily News' Bridget Johnson. There are more pictures here: tinyurl.com/ft8wn Note the resulting link; unless I misunderstood the rest of his posts, that may be one of those on the fringe mentioned above.

UPDATE 2: Still more pictures at this far-left site: tinyurl.com/htogl and tinyurl.com/j8a5y (SapphoManifesto). From the second link: "...the Mexican flag is raised, & refuses to come down, even for Maywood police! In pic # 2, the crowd of pro-immigrant rights supporters reacts with cheers as they watch the new flag wave..."

UPDATE 3: There's a clear picture of the Mexican flag flying over a United States Post Office here. A commenter points to a KCBS video report which he says is biased (and he's probably right). If it is, contact them here: cbs2.com/contact. LA Opinion has a fairly stock article, here's a translation:

[...ANSWER is an "antiwar" group... one of the counter-protestors says:] "They dare to come here to Maywood that is a sanctuary, where the mayor declared itself against the racist laws, and come to say to us that we do not have to be here... They think that they can say to him to people that is illegal, when it is a right of humans to look for a better life." ...While the demonstrators of the side of minutemen them observed from the other end of the barrier, several people raised a Mexican flag in the post of the post office, causing shouts and applause of the side of the immigrants and curses on the part of their opponents, who waved American flags.

UPDATE 4: What a productive protest. There's a video of the Mexican flag flying here. I only watched the beginning; the sound is bad and includes one or more people on the SOS side making a lot of noise rather than, for instance, trying to catch the sounds of the other side cheering or saying things. There may be some of that later on in the video. And, someone who claims to be a cop who was there left a comment in the SOS forums; a copy is here:

...About the parking situation, the original plan was to have everyone park in the grocery store parking lot. Unfortunately, the store's manager was on the side of your foes and would not cooperate... The city council is out of control in Maywood. There are 2 good councilmen and 3 bad ones. The leader is the Vice Mayor. He takes all his orders from the church. The police dept pretty much has its hands tied. They did disband the traffic unit by order of the city council. They do still impound cars but can't put the state's mandatory 30 day hold on them. Another agency has been enforcing traffic laws and impounding cars. The city has no authority over their officers. The city council is now drafting a plan to move from being a general law city to being a charter law city. For those of you that don’t understand the ramifications of this, here it is. Under a city charter, the city council makes all the decisions. Nothing has to be voted on by the people. The police officers can lose civil service rights. This will make them 'at will' employees. Can you see a cop getting fired for enforcing the law on one of the city's migrant children. This sounds like a tyranny to me. By the way, in case you didn't know, the Vice Mayor was at the demonstration. Guess which side he was on...

UPDATE 5: See "Maywood SOS protest, Round Two".

Posted to Immigration at 07:25 PM | Comments (4)

"CBO Estimate of Senate Amnesty Grossly Understated, Asserts FAIR"

From this:
The estimate by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), released [last] Friday, that the Senate-passed guest worker amnesty bill (S. 2611) would cost the country a net amount of $127 billion over the next ten years is misleading and grossly underestimates the real fiscal impact, contends the Federation from American Immigration Reform (FAIR). According to FAIR, the CBO estimate includes only the fiscal impact at the federal level, but ignores the much greater impact S. 2611 would have on state and local governments.

An estimate of the fiscal impact at the local level by FAIR identifies a cost of $70 billion per year by 2020, primarily for education and health care. The $70 billion annual price tag does not include a number of other likely cost increases for programs such as assisted housing and other social welfare programs.

"The formidable cost estimate by the CBO of the Senate amnesty bill is only the tip of the iceberg," commented FAIR president Dan Stein. "The full impact of this disastrous legislation won't begin to be felt for another decade. Once millions of illegal aliens become eligible for all government programs, benefits and services, the fiscal impact on local governments are likely to be catastrophic."

Supporters of the Senate-passed amnesty/guest worker bill are attempting to lessen the impact of the CBO projection by noting that the enforcement-only bill passed by the House of Representatives (H.R. 4437) also comes with a hefty price tag. While that is true, because the House bill does not include amnesty and expanded admission of low-wage workers, these would be one-time-only expenditures, not an ever expanding liability. The enforcement measures in the House bill, if implemented, would result in reduced state and local costs as the illegal alien population began to decrease...

Posted to Immigration at 12:33 PM | Comments (4)

Sheila Kuehl: free healthcare for anyone who can make it across the California border

Now comes California state Senator Sheila Kuehl with SB 840, the "California Health Insurance Reliability Act". It would mandate "universal health care" and would cover "dental care, prescriptions, mental health care and hospitalization".

And, it would be open to "undocumented" residents.

No longer would California need to worry about citizens of Mexico crossing illegally and then heading to other states. No, Kuehl's plan would make sure that they would stay right here. In fact, many thousands, tens of thousands, or more! would come just to take advantage of her largess.

