Archives

This is a very large file. For the full smaller digest version, click here.

Wisconsin: Sen. Cathy Stepp's home surrounded by illegal immigration supporters

That state Senator offers the following letter:

Leaders of a Hispanic activist group known as Voces de la Frontera believe that in America, it is better to storm the home of an elected official and yell in their windows after dark to intimidate someone rather than to run for office to change policy.

On the evening of Friday, December 16th, a group of people advocating the issuing of drivers’ licenses to non-citizens appeared outside my windows yelling and attempting to intimidate me into voting against Assembly Bill 69...

See the many comments, one of which points out that "Voces" has a link to one Al Levie, a teacher at Horlick High School in Racine:

...Shortly thereafter, with financial assistance from Voces de la Frontera, Al, his wife Jennifer, Voces de la Frontera leader and longstanding community activist Maria Morales, and seven of the most active students traveled to Washington, D.C. The Center for Community Change organizedthree days ofactivities centering on the DREAM Act and Student Adjustment Act. These federal acts would offer undocumented students a pathway to citizenship, in-state tuition for college, and opportunities to apply for federal financial aid. Students trained in lobbying techniques and spent a daylobbying elected representatives.

They participated in a mock graduation ceremony at the U. S. Capitol and marched to the Department of Education todeliver lettershighlighting the fact that thousands of dreams were being denied because of lack of access to higher education. The Washington Post interviewed Xavier Marquez and Marylu Garcia and featured Xavier's picture on the front page the following day...

All of this is reminiscent of the "action" against Karl Rove: "Even more on the Karl Rove harassment". That involved a different group, "National Political Action", pulling a similar stunt in support of the same anti-American legislation. And, that involved school teachers as well and might have involved publicly-funded schoolbuses.

UPDATE: The other side responds:

This letter is to clarify that it was never the intention of the people who came to Senator Stepp's door to harass or intimidate her. In fact, four people came to her door. They were not yelling at her window; nor were they yelling about AB 69/SB334... Members of Voces de la Frontera were practicing the right of free expression and the right to petition a legislator. Politicians come knocking on our doors all the time, especially before elections. Does that mean we should call the police and threaten to pursue charges? An elected official has a duty to hear from and respond to constituents. The warm invitation for dialogue that was expressed at the public hearing was the basis of our decision to try to speak with Senator Stepp directly...

I fervently hope that Stepp pursues charges against these people.

Posted at 04:16 PM | Comments (1)

"Hatred and retaliation won't fix the migration problem"

Someone named Kelly Arthur Garrett is apparently an American reporter who lives in Mexico. She offers the titular piece, which starts with this:

What a sad commentary on the state of the migration policy debated when asimple call for bilateral cooperation loosens an avalanche of anti-Mexico vitriol from misguided Americans who confuse sword rattling with patriotism.

Then, she follows that with reading bits from the mail she received about an earlier column. While she apparently wants the reader to disagree with most of her epistlers, I'm having trouble doing so since most of them are completely right. Obviously, I could waste my time showing how most are indeed right, but instead I'll just provide this:

Here's the way two researchers put it two years ago: "Offering to work more closely with Mexico on trade and migration, the United States can press its neighbor both to adopt reforms that will help its workforce achieve parity in earning power and to develop common procedures and competencies in law enforcement, immigration policy, and defense. Perhaps integration may then come close to becoming a reality."

Is that a call to treason? Leftist propaganda? Hardly. That plea for bilateral migration cooperation is quoted from a report by the very architect of the conservative ideology that currently reigns in the United State — the Heritage Foundation.

Here's the report she's refering to. As you might have guessed, the "integration" refered to in the quote above is "continental integration", aka a sovereignty-sapping scheme to join the U.S., Canada, and Mexico together into an EU-style superstate. I'll leave it to the reader to determine whether simply calling for such a form of governance rises to the level of treason or not, or whether one would need to actually try to bring it about to meet the requirements of that most serious charge.

Posted at 10:35 AM | Comments (3)

AP/Arthur H. Rotstein: some of my best friends are Minutemen

The AP offers the biased report "Vigilante Anti-Immigration Group Gaining" about the Minuteman Project. A search shows that that's the original AP title, and not the one from Yahoo. (Fox calls it "Minuteman Project Gains Popularity", two AZ sources change it: KVOA, AZ Daily Sun, as do two ND sources: IN Forum, Grand Forks Herald. About 50 other sources have the same title as Yahoo.)

Obviously, the MMP don't call themselves "vigilantes"; it was Our Leader and others who came up with that. And, they aren't "anti-immigration", so the AP starts out with a lie. But, of course, that spirit continues:

The Minuteman Project was launched earlier this year amid fears that racist crackpots would rough up illegal immigrants trying to slip into this country.

Yes, but it would be helpful if the AP would tell us who was doing the fear-mongering: the "so-called" liberal media and far-left, pro-illegal immigration groups. Then, they inform us that that fear-mongering was wrong, and give us some good news:

And even critics of the movement acknowledge its participants are not all bigots or extremists.

Hey, I can play that game too: not all members of the MSM are far-left, anti-American propagandists. Then they quote a member of Morris Dees' Southern Poverty Law Center:

..."there are real strains of racism and anti-Semitism in this movement." Still, "the movement has attracted people who are not Klansmen or neo-Nazis."

Can I play again too? Not all members of the media are traitors.

While they do provide a quote from Dan Stein of FAIR, they also quote an Arizona sociologist to give us some "historical" background.

And, they end by giving us a few links to those mentioned in the story. Except, for one reason or another, the National Immigration Forum gets a link, but wasn't mentioned...

Posted at 06:33 AM | Comments (0)

Financial Times discovers dangers of massive illegal immigration

The Financial Times superficially reports that "LA's hidden economy threatens region". That's their take on the Milken Institute report discussed here in "Liberalism" caused Los Angeles' massive underground economy:

The findings, which added fuel to an already fierce debate about illegal immigration and revived talk about ways to make California more business-friendly, overshadowed the principal conclusion that the existing workforce is ill-equipped to man well-paid knowledge-based industries. So-called "informal" workers are most commonly found in catering, domestic service, the garment trade, construction and gardening. About 60 per cent are non-citizens, although not necessarily undocumented.

Noting the increased diversity and resilience of the economy, the study said Los Angeles had recovered strongly from recession and the loss of aerospace and financial services jobs in the 1990s. "The city also remains polarised between high-end and low-end jobs. It suffers from a workforce that is disproportionately unskilled."

