« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »
Senator Mel Martinez: revive illegal immigration amnesty in the House (recall petition!)
Speaking at a meeting of the Mexico-linked National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO), Republican Party chairman and Senator Mel Martinez said he wants to revive the Bush/Senate massive illegal immigration amnesty scheme, this time starting in the House.Short answer: see this recall petition.
Longer answer:
[He] challenged [opponents of a massive legalization of illegal aliens] to come up with a solution beyond "just build a fence along the border."Then, he yelled, "arghhhhh!" But, seriously, about the only difference between what he said and what Howard Dean would say is that Dean is marginally saner.
"The voices of negativity now have a responsibility to come up with an answer," RNC Chairman and U.S. Senator Mel Martinez, R-Fla. said.
"How will you fix the situation to make peoples' lives better? How will you continue to grow the economy? How will we bring people out of the shadows for our national security and for the sake of being a country that is just?" he demanded...
By failing to act, the Senate also tied law enforcement's hands, Martinez said...
"We're going to have a hodgepodge of local laws. We will have cities that will declare themselves sanctuary cities. And then we will have others that will make it a felony simply to rent to illegal immigrants."
Note: the link is a report from Laura Wides-Munoz who, as could be expected, does not disclose that NALEO has a link to the Mexican government.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 06:51 PM
Senator Lindsey Graham: there are no votes for enforcement-only
From this:
"The only way we're going to get Ag jobs or DREAM Act" or pathways to legal status for the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants, [Sen. Lindsey Graham] said, "is to do it together. This idea of 'Just do the enforcement,' there are no votes for that."
Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:36 PM
Democrats next immigration move: pass AgJobs, anti-American DREAM Act
Yesterday, Senator Barbara Boxer issued the following release regarding the failed Bush-Kennedy-Senate immigratiom amnesty bill [1]:"I decided to vote yes on cloture today because I felt that if the policies in this bill were carried out properly, the result would be a strengthening of our border security, the rescue of our agriculture industry, and the acknowledgment that hardworking undocumented immigrants should have a path to legality if they follow the tough rules we have set out... As we move forward, I hope that the Senate will work to immediately pass the non-controversial pieces of this bill such as increased funding for border security, the AgJobs program, and the Dream Act... We also need to legislate a fair way to deal with the 12 million undocumented workers who have become an important part of California's economy and the economy of the country."As pointed out here many times, the DREAM Act is one of the most anti-American pieces of legislation ever devised: among other things, it allows foreign citizens who are here illegally to take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens. It is only "non-controversial" because the MSM continually fails to note its downsides; moreover, there have been numerous propaganda pieces printed about it.
In fact, here's Charles Babington of the Associated Press parroting the lines from not just Boxer but corrupt growers:
...A priority [going ahead] for many farm groups is the "Ag jobs" component, one of several programs now needing a new legislative vehicle. It would legalize about 1 million undocumented agricultural workers in the U.S., a key goal of growers whose crops can rot in the fields if not harvested at key times by people willing to work hard at low wages.He did good work, promoting not just one but two of Boxer's themes as fact rather than the opinion of some. Note also that at her site [2], Hillary Clinton trumpets the DREAM Act:
The program is considered relatively popular, as is another piece of the stalled bill: the DREAM Act, or Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act...
...Some lawmakers said they hope Congress will enact such programs as stand-alone bills fairly soon. Others, however, said it will be difficult to pass even noncontroversial parts by themselves.
I am proud of America's commitment to welcoming immigrants. We are all immeasurably enriched by the contributions of immigrants who have come to this country to find the American dream through their hard work. That's why I led efforts for the Immigrant Children's Health Improvement Act, championed the Access to Employment and English Acquisition Act, and co-sponsored the DREAM Act, which makes it possible for hardworking young people to attend college. These measures recognize that all America is strengthened when immigrants have access to health care and education that will enable them to become fully participating members of our society.[1] boxer.senate.gov/news/releases/record.cfm?id=277970
[2] clinton.senate.gov/issues/immigration/
Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:22 PM
NPR: "Mexican Migration Robs Towns of Youth, Future"
From NPR's Lourdes Garcia-Navarro (link):
The exodus of Mexicans across U.S. borders is depleting whole villages of the young and the able, leaving small, broken communities behind. A recent study shows more than half the municipalities in 10 Mexican states are seeing falling populations. One of them is Guanajuato, which has one of the highest rates of migration in Mexico...
An NGO is trying to reverse the trend; perhaps those who support illegal immigration out of false compassion might consider helping groups like that rather than helping Mexico avoid its responsibilities to its own people.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:21 AM
Tavis Smiley/PBS Democratic debate has no immigration questions at all
Yesterday, Tavis Smiley of PBS hosted the "The All-American Presidential Forums" featuring all the Democratic candidates:
Inspired by the book the Covenant with Black America, The All-American Presidential Forums on PBS marks the first time that a panel comprised of journalists of color was represented in primetime. Many of the questions that were asked of the candidates focus on key domestic priorities that were originally outlined in the book.
And, their front page [1] includes 10 main topics, one of them being immigration. On that page [2] they post an inflammatory and false comment from Maria Elena Salinas, Univision Anchor:
"There's so many cities out there where you have thousands of people that are immigrants that are saying, 'enough is enough. We are tired of this immigrant bashing and this dialogue that seems more like a monologue instead of a debate on immigration.'"
That's followed by a no doubt hand-picked set of six comments, all opposed to illegal immigration.
Despite that, there is not a single instance of "immig*" in the entire transcript (link). I guess some topics are more difficult than others.
[1] pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums
[2] pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/issues/immigration.html
Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:11 AM
Howard Dean supports failed Senate bill, blames Bush
Trotting out his stock lines, Howard Dean says:"Today's immigration vote is a reminder of why the American people voted Republicans out in 2006 and why they'll vote against them in 2008. After using the immigration issue to inflame people with divisive rhetoric, the Republican Party, led by President Bush, had neither the capital nor the political will to work with Democrats on a reasonable compromise that would have delivered on the promise of immigration reform. The Republican election year strategy to scapegoat immigrants to win elections not only backfired in 2006 but today reveals a fractured party in disarray.He is, in essence, blaming Bush and the corrupt GOP Senators who supported the bill of the same things they blamed the GOP base for. And, he's supporting a bill that less than a quarter of Americans supported.
"Senator Reid and the Democratic leadership in Congress deserve a lot of credit for listening to the American people, for listening to the experts, and after participating in countless hearings, fighting to work in a bipartisan manner to deliver a comprehensive immigration reform package that would be tough and restore order to the border, but would also be smart and practical. Today's vote doesn’t end the immigration debate. It’s an issue that won’t go away. It was, however, a failure to address what’s needed at our borders, and it fails to address 12 million immigrants, most of whom are hard working and law abiding, and who will not go away by virtue of Republican obstructionism. Democrats will continue to look for ways to address the issue. The American people deserve better, and America is capable of better."
Obviously, the only way to face up to people like Dean is to take them head on and point out their lies and misleading statements. Bush and the GOP leadership tried to make nice, and we see where that got them.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:10 PM
"Brownback Scrubs Website of Earlier Immigration Vote"
From this:Eleven minutes after voting in favor of cloture on the Senate immigration bill, Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback changed his mind—and his vote—to oppose cloture, MSNBC reported earlier today [link]. Now it seems that the Brownback campaign has changed its mind again, this time on a press release it produced just days ago. On Tuesday, June 26, the campaign released a statement after Brownback voted in favor of cloture. The statement originally appeared here. It's now gone, but was cached and can be seen here.The deleted June 26 release is not in the list here: brownback.com/s/NewsRoom/PressReleases/tabid/89/Default.aspx
In a press release that still does exist [link], Brownback explained his vote today against cloture: "I became convinced along with many of my colleagues on the floor that this version of the immigration bill was not, and would not become the vehicle that would fix our broken system as I had hoped."
It said in part:
Senator Brownback voted in favor of cloture on the motion to proceed to the immigration bill today. That means he voted to bring the bill back to the floor for debate and for amendments to be offered.
This does NOT mean that Senator Brownback supports the immigration bill itself – he feels the bill needs to be improved.
Brownback opposes amnesty, and believes first and foremost in securing our borders and ending illegal immigration. Brownback voted to debate the bill in the Senate but is withholding support for the bill until the amendment process is complete...
Posted to Politics at 03:05 PM
Sen. Chris Dodd: go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions
Senator Chris Dodd has stolen my idea! But, I don't mind, and he may or may not have developed the idea himself. He wants citizen journalists to attend campaign appearances by his competitors for president and ask them tough questions:
Call, visit, or find your Senators while they're home on break this weekend and videotape yourself asking them to support the "Dodd Amendment" to end the war in Iraq -- upload those videos to YouTube... It's time to talk about energy choices, not song choices; troop cuts, not haircuts; Baghdad, not Paris.
I've concentrated on suggesting that we ask tough questions about immigration; back in February I posted Can Barack Obama answer this? about a video question for that Senator; I've also posted questions for John Edwards and a question for John McCain. There are more questions in the videos here.