Of course, some worry-worts might say that all those illegal aliens would not only drive up the cost of the scheme but would take healthcare from U.S. citizens. And, some people might suggest that the "progressives" in the California legislature are better suited to being Mexican politicians than U.S. politicians. And, others might say that their constant support for illegal immigration and spreading U.S. programs to foreign citizens who are here illegally is one of the major reasons why "progressives" are so widely distrusted and one of the major reasons that they keep getting their proposals shot down.

And, of course, they'd be right.

Posted to California at 09:17 AM | Comments (2)

Schwarzenegger, Perry, Napolitano, Richardson urge "comprehensive" immigration reform

The four border governers (Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, Rick Perry of Texas, Janet Napolitano of Arizona, and Bill Richardson of New Mexico) have sent a letter House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist urging them to pass "comprehensive" immigration "reform". While Perry says they aren't endorsing either the House or the Senate bill, they are in fact endorsing the Senate's version due to their use of the word "comprehensive".

And, they're also using a Democrat talking point:
"Instead of holding dozens of field hearings that do little but stir the pot of discontent, we urge you to get back to work and pass legislation that puts the interest of taxpayers first and solves this crisis once and for all."
Of course, the Senate's bill will only make things far, far worse by vastly increasing legal immigration and encouraging millions more illegal aliens to come here.

But, wait, there's even more of a sellout ahead:
The state leaders also joined the governors of six Mexican states in signing a joint declaration in which they agreed to vigilantly detect and deter criminal activity along the border by sharing information about issues such as human, drug and arms trafficking...

...While the Mexican governors did not sign the letter to Hastert and Frist, several of them urged Congress to act in their closing remarks. Baja California Gov. Eugenio Elorduy Walther said political leaders must recognize that people will always migrate across borders, like the first North American settlers did thousands of years ago...

Posted to Immigration at 03:09 AM | Comments (1)

August 25, 2006

El Salvador president Tony Saca to his citizens: get a green card

Via this comes this:
Salvadoran President Tony Saca visited Miami Friday to warn his citizens not to let their temporary residency status run out as they wait for Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform bill.

Many migrants from El Salvador received the temporary status after a devastating earthquake struck the Central American country in 2001. The temporary protection allowed those already in the U.S. to work legally. Their status must be renewed annually, and Sept. 1 is the deadline.

But Saca is concerned that with all the discussion about U.S. immigration reform, some Salvadorans living here may become complacent and decide not to renew their status in hopes that Congress will approve a broader change to U.S. immigration law that would put them on the path to permanent residency.

"If they don't register for this program, they will lose their immigration status and will get an order for deportation. Then they won't be able to apply for future programs that might lead to a permanent residency, so it is very important that they renew," said Rene Leon, El Salvador's ambassador to the U.S.

Posted to Immigration at 10:31 PM | Comments (1)

Mike Huckabee: opposition to "comprehensive" immigration reform isn't racist

In May, Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee spoke to reporters in Washington D.C. Hotline was there:
Huckabee, who supports guest worker programs and is not an immigration hard-liner, said he believes opposition to comprehensive immigration reform is 'irrational in many cases.' And he did not discount the causative factor of racism.

"If I were to say that some of it is driven by just sheer racism, I think I would be telling you the truth. I've had conversations with people that and it became very evident that what they really didn't like was that people didn't look like them, didn't talk like them, didn't celebrate ht holidays like they do, and they just had a problem with it. Now, that is not to say that everyone who is really fired out about immigration is racist. They're not."
Of course, this could be considered a smear attempt, and the "reporters" at Hotline title their piece "Huckabee: Some Critics Of Comprehensive Reform Are Motivated By Racism".

But, let's think logically about this. "Huck" is only refering to the motivations of some people, not all. According to him, some opponents of "comprehensive" reform aren't doing so because they're racists. Therefore, according to Huckabee, opposition to "comprehensive" reform is not, in and of itself, racist. If Huckabee thinks some people are racist, then he should argue against them personally and he shouldn't try to conflate those who are racist with opposition to "reform".

Now that "Huck" has cleared the air, I eagerly await him arguing for the reasons why we should support a massive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens without relying on smears.

I wonder: is this where Arnold got the similar smear that he later partially retracted? (the La Mesa townhall meeting: Arnold Heckled on SoCal Campaign Tour)

Previous coverage of the even-more-sanctimonious than Bush presidential hopeful starts in these posts:

Molly Hennessy-Fiske/LAT promotes corruption in Arkansas; Huckabee

Mexican consulate coming to Little Rock

Arkansas Republican governor Mike Huckabee and the "underground economy"

Arkansas' Bob Caudle doesn't pull any punches

Arkansas' Huckabee, Tyson Foods, LULAC all aligned

Posted to Immigration at 04:04 PM | Comments (2)

Help David Garbe, the Suburban Chicago News provide America-friendly coverage

David Garbe is a reporter for the Suburban Chicago News (owned by the Chicago Sun-Times group) and he offers the latest in a very long line of similar reports on the mobile Mexican consulate coming to small towns to pass out their ID cards to their citizens, most of whom are here illegally: "Hundreds line up at mobile Mexican consulate". While his article is fairly standard for the genre, it does provide a tiny bit more information than most, but it also has the same downsides as the others. Let's take a look at it and see if we can help David Garbe support what's in the best interests of America:
AURORA - Hundreds of Mexican immigrants lined the sidewalk at Bardwell Elementary School Thursday, awaiting a chance to get identification cards from their native country.