...The city needed to offer better opportunities for immigrants and their children to attain higher educational standards, and generate initiatives such as loan guarantees to improve small businesses' access to capital. Its universities should also be better used to "seed" new businesses and ideas, and vocational training should focus on industries that are stable and offer good pay and growth prospects.

Improved education and training, seen by voters as the state's most urgent political issue, is the main policy platform adopted by Antonio Villaraigosa, Los Angeles mayor.

Once again: take care of illegal immigration, and this problem will take care of itself.

Posted at 03:01 AM | Comments (1)

Vicente Fox lectures America: don't forget immigrant roots

America's amigo, like our leader, has now become a parody, offering us the following canard:

"[The proposed wall on the Mexican border is] a very bad sign, which does not speak well of a country that is proud of being democratic, proud of being a country of immigrants... The vast majority of the population of the United States, when we look at their roots, are immigrants who have arrived from all over the world and who have constructed that great nation. That's why they can't deny who they are."

We are indeed a land of immigrants. Because of that, does that mean we have to let anyone come here and join us? Obviously not. Because if we did, we'd have a population larger than India in a decade or two.

So, Vicente, that's why we have immigration laws. See, we need to manage the flow of future immigrants. In order to make the best life for the descendents of past immigrants, we need to make sure that those who come here will be good for the country.

That's why we need to make sure that people who come here don't, for instance, think that our land rightfully belongs to some other country. And, we need to make sure that those who come here are going to be full Americans, and not just Mexicans who live in the U.S. Unfortunately, the Mexican government teaches its citizens that the U.S. southwest rightfully belongs to Mexico, and it does its level best to make sure that those "immigrants" it sends us stay true to their homeland. Now, surely, there are many Mexicans who emigrate here and give up allegiances to their former homeland. However, most of the illegal aliens who Mexico allows to come here do not fit that description.

So, Vicente, is there anyway you could look after your own citizens instead of sending them northward and then issuing pathetic pleas to emotionalism? Thanks.

Posted at 06:18 AM | Comments (2)

WaPo: immigration laws aren't being enforced, therefore they won't work

Michael A. Fletcher and Darryl Fears offer "Analysts: Crackdown Won't Halt Immigration". It includes quotes from a few people saying that enforcement alone won't work and we need a guest worker scheme. The "reporters" seem to be leading the reader to come to that same conclusion.

However, in the very same article, the "reporters" inform us that we aren't really doing enforcement:

Congress has passed laws to crack down on illegal immigration in the past -- most recently in 1996 -- but those efforts have met with little success, especially when it comes to holding employers accountable. In 1999, the government issued 417 notices of intent to fine employers for hiring undocumented workers. Last year, that number dropped to three, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office. Even when employers were caught hiring undocumented workers, the penalties typically have been minor, the GAO found.

Obviously, the problem is not that the laws don't work. The problem is that they are not enforced. Now, surely, most readers of this article will realize that, right? Why would the WaPo discredit itself like this?

And, enforcement used to work, back when it meant actual "enforcement" and before the WaPo and others redefined it to mean "enforcement on paper only". The problem now is that we have "enforcement", but because of political corruption the laws are ignored.

If the WaPo wanted to rise above its current rag status they'd point that out and indicate that the root cause is corruption and not that our laws don't work. And, they'd include historical data showing that, yes, indeed, enforcement works when it's actually carried out.

They also quote Steven A. Camarota, research director for the Center for Immigration Studies, but they don't indicate whether he agrees with their headline. In fact, I'd imagine that he'd say something similar to what I wrote above.

The solution to the illegal immigration crisis is to vote corrupt politicians out of office. At the same time, sources like the WaPo have to be completely discredited.

This is yet another of my small contributions in the latter effort, and I strongly encourage you to do whatever you can to help. For instance, please write ombudsman *at* washpost.com and let them know you know what they're up to.

Posted at 04:23 AM | Comments (1)

Immigration lawyer unsuccessfully pimps guest worker scheme at DU

"MemFromDem" claims to be an immigration lawyer, and in an anti-Lou Dobbs thread it tries to pimp the Kennedy-McCain guest worker scheme. "TahitiNut" takes it to task, complete with some shocking charts that I'll have to incorporate in future posts. And:

Suffice it to say that when the 'ownership society' invites and facilitates an invasion of cheap labor from a deliberately oppressed neighboring country it's an invasion in nearly a literal sense of warfare. To attack those raising the alarm as racists is the cheapest and most hypocritical of ploys. It's disgusting. But monarchs (and oligarchs) have always deployed cannon fodder against cannon fodder, haven't they? It's just another kind of war profiteering - class warfare.

Posted at 08:52 AM | Comments (0)

Class action lawsuit filed against California giving tuition discounts to illegal aliens

From a report that the SacBee misleadingly titles "Immigrant tuition law challenged":

Sparked by a former California congressman, a class-action lawsuit was filed Wednesday in Yolo County Superior Court challenging a state law allowing undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public universities.

Former U.S. Rep. Brian Bilbray, a San Diego Republican currently running for the vacated seat of Randy "Duke" Cunningham, initiated the suit by complaining after his children were charged out-of-state tuition at a community college after moving to California from Virginia.

Bilbray contends it is fundamentally unfair for his two adult children, Briana, 19, and Patrick, 20, to be charged the higher out-of-state rate while some undocumented immigrants are eligible for much lower tuition fees...

...The Attorney General's Office declined comment, saying it had not yet seen the suit. Ravi Poorsina, spokeswoman for the University of California, said the state law being challenged does not provide special treatment to undocumented immigrants because it provides the same benefits to out-of-state students who meet the criteria, such as students who attend a California boarding school while their family lives elsewhere.

Of the 1,339 UC students who received a tuition exemption under the statute in 2004-05, roughly 30 percent may have been undocumented immigrants, though precise figures are unavailable, Poorsina said.

If this fails on a technicality or because Poorsina's description of the statute fits the DHS's rules, then I guess one of the remaining options would perhaps be to try to get some state or federal agency to conduct an investigation of some kind which would lead to a charge of aiding and abetting illegal aliens. Of course, the chance of that happening is quite slim.