I don't expect most of his target audience to be interested in asking questions about immigration policy, but perhaps this might spur a "question race", where Dems asking GOP contenders questions about his amendment encourages those contenders to encourage their supporters to ask Dems questions about other matters.
Posted to Politics at 12:52 PM
Bush/Kennedy/Senate illegal immigration amnesty fails; what now?
The Bush/Kennedy/Senate illegal immigration amnesty has gone down to ignominious defeat, a major victory for the - dare I say it - American side. Bush's brief remarks are here: whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/06/20070628-7.html
Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people and Congress's failure to act on it is a disappointment. The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find a common ground -- it didn't work.
However, to get the full flavor of his disappointment, you need to see him say that. I'm sure he feels bad, but at least he can take solace in the fact that he did fulfill his pledge to the Mexican government to work as hard as he could.
The final roll call is here. I wouldn't necessarily take someone voting No to mean that they're on the right side: they might have just decided to be on the winning side.
What might happen now is that the same forces behind the Grand Compromise might decide to push the Flake-Gutierrez plan in the House; expect that to be even tougher for them.
Expect this to be spun as a defeat for a legacy-seeking Bush. If we work hard at it, it might be possible to present it more accurately as a victory of the American people against a corrupt elite composed of both the GOP and Democratic leadership as well as the media, racial power groups, religious leaders, and others.
And, as always, I urge everyone to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions designed to reveal the facts about this matter.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:53 AM
Jeff Zeleny/NYT: Conservative talk radio listeners menace Senate over immigration
Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times offers the sleazy "Immigration Bill Prompts Some Menacing Responses", an attempt by that paper to portray those opposed to an illegal alien amnesty as violent thugs. It discusses how a few pro-amnesty Senators have received what they claim to be threats, but it only provides one excerpt from such a message and hearsay on another and it provides no count of the number of threats. And, based on their past statements it's hard to trust what these Senators (or the NYT) say. It also discusses how the volume of calls has greatly increased due to this issue but fails to note that statistically speaking the more calls, the more threats. And, it fails to note the strong possibility that Senators have been threatened on other occasions; in fact there is probably a steady stream of such threats regardless of what legislation is being considered. Everything supposedly told the "reporter" is presented at face value; I might say that he completely fails to wonder whether these Senators might actually be selling him a bill of goods, but the fact of the matter is that he's a shill who's in on the game.
It also falsely implies that all the calls against the bill came from conservatives:
Republicans who support the immigration bill are facing unusually intense opposition from conservative groups fighting it. This is among the first times, several of them said, that they have felt the full brunt of an advocacy machine built around conservative talk radio and cable television programs that have long buttressed Republican efforts to defeat Democrats and their policies.
Then, of course, Senator Lindsey Graham gets a chance to play the martyr:
"There's racism in this debate... Nobody likes to talk about it, but a very small percentage of people involved in this debate really have racial and bigoted remarks. The tone that we create around these debates, whether it be rhetoric in a union hall or rhetoric on talk radio, it can take people who are on the fence and push them over emotionally... One of the requirements of public service in modern America is dealing with a few voices that are full of hate... And our discourse and the way we politic, the way we engage each other, brings that out."
Oddly enough, the piece doesn't mention blogs, concentrating on TV and, especially, talk radio:
Several senators said Wednesday that they did not care to be identified speaking critically of the broadcasters, fearing the same conservative backlash that befell Senator Trent Lott, a Mississippi Republican, this month when he declared: "Talk radio is running America. We have to deal with that problem."
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:35 AM
Brooks Jackson of FactCheck, fact checked (Newt Gingrich on Senate amnesty)
Brooks Jackson, Emi Kolawole & Lori Robertson of FactCheck.org offer "Gingrich Distorts Immigration Bill". It needs its own fact-checking, which I'll be happy to provide; this isn't the first time I've noticed that FactCheck.org tends to distort immigration matters, although I don't appear to have posted about the past instance.
In the current case, FactCheck has at least two issues: a) strictly and thus incorrectly defining amnesty, and b) failing to note that they and Gingrich are discussing different versions of the bills and failing to read the bill in its entirety.
Regarding b), they say:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich made false claims about the Senate immigration bill in a TV ad for a conservative group. He said it "will put...potential terrorists and gang members on a path to U.S. citizenship," which is contrary to the language of the legislation... Actually, the bill grants authority to deport any alien who "at any time has participated in a criminal gang." And as for terrorists, the measure also gives the government authority to deny temporary visa status to an illegal alien if "there are reasonable grounds for regarding the alien as a danger to the security of the United States."
First, they're discussing apples and oranges, in this case different versions of the bill. They link to S.1639 (PDF), dated June 18. The Gingrich commercials were almost certainly made before that date and were based on the previous version of the bill.
For instance, from this June 1 post:
In Section 601 (g) (2), it states that gang members would be eligible to receive amnesty if they sign a statement that renounces their gang membership.
And, from June 5, one of Senator Jeff Session's "20 Loopholes" was this:
the bill will allow violent gang members to get amnesty as long as they "renounce" their gang membership on their application. [See p. 289: 34-36].
Their second paragraph above is a reference to this from page 121 of the new bill; see if you can spot the gigantic loophole:
Unless the Secretary of Homeland Security or the Attorney General waives the application of this subparagraph, any alien who a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows or has reason to believe participated in a criminal gang, knowing or having reason to know that such participation promoted, furthered, aided, or supported the illegal activity of the gang, is inadmissible.
Somehow I see a lot of "waiving" ahead. Consider also this:
The application form [for Z nonimmigrant status] shall request such information as the Secretary deems necessary and appropriate, including but not limited to, information concerning the alien's physical and mental health; complete criminal history, including all arrests and dispositions; gang membership, renunciation of gang affiliation; immigration history; employment history; and claims to United States citizenship.
As with the previous version of the bill, the renunciation is still in there, strongly implying that it intends to be used to, in fact, allow gang members who've renounced their membership to receive the Z visas.
As for FactCheck raising issues with the Gingrich claim that "potential terrorists" can be legalized, obvious to everyone except them that means that someone who is not known (or shown by a cursory check) to be a terrorist could be legalized, as has happened before.
FactCheck also says that calling the Senate bill amnesty is misleading, relying on the dictionary definition of the word. Are the millions of prospective illegal aliens going to rely on the dictionary definition? Of course not. They're going to concentrate on the implicit U.S. policy of legalizing anyone who can live here long enough. Those millions of prospective illegal aliens will come a-running for what they perceive to be amnesty, whether Brooks Jackson, Emi Kolawole & Lori Robertson are standing on the border pointing to the Merriam-Webster definition or not.
Please contact Editor *at* FactCheck.org and let them know what you think.
UPDATE: The points made above about the new bill apply to the "clay pigeon" amendments as well. The pigeon has a similar waiver (link) and a similar mention of a "renunciation" (link).
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:18 AM
Adam Nagourney spins his way into 30% of young adults sharing NYT loose immigration policies
Adam Nagourney and Megan Thee of the New York Times offer "New Poll Finds That Young Americans Are Leaning Left":
Young Americans are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage, according to a New York Times/CBS News/MTV poll. The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion... And 30 percent said that "Americans should always welcome new immigrants," while 24 percent of the general public holds that view...
As you might have already surmised, this latest poll is simply yet more propaganda from the NYT designed to support massive immigration. Here's the actual question:
54. Which comes closer to your opinion: 1) America should always welcome all immigrants, OR 2) America should always welcome some immigrants, but not others, OR 3) America cannot afford to open its doors to any newcomers?
Note that the poll says "all immigrants", but Nagourney said "new". What exactly does Nagourney's "open door" claim mean? What exactly does part #1 above mean? Is Nagourney trying to claim that they support literally open borders? Do the 30% who answered yes to part #1 want literally open borders? Or, could some of them think we should only allow a reasonable number of immigrants per year, but we shouldn't be mean to them? Or, could they mean that we should allow a reasonable number of people to come here from a wide variety of backgrounds? Could some percentage of the 30% be supporting a reasonable immigration policy that isn't weighted towards one country or region or one type of immigrant? If so, isn't Nagourney simply a lying hack?
If they mean literally open borders, isn't it more a sign of stupidity than anything else if someone would support allowing, say, Pakistani extremists to come here? What percentage of those who answered yes to part #1 had open borders in mind, and shouldn't someone besides me point out the issues with open borders?
Shouldn't a real reporter go into things like that, instead of simply using this highly-flawed poll to support his bosses' desire for massive immigration? Yes, a real reporter would do that, which leaves Adam Nagourney out.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:59 PM
Senate immigration amnesty bill amendments ("clay pigeon")
The "clay pigeon" amendments to the Bush/Kennedy/Kyl/Senate massive illegal alien amnesty scheme have been released.
I can't copy from the PDF file at the link, but I note on page 344 that "fish roe processors and fish roe technicians" have been specifically included in the list of those eligible for H-2A visas. That's a relief!