The school's gymnasium is playing host to the mobile operation of the Mexican Consulate in Chicago, which will be available to assist Mexican citizens there through Saturday.

The vast majority of people waiting in line were seeking to get a matricula consular, a photo ID card designed by the Mexican government primarily for its millions of citizens living in the United States without American documentation.

American immigration hawks criticize the matricula cards for making it easier for illegal immigrants to continue living in the United States...

...Banks are keen on selling their services to the estimated 5 million undocumented immigrants in America.

"You're missing the boat if you're not serving that population," said Sandy Lorenz, a regional manager for Fifth Third Bank...
Here are some questions the SCN might consider asking if they want to be a real newspaper:

* Shouldn't he have questioned the bank in a bit more depth? For instance, isn't that bank profiting from illegal activity? Would they, for instance, go after deposits from those who traffic in cigarettes or pot?

* What is a foreign country doing passing out their IDs to illegal aliens in a United States school (link)? Who authorized their use of public facilities? Was it Thomas Hartman, the principal (email: thartman.bardwell *at* d131.org)? Or, was it a higher-up? Should public facilities be used by a foreign country that wants to pass out ID cards to its citizens who are here illegally? What kind of "lesson" does that teach to the students at the school?

* Should Garbe have refered to those who want to enforce our immigration laws as "hawks"? What term would we use for those who support a foreign country's agenda?

Let's write the reporter and his editor and see if we can help them understand what they should have done:

dgarbe *at* scn1.com
rnagel *at* scn1.com

NOTE: I bought some Adwords in that paper last year, but I won't be making the same mistake again.

Posted to Immigration at 11:17 AM | Comments (1)

A Wayne Cornelius/Center for Comparative Immigration Studies/UCSD quote

Wayne Cornelius, director of the Center for Comparative Immigration Studies at the University of California at San Diego, is a quote source I've seen occasionally. In case you see him being presented as in any way impartial or not partisan, could you please send the reporter the following quote he gave to the CSM?

"[The recent focus on immigration matters is] mainly because of a strategic choice made by the Republican Congressional leadership to make immigration their party's wedge issue du jour for this election year... Exploiting anti-immigration hostility is ... an effective and efficient way to mobilize their base."

The quote is from the generally unremarkable article "Why illegal immigration is one of the hot topics of 2006".

Posted to Immigration at 11:00 AM | Comments (0)

Justice for the Border Patrol (Compean/Ramos)

A new site from FAIR has a petition you can sign supporting the two Border Patrol agents who appear to have been railroaded: Justice for the Border Patrol.

It contains this interesting quote from Sen. Dianne Feinstein:

"It appears that the facts do not add up or justify the length of the sentences for these agents, let alone their conviction on multiple counts. Border agents often have a difficult and dangerous job in guarding our nation's borders. Undue prosecution of Border Patrol Agents could have a chilling effect on their ability to carry out their duties."

Related:

"Legal defense fund started for convicted Border Patrol agents"

Ramos/Compean case: Bonner responds; Hostettler, Sensenbrenner will look into it

"Petition seeks pardon for agents"

Posted to Immigration at 05:41 AM | Comments (1)

August 24, 2006

A "comprehensive" 1986 amnesty would have prevented pro-grower propaganda

Today's Wacky but Thought-Provoking Immigration Quote of the Day is featured in the article "Immigration bill sticker shock". The quote source is John Young, co-chairman of the Agriculture Coalition for Immigration Reform:

"In my opinion, the fairer question is: How will illegal immigrants impact the costs of healthcare, local education, and social services without passage of comprehensive immigration reform? ...Had we solved this problem in a truly comprehensive way in 1986 ... we would not have the daily news reporting outright shortages of farm labor threatening the very existence of agricultural industries coast to coast".

1. This meme that the problem with the 1986 amnesty was not that it was a massive amnesty but that it wasn't "comprehensive" enough has also been used by such notable cheap labor pimps as Jack Kemp and Sheila Jackson Lee.

2. The "crops rotting in the fields" articles that he refers to are simply propaganda printed by MSM sources highly sympathetic to the needs of cheap labor employers. Even if the 1986 amnesty had been as "comprehensive" as it could be, if it weren't in any way enough the same forces would work their magic to have the same sources print their propaganda. And, farmers have been singing this same song for literally decades; before then, employers of child labor carried the tune.

Posted to Immigration at 10:27 PM | Comments (1)

Mike Pence "compromise" amnesty pimped by Chertoff, White House

As predicted, earlier today DHS chief Michael Chertoff joined with Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) to pimp the latter's massive illegal alien amnesty and "guest" worker scheme. You know, the scheme that would allow unlimited immigrants and the one that's supported by the WaPo. It's being sold as a "compromise":
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff will tour the Texas-Mexico border this morning with the conservative authors of a congressional immigration compromise, in what will be the clearest sign yet that the Bush administration is prepared to make major concessions to reach an immigration deal this year.