UPDATE: In the unlikely event that there's an investigation, perhaps it could start with Marshall "Mark" Drummond, chancellor of California Community Colleges. He told the L.A. Times:

"My job isn't to patrol the border. My job is to build healthy communities... Regardless of the merits of these folks coming here in the first place, the point is to me that they're here, they're residents of communities, they are successful graduates of California high schools, and I personally welcome them to study and learn in our community colleges and contribute back to their communities."

Posted at 04:08 PM | Comments (3)

Stop the trojan horse illegal alien amnesty

Your calls are needed immediately: Rep. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has added language to HR 4437 that supports adding a guest worker scheme to the final bill.

The "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005" will be voted on today, so please take a minute and call your Congressman immediately. Perhaps it would be best to scrap HR 4437 completely and start over, or at least suggest that they remove this pro-illegal alien amnesty language.

Please contact your rep here or just call 202-224-3121.

"The assurances that we had on this bill was that it would address our border security concerns," said Rep. Ed Royce, R-Calif., who made an impassioned statement Wednesday at a meeting of Republican members calling for the leaders to remove the language before the bill hits the floor. "Now the day before the vote we learn that there's a Trojan horse that's being attached by way of a guest worker program that we feel will lead to an amnesty."

...Royce said this new language was put into Sensenbrenner's amendment "because Jeff Flake and others who are enthusiasts for an open border position have tried to negotiate this into the final bill through subterfuge."

A spokesman for Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., said he wanted to wait and see whether the Rules Committee left his language in the bill before responding to Royce...

UPDATE: This page will be updated with the progress of the bill, and it has links to much more information. See also this or this.

UPDATE 2: Speaking on KFI, Rep. Tom Tancredo says that the Flake amendment has been removed, and that an amendment allowing for 700 miles of border fence has been inserted into the bill.

Posted at 10:10 AM | Comments (1)

Urgent action needed: strengthen HR 4437

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R-WI) has proposed H.R. 4437, aka the "Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005". It contains some strong provisions against illegal immigration and a (probably deliberately) weak provision or two. The last might indicate that this bill is actually a trojan horse designed to make massive illegal immigration legal and help pave the way for a guest worker scheme. And, some have speculated that this might be a sneaky attempt to get such an amnesty.

In that scenario, the House would pass this bill before the holidays and be able to go home and brag to their constituents that they'd done something about this crisis. But, the House and the Senate would then work together behind closed doors to add in a "guest" worker scheme. And, there's little that the pro-American House members could do about that.

However, the bill itself doesn't include a "guest" worker or "temporary" worker scheme. This would be a helpful bill, but only if its negative, trojan horse provisions were removed.

To solve both problems, please contact all your representatives and tell them to not only strengthen H.R. 4437 but that you will not only not vote for them but will refuse to donate to their parties if they pass any kind of a "guest" or "temporary" worker scheme.

The idea that this bill might be helpful is assisted by those on the other side. Mexico is not only opposed to the bill, they're encouraging their allies inside the U.S. to speak out about it.

Whether on Mexico's urging or just on their own, those opposed include the National Council of the Race (it's "appalling" and "mean-spirited"), MALDEF, LULAC, AILA, National Immigration Forum, the ACLU, and AZ Republic: Revisionist reform.

Just because those on the other side oppose the bill doesn't mean it's perfect, so please contact your representatives and urge them to do something about the trojan horse provisions.

UPDATE: People's Weekly World expresses their opposition.

Posted at 03:37 AM | Comments (18)

The Democratic Party of Hidalgo County and "armed resistance"

The post "Howard Dean to embarass self August 5 2005" discussed how the Democratic Party in Texas' Hidalgo County invited racists to speak at one of their meetings and even make threats against the Minuteman Project.

I recently noticed this August 2 post, which says it's an article that appeared in the Rio Grande Guardian:

Hidalgo County Democratic Party Chair Juan Maldonado has turned down the chance to appear on Fox News' O'Reilly Factor and CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight show. Fox and CNN wanted Maldonado to talk about plans by the Brown Berets to use physical force against supporters of the Minutemen Project, should the controversial border watch group decide to patrol in the Rio Grande Valley this October.

Maldonado said he would not appear on national TV because he believed talk about taking up armed struggle against the Minutemen was a ruse by Republican operatives designed to damage the image of the Democratic Party.

"I have rejected all offers to appear on national TV for now," Maldonado told the Guardian. "I think the whole thing with the Brown Berets was a plan by Republicans to get me to support or be linked with armed struggle. I have made it abundantly clear that I do not promote or condone violence and nor does my party."

Honestly, the last thing I was expecting was to have him call it a COINTELPRO-type attempt. I didn't buy his attempts to downplay this after the meeting, and I don't buy this rather creative attempt. It's too bad that (apparently) no one asked Mad Howie about this at the time.

Posted at 06:52 PM | Comments (0)

Dude from Slate visits border, discovers trash and other illegal immigration issues

Last week, Slate ran a three-parter from Judd Slivka entitled "How the Border Changed Us". It's not exactly pro-illegal immigration, but it's a standard "dude (as in the ranch) visits desert southwest for first time" piece. It concentrates on the trash left behind by crossers and their attempts to get water and lifts out of border residents. Oh, and it only uses the word "illegal" about trails and roads, not about entrants.

Posted at 02:32 PM | Comments (0)

79% of Texans think "government is not doing enough to stop illegal immigrants"

According to the Scripps Howard Texas Poll:

Seventy-nine percent say the government is not doing enough to stop illegal immigrants... The finding reflects a 10 point increase from February of 2004 and a 21-point hike from August of 2001. The survey included 1,000 Texas adults, and the poll has an overall margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The survey also shows that 86 percent believe that U.S. businesses are contributing to the surge of illegal immigration by hiring undocumented workers. A similar number - 83 percent - believe that businesses should identify and report undocumented immigrants.

...Eighty-four percent of Texans surveyed consider illegal immigration a serious problem, while 76 percent believe the number of unauthorized immigrants crossing into Texas has been increasing in recent years.

The survey, however, shows that Texans are split over proposed guest worker programs, including one by President Bush that would allow undocumented residents to stay in the country and work for several years in jobs bypassed by U.S. citizens. Fifty percent support the plan, compared with 42 percent who oppose and 8 percent who don't know.

The survey also shows that nearly half the Texans surveyed cast a skeptical view on the controversial Minutemen, citizen volunteers who patrol the border. Forty-nine percent oppose such efforts, while 47 percent approve.

Forty-nine percent believe undocumented workers take jobs that nobody wants, while 37 percent believe they take jobs from U.S. citizens...