And, right below that, those with probationary Z visa status - after name and fingerprint checks - are eligible to serve in the U.S. Armed Forces. Even worse, the feds only have one day to declare them ineligible:
...that have not by the end of the next business day produced information rendering the applicant ineligible shall be eligible to serve as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States.
And, just below that is a section authorizing a CIS office in Fairbanks, Alaska, which for all I know might be a hotbed of fish roe activity. Hmm...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:51 PM
Senate votes for amnesty cloture: what you can do
Cloture on the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill has passed with 64 Yes votes. There are other votes ahead, but the large number of votes for cloture don't bode well.
Apparently all those phone calls had an effect, but not enough of an effect.
What we need now is a series of Macaca moments, but about immigration policy.
What I urge everyone to do is to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions about immigration that are designed to reveal flaws in the candidates' arguments. Not rants, and not questions that will generate a predictable response. They need to be specific questions that are designed to prevent the candidates from being evasive. And, they don't have to be about the Senate bill specifically, just about amnesty in general.
Then, the videos of those responses can be put on Youtube and promoted in other ways.
If this is done enough times, it will have an impact on candidates' political careers, and that will send a loud message to those in the Senate and the House. Plus, it will have the side effect of showing just how corrupt the MSM is.
Here are questions for John Edwards, here are some for McCain, and see the videos with more questions for Hillary, Obama, and Richardson here.
UPDATE: How they voted here, those who switched from one side to another listed here, and from this:
The second, and final, cloture vote is coming Thursday (that will be to end debate and proceed to a final vote on the bill itself), and only five votes need to shift from Yes to No to stop it. That seems like a good bet, with good candidates for switching including Brownback, Bond, Ben Nelson, Ensign, Burr, and Gregg.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:35 AM
First Amendment in Los Angeles: illegal aliens, lefties keep Ted Hayes, Minutemen out of park
From Walter Moore:Activist Ted Hayes went to the trouble of getting a lawful permit to stage a peaceful protest, against illegal immigration, in a park. But laws meaning nothing to the City of L.A., because we don't have rule of law here. Instead, we have mob rule, driven largely by people who aren't even in the country legally...Hayes and others were later arrested after his permit expired and he refused to disperse. As could be expected, the news media is on the side of those who kept Hayes out of the park, with no less than three reports portraying this as "anti-immigration" forces against those who are "pro-immigrant".
Villaraigosa's and Bratton's police department refused to protect the rights of Hayes and his followers to assemble peacefully and protest, in accordance with their rights under the First Amendment and their City-issued permit.
Instead, a mob of pro-ILLEGAL alien protesters, WITHOUT A PERMIT, were allowed to occupy the location specified in the permit. Rather than ordering the illegals to disperse for assembling without a permit, the American citizens who had a permit were ordered to go away. After all, we mustn't have any TV pictures of the police ordering "immigrants rights" protesters to disperse. That would be too "May Day Melee."
From a "shared" report (link):
Police handled the situation carefully, mindful of the May Day clash in which officers used rubber bullets and batons to clear immigration reform demonstrations, Harding said. Officers, some in riot gear, some in shorts and on bicycles, kept the two sides apart.From KTLA (link):
Los Angeles police were a picture of restraint today as they kept screaming pro- and anti-immigration activists apart at Leimert Park and maintained order without another "May Day melee" breaking out.In other words, he's defending anarchy, mob rule, and the denial of First Amendment rights. And, one wonders whether those "government interests" include the interests of mayor Tony Villar in allowing Mexicans to move here at will and the interests of others who profit from illegal immigration.
The head of the anti-immigration group and about four others were arrested when they were denied access to the park by pro-immigration protesters and the police, but no injuries were reported.
...[Hayes] was joined by a couple hundred anti-immigration and mostly white Minutemen members and a few blacks demanding reparations for slavery.
When pro-immigration activists heard about the march, they assembled about 400 people of various races who milled about the park carrying pro- immigration signs and blocking the other group from entering.
..."In the balancing act that we got into here was the issue of allowing access to the park," LAPD Deputy Chief Mike Hillman told ABC7. "Mr. Hayes' group had a permit to go into the park. The park was occupied by, literally, children between 5 and 12 years of age and their parents, plus about 250 to 300 individuals that were community members who obviously took issue with Mr. Hayes being here in their community, so they blocked access to the park."
...Although Hayes had a permit to enter the park, "government interests far outweighed the permit," Hillman said, noting that the clashing protesters could have put children in the park at risk.
The KABC report (link) from Wendy Burch is oddly similar:
When people heard of Hayes' march, a counter protest was planned. A number of people showed up from various coalitions, of all different races. They were determined not to let Mr. Hayes and his group into Leimert Park. When police, supervising the march, saw what was transpiring they had to weigh all the issues. Police decided public safety was a larger priority than first amendment rights.Various lefties chimed in here:
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201486_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201474_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201498_comment.php
http://la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/201503_comment.php
More updates here, with pictures here and video here.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:32 AM
Eddie Murphy sighting
la.indymedia.org/news/2007/06/200054.php
I kid, I kid.
Posted to WackyHumor at 11:28 AM
Sergio Bendixen: 83% of illegal aliens would comply with new, better-suiting laws
A Sergio Bendixen poll [1] contacted 1,600 "undocumented immigrants" in Spanish and discovered that 83% said they'd apply for the "Z" Visa, with 14% prefering to maintain their present status as illegal aliens.
However, 27% said they wouldn't apply even for the "Z" Visa if there are touchback provisions that would require them to receive that visa and without a guaranteed "right to return". It should be noted that, AFAIK, the touchback provisions in both current Senate and House bills only require them to leave the U.S. for a minimal amount of time and only to get on the "path to citizenship", not for the visa specifically.
Hopefully that will help them in their decision as to which of our laws they would prefer to follow.
[1] news.newamericamedia.org/news/
view_article.html?article_id=5f47289d59c786e1f07c3eb69707b8a4
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:14 AM
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, cheap labor pimp (Pat Buchanan, Meet The Press)
Rep. Luis Gutierrez, Democrat from Illinois, debated the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill and illegal immigration with Pat Buchanan on today's Meet the Press (transcript link). It cast Pitchfork Pat in the role of the defender of the American workingman, with Gutierrez in the role of the Wall Street Journal-style cheap labor pimp. Not only that, he supported foreigners working in unsafe conditions that wouldn't be acceptable if they were performed by Americans:
The fact is that [illegal aliens] do jobs. Every time you go to the grocery store and you get grapes, any agricultural... product, we know who is in those pesticide-ridden fields across this country... ...and, many times, inhumane conditions... ..picking the fruits and the crops that are necessary and vital to our economy, doing the kinds of work that, that truly other Americans won't do... [later] ...But I suggest to you that I want to keep the vast majority of them that do the kinds of labor that sweat and toil and that make America a better place for all of us to live in.
Rather than trying to end working in "pesticide-ridden fields" as liberals of the past would have done, Gutierrez takes steps that will allow such abuses to continue. And, rather than supporting offshoring or automating inefficient, 19th century "industries" such as strawberry production, he wants to help those "industries" out.
In addition to cribbing the "jobs Americans won't do" line from Bush and Chertoff, he swiped another trick: playing the "why aren't you offering a civil discourse" game:
You know, the tone and the texture of the debate that Pat has brought here to MEET THE PRESS is really what is wrong with this debate. We need to have a debate that doesn't chastise people, that doesn't criminalize people, that doesn't cast a shadow over everyone. The fact is, the vast majority - the vast, the overwhelming majority of immigrants who come here to this country come here to work hard...
That followed this not necessarily controversial Buchanan statement:
But if she walks across the border, as many of them do. I think something like two thirds of the babies in Los Angeles born, women come into the country, cross the border, they have a baby, the baby's an anchor baby, entitled to a lifetime of social welfare benefits and citizenship. That's not what citizenship should mean in our country.
I haven't been able to determine whether his statistic is correct, but Gutierrez wasn't raising that as an issue. Then, Gutierrez plays the demographic hegemony card, conflating illegal immigration with all Hispanics and even borrowing a line about the Vietnam Memorial from John McCain during the last GOP debate:
But Republicans are going to become a party of the past and irrelevant in national elections... ...and in the Congress of the United States... ...if we don't change the texture and the tone of this debate and stop blaming immigrants... ...and specifically Latinos for every ill that exists in this society... They are good contributors. They are faithful Americans... They die in Iraq. Their names are etched in the Vietnam Memorial, and to make us all be criminals, I just think is wrong, unfair, and it is what is going to cost the Republican Party dearly in the future.
Democrats might want to look inward and decide whether what Gutierrez in effect supports is consistent with their past goals.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:53 AM
Teddy Kennedy sings... en Espanol! (for the Senate amnesty)
Appearing on the Piolin radio show in support of immigration "reform", aka a massive amnesty for illegal aliens, Senator Teddy Kennedy broke into song... in Spanish.
Please distribute widely.