Chertoff's appearance with Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) and Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) is "in no way meant to signal an endorsement" of their compromise, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said. But it was seen by supporters and opponents yesterday as a boost for the plan and a significant White House concession to conservatives...

[Pence says:] "The White House thinks we have a very interesting idea, and the president was very adamant about wanting to encourage my efforts... Going to the border with Secretary Chertoff will help emphasize our seriousness about putting border security first."
The WaPo's understanding of the amnesty is slightly better than AP's. From the WaPo:
But no guest-worker program would be made operational until stringent border-security measures are implemented, and illegal immigrants would have to report to privately run "Ellis Island" centers in Mexico to apply for legal work permits.
Compare the AP report from Lynn Brezosky:
The centers would not open until the president certifies to Congress that the border is secure.
In fact, the certification would only be that we had the resources in place, not that they were having any sort of an effect.

In brief, it's a scam.

Posted to Immigration at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)

"Terrorist screening missed 75% of time"

From Sara Carter:
An estimated 75 percent of applicants for immigrant benefits - green cards, work visas, and a host of other documents - at a major federal processing center were not screened through the U.S. terrorism watch list over the past four years, the Daily Bulletin has learned.

The error - on nearly 3 million applications dating to 2002 - was confirmed by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) officers at the National Benefits Center in Lee's Summit, Mo., near Kansas City. The center is one of several facilities across the country that process foreign applications for immigrant benefits.

Numerous Department of Homeland Security e-mails - sent the day after British authorities uncovered major terror plot - noted that supervisors and adjudicators at the Missouri center were not aware that a simple touch of a computer key would have allowed them to check the names of applicants against the highest-priority terrorist list. According to the e-mails and the adjudicators themselves, up to 2.8 million applications at the center dating to 2002 did not get such checks.

Robert Cowan, director of the National Benefits Center, denied that benefits were processed incorrectly and said any failed background checks were given to supervisors for final review. Cowan added that the 75 percent figure was attributable to employees not properly marking enforcement documents, misspelling names, or leaving out names altogether...
Now, read Chapter 3 of the 9/11 Commission Staff Report.

Posted to Immigration_terror at 12:49 PM | Comments (1)

AP ignores Peter Schey Mexican government links (Border Human Rights Working Group)

An AP story about a recent crash fails to note a key affiliation of one of the groups mentioned. If you've never heard of the CHRCL, you might think they're just an ordinary "human rights" group:
A border rights coalition asked federal officials Wednesday to suspend Border Patrol high-speed chases pending a review of a Yuma-area rollover two weeks ago that resulted in multiple deaths.

The letter from the Los Angeles-based Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law also asked Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and the heads of Customs and Border Protection and the Border Patrol to update Border Patrol hot-pursuit policies.

The letter was sent on behalf of the Border Human Rights Working Group, a coalition of organizations involved in human-rights advocacy in the four states bordering Mexico.

It also sought through a Freedom of Information request copies of all Border Patrol documents concerning the Yuma chase and crash, and policies and training materials concerning high-speed chases...
What the article fails to note is that the CHRCL is headed by Peter Schey, someone who's collaborating with the Mexican government on a website. He's also representing some illegal aliens who were arrested under a new Arizona law, and there is some kind of involvement of the Mexican consul. And, an "opposition research" paper he wrote appears on a Mexican government website.

And, this is at least the second time that the AP has failed to note these connections.

At post time, google shows no results for "Border Human Rights Working Group". (UPDATE: See the info below.)

Please contact the AP at feedback@ap.org and suggest they start telling their readers the whole truth. Also, here are the sources currently featuring this article and their contact information:

KTVK (contact link at bottom of page)

KVOA (contact link on left sidebar)

KOLD (the only contact form I could find is here; also has their phone numbers)

Daily Star (perhaps their News and Research Services Director: eraines *at* azstarnet.com)

AZCentral (try jleach@azcentral.com and llevitt@azcentral.com)

UPDATE: A copy of the letter that "BHRWG" sent is at this link. However, you'll need to right-click, choose "Save as", and add ".pdf" to the end of the file name since it doesn't have an extension.

The letter reveals who's in the BHRWG:

American Civil Liberties Union of Texas
American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico
American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego
American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona
American Friends Service Committee (San Diego, CA)
American Friends Service Committee (Tucson, AZ)
Binacional Migration Institute (Tucson, AZ)
Border Angels / Gente Unida (San Diego, CA)
Border Action Network (Tucson/Nogales/Douglas)
Border Network for Human Rights (El Paso, TX)
Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Diocesan Migrant and Refugee Services (El Paso, TX)
Coalicion de Derechos Humanos (Tucson, AZ)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
No More Deaths (Tucson, AZ)
South Texas Civil Rights Project (McAllen, TX)
Southern Poverty Law Center (Montgomery, AL)
Texas RioGrande Legal Aid

Derechos Humanos is working with the Mexican government. So is the CHRCL. So, MALDEF, the ACLU and the SPLC are associated with at least two groups openly working with the Mexican government.