Obviously, the poll isn't as nuanced as one would hope. Last year's results are in "Poll: Texans believe illegal immigration is a serious problem".

Posted at 11:04 AM | Comments (0)

Arizona Catholic Bishops support open borders

From this:

The bishops of Arizona are calling on Catholics to welcome immigrants into their parishes, whether documented or undocumented, and to work to reform the U.S. immigration laws in an effort to facilitate immigration and stem the growing number of migrant deaths at the U.S.-Mexico border...

How about working to reform Mexico's corrupt system? Isn't that the real way to solve this problem? (Along with not encouraging corruption here by making illegal immigration even worse.)

...They acknowledged "the legitimate strain of this crisis" on different aspects of society, but they reminded Catholics of their call "to live out the principles of global solidarity" and to defend the human dignity of the other...

...Catholic social teaching has consistently maintained that the goods of the earth belong to all people and that it is the right of the worker to migrate to sustain their family when they are unable to achieve a life of dignity in their own land, the bishops underlined...

Say what now? Private and state property has now been abolished? Perhaps we should tell that to Vatican City and start discussing how best to share all the real estate holdings of the Catholic Church.

...And while Catholic teaching recognizes that nations have the right to control their own borders and to regulate immigration, "this right is not absolute," said the bishops. Instead, they explained: "the needs of immigrants must be measured against the needs of the receiving countries, and that the rights of these nations must not be exaggerated to the point of denying access to needy people from other countries."

I wonder if these Bishops would write garbage like this if most of our "immigrants" were from Muslim countries and had no intention of ever converting.

And, if 10 million Muslims from Bangladesh showed up on our doorstep tomorrow, we couldn't deny them entry. According to their logic, we would have to admit anyone who comes here just as long as they're needy. Even if it's in the overall best interests of our country and their country that they stay at home, we have to let them in.

Perhaps all those African immigrants who are trying to storm Melilla could be sent to Vatican City.

Posted at 07:46 AM | Comments (5)

60 Minutes' guest worker propaganda

As previously discussed, Ed Bradley reported on illegal immigration on last night's 60 Minutes.

Taking a bit of a harsher tone than I did comes this annotated transcript.

Posted at 10:55 AM | Comments (0)

"No such thing as 'temporary workers'"

Michael S. Teitelbaum (a demographer at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation) and Philip L. Martin (professor of labor economics at the University of California at Davis) discuss "guest" worker schemes:

...Decades of experience with such temporary worker programs in high-wage liberal democracies worldwide show that neither the programs nor the migrants turned out to be genuinely "temporary."

Mexico is unlikely to realize sustained benefits from exporting workers. Migrants' payments sent back to relatives wane over time, and such payments can stimulate land price inflation, conspicuous consumption of imported goods, and rising inequalities of wealth rather than stay-at-home development.

In the past, proponents have declared that such migrants would require very little in public expenditures. Yet universally, some temporary workers find ways to bring their families to join them, and then become substantial beneficiaries of existing government-financed programs such as public education, healthcare, and safety-net services for low-income residents. Politicians have also discovered - too late - that temporary worker programs really are labor subsidies to low-wage sectors such as garments, labor-intensive agriculture, and in-home personal services, retarding efforts to raise the level of national wages and productivity.

Temporary-worker programs are often portrayed as a legal and humane alternative to unauthorized migration. But they fail to acknowledge that the last major Mexico-US temporary worker program, the so-called bracero program, actually was the initiator and accelerator of today's large-scale unauthorized migration. The same is true across Western Europe, where "guest worker" programs based on similar claims were embraced during the economic booms of 30 to 40 years ago. Their "guests" for temporary work were transformed into millions of permanently resident "foreigners," who today have very high rates of unemployment and welfare dependency...

By the same authors: "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers"

Posted at 10:30 AM | Comments (0)

Creepy WaPo article on illegal immigration contains grain of truth

An article with a rather strange provenance has appeared in the WaPo, entitled "Who's Trying to Cross Our Southern Border? Everyone". Here's the signature block:

Michael Flynn is a freelance writer based in Geneva. He received a grant from the Washington-based Fund for Investigative Journalism to report on transmigration from Mexico.

And, he includes this:

...provided to me during a recent trip to Mexico when officers from the International Organization for Migration (IOM), a group committed to managing the global migration crisis...

IOM is like a mini-UN. It was started by Belgium and the U.S. in the 50s, and, like the U.N. it has member states, observer states, etc. While nominally independent from the UN, I think we can consider them one and the same.

The article reports on those from about a third of the countries of the world who come to Mexico to cross into the U.S. The grain of truth amongst the propaganda comes from this:

Mexican commentators also argue that many of the country's problems stem from U.S. policies. If the United States didn't give so much work to undocumented immigrants, goes the argument, then Mexico wouldn't be flooded with migrants from across the globe. Says Father Vladimiro Valdez, a Jesuit priest in Mexico City and outspoken critic of both Mexican and U.S. immigration policies: "The fact is, the United States needs illegal workers, and it needs them to remain illegal because then they can continue to keep their wages low."

The politics of free trade, say critics like Valdez, have done little to improve the situation of the poor. Some claim that NAFTA has become a tool used by the United States to drive poor Mexican farmers off the land, thereby producing a steady stream of cheap labor for U.S. agribusiness.

They might indeed be right about that. The solution is not to create a guest worker program. And, the solution is not to give more benefits to illegal aliens and increase the draw.

The solution is to crack down on those growers and others who are creating this huge demand for illegal labor. Fewer foreign crossers coming to Mexico, fewer crossers coming to the U.S. It's a win-win.

Posted at 04:02 AM | Comments (3)

Ed Bradley offers superficial report on illegal immigration

Tonight's 60 Minutes had a segment called "More Migrants Dying To Get In". That link provides a rough transcript of the segment, but there are some not insignificant things they left out, such as Tancredo briefly referencing workplace enforcement and Ed Bradley not following up on that remark. And, Ed offered a little bit of editorializing, in effect agreeing with one guest that we need a guest worker scheme because we need those illegal workers. (That guest was Mark Reed; more on him here, here, here, and here.)

Here are some of the things Ed forgot to include in his report:

- Who exactly is responsible for not enforcing our immigration laws at workplaces?

- What role does political corruption play in all this? If politicians take contributions from companies that profit off illegal immigration, isn't that corruption and a threat to our entire political system?