Related:
America empty boxed: Kennedy immigration press conference
UPDATE: I should have mentioned that this was played on KFI's John & Ken Show on Friday, and it was presented as a real clip and not a parody. Its authenticity is further shown by it appearing here, with this caption:
During an appearance on the wildly popular Piolín in the Morning radio show in Los Angeles, Sen. Ted Kennedy broke into lively rendition of "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes (Don't Give Up On Me)." They also discussed immigration reform.
That clip has a little more from the beginning.
I also posted this to FreeRepublic's news section on Friday, and it was quickly moved to the much less popular chat section (freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1854932/posts) and put in the "Music/Entertainment" topic rather than the "Crime/Corruption" topic where I'd originally placed it. Another thread that just mentioned that this had been played on John & Ken was immediately locked (freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854927/posts). Note that FR also deleted the post I made about Teddy's empty boxes (link above) because I linked to RawStory, which was the only site with a non-subscriber-only copy of the story. While both stories are basically trivial, it's these types of stories that have some salience and symbolism. I note also that the Youtube video has been stuck on 587 views for a few hours, when I'm pretty sure it's gotten several past that amount. That might just be a technical issue, since sometimes it takes them a while to update that value.
6/24 11:30AM UPDATE: Despite currently being the #22 most-linked video of the day, with over 1700 total links being shown, the view count is still stuck on the magic 587 figure.
Posted to Politics at 07:38 PM
7 to 10 more votes against cloture on Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill needed
According to this message from NumbersUSA, they think they have "solid commitments" from 32 Senators to vote no on cloture on the Bush/Senate massive illegal alien amnesty, but 41 no votes are needed.
They suggest contacting the following in order to try to get them to vote no:
Bond (R-Mo.)
Bingaman (D-N.M.)
Burr (R-N.C.)
Boxer (D-Calif.)
Cochran (R-Miss.)
Conrad (D-N.D.)
Ensign (R-Nev.)
Levin (D-Mich.)
Gregg (R-N.H.)
Nelson (D-Neb.)
Hatch (R-Utah)
Webb (D-Va.)
Posted to Immigration2007a at 05:20 PM
Clark Hoyt New York Times Public Editor: disingenuous, shill, hack
A couple weeks ago, Julia Preston of the New York Times offered "As Immigration Plan Folded, Grass Roots Roared". It included a picture of someone that - while he might be a great person - would be characterized by many New Yorkers as a toothless yokel. Their intent was clear: only hicks oppose the Senate illegal immigration amnesty. Compare, for instance, the photo at the last link with the one here:
Now, the new NYT Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, shows that he's even worse than his predecessors with the extraordinarily disingenuous "The Ugly Part Wasn't His Face". Rather than considering - or correctly characterizing - complaints made about the NYT's propaganda, he defends it. And, he does it in a sleazy, passive-aggressive way by accusing those who complained about the NYT story of stereotyping the photo subject.
However, the fact that he's a hack and a shill is revealed by his own comments. First, he relies on the protestations of innocence from NYT employees rather than, for instance, discussing the matter with John & Ken, the two Los Angeles talk show hosts who encouraged their listeners to send in their own photos (they aren't mentioned by name in the article). I guess if an NYT employee says it it must be true. Then, there's this:
[I asked why the NYT would] choose to run a picture of a man missing a tooth when they had to know it could contribute to stereotypes about the kinds of people opposing the immigration bill.
What stereotypes? Outside of Manhattan, the Westside of Los Angeles, and the Beltway, are there large numbers of people who believe in or try to promulgate such stereotypes? By admitting that some hold such a view, isn't Hoyt more or less admitting guilt?
More on the "perhaps" side of things, Grassfire.org is described as a "conservative citizens' coalition". What other organizations (besides Conservatives of Kern County) have similiar initials? Is Hoyt speaking in code?
Then, there's this ludicrous statement:
He came to the attention of The Times because Julia Preston, a reporter whose beat is immigration, believed that his side of the story wasn't being reflected enough in Times coverage of the bill.
Even if the NYT ran a hundred non-biased immigration articles, it wouldn't begin to make amends for all the pieces by Nina Bernstein, Samuel Freedman, David Brooks and all the rest. Certainly, anyone who's familiar with the NYT's coverage of this issue realizes just how disingenuous his statement is.
UPDATE: From this:
Clark Hoyt has now pubished three columns about the Times' behavior, and in each instance, has given the Times a perfect bill of reportial health... Hoyt is the perfect stooge for the Times. He is, to steal from Lenin, a Useful Mediocrity...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:51 PM
Innovation, not serf labor: growers fund fruit picking robot
From this:Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.At first, they wondered whether such a machine was possible. Then, they got the bright idea to use two robots: one to locate the fruit, and another to determine the best way to pick the pre-located fruit. The California Citrus Research Board will spend about $1 million on this, with a projected cost of $5 million to get to a finished product. Obviously, that's an extremely small amount compared to some of the figures involved in legalizing millions of illegal aliens, not to mention the non-financial costs.
The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are "very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future," says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa.
Related:
"In Florida Groves, Cheap Labor Means Machines"
Posted to Immigration2007a at 11:23 AM
CNN/Youtube debates: tough questions for Hillary, Obama
As previously discussed, CNN and Youtube are soliciting questions for their upcoming Democratic debate. My entry is a question for Hillary Clinton concerning her support for the anti-American DREAM Act.
Unfortunately, a glance through the other entries reveals only one other person who asks similar questions, and he's got some questions for Hillary and Obama. Certainly, I might have missed a tough question here or there since I didn't look at all the videos, but the ones I did watch were basically just a chance for candidates to launch into their talking points. Hopefully others will submit questions that will actually put the candidates on the spot.
And, of course, in the meantime please go to campaing appearances, ask tough questions, and publicize the response.
Related:
A tough question for John McCain
Questions for John Edwards
Posted to Politics at 11:17 AM
Stopped calendar: Bill Richardson wants to be frank with Mexico
As long as you don't look at the year, a calendar stuck on February 31 is almost close to being on the right track every four years. Bill Richardson is a lot like that, saying yesterday at a town hall meeting in Phoenix that we should tell our friends to the south:
"Hey Mexico, why don't you help your people and do something to give them jobs. Maybe we will do something with you to help create jobs at the border. Maybe joint projects, but at the very least don't give people maps in the easiest areas to cross."
He said some other standard things as well, but, needless to say, CNN Assignment Editor Marissa Muller didn't call him on those stock talking points.
Posted to Politics at 12:13 AM
Bush representative posted to FreeRepublic (overt propaganda)
Back on the 14th, Nicholas Thompson of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives posted a comment on a FreeRepublic post, as described here. In two previous posts I've discussed the very strange circumstances associated with published reports describing how the White House has been reaching out to blogs. So far, no one else to my knowledge has investigated or even shown any interest in this matter, despite the possibility that the White House has done some of its outreach covertly.
As discussed at the second link, the NYT said that the WH had "posted defenses" on both conservative and liberal sites, yet I have so far been unable to find a single liberal site containing an overt defense. And, the Politco said that the WH had posted on a "wide range" of sites, yet so far the only possibilities I've found are FreeRepublic, RedState, Townhall, and The Corner.
Needless to say, those four sites are neither liberal nor would anyone consider that number a "wide range".
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:30 PM
Teddy Kennedy posts on immigration "reform"
I first saw the guest Hill post "Failure Not an Option on Immigration Bill (Sen. Edward Kennedy)" a few hours ago. Since it was only a couple sentences long, I immediately refreshed the page thinking everything hadn't loaded, but, oddly enough, that was it. I've now given it several hours for the rest to appear, and I am now safe in believing that this is the entire, no doubt Grand Marnier-soaked post:
Failure is not an option — our national security demands it. This is a tough, practical, fair bill.
Yes, that is, aside from the title, the entire post. We pay him to repeatedly sell out the U.S., and he can't even give us more than two sentences?
Why, that post is even more empty than the boxes he falsely claimed contained hundreds of thousands of letters in support of his bill.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:28 PM
Canadians, others to protest SPP meeting in August (oil, water reserves)
From this:Activists already are preparing to protest the third summit meeting of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America [scheduled for Aug. 20 and 21 in Montebello, Quebec, at the Fairmont Le Chateau Montebello resort], a trilateral initiative between the U.S., Canada and Mexico seen by critics as a major step toward a North American Union, according to WND columnist Jerome Corsi, author of a new book on the subject, "The Late Great USA."
...Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper is scheduled to host the Quebec summit, which will be attended by Mexican President Felipe Calderon and President Bush.
...The first SPP summit was held in Waco, Texas, March 23, 2005. The second took place in was held in Cancun, Mexico, in March 2006.
...The Council of Canadians held a March 30-April 1 "teach in" titled "Integrate This! Challenging the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America." A brochure on the Council of Canadians website says SPP "is moving Canada quickly toward a continental resource pact, a North American security perimeter and harmonized military and security policies."
...Canadian activists have argued a major goal of the CSIS study is to identify Canadian oil and fresh water as continental "North American natural resources" which, under SPP, could be diverted to U.S. cities without fair compensation to Canada.