Posted to Immigration at 11:19 AM | Comments (2)

Catch-and-release "stopped"; White House to pimp Pence massive illegal alien amnesty

Yesterday DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff claimed that nearly all non-Mexican illegal aliens were being returned to their home countries and that "catch-and-release" had been stopped. Under C&R non-Mexicans who were caught were given notices to appear and released into the U.S. Almost all of them, of course, never bothered to show up.

That resulted in, for instance, "45,000 from terror-linked countries released into U.S." and "70% of OTMs detained [in 2005] were released into the U.S." and "Other-than-Mexicans give themselves up to get released into the U.S."

I have no way of verifying whether Chertoff is telling the truth or not, but based on his past actions and statements I tend to suspect that there's something that he's not telling us.

And, if you're looking for a reason why they might have done (or claimed to have done) this, see "White House to back Pence reform bill":
The White House plans [today] to make a show of support for Rep. Mike Pence's proposed immigration compromise, which has been criticized by some conservatives as another form of amnesty.

Washington sources told WND the Bush administration will send to the Texas border Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff; Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson, R-Texas; and Pence, R-Ind., for a press conference.

The White House intends to make a push to get some form of immigration reform passed by the Senate and House so President Bush can sign the legislation before the November elections, those sources tell WND.

The plan championed by White House election strategist Karl Rove is to avoid having Republican senators and congressmen face the voters without being able to take credit for any immigration reform passed by the GOP-controlled 109th Congress...
UPDATE: See Mike Pence "compromise" amnesty pimped by Chertoff, White House

Posted to Immigration at 05:21 AM | Comments (9)

Nancy Boyda brings up NAFTA highway against Rep. Jim Ryun

From this:
Democratic congressional challenger Nancy Boyda repeated concerns Wednesday about a proposed multilane superhighway that eventually could span the United States from Mexico to Canada, calling it a threat to Kansans.

"There seems to be a plan to blur the border with the United States and Mexico," Boyda said, referring to a proposed 10-lane corridor parallel to Interstate 35 in Texas.

Boyda has made the highway an issue in her effort to defeat incumbent Republican Jim Ryun in a rematch of their 2nd District race two years ago. While Ryun says immigration is the top issue on his agenda, Boyda said allowing Texas to "blow a quarter-mile-wide hole in the border" runs afoul with any get-tough talk.

Speaking Wednesday at a candidate forum in Topeka, Ryun dismissed the Texas proposal and fears of a flow of illegal guns, drugs and immigrants as nothing more than a growing conspiracy theory.

"This is definitely based on fiction," Ryun said. "It is based on an Internet story."

State and regional highway officials agree, saying there are no grandiose plans to cut a wide swath across the central United States from Laredo, Texas, to Detroit.

Terry Heidner, Kansas Department of Transportation director of planning and development, said any potential for expanding Interstate 35 through Kansas is in the distant future...

Posted to NAU at 02:16 AM | Comments (2)

August 23, 2006

Steve Laffey, Lincoln Chafee, Matricula Consular cards, the NRSC, and idiots

Steve Laffey is the mayor of Cranston, Rhode Island and he's trying to defeat fellow Republican Lincoln Chafee in the Senatorial primary. Apparently the National Republican Senatorial Committee supports the RINO Chafee, believing that only he can defeat the Democratic challenger. Past examples of that support include "NRSC Files FEC Complaint Against Stephen Laffey For Using Taxpayer Money To Pay For Political Mailing" and "Unelectable Laffey Missteps Again".

The latest example is in this video about Matricula Consular cards. Apparently Laffey supports them; not mentioned is that Chafee is almost as "liberal" as Teddy Kennedy on the topic of illegal immigration.

The video has a tiny bit more heat than light, but it does provide an accurate rundown of some of the dangers of those cards, including the fact that the FBI has called them a security risk.

But, what the ad doesn't mention is that our own president, through the person of former Treasury Secretary John Snow, fought to allow banks to accept those cards.

Doesn't that mean that what the NRSC says in the video should also apply to George Bush?

As for the idiots, well, that's where our friends on the Democratic side of things come in: they're calling the video racist. I don't see anything racist about it; perhaps they're projecting and assume that any time someone mentions the word "Mexicans" as the ad does it's racist. Or, perhaps they're confused as usual about the differences between Mexican citizens and American citizens of Mexican descent. Or, perhaps they're just race-baiting sleazeballs.

Wouldn't it make much more sense, be more downright American, and be more of a vote getter to take what the FBI said and make the Bush administration look weak on homeland security? Especially since everything in the video applies to Bush. Apparently not; the Democratic Party is more scared of press release from the NCLR than they are interested in making the Bush administration look weak on homeland security.

And, here's a comment I left in a couple places about this issue:
Who's calling it racist, the Mexican government?

There are millions of those cards being used by illegal aliens, and they're used to send billions of dollars back to Mexico. In fact, that money is Mexico's second greatest source of income behind oil.