- Who was governor of Nebraska during the meatpacking raids Ed discussed, and what's his current job? (I believe that would be Mike Johanns, who is now our Secretary of Agriculture.)

- If Bob just comes to work, well, who could refuse Bob a job? And, if Fred just comes to work, well, we don't want to deny ol' Fred what he wants. But, when you've got millions of people "just coming to work", doesn't that have a major impact on our economy and our way of life? Why didn't Ed say anything about that?

- Why didn't Ed discuss the Mexican government's continual attempt to meddle in our internal politics?

- Why didn't Ed discuss any of the threats to our country discussed in Heather MacDonald's recent piece on the actions of Mexico's consuls in the U.S.?

- Why didn't Ed discuss those U.S. politicians who occasionally act more like Mexican politicians?

- Why didn't Ed disclose that a major chunk of Mexico's population would come to the U.S. if they could?

- Why didn't Ed discuss how illegal immigration will undercut any immigration system, and the way to stop that - and stop desert crossings - is to go after the employers and reduce or eliminate non-emergency public services?

- Does Ed think Americans are stupid enough to think that the fact that no terrorists have (supposedly) been caught at the border indicates that a) they haven't tried or b) they haven't already succeeded?

- Does Ed think terrorists who infiltrated our borders would then, for instance, send CBS a press release to announce their presence?

I realize there's only so many minutes in a segment, but by providing such a superficial report Ed Bradley undercuts his own credibility and does a disservice to his viewers.

UPDATE: There's an annotated transcript here.

Posted at 08:45 PM | Comments (1)

Illegal immigrants in Minnesota costs $188 million/year; "liberals" whine

Minnesota's Department of Administration recently released a report showing that illegal immigrants to that state cost them $188 million a year. Governor Tim Pawlenty commissioned the study and, while offering no specific legislation at this point, appears to be intending to do something.

That caused this:

"It's playing to racism, basically," said Rep. Karen Clark, DFL-Minneapolis. " ... I think it is a desperate move. I'm very sad that Governor Pawlenty would go in this direction again."

Actually, Clark is the one who's playing to racism, by playing the race card. Many in that state are concerned about the issue and don't want to spend that money. Rather than offering proper public policy, the opposition simply plays the only card they have.

Focusing on illegal immigrants' costs without counting their contributions doesn't make sense, said Jared Erdmann, co-director of Hacer, a Hispanic research organization in the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. He said a Hacer study estimated the buying power of Latinos, believed to make up the bulk of illegals in Minnesota, at $3.1 billion. Migrants, both legal and illegal, have revitalized entire neighborhoods, he added.

So, if someone sneaks in to your movie theater, it's OK if they buy popcorn? Sorry, I'm not buying that. One person sneaking in leads others to try to sneak in, and leads to others not respecting those doors you have on the theater. And, if your manager is paid to look the other way, he should be immediately fired because he's a corrupt crook. Many of our managers in Washington are in effect paid to look the other way, and, while it's a little difficult to fire them we've come close a couple times recently.

I'd also suggest doing the math on Erdmann's figures. Either there are a lot more "Latinos" than illegal aliens in MN, or every single one of those illegal aliens has a buying power of over $30,000.

Previously: "[MN Governor] Pawlenty Asks Cities To Rethink Immigration Ordinances"

Posted at 09:34 AM | Comments (0)

"Congress and the Naturalization of Immigrants"

There's a historical backgrounder here.

This part stands out:

Federal law and regulations establish procedures, administered by the Department of State, by which Americans can voluntarily renounce their citizenship. In addition, federal law lists a variety of acts that shall result in the loss of citizenship if "voluntarily perform[ed] . . . with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality." These include obtaining naturalization in a foreign state; declaring allegiance to a foreign state; serving in the armed forces of a foreign state as an officer or when the foreign state is engaged in hostilities against the United States; and, in some cases, serving in governmental office in a foreign state.

Of course, there are millions of U.S. citizens who are also citizens of other countries. And, recall the case of Illinois state senator Martin Sandoval, who wants to also serve on a Mexican committee.

Posted at 08:19 AM | Comments (2)

Knight Ridder offers conventional "wisdom" on immigration "reform"

David Goldstein of K-R offers "Undocumented immigration a growing worry". Unfortunately, like other articles it offers the false choice between amnesty lite and amnesty heavy, without acknowledging the revolutionary step of simply enforcing our current laws.

Posted at 08:44 AM | Comments (0)

More fretful farmers whining for you to pay for their labor

The N.C. Times' William Finn Bennett offers "Local farmers fret over rising cost of wages". That reporter is usually better than writing articles like this, and he or anyone else who believes anything these farmers say should first read "Jon Vessey, crops rotting in the fields, and pro-illegal immigration propaganda" or "The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers".

While the article is full of disgusting bits, this might be the worst:

"American workers are not willing to work these types of jobs for this type of pay... Most young people (in this country) have never even held a shovel ---- Americans would not eat if they depended on other Americans to do farm labor."

Obviously, this country has done some mighty important and noteworthy things. Just off the top of my head, we've been to the moon, we've dammed mighty rivers, we've expanded the U.S. from thirteen colonies into a world collossus, we've fought world wars, and so on and so forth. And, some pissant grower dares say we'd starve without a foreign serf class? As politely as I can muster: up yours, buddy. Perhaps he should consider moving to another country, because he obviously doesn't belong here.

But, looking on the bright side of that noxious comment, it sounds like a good lesson could be had by both parties. Our (supposedly) spoiled and unskilled young people could learn shovel work. And, those growers who employ illegal aliens could learn a new skill as well: making license plates.

If these farmers' crops are really going to rot in the fields, perhaps they should stop trying to take advantage of illegal behavior and paying foreign serfs to do stoop labor in what is alleged to be an advanced First World country. Perhaps we should import strawberries rather than serfs. And, perhaps they should pay the full and fair price for that labor instead of expecting everyone else to pick up that cost. Or, perhaps those growers should push for research into farm mechanization with the same tenacity.

And, perhaps Dan Weintraub should look for the story behind the story (as evidenced by the second and third link above), rather than writing things like this:

First nurses, then teachers, now farmworkers. Labor shortages are becoming a big story in California.

Perhaps he should look into this in a bit more depth rather than falling for propaganda.