Posted to NAU at 10:24 PM
Bryan Caplan/George Mason University: a true "economist" and "intellectual"
Bryan Caplan is an Associate Professor of Economics at George Mason University. His "thinking abilities" as well as his "economic" skills are on full display in the Economist guest post "Immigration Restrictions: A Solution in Search of a Problem". Let's take a look at this public "intellectual":
Every blogger I know tells me the same story: The fastest way to provoke angry comments is to post a kind word about immigration. In the blogosphere, as in real life, complaints about immigrants abound.
Of course, those complaints aren't usually about "immigrants" either in general or about "immigrants" personally. Usually, the complaints are about illegal immigration or large concentrations of illegal aliens, such as in our cities.
The funny thing, though, is that the complaints are diverse, but the cure is almost always the same: Cut immigration quotas, reinforce the border, and deport the illegals.
The last is, of course, quite close to - and probably meant as - the usual false choice offered between a massive amnesty and mass deportations.
Suppose, for example, that the complaint about immigrants is that "They take advantage of the welfare state." If that's the problem, the simplest solution is not the get rid of immigrants, but to make them ineligible for benefits. Make them pay the usual taxes, but make it clear that welfare, unemployment benefits, Medicare, Social Security, and the like are only for native-born citizens.
Yeah, what if. What if I could build a time machine? Wouldn't that be great? What people like Caplan are too ignorant to understand is that there's a great deal of pressure placed on local governments and even the federal government to continue such benefits. Some of that comes from racial power groups, others comes from corrupt businesses that enjoy corporatism. When Caplan does things such as offer false choices or conflates illegal and legal immigration he plays right into the hands of such groups. And, of course: no one wants to "get rid of immigrants".
What if the complaint is that immigrants endanger our political culture – in short, that they vote the wrong way? I'm sympathetic to this concern, but it's easy to tailor a solution: Don't let immigrants vote.
At this point, I'm laughing. It's easy to state such a supposed solution, it's not so easy to carry such a thing out. Unless we want think South Africa or Saudi Arabia are good American models.
In brief, Caplan is truly an "intellectual", and he's truly a top-tier "economist".
Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:43 PM
White House listening to pork producers, La Raza, Mexico-linked NALEO, NRA... just not you
The White House offers a PDF entitled "What They're Saying: Border Security And Immigration Reform Agreement" and subtitled 'Business And Agriculture Groups Say "It Is Critical That The Process Moves Forward"' (PDF) [1]. It's just a collection of quotes from press releases from those few groups that support the Bush/Senate massive illegal immigration amnesty, and it contains no accompaning text other than the titles.
As simply a collection of quotes, it's not that shocking. However, it's interesting that these are the special interest groups that the White House chooses to use to bolster their bill, rather than acknowledging the other 99.99% of Americans. And, at least two of the groups are certainly interesting. Let's lead with those two:
* National Association Of Latino Elected And Appointed Officials (has a link to the Mexican government)
* National Council Of La Raza President And CEO Janet Murguia (funds extremists)
* The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce
* National Restaurant Association
* Business Roundtable
* National Association Of Manufacturers
* National Federation Of Independent Business
* Essential Worker Immigration Coalition
* American Farm Bureau Federation President Bob Stallman
* Associated Builders And Contractors Chairman David Meyer
* National Milk Producers Federation President And CEO Jerry Kozak
* National Pork Producers Council President Jill Appell
* American Subcontractors Association President Stephen Rohrbach
* Agriculture Coalition For Immigration Reform
* American Health Care Association President And CEO Bruce Yarwood
* Poultry Federation President Marvin Childers
* Georgia Farm Bureau
* Tyson Foods, Inc.
* Western Growers President And CEO Tom Nassif
* Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano
* California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger
* National League Of Cities President And Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson
* Boston Mayor Thomas Menino
* MANA President And CEO Alma Morales Riojas
* U.S. Hispanic Chamber Of Commerce Board Of Directors Chairman David Lizarraga
* Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society
* Esperanza USA President Rev. Luis Cortes
[1] The PDF is described here: freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1854324/posts. It was posted to RedState by Robert Bluey, so it's probably for real. However, I've cached it locally to avoid linking to that site.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 09:10 PM
"Osama bin Laden May Have Chartered Saudi Flight Out of U.S. after 9/11"
From this:Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today released new documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") related to the "expeditious departure" of Saudi nationals, including members of the bin Laden family, from the United States following the 9/11 attacks. According to one of the formerly confidential documents, dated 9/21/2001, terrorist Osama bin Laden may have chartered one of the Saudi flights.
The document states: "ON 9/19/01, A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN…THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND."
...Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI's investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the "Bin Laden Family Flight"). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight...
Posted to Terrorism at 04:09 PM
Diana Chi: have you no shame? (Some will dare call it treason)
MSNBC has recently released a list of some journalists who've made political contributions. Shockingly, 1 out of 9 of them have donated to Republicans or conservatives. Let's take a look at these people that I - at least - shall dare call traitors.
There are the expected reactionaries: Joe Scarborough, a couple Forbes editors, and a Bill O'Reilly producer.
However, there are some others we might not suspect, such as 19 year old Diana Chi, a so-called "news writer" at KTLA right here in Los Angeles. She's donated $8,025 to the Republican National Committee... since she was 14! Clearly, these must have been sham transactions. Either that, or she was brainwashed at an early age.
Perhaps even more shocking are the contributions from Rafael Roman, a Thirteen/WNET host ("New York Voices"). Instead of, for instance, donating to The Nation or ANSWER as you might expect from a PBS host in New York City, he gave $250 to Bush in 2004.
Moles don't just live in gardens, they live in the very heart of our most cherished edifices.
Moles also seek to subvert our cherished culture: Charles Perry, food writer for the Los Angeles Times, gave to the RNC. Washington Post film critic Stephen Hunter gave to the NRCC. Robin Gaby Fisher, feature writer for Newark's Star-Ledger, gave to both Bush and the RNC. Harry Broertjes, a "copy editor/page designer" for the Miami Herald is a serial offender, donating to both Bush and the RNC. Reactionaries to the south of me: San Diego Union-Tribune graphic artist Joe Cline gave to the RNC, as did Barbara Bradley, fashion editor of Memphis' Commercial Appeal. Even Beth Hudson, a self-descript "sports reporter" with Allentown's beloved Morning Call gave to the RNC.
There are other moles, covert agents, Fifth Columnists, and other traitors listed... but even more importantly there are many yet to be uncovered.
Posted to WackyHumor at 04:03 PM
Interests writ tiny: Nina Zagat, Tim Zagat want influx of Chinese chefs
Is the New York Times guest editorial "Eating Beyond Sichuan" by Nina Zagat and Tim Zagat - co-founders of the Zagat restaurant survey - a joke? I think it's a joke, but maybe I'm not educated enough. Let's find out:
If Henry Kissinger could practice "Ping-Pong diplomacy," perhaps Condoleezza Rice could try her hand at "dumpling diplomacy"? China and the United States should work together on a culinary visa program that makes it easier for Chinese chefs to come here. With more chefs who are schooled in China’s dynamic new restaurant scene, we would see a transformation of the way Chinese food is served in this country.
Yes, I'm pretty sure it's a joke. Either that, or they're very very confused about immigration matters and think that anyone beyond them and a few others have any concern about their pressing issue at all. Of course, perhaps Chuck Schumer could take up their cause and provide an amendment to the Senate's massive illegal alien amnesty bill specifically mentioned amnestying illegal aliens who can pass a culinary exam.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 04:02 PM
Harry Reid revives Senate amnesty bill; "clay pigeon"
From this:Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid introduced an updated immigration bill Monday, launching one more attempt to conclude debate on the contentious issue and approve the measure in the Senate before Congress breaks for the 4th of July holiday.
...Revived as new legislation, the redrafted immigration bill reflects the substance of the 14 Democratic and 13 Republican amendments approved during the first two weeks of Senate debate, including a phaseout of the temporary guest worker program.
The new bill also includes a proposal by Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to establish a $4.4 billion fund, paid for by fees and fines collected from undocumented immigrants, exclusively for financing border security.
...Though senators and advocates supporting reform are being careful to avoid calling any measure a "poison pill," the list appears to be problematic enough that Senate leaders are at least considering employing the rare tactic of packaging amendments to avoid losing critical support and votes.
Under the procedure, Reid would introduce a single, 22-part amendment, divisible into component parts for debate. Known as a "clay pigeon," it would offer the bill's supporters a means of staging the debate more or less free from interference, with the objective of keeping enough senators together to maintain the 60 votes needed to thwart a filibuster.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:20 PM
Environmentalists: Illegal aliens burning down Coronado National Forest
From this:U.S. Border Patrol agents seeking to secure the nation's border in some of the country's most pristine national forests are being targeted by illegal aliens, who are using intentionally set fires to burn agents out of observation posts and patrol routes.The response to this from many or most environmental groups would no doubt be similar to that from the Defenders of Wildlife in a related matter: blame the U.S. for not having an open border. Then, some of those same groups would go on to cash checks from those who support massive immigration. In fact, if anyone ever spots a single major environmental organization trying to reduce illegal immigration through border control in order to prevent the borderlands from being trashed, let me know.