Lots of people have their hands in the pie in addition to Mexico: banks, money transfer companies, politicians who receive donations from those banks and money transfer companies, etc. etc.

So, I ask again: who's calling this racist? And, do they have a profit motive to do so? And, since the FBI has clearly stated that those cards are a security risk, are they willing to put their profits ahead of the security of the U.S.?

Here's a FAQ on the cards.

Posted to Politics at 10:47 PM | Comments (2)

Larry Craig voters unhappy over his support for illegal immigration

From the article "Craig shouted down at feisty forum on immigration":
A town hall meeting with Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, dissolved into angry shouts and walkouts when Craig began discussing the controversial issue of immigration.

"I am sick of listening to these lies," one woman said, interrupting Craig as she left the Tuesday meeting, the Coeur d'Alene Press reported.

Stan Hess, candidate for the North Idaho College Board of Trustees, screamed at Craig as others booed. Before leaving, Hess yelled at a woman, his face inches from hers, as several people tried to separate them...

[Craig said:] "The reality is that there are 2.5 million jobs here that Americans won't do... For 20 years, immigration laws have failed. We know there's a problem and we're working on it. The first step is securing the border and we're doing that."
Craig is the primary co-sponsor of the AgJobs amnesty which he tried to attach to an Iraq funding bill. He's also a co-sponsor of one of the versions of the DREAM Act, which would take college discounts from U.S. citizens and give them to citizens of other countries who are here illegally.

A list of his various immigration votes is here.

There's more on his funding here, here, and here.

Along the same lines: Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) gets earful on immigration from constituents

Posted to Immigration at 10:28 PM | Comments (2)

Is Harry Reid dirty?

To help understand the Senator a bit better, in 2003 the L.A. Times offered the Harry Reid expose "In Nevada, Reid Is the Name to Know".

A few days ago that same paper offered yet another expose of Dingy Harry's questionable dealings: "Desert Connections".
...One of the most inhospitable places in the country, Coyote Springs Valley is so barren that, until recently, its best use was thought to be as a weapons test range.

Yet the valley - an hour northeast of Las Vegas - is on its way to becoming a real estate development of historic proportions, with as many as 159,000 homes, 16 golf courses and a full complement of stores and service facilities. At nearly 43,000 acres, Coyote Springs covers almost twice as much space as the next-largest development in a state famous for outsized building projects.

...Helping make Coyote Springs come alive was an alliance between a multimillionaire developer [Harvey Whittemore] and one of the highest-ranking members of Congress: Nevada Democrat Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader and a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee.

...Over the last four years, Reid has used his influence in Washington to help the developer, Nevada super-lobbyist Whittemore, clear obstacles from Coyote Springs' path.

At one point, Reid proposed opening the way for Whittemore to develop part of the site for free — something for which the developer later agreed to pay the government $10 million.

As the project advanced, Reid received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore. The contributions not only went to Reid's Senate campaigns, but also to his leadership fund, which he used to help bankroll the campaigns of Democratic colleagues...

Whittemore also helped advance the legal careers of two of Reid's four sons. One of the two, Leif Reid, who is Whittemore's personal lawyer, has represented the developer throughout the Coyote Springs project, including in negotiations with federal officials...
There's much more at the link.

Previously:
Harry Reid wants amnesty for illegal aliens who are taking jobs that could go to Katrina victims
"Harry Reid Tied to Chinagate Figure"
Congress: $4 million for National Council of The Race
"Reid Aided Abramoff Clients, Records Show"
Harry Reid strongly opposed illegal immigration. In 1993.
Harry Reid perpetuates illegal alien "Catch and Release"

Posted to Politics at 11:22 AM | Comments (3)

Chicago Tribune, Sun-Times oppose Elvira Arellano; Slim Coleman mentioned

Both the Chicago Tribune and the Sun-Times are leading the charge against Elvira Arellano, the illegal alien who's thumbing her nose at our legal system from inside a storefront church in western Chicago. Previously the CT offered the editorial "Elvira Arellano and the law". Now they offer "Immigration issue indeed one of morality" from a local writer of some kind, Dennis Byrne.

That article offers a backgrounder on the pastor of the church, infamous local activist Walter "Slim" Coleman which, as NewsBusters pointed out, was absent from their earlier coverage. No more, as Byrne rips into him with glee.

Meanwhile, the Sun-Times' Mary Mitchell offers "Immigrant activist holed up in church is no Rosa Parks":

As they say in the streets, Arellano is pimping the system. She is using Rosa Parks' name to buy herself more time, and that disgusts me.

Why have two papers that in the past have fully supported illegal immigration seemingly turned on a poor, oppressed illegal alien? The answer appears to be offered by Byrne:

Slim continues in the same vein with the Arellano stunt, with the same results: a PR disaster. Yes, conventional wisdom says that claiming church sanctuary is masterful PR, putting immigration officials in the Hobson's choice of dragging a woman and her young son out of a church, or letting her flout the law. But already it has hardened feelings against illegal immigrants and created some doubts among their supporters. Clearly, it didn't prove the need for "legalization" of illegal immigrants, as provided in a Senate-passed bill.