Posted at 03:09 AM | Comments (1)

Korean anchor babies and "birth tourism"

In May 2002 the LAT reported on the phenomonon of "birth tourism": foreigners traveling to the U.S. specifically to have children. Those children would then automatically be declared U.S. citizens and could receive benefits and wouldn't be subjected to the home country's rules. And, once they reach 18, those citizens could then sponsor the whole family to come here as immigrants.

Obviously it's a scam and an attempt by people around the world to take advantage of us, but, since many of those people are non-white, "liberals" reflexively jump to defend this scam.

From "Korean moms want 'born in USA' babies":

...One might say it is the ultimate gift that South Korean parents can give their newborns. Those who can cough up the $20,000 or so it costs are coming to the United States by the thousands to give birth so their newborns can have American citizenship.

Their reasons range from a desire to enroll their offspring in American schools to enabling them to avoid South Korean military service.

Los Angeles is the most popular destination because of its large Korean-speaking population, along with New York, Boston, Hawaii and even Guam. The practice is also believed to be popular among women from Hong Kong and Taiwan.

So many are doing it that a mini-industry has developed here of agencies that refer expectant mothers to travel agents, immigration lawyers, prenatal clinics, hospitals and even baby-sitters, arranging what are, in effect, package tours for pregnant women.

"From birth to citizenship," advertises one Korean-language Web site (www.birthinusa.com) that helps women give birth in Los Angeles...

"If they could afford it, all my friends would go to the United States to have their babies," Kim said. "My biggest complaint about Korea is the educational system. In high school, you have to study past midnight or else you fall behind the others and can't get on with your life. And since the baby is a boy, I thought it would be a big gift for him not to be burdened with military service."

...South Korean-run Hana has three centers for expectant mothers in the Los Angeles area and last year opened an elegantly furnished postnatal facility called Larchmont Villa, in L.A.'s Koreatown, where women can stay until it is time to fly home. Their services include such conveniences as a private car for pickup at the airport and a guide to help get the baby a Social Security number and passport...

If he were ever asked, I have little doubt that Howard Dean would approve of this scheme.

More here.

Posted at 08:57 PM | Comments (5)

"Memo From O.C. To D.C."

IBD discusses Tuesday's election featuring Jim Gilchrist:

When a one-issue activist from a fringe party holds the Republican candidate to under 45% in GOP territory, it's time to take notice...

...Republicans in the New York-Washington axis may not see it, but there's a deep divide in their party between elites and grass-roots voters. In places like Southern California, it's impossible to ignore. Voters want to see the law enforced, both at the border and against employers, and they see their elected leaders doing nothing.

When fringe candidates do a better job addressing mainstream concerns than establishment politicians do, the latter can expect trouble. This week they got their warning shot.

Posted at 03:49 AM | Comments (1)

Peggy Noonan, the American Way, and massive illegal immigration

Noonan has a column (I guess) opposing massive illegal immigration and chiding our corrupt elites for supporting it:

There are people who want to return to the old ways and rescue some of the old attitudes. There are groups that seek to restore border integrity. But they are denigrated by many, even the president, who has called them vigilantes. The New Yorker this week carries a mildly snotty piece by a writer named Daniel Kurtz-Phelan in which he interviews members of a group of would-be Minutemen who seek to watch the borders with Mexico and Canada. They are "running freelance patrols"; they are xenophobic; they dismiss critics as "communists" and "child molesters."

...Again: What does it mean when your first act is to break the laws of your new country? What does it mean when you know you are implicitly supported in lawbreaking by that nation's ruling elite? What does it mean when you know your new country doesn't even enforce its own laws? What does it mean when you don't even have to become an American once you join America?

Posted at 08:44 PM | Comments (2)

Is Bush blackmailing the U.S. into giving him his "temporary" worker scheme?

Pat "Pitchfork" Buchanan opines:

...This is a national crisis, an existential crisis. But after five years of ignoring it, and now finally addressing it, what did Bush say in Tucson? I can't defend the border if you won't give me a guest worker program. Said Bush, "(W)e will not be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we create a temporary worker program."

But this is preposterous. Bush is saying he cannot do his constitutional duty to protect the nation from invasion -- unless we let 12 million illegal aliens become guest workers and allow greedy U.S. businesses to go overseas and hire foreigners for jobs that U.S. workers won't take at the paltry wages they offer.

But not since the "bracero" program of decades ago have we had a national guest worker program. And never in our history have we given business carte blanche to go abroad and hire foreigners to come and take American jobs. Yet Bush says if we don't, he can't control the border. What he means is, he won't control the border.

The president's speech in Tucson was a kind of extortion of those who have fought for tough border protections. Bush is saying: Unless you give me what I want, a guest worker program, you're not getting what you want. But what a majority of Americans want is what they have a right to demand: That Bush do his sworn duty and enforce the immigration laws of the United States...

Posted at 05:34 AM | Comments (1)

Jim Gilchrist "wins" in CA-48

Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist lost tonight's special election in California's 48th District, but he got 25.1% of the vote and perhaps has put a bit of a scare into at least the GOP. Republican John Campbell won with 44.7% despite spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on his campaign, and Democrat Steve Young picked up 28%.

In 2000 it was 62% R vs. 26% D, and in 2002 it was 68% R vs. 28% D.

Gilchrist ran on basically one issue: opposition to illegal immigration and support for border control. Despite attempts by both the Dems and the GOP to say otherwise, he didn't run on an "anti-immigration" or "anti-immigrant" platform, just anti-illegal immigration.

For examples of such confusion, there are a large number of almost completely clueless comments over at Daily 'Screw 'em' Kos, however this earlier thread contains this comment that probably went in one collective ear and out the other:

This is the hypocrisy and lunacy of the Democratic party on display. The point is, it was not too long ago that construction firms did pay $15 an hour and up, and they were union jobs. Now you want your cake and you want to eat it too. You want to whine that the Republican party has destroyed the unions, the Republican party has destroyed middle class, the Republican party doesn't want to pay a living wage, and in the same breath you want to defend the rights of ten percent of the population of Mexico to come here and put on roofs for seven dollars an hour... You can't have it both ways. The fifteen dollar an hour union framer that was put out of work in Texas was likely a Democrat. Who does he vote for now? Who does he turn to now? Who speaks for him or her now?

More here and here.

UPDATE: I should have crunched the numbers in more detail, because they're very (very) important: on election day, more people voted for Gilchrist than for Campbell. If Gilchrist had gotten more mail-in votes, he would have won. Apparently Campbell flooded the district with absentee ballots and his election materials, while Gilchrist did not.