The wildfires also have resulted in the destruction of valuable natural and cultural resources in the National Forest System and pose an ongoing threat to visitors, residents and responding firefighters, according to federal law enforcement authorities and others.
In the Coronado National Forest in Arizona, with 60 miles of land along the U.S.-Mexico border, U.S. Forest Service firefighters sent in to battle fires or clear wild land fire areas are required to be escorted by armed law enforcement officers...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:10 PM
America empty boxed: Kennedy immigration press conference
An old scam is to sell someone something and then to send them a box full of bricks or even an empty box. Along those lines, Ron Brynaert of RawStory finally has a story with which I don't disagree:Lawmakers were pointing to "empty boxes" at a press conference last Thursday, a Capitol Hill newspaper reports.On a sidenote, I tried to post this to FreeRepublic, but I got the message "RawStory not welcome" when I put the URL above in the URL field. So, I removed that URL and put it in the body of the entry. It posted OK, but the thread was pulled immediately with the same message. Hopefully others will not be so dunderheaded; while this is a very minor story if promoted it could help further demonstrate what "reform" is all about. Hearts, minds, and symbolism, you know.
"At a pro-immigration rally Thursday, a group of politicians including Sens. Mel Martinez (R-Fla.), Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) and Rep. Joe Baca (D-Calif.) addressed reporters while picturesquely standing in front of an impressive tower of boxes they said contained letters from a million supporters of comprehensive immigration reform," Emily Heil reports for Roll Call's 'Heard on the Hill.'
According to a press release, the letters were part of the "Por la Reforma Migratoria con Piolín" campaign launched by Univision radio personality Eddie 'Piolín' Sotelo, and was touted as marking "the first time that a letter writing campaign has generated such a large number of letters in support of immigration reform."
"As the Members repeatedly referred to the letters and gestured toward the boxes allegedly containing them as evidence of the support for the immigration bill that is struggling in the Senate, a crack Roll Call photographer on hand at the event began to grow suspicious," Heil continues. "He could see light shining through the handles of the boxes, indicating that they weren't full."
Lindsey Graham: opposition to amnesty like anti-Semitism, anti-Catholic bigotry
Senator Lindsey Graham was interviewed by George Stephanapolous on Sunday and said lots of interesting things (link, via this).
Near the end, he says this about the opposition to the Senate's massive illegal alien amnesty:
We've been down this road before: no Catholics, no Jews, Irish need not apply
He also said that Republicans should realize that the Senate's bill is the "best [they're] going to get". He also blackmailed the U.S., claiming that if "reform" isn't passed "the 12 million [illegal aliens] become 20 million... the borders continue to be broken". Of course, that would not happen if our laws were enforced.
He also wondered whether we're "going to let the union halls and the talk radio take over this debate".
He also said the following which, were he not on Teddy Kennedy's side might have resulted in outraged leftists:
our culture is under attack... we're not going to give our culture away [under the bill]...
And, finally, he made an outrageous lie:
[the bill says to "illegals"] you stay here on our terms
Obviously, the bill caves in to illegal aliens and validates their attempts to make shows of force across the U.S. by marching in our streets. Of course, he's not the first person to try to sell a massive capitulation as a victory.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 12:53 PM
CNN/Youtube debates: user video submissions
Youtube wants their users to submit videos with questions for the upcoming Democratic debate to be held on CNN on July 23rd and moderated by fluffball Anderson Cooper. I just watched a few of the current submissions, and boy is my spirit tired.
While one of them features the attractive "Resident", and at least two of them involve illegal immigration (1,2) all of the ones I looked at are questions that will make the candidates very happy, because they'll simply be able to go into their talking points playback mode. There is one somewhat funny one with an interesting question, and another with a question that either tries to be funny or is sad, and another asking whether Bill will be the real president.
However, none of the questions attempt to call the politicians on what they have stated or supported, and none of them attempt to make them defend their policies. I'll be repurposing a couple of my longer videos to fit under the 30 seconds running time, but I suspect that - even if they're allowed into the contest - they won't be asked because, well, "boxers or briefs" is so much more entertaining and easier to answer, right?
LIGHT A CANDLE UPDATE: Here's my entry in their contest. It's a cut-down version of the other video from me that you might have seen concerning Hillary Clinton's support for the DREAM Act. It's currently at #74 on their list of contest entries, although I think my neighbor in the list might attract more views.
Posted to Politics at 11:08 AM
Harry Reid: unprecedented trick to pass illegal immigration amnesty?
Via this we find this description from a "knowledgeable Senate source" as to the procedure Harry Reid might use to push through amnesty. After a few days of "ripening",
we expect Reid - with the help and support of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers - to do something that we believe has never been done in the history of the Senate... he will use an arcane Senate procedure that allows a single amendment to be divisible into many - in this case, into the 20-odd amendments the Grand Bargainers are trying to cobble together to keep 60 votes in support of the bill. Traditionally, that amendment has been used to protect minority rights - but in this case, it will be used to PREVENT the minority from getting additional amendments called up and from being able to fully debate the amendments in question. It is, to our knowledge, unprecedented... If Reid does this, with the help of certain Republican leadership and the Grand Bargainers, they will shut off the ability of Senators with concerns of the bill to offer additional amendments and to debate the amendments in question.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:50 PM
A tough question for John McCain (let's block amnesty)
If you want to block an illegal alien amnesty, calling Congress is only going to go so far; many of our elected officials just aren't listening. That doesn't mean you shouldn't call, but an additional, even more effective way is to go to campaign appearances and ask tough questions, and then publicize the response. The goal is to discredit politicians and have an impact on their careers. That's something that will get their attention.
Here's one possible question for John McCain:
Senator McCain: You've previously stated that not passing some form of illegal alien legalization could lead to civil disturbances [1] such as have occurred in Paris. Who's responsible for putting the U.S. in such an extremely dangerous situation? (Pointing at McCain while saying the last part is optional).
Alternative second sentence:
Shouldn't elected officials have prevented such an extremely dangerous situation from developing in the first place?
Or:
If president Bush had done his job and enforced the immigration laws across the board [2], and if Congress had done its job and made sure the president was enforcing the laws, would the U.S. be in such an extremely dangerous situation?
Here are some questions for John Edwards; at least one of those could be asked of McCain as well.
If you decide to go out and ask questions, have these footnotes handy on flyers to be passed out:
[1] McCain said the following on June 2, 2007 at a campaign stop in Mars, IA:
"In case you hadn't noticed, the thousands of people who have been relegated to ghettos have risen up and burned cars in France... They've got huge problems in France. They have tremendous problems. The police can't even go into certain areas in the suburbs of Paris. I don't want that in the suburbs of America."
[2] From this June 22, 2005 AP story:
Under the Clinton administration in 1999, federal officials formally notified 417 employers that they would be fined for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants or improperly completing employment verification forms... But only three employers received the notice of a fine in 2003, GAO auditors found... Similarly, immigration officials arrested 2,849 individuals at workplaces in 1999. By 2003, the GAO noted, the number of workplace arrests had fallen to 445. This is a trivial number compared with the roughly 5 million unauthorized workers now estimated to be in the United States.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:21 PM
Your road map towards understanding "liberals"
I kid, I kid.
Posted to WackyHumor at 01:49 PM
Randal Archibold fails to note Peter Schey Mexico links (+MAPA)
In an article about the Dreams Across America tour, Randal C. Archibold of the New York Times ("With Immigration Bill Stalled, Advocates Push Forward") says:
"Nothing will be worse in terms of the millions of individuals and families that will be criminalized in perpetuity by the proposed Senate legislation," said lawyers for the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, an advocacy group, in a statement.
What Randal forgot to tell you is that that group is collaborating with the Mexican government as described at the link, and either through the organization or through Schey has other links to that government as well.
However, it doesn't appear that Schey's quote is related to the Crazy Train. In fact, it comes from a June 7, 2007 letter from Nativo Lopez' Mexican American Political Association (lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/06/mapa_analysis_o.html) concerning the Senate bill and not mentioning the train trip.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:12 PM
Dreams Across America: all aboard the pro-illegal immigration train
"Dreams Across America" [1] is the latest stunt from supporters of a massive illegal alien amnesty, consisting of about 100 people taking a train Washington DC to lobby for "reform". You can read the MSM's take here.
They have at least one minor, indirect link to the Mexican government: when they arrive in DC they "will join hundreds of immigrant children and their families at an event organized by the Fair Immigration Reform Movement" [2]. One of the latter's member groups is the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights, headed by the Mexico-linked Juan Salgado.
However, in a deft move, it appears that all of those on the train are either native-born or naturalized citizens rather than illegal aliens as was the case with 2003's "Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride". That is, needless to say, simply a ploy: what they support involves giving illegal aliens amnesty; any additional rights for legal immigrants are a minor part of what they want.
In addition to the fun vacation, they're also sharing their heart-warming stories in a series of web videos. There certainly aren't enough heart-warming stories about struggling immigrants in the MSM, right?