While they seem slightly shocked by her brazen disregard for our laws, and while Mitchell opposes her using Parks' name, one of the major subtexts is that Arellano is making illegal immigration supporters like the Tribune and the Sun-Times look bad.

Posted to Immigration at 06:21 AM | Comments (6)

Jeanette Rishell on illegal immigration (Manassas, Virginia)

Jeanette Rishell is running for Virginia's House of Delegates from the Manassas area. At her site - if you can make it through the Flash maze - you can read her stock "Democrat who claims to want to fine employers but in fact really wants to encourage more illegal immigration" plank.

However, this site highlights her evolving views on this issue. In October 2005 she wrote the following in "Crossroads", the newsletter of BRUU (Bull Run Unitarian Universalists) available in this PDF file:
Social Justice Committee is making available a pamphlet that addresses immigrant worker issues. Immigrants face greater challenges than do longtime residents of our community. They are newly arrived and vulnerable to exploitation because of the language barrier, because they are on the lower rung of the economic ladder and because for many there is a fear that they will be sent back if their undocumented status is reported.

This pamphlet touches on their struggles and their contributions to our society. It also advocates for a positive and sympathetic approach towards these newcomers. Please stop by the Social Justice table after service and pick up a copy of this pamphlet.
Clearly, her new "tough" stance is just hot air.

Posted to Immigration at 01:33 AM | Comments (0)

The childlike Dave Weigel

David Weigel of Reason is guest posting at Andrew Sullivan's blog and offers a discussion of Pat Buchanan's latest book that's even dumber than that that Sully would have provided.
Can anyone point me to the border towns where democracy has collapsed, supplanted by Latin American-style caudillos?
We can come close: "Mexican drug cartels take over U.S. cities", colonias, "Task force targets cross-border violence", "Combating Southwest border violence" (and as pointed out below, Maywood CA)
Have Arizona, California, and the rest of the Southwest become less American or less loyal?
Apparently he missed all those Mexican flags when all those hundreds of thousands of foreign citizens were marching in our streets demanding rights to which they aren't entitled, and all those politicians who act more like Mexican agents than elected U.S. representatives.
Restrictionists are too quick to compare America's immigration with that of Europe or of collapsed empires of the past. But it's a false comparison between, say, Muslim immigrants who settle in Rotterdam and refuse to integrate with Dutch society, and Mexican immigrants who go to Catholic mass and long to become American citizens.
What an idiotic comment. Why does he bring up issues that no one is complaining about, other than that he's either trying to religion-bait or he has no clue about this issue?

A hypothetical that is probably beyond the capabilities of Weigel, Sully, Reason Magazine, or all the rest was provided in the previous entry. It is truly pathetic that so many so-called pundits are simply not serious about such a vital issue. UPDATE: He prints a letter from a reader here:
...there is a very real undercurrent to the present political Chicano advocacy groups that believe (and are teaching their progeny) the notion that since the American southwest was stolen from Mexico, they have a right to the land including repatriating at a future date. Many of them understand the slow political process required to leverage our democracy to accomplish it. But make no mistake: repopulating the southwest and registering voters for this eventuality is the first step.

There are places in California where if you don't speak Spanish, you're SOL as far as communication goes. I have lived in SoCal for thirty years and this wasn't the case in these places 20 years ago. Take the LA suburb of Maywood, CA, (hardly a "border town"). According to the March 29, 2006 CBS Evening News, more than 50% of the city's population are illegal aliens, and the mayor has declared that the city will refuse to cooperate with any enforcement of U.S. immigration law, declaring the city a "haven for Illegals. This mayor and his city council were swept into office during last November's election. My God, they even demanded that all city proceedings be held in Spanish when they were debating this declaration last April!
Weigel is making a fool out of himself and by extension Andrew Sullivan.

Posted to Immigration at 12:39 AM | Comments (7)

August 22, 2006

Fabian Nunez in snit over pro-illegal immigration resolution

From this:
The rancorous national debate over illegal immigration spilled into the California Assembly on Tuesday as Democrats yanked an immigration resolution after a testy, partisan exchange that drew an outburst from Speaker Fabian Nunez.

The Los Angeles Democrat emerged from his office to silence Republican critics who were lambasting the nonbinding resolution.

"We're pulling the bill. You've got a problem with that?" he asked before uttering an expletive about Republican nitpicking and leaving the chamber, slamming the door that joins the Assembly to his conference room...
The legislation in question is numbered AJR 51, and it's of the same high quality we've come to expect from a group that reminds me more of Mexican agents than elected U.S. politicians.

The key paragraph (see leginfo.ca.gov for the full text) is where they mischaracterize HR4437:
WHEREAS, Unfortunately, in December 2005, the House of Representatives passed the Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005 (H.R. 4437) that seeks to criminalize an individual for his or her immigration status; make any relative, coworker, parishioner, or friend who provides assistance to an undocumented worker a criminal; deny due process to undocumented immigrants; supersede United States Supreme Court decisions; and infringe on an individual's civil rights. H.R. 4437 is not in our nation's best interests and can only be characterized as mean-spirited, short-sighted, and anti-immigrant...
Even Cardinal Roger Mahony (remember him?) admits that he was exaggerating about HR 4437 and soup kitchens, yet that lie made it into a possible California resolution. Their other claims are probably also lies.