UPDATE 2: More at The Corner here, here, and here.

UPDATE 3: For the unofficial vote totals, see this. Gilchrist might not have gotten 35% vs. 30% of the election day votes, but if you do the math, those numbers say he got 274 more votes. Now awaiting the official results...

Posted at 11:34 PM | Comments (5)

Will the GOP sneak immigration "reform" through?

From "GOP forms strategy to OK guest workers":

Republican leaders will try to pass President Bush's controversial guest-worker proposal without putting it to a direct vote in the House.

Observers say the new GOP strategy that begins today is for the House to deal only with the more politically palatable issue of increasing border security and clamping down on employers. Republican leaders then will let the Senate pass some form of a guest-worker plan.

After that vote, senators and House members will merge the House's border security bill with the Senate's legislation in closed-door meetings.

The House will then vote on the final package, which will include some guest-worker provision, according to a GOP aide familiar with the plan, a Colorado lawmaker and other observers.

The strategy is designed to avoid a divisive debate and contentious vote in the House...

Please contact all your representatives and let them know exactly how you feel and how you'll vote in the future if they pull something like this.

Posted at 04:12 PM | Comments (0)

AP: "Illegal hiring fuels problem"

The AP has a roundup of the Bush administrations various failures to enforce the laws in "Illegal hiring fuels problem".

While it has some bias, it also has some useful facts and figures concerning raids or lack thereof.

Posted at 10:22 AM | Comments (0)

Have Herndon officials conspired to violate federal law

As previously discussed, Herndon VA is home to a shiny new illegal alien hiring hall. Now comes "U.S. asked to probe labor center":

The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia is being urged to look into a charge that Herndon officials have violated federal criminal conspiracy laws by creating a day-labor center that helps illegal aliens.

U.S. Attorney Paul J. McNulty has received from Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, a letter accusing Herndon officials of conspiracy in seeking to aid illegal aliens, the congressman's office said.

In his letter, Mr. Tancredo noted that officials for Project Hope and Harmony -- a group of community leaders and churches that will operate Herndon's day-labor center -- have refused to screen job seekers based on their legal status in the country.

He said their proposed action constitutes a conspiracy to violate federal law because a June 2004 study by Fairfax County indicates that at least 85 percent of laborers who would use the center are illegal aliens...

Of course, whether anything will happen remains to be seen, but note that despite being supported by the corrupt elites, day laborer sites are supported by only a small number of voters.

Posted at 12:12 AM | Comments (0)

Congress: $4 million for National Council of The Race

From this:

Thanks to a congressional earmark, an open-borders advocacy group that pushes for driver's licenses, free in-state tuition and healthcare for illegal aliens and bilingual requirements for state agencies and ballots is slated to get $4 million in new taxpayer money to add to the more than $30 million it has received from various federal agencies since 1996.

The National Council of La Raza (NCLR), Spanish for "the race," will get its latest grant through an appropriations bill passed by Congress on November 18. The Joint Explanatory Statement of HR 3058, available on the House's Rules Committee website lists 1,100 plus earmarks in the bill, including La Raza's grant under the Housing and Urban Development Department's Self-Help and Assisted Ownership Programs. Under this account La Raza will receive four times as much as the Special Olympics, which won a $1-million earmark.

It's not known exactly who got them this earmark; NCLR wasn't expecting it. However:

One possible culprit is Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D.-Nev.) who sits on the Senate Appropriations subcommittee that handled the bill carrying the earmark. In 2001, Reid sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee requesting $5 million for La Raza's housing programs. That same year Reid also received NCLR's Capital Award for "his commitment to advance legislation priorities of the Latino Community." In gratitude, Reid told NCLR, "La Raza is like the biblical David, fighting all these Goliaths."

Reid's office did not respond to calls asking whether he inserted or even supported the earmark...

Posted at 11:33 AM | Comments (2)

Hugh Hewitt, Ken Mehlman on illegal immigration

Slightly popular partisan hack BushBot Hugh Hewitt conducted a radio interview with RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman and discussed the word "illegal immigration". As it turns out, the GOP is declaring war on that word. As regards the actual process of massive illegal immigration, if the GOP had their druthers that would continue and get even worse. Here's a transcript of the interview. But, first a warning: you have to be really, really drunk on KoolAid to believe anything Mehlman or Hewitt say.

HH: [...Bush's speech...] John Campbell's running on strong borders. What was the president's message? What's your message today on illegal immigration?

KM: Well, our message is there can be zero tolerance for illegal immigration in this country.

Obviously, Bush enables and encourages massive illegal immigration through things like: refusing to do workplace enforcement, dropping hiring requirements after Katrina, helping illegal aliens open bank accounts and buy houses, and so on and so forth. Obviously, there's a bit of a conflict: the Bush administration encourages illegal immigration while saying they oppose it.

How does one explain this? As he goes on to describe, the Bush administration wants "comprehensive" reform. That would result in changing all those illegal aliens into "temporary" workers. Thus, they intend to keep massive immigration, but just change the nomenklatura.

As regards John Campbell, he has supported and AFAIK still supports some of the same things that Gil Cedillo does: tuition discounts and driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

[...KM plays WOT card...] If we're not controlling our borders, then we're not fundamentally protecting our homeland security. And that needs to be something that the president has a comprehensive plan to accomplish.

It's good to know that he has a plan. However, Bush has been in office for five years, and during all that time the borders have been as porous as could be. By Mehlman's own definition, the Bush administration has been putting this country at risk and president Bush has been failing to do the job he swore he would do.

Then, after a raftload of BS from KM, Hugh takes a swipe at the much higher rated John and Ken Show. HH is right: discussing illegal immigration does get them ratings, because it's an important issue that has our U.S. president acting more like the president of Mexico. If HH isn't as popular as they are, perhaps it's because few people believe what he says. Then, KM plays the WOT card again. Then:

There seem to be some people, unfortunately, who like talking about it, but don't want to solve it. He wants to solve it. I want to solve it. I know you want to solve it. But if it's not comprehensive, we won't solve it.

Bush has had five years to "solve it". He could have started by not doing the things that he did. He could have cracked down on employers. He could have refused to support Mexico's ID for illegals, the Matricula Consular card. He could have refused to support giving home loans to illegal aliens. Instead, he supported massive illegal immigration. Don't trust anything that Mehlman or Hewitt say.