And, in another move indicating that they continue to learn how to hide what they really want, not all the videos are from Hispanics. One of the videos even features "Rusty Hicks tell[ing] the story of his migration from Texas to Los Angeles" [3]. Such internal migration is hardly any different from someone sneaking across the border and then buying fake documentation to work here illegally, right?
And, in an ironic twist, one of the participants appears to be a beneficiary of the 1986 amnesty.
One of the movers behind the current group is the Catholic Church including the "Pedophile Protector" himself, Cardinal Roger Mahoney. Another is sol-california.com, which appears to be a pan-union effort with board members from the AFL-CIO (Maria Elena Durazo), SEIU Local 1877 (Mike Garcia), President, SEIU United Healthcare Workers - West (Sal Roselli), and UNTIE HERE State Political Director Jack Gribbon. Contact persons for SOL are Javier Gonzalez and Elda Martinez.
Another person involved is HuffPost contributor and former Howard Dean CA chair Rick Jacobs; he heads the "Courage Campaign" [4]. The CC has some interesting indirect links to George Soros [5]; whether they have direct links isn't known. For some reason the CC's Youtube icon [6] is of Fabian Nunez. Their most-watched video only has about 1300 views (thanks largely to Crooks and Liars): youtube.com/watch?v=qs63p3_IdNs . It features a landscaper (Cathy Gurney) whining about not being able to find labor. While I don't endorse the words used in the following comment left on that video, the underlying spirit is accurate:
this bitch is a liar....she cant get legal employees because she wont offer a living wage...she is the epitomy of the evil employer....booohooohooo...i cant find legal employees....hey cathy, offer 20 bux an hour and legal employees will come out of the woodwork
[1] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org
[2] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org/dreamtrain/about
[3] dreamsacrossamericaonline.org/story/video/2007/06/11/rusty-hicks
[4] couragecampaign.org/pages/who_we_are
[5] Their "partners" include: MoveOn.org, Democracy For America (both Soros linked), New Progressive Coalition, Powerpac.org, CalPIRG, California Nurses Association, Common Cause, Brave New Films and Progressive Majority.
[6] youtube.com/profile?user=CourageCampaign
Posted to Immigration2007a at 07:39 PM
Fox: Harry Reid to revive Senate immigration amnesty next week
From this:Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will approve a new deal on immigration on Thursday and move to bring the once-dead legislation back to the Senate floor next week, Democratic sources told FOX News.
Details of the immigration compromise remain to be finalized, but top Democratic sources say Reid has closely monitored the behind-the-scenes dickering over policy changes and a finite list of amendments due for consideration. Based on the latest updates on the policy and amendments, Reid will approve the compromise and move late Thursday to put the bill back on the calendar for Senate consideration in the middle of next week.
"He's going to bless it and he's going to get the Senate back in the business of dealing with immigration," said a source in the Democratic Senate leadership...
Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:51 PM
Bush upbeat; $4bil for border security; amendments probably just ploy
Bush is still upbeat and thinking positively about the possibility of the Senate illegal immigration amnesty bill passing. And, in fact, this morning he said he wants to spend $4.4 billion on border security. Unlike the supplemental proposal which would be spent even if the bill doesn't pass, this would be part of the "comprehensive" solution and would only be spent if the bill passes. On a fantastic note:
The $4.4 billion would be spent immediately and then repaid out of fees and fines collected through the path to citizenship program and the guest-worker program, Mr. Snow said. He did not know where the money would originally come from.
And, Sen. Trent Lott is publicly saying that any amendments that are added to the bill don't really matter: they'll get stripped out in committee. So, bear in mind that any "tough" amendments may simply be ploys or at least may never be in the final bill:
Senate Minority Whip Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said those amendments will simply disappear when the House and Senate go to conference. "No big deal -- you pitch those before you get to the Rotunda," he said.
A similar point is made by an apparent Senate source here:
My source also noted that the cloture vote to end debate will be the "real" vote on the bill because if debate is closed off, the bill is sure to pass. Then, what will happen is that the votes for the bill will be counted, and a few Senators who are afraid that their election prospects will be jeopardized by a "yes" vote, will be allowed to vote against the bill. This enables those Senators to tell their constituents that they voted against the bill, but it will still allow them to collect campaign contributions from lobbyists who have a better understanding of how things work, and know that the bill couldn't have been passed without their support. Put another way, they get to reap the rewards of supporting amnesty while telling the voters in their home states that they opposed the bill.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:27 AM
Unreanimate: Only 20% want Senate amnesty bill revived (Rasmussen)
Here are the results of the latest Rasmussen poll asking "Should Senate Try and Pass the Same Immigration Bill Again?"
* Try and Pass Same Bill Again: 20%
* Take Smaller Steps Towards Reform: 51%
* Wait Until Next Year: 16%
Senior GOP senators are embracing an eleventh-hour plan to pass an emergency supplemental bill for more border security money as a strategy to win over Republicans who have balked at the bipartisan immigration bill languishing in the Senate...
I suggest keeping up the phone calls and - even more importantly - get out there and discredit some politicians.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:25 PM
Raul Grijalva wants to secure border ecologically soundly (Defenders of Wildlife)
From a Defenders of Wildlife press release (link):Congressman Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) yesterday introduced a bill in the House of Representatives that would secure America's border with Mexico while reducing the negative impact on local communities and resources, including national parks, wildlife refuges and monuments that are home to several critically endangered species. H.R.2593, the Borderlands Conservation and Security Act of 2007, would amend existing immigration and border security laws, including the recently-passed Secure Fence Act and REAL ID Act, to help alleviate the devastating impacts of undocumented immigration and border enforcement activities on public lands, wildlife and borderland communities...It seems like you can't turn around these days without bumping into someone who wants to secure the border. What's that you say, I really should put that in scare quotes? OK, Raul Grijalva wants to "secure the border". Now, it all makes sense.
These are the supposed bill provisions:
* Provides the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the ability to decide whether fences, vehicle barriers or virtual fences would be most effective in securing the border.Raul Grijalva is not just a former member of the racial separatist group MEChA, he's proud of having been a member. He also appeared with the Mexican government-linked Derechos Humanos at a forum last year.
* Gives land management agencies, Native American tribes and local communities a voice in border construction decisions.
* Requires compliance with laws meant to protect the air, water, wildlife, culture and the health and safety of people in borderland communities.
* Funds initiatives that help mitigate damage to borderland wildlife and resources.
Likewise, some of the leaders of those "local communities" will probably be little more than Mexican partisans. And, the leadership of the DHS hasn't exactly shown an interest in enforcing our laws. And, consider this quote:
"The Border Patrol needs to follow the current (environmental) law, which right now they're ignoring," counters Jenny Neeley, southwest representative for Defenders of Wildlife, a conservation advocacy group, adding that "the damage is being caused by border policy." Tougher border enforcement near portals such as San Diego and El Paso, she says, funnels traffic into more remote and environmentally sensitive regions...Obviously, DoW isn't exactly strong on the enforcement side of things either.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:01 PM
White House Senate bill outreach: just RedState, The Corner, and Townhall... or?
Continuing the post "Covert White House propaganda for Senate immigration amnesty bill?", we now learn this:The White House has done outreach to liberal religious and Hispanic groups and, at the suggestion of chief political strategist Karl Rove, made more use of the blogosphere on immigration than it has on any issue since President Bush took office, aides said...However, the only sites mentioned in the article are RedState and The Corner, and a search for the two aides' names through technorati and a google blog search doesn't turn up much I could see except references to those two sites. That's especially odd, since the NYT said that the White House said they'd been "posting defenses" on liberal sites, and one would think that the latter would be up in arms. And, of course, two or three sites is not a "wide range".
...Aides said it was Rove's idea to focus on blogs. After vetting by policy experts, responses have been posted on a wide range of blogs under the names of Kerrie Rushton and Nicholas Thompson, both associate directors in the Office of Strategic Initiatives, which falls under Rove's domain.
"We had to be nimble," said White House Communications Director Kevin Sullivan, who is coordinating the administration's public relations strategy. "The idea was to not let inaccurate or misleading statements become part of the conventional wisdom."
Unless, of course, there are other sites where they aren't using their real names and disclosing their affiliation. And, it would also be interesting to find out what communication they've had with, just as an example, those bloggers who remain administration stalwarts or at least are encouraging their readers to keep an open mind. It would seem that any such communication would be part of the public record and obtainable through an FOIA request.