Then, they show what they're really after:
...A bipartisan, comprehensive workable immigration reform package must be based on respect for human rights; a path towards permanent residency and citizenship; enforcement of border policies, protecting the wages and working conditions of all workers, whether U.S. born or immigrant workers; reunification of families; and the promotion of citizenship and civic participation...
This is a bald attempt at obtaining racial power.

Posted to California at 09:51 PM | Comments (3)

OC lawyer goes after employers of illegal aliens

One of the major reasons why those who employ illegal aliens are so supportive of "comprehensive" immigration "reform" is probably to avoid legal penalties. Not those coming from various government forces, since most politicians have been corrupted. Rather, penalties obtained by lawyers in civil suits. Howard Foster is one lawyer who's brought such suits, and another is profiled in the Orange County Register's "Suit contends illegal pickers undercut firm":
An Orange County attorney filed a lawsuit Monday accusing a Kern County farmer of hiring illegal immigrants to undercut his client's contract to provide blueberry pickers during harvest.

The suit on behalf of farm-labor contractor AgriLabor is the first in a series of suits that attorney David Klehm of Anaheim says he has undertaken since quitting his stable job as a medical-malpractice lawyer two months ago to take on California companies that he says skirt immigration law.

Klehm, 42, said his goal isn't to go after undocumented immigrants but rather the employers that make it tough for businesses to compete if they hire workers legally. Klehm, whose office is in Santa Ana, started a Web site in June with help from anti-illegal-immigration activists to reach out to companies that say they are being outbid for jobs or losing work because their legal labor costs are higher...
Sadly, their website uses a flash frontend. On a more entertaining note, "Dane" at FreeRepublic offers this comment on the lawyer:
Great this ambulance chaser puts hospitals out of business, now he sets his sights on Farmer Joe.
UPDATE: Peter Prengaman of the AP has more in "California law used to target businesses using illegal immigrants". On yet another side note, the article is a bit less biased than his previous reports.

Posted to Immigration at 11:52 AM | Comments (2)

More on the Chicago NAIR meeting from Workers World

Around August 11, a few hundred illegal immigration supporters met near Chicago and created the "National Alliance for Immigrant Rights". One of their leaders is an official with Mexico's PRD party, and the article "Immigrant rights activists meet near Chicago" from Workers World has a little bit more on who's involved and what they want: workers.org/2006/us/immigrant-rights-0824

Of course, it's necessary to take what they write with a grain of salt because the article contains things that could have been written by chief reactionary George Bush himself:
Nineteen Minutemen vigilantes stood outside the conference at one point, their racist, pro-slavery Confederate flags flying, their anti-immigrant signs resting on their paunches.
Struggling bravely on, we're informed that:
Former Young Lord Vincente "Panama" Alba of New York's May 1 Coalition added that the immigrant communities were facing serious crises in food and housing, raids and arrests by police and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The Women's Caucus resolution, unanimously accepted, called for a defense of the rights of women as workers and mothers. Women face exploitation as domestic workers, and confront the cruelty of the international sex trade, rape and brutality from police and the Border Patrol.
But not, apparently, from coyotes.
After a short struggle, resolutions supporting the Gulf Coast evacuees and against the war in the Middle East were passed. The resolution presented by New York and Los Angeles activists on Katrina reads in part: to "support the right of return, right to housing, and the right to jobs for African American, immigrant, and poor white workers, the survivors of Katrina and Rita, in the Gulf Region."

A teacher from Los Angeles' March 25th Coalition said, "To immigrant students nothing is given, but they sacrifice everything in wars for a government who despises them."

Ignacio Meneses from Detroit said many immigrants in Michigan are people of Middle Eastern backgrounds, facing detentions and deportation every day. "Failure to oppose U.S./Israeli policies in the Middle East would be a betrayal of comrades in the struggle for immigrant rights."

Meneses continued, "Immigrants don't come to the U.S. looking for 'democracy.' They are looking to escape their economies, destroyed by U.S. commercial policies." The case of Elvira Arellano and her young son Saul epitomizes this.

Elvira Arellano was "driven to come to this country by the economic policies of the United States." Arellano said she is an activist with Pueblo Sin Fronteras, which organizes families with U.S. citizen children facing separation by deportation. She went seven times to Washington, D.C., to testify before Congress, putting family unity at the center of the immigration debate. She mobilized a mass protest on July 5, 2005, in Chicago, a demonstration that drew 50,000 people. She helped form the Coalition for African Asian Arab European Latino Immigrants of Illinois (CAAAELII).

ICE called her and ordered her to pack her bags and report for deportation.

She called on everyone at the conference to pick up their cell phones and lodge protests with Senators Dick Durbin and Barack Obama. They did.
And, I urge you to pick up your