Posted at 04:33 AM | Comments (3)

President Bush, Howard Dean aligned on immigration

Despite Howard Dean trying to pretend there's a difference on immigration policy between the leaderships of the GOP and of the Democratic party, what they want - and even how they want it - are very similar. Speaking before a DNC meeting in Phoenix, Dr. Gov. Howard Dean M.D.:

Saying Bush had used race and gay rights to divide the electorate, Dean said, "In 2006, it's going to be immigration; that's who he's going to scapegoat next." He said Democrats must favor tougher enforcement of existing immigration laws and provide tighter border security, but said a balanced immigration policy would provide a way to give many of the 11 million illegal immigrants a path to legal status.

In other words, he wants a massive amnesty for those who are here now. A position like that makes it very difficult to refuse amnesty for any other illegal aliens who come here. And, of course, untold millions more illegal aliens will come here just to be a part of those future amnesties. (Kennedy-McCain could result in 36.5 million new residents.) How many dozens of millions of new (temporarily) illegal aliens do the Democrats want? And, isn't that position identical to the one supported by the GOP?

Needless to say, the American public from all sides except the far left and the corrupt right want many few illegal aliens, not millions more.

Why is Dr. Dean unable to see this? Why is he unable to see that you can't support massive amnesties while expecting to keep illegal immigration in check? Is Dr. Dean unable to think things through?

Note also that Dean is complaining about Bush being a divider, at the same time as he's trying to portray those who oppose illegal immigration as "scapegoaters".

And, Dean can't even get his facts straight:

But Dean confused President Bush's proposals for a guest worker program with criticism from other Republicans who believe even a temporary visa for undocumented immigrants would reward illegal behavior.

Dean suggested Bush wants to round up and deport all illegal immigrants. In truth, the Bush plan would allow a guestworker program. But immigrants would have to return to their home countries when their work visas expire after six years.

I don't exactly know why Dean would be mistaken, but I have an idea: he's an out-of-control, irresponsible dolt.

The DNC passed three resolutions about immigration. The first supported the massive amnesty described above. The second condemns Colorado's version of Arizona's Proposition 200. And, the third condemned the Minuteman Project.

Obviously, the position of the DNC is closer to that of far-left race groups than the vast majority of Democrats. Perhaps they'll wake up much as those on the other side have.

Posted at 08:46 PM | Comments (1)

Is DHS head Michael Chertoff refusing to do his job?

We already knew that, but just in case you needed more proof, consider this:

"If we don't have a temporary worker program, I think it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to ask our Border Patrol agents and our ICE agents to stem the tide that is driven by a huge economic engine of employers looking for people who can work [in jobs that] won't be done by Americans," Chertoff told reporters during a briefing on the administration's Border Security Initiative.

Obviously, another way to stem that tide would be for the DHS to do their job: enforce the laws against hiring illegal aliens.

Why won't they do that now?

Why do we have to wait for their dream legislation until they'll start doing their job? Isn't that more or less blackmail?

Should we trust the DHS and the Bush administration to do their job later if they refuse to do it now? Obviously, the answer to that question is no.

My jaw is literally dragging on the floor as I ponder just how many votes the Democratic Party could pick up if they decided to be on the opposite side of this issue from the Bush administration. It's too bad that that party has been taken over by far-leftie idiots, otherwise they could use this issue to coast to easy victories.

Previously:
"Secure Border Initiative": Should anyone trust what Bush or Chertoff say?
With 400,000 employees using the same SSN, can you trust anything Bush says?
Chertoff promotes "Temporary Worker Program" at Senate meeting

Posted at 10:41 AM | Comments (2)

Endorsement: Steve Young for Congress (48th District on Mars)

This site is officially endorsing Steve Young for Congress in the 48th District on Mars.

For the 48th District in California, USA, Earth, this site endorses Jim Gilchrist, co-founder of the Minuteman Project.

Regarding the race on the Red Planet, Steve Young has his own proposal on how to end illegal immigration. Your goal is to find a five year old who cannot immediately see all the flaws in his plan:

I have a real solution to the "immigration problem" that is a business approach. It does not demonize immigrants, is self-funding, and benefits America.

Immigrants pay on average $3000 each to smugglers. Why not have the immigrants pay America the $3000 and create a system under which we can monitor who is coming into the country and what they are doing? I propose that the government establish ICE centers at the borders. Those wishing to enter the country will pay the $3000 to ICE (US Immigration, Customs and Enforcement Agency). ICE will take the immigrant's photograph, fingerprints, and administer tuberculosis and other health tests...

...I propose a "green card bounty" program to halt employer cheating. Any undocumented worker who gives ICE a paycheck showing the worker worked within the last month will receive a "green card bounty." ICE will not have to spend precious resources investigating cheating employers. The immigrants will bring the evidence to ICE to get an expedited green card...

It is time for America to adopt my direct solution. It benefits America, eliminates the cheaters, generates $90 billion for the treasury...

The "bounty" deserves some slight consideration. However, it would lead to both false allegations against employers, more document forgery, and even more abuse of illegal aliens. Considered as a whole, his plan would massively increase illegal immigration and, in short, it's insanely naive and just plain stupid.

Please vote for Gilchrist on Tuesday, December 6.

Posted at 08:17 AM | Comments (1)

"America's produce industry is facing a crisis"

Nothing says propaganda like the annual whine from growers demanding more serf labor lest their crops rot in the fields. There have been a few recent newspaper articles about it, and the latest is "A drought of farm labor".

"We are trying to sound the alarm without being alarmist, but the situation has become extremely serious," says Tim Chelling of the Western Growers Association, whose members grow, pack, and ship half America's produce. "We are now talking of losing the production of key commodities to foreign competition. America's produce industry is facing a crisis."

Although the shortage was worsening before 9/11, it's now extreme, Mr. Chelling and the three California farmers say. Without an emergency guest-worker program, they will be dramatically short of the minimum number of workers needed to harvest the current crop. Without long-term immigration reform that acknowledges America's reliance on foreign workers, farmers will not be able to make ends meet, they say.

Oh well. I'm sure they can figure something out, like for instance farm mechanization rather than relying on foreign serf labor. As an alternative, perhaps they could pay the full price for that labor, instead of paying a low wage and sticking everyone else with the true price.

Remember: anyone who sides with the growers in their search for "cheap" workers is supporting massively subsidized stoop labor and the abuse