UPDATE: To make this clearer, the first link in this post links to a June 3 New York Times article that contained this:
White House officials said [the backlash to their amnesty plan] had led them to engage the blogosphere in a concerted way for the first time, posting defenses on liberal and conservative sites.Yet, as discussed above I've only seen three possible sites where they've posted defenses, none of them liberal sites. And, if they've been overtly posting defenses on such sites, I'd imagine I would have heard about it. Obviously, both the NYT ("liberal sites") and the Politico ("a wide range of blogs") could have made similar mistakes. Or, something else might be going on. This is, of course, just speculation, but it would be great if someone would look into it.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 02:38 PM
Why Donald J. Boudreaux, George Mason University, is a fool
Becky Akers ("writing a book about the Transportation Security Administration") and Donald J. Boudreaux ("chairman of the economics department at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.") offer the hilariously sad (literally) open borders screed "Why restrict immigration at all?/The Constitution and the laws of economics compel us to welcome all immigrants." (link)
While it would be possible to demolish every point they try to make, let's just take a look at the last section, which is called "Illegal immigration: a false concept":
Laws labeling some people legal and others illegal aren't just divisive, they're unconstitutional... Defending America's integrity doesn't mean more rules and stronger walls; it means seeing foreigners as free agents with all the dignity and autonomy we demand for ourselves... Quota-wielding bureaucrats should not define the country's demographic destiny. It's time to let the free choices of millions of individuals determine America's complexion.
Playing the race card is the least of their sins. The greater sin is that - like pacifistic tribes who end up being another tribe's lunch - they have absolutely no clue how the world works. If we followed their advice, stronger, more cohesive countries such as China would take advantage of their foolishness to send us people in order to obtain power inside the U.S. Their proposal would allow other countries to colonize parts of the U.S. and obtain effective co-dominion or worse. No one should take anything either says seriously.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:40 AM
welcometousa.gov: the U.S. commodified and reduced to a possible convention location
Emilio Gonzalez, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has announced welcometousa.gov:The administration launched a new Web site to be a central clearinghouse of federal information that may be useful to immigrants. The site provides a range of information including a link to help immigrants find English classes and steers them to providing tips on building a resume and finding a job.While the front page of the site says "[a]s a permanent resident, you have made the decision to call the United States your home", I would not be surprised to learn that some parts of the site don't assume that "permanent resident" is just a shortened version of "legal permanent resident", but includes any resident.
Administration officials also said they are going to try to use the site to enlist people to volunteer to assist immigrants and to enlist immigrants for volunteer work in their communities.
Also, the administration is hoping to provide libraries, adult educators and community groups with training and resources to teach civics and citizenship classes.
I also find the site disturbingly similar to generic Chamber of Commerce sites promoting people to relocate to Dubuque, Milwaukee, or Piscataway, or to convention sites such as choosechicago.com or lacclink.com, with George Bush as the president of the local Chamber of Commerce. Such commodification of the U.S. is probably not that jarring to a committed globalist like Our Leader.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 10:29 AM
Pollaganda: LAT says 63% support "path to citizenship"
Ah, pollaganda. Janet Hook screams "Large majority supports path to citizenship" about a new LAT/Bloomberg poll (link). Not only is that highly misleading, the Los Angeles Times is... wait for it... acting as a cheerleader for Bush:
Only 23% of adults surveyed opposed allowing undocumented immigrants to gain legal status. That finding bolsters the view, shared by President Bush, that the bill's opponents represent a vocal minority whereas most people are more welcoming toward illegal immigrants.
Now, let's take a look at the questions that were asked (PDF at first link):
Q50. One proposal would allow undocumented immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?
I don't know which proposal that refers to, but it's not the Bush/Senate plan. That would give virtually every illegal alien who'd been here since January probationary status and almost all of those would then go ahead to get on the "path to citizenship". The previous Senate bill had different plans for those who'd been here varying amounts of time, but not so with with current Senate bill. And, of course, "a number of years" is extremely vague; did they mean 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Whatever they meant, "a number of years" isn't the same as "before this January". And, they don't have to actually learn English, they only have to sign up. And, just because someone doesn't have a criminal record doesn't mean that they haven't committed crimes such as identity theft. And, of course, "undocumented immigrants" is so much more of a comfy phrase than the legally accurate "illegal aliens".
Q51. One proposal is to create a "guest worker" program that would give a temporary visa to non-citizens who want to work legally in the United States. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?
As discussed here many times, those "guests" would be here permanently, either as permanent temporaries, or as former "guests" who would eventually be put on the "path to citizenship".
Bottom line: the Los Angeles Times is lying to you.
UPDATE: Heidi Przybyla of Bloomberg offers the falsely-titled "Most Americans Back Stalled Senate Immigration Bill, Poll Shows". It leads with a false statement:
Most Americans support central elements of the legislation overhauling U.S. immigration laws the Senate shelved last week after it failed to gain sufficient support from lawmakers.
That isn't just misleading, it's a lie for the reasons outlined above.
Steven E. Landsburg is a complete idiot
Steven E. Landsburg (armchair *at* troi.cc.rochester.edu) is apparently an "economist" who writes the Everyday Economics column for Slate magazine. His latest is called "How much is an immigrant's life worth, exactly?" Read an excerpt and a partial discussion here, and the following is adapted from a comment I left at Slate's Fray:
---
Obviously, it's extremely sleazy for him to use loaded phrases such as "three-fifths of a full-fledged citizen" and his reference to hunting Mexicans. But, let's ignore all that and concentrate on how his economic analysis is at the grade school level.
Landsburg completely fails to note other issues involved in this matter, such as the fact that there are billions of people poorer than Mexicans. He fails to ask what their lives are worth, implicitly assuming that there are only two countries on Earth.
He also completely fails to note the other economic issues involved in this matter, such as Robert Rector's estimated net retirement cost of $2.6 trillion if the Senate bill passes. How much would you have to save on lettuce to pay your share of that?
And, he also completely fails to note non-economic factors, such as massive immigration from Mexico leading to increased political power not only for far-left racial demagogues (e.g., Fabian Nunez, Gil Cedillo, Tony Villar), but also increased political power inside the U.S. for the Mexican government. In fact, many non-profit orgs in the U.S. have direct or indirect links to the Mexican government, including well-known orgs like the ACLU and the SPLC. Doesn't such a spectrum from useful idiots to Fifth Columnists have a price?
What of increased political corruption? Massive illegal immigration is a strong indicator of political corruption, yet Landsburg left that out of his "analysis".
Like the title says: Steven E. Landsburg is a complete idiot.
Posted to Immigration2007a at 08:03 PM
David Brooks: only uneducated nativists oppose massive immigration
David Brooks shows that he's a complete tool:...What's shaping the immigration debate is something altogether deeper and more interesting. And if you want to understand what it is, start with education. Between 1960 and 1980, the share of Americans enrolled in higher education exploded. The U.S. became the first nation in history with a mass educated class. The members of this class differed from each other in a thousand ways, but they tended to share a cosmopolitan approach to the world. They celebrated cultural diversity and saw ethnocentrism as a sign of backwardness.UPDATE: His column is one of those self-evidently wrong things, but, in addition to the many comments, I nonetheless feel the need to point out:
...Liberal members of the educated class celebrated the cultural individualism of the 1960s. Conservative members celebrated the economic individualism of the 1980s. But they all celebrated individualism. They all valued diversity and embraced a sense of national identity that rested on openness and global integration.
...And if you want to predict which side a person is likely to be on, look at his or her educational level. That'll be your best clue.
As the sociologist Manuel Castells generalized, "Elites are cosmopolitan, people are local." People with university values favor intermingling. People with neighborhood values favor assimilation.
...It's not the '60s versus the '80s. It's - to mimic Mark Lilla - between the people who have absorbed both the '60s and the '80s, and everyone else.
It's between open, individualistic cosmopolitans and rooted nationalists. It's between those who ride the tides of the cultural mainstream and those so driven by marginalization that they're destroying the best compromise they will get.
1. The reason I bolded the first "cosmopolitan" is because it's a bit of a loaded word. Did he know that?
2. At the first link, I compared him to Tokyo Rose, and I hereby renounce that comparison as unfair (to her that is, since she was eventually pardoned).
3. Brooks is lumping all forms of immigration into one whole, yet almost every American would not object to moderate levels of legal immigration from a wide range of countries as long as those immigrating were not a danger - in any way - to the rest of us.
4. Safely sheltered in Manhattan, Brooks' idea of "immigration" is probably something along the lines of having as wide variety of take-out as possible.
5. Brooks is coming out against assimilation and favoring a form of multiculturalism that even most Canadians would oppose. Even Europe is starting to realize the dangers of such multiculturalism.
6. Like most other sheltered pundits, Brooks fails to note things like the Mexican government and racial demagogues obtaining political power and the delitirious impacts of that power.
7. And, the bottom line: Brooks is writing junk like this for the educated fools who subscribe to Times Select; the bigger question is what they intend to do about it. What tactics will those in his target audience who support massive legal or illegal immigration use to educate we the great unwashed?
Posted to Immigration2007a at 03:43 PM
WFMOJALI: New Haven's John DeStefano to file complaint over ICE raid
The fourth edition of WFMOJALI ("Working for Mexico, or just acts like it?") features New Haven, Connecticut mayor John DeStefano, who's affiliated with the former leader of an organization that's collaborating with the Mexican government. ICE recently conducted raids in that city, and now DeStefano says he'll file a complaint with the DHS (Department of Homeland Security):
He said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents failed to notify local authorities of the operation and lacked search warrants. "They pushed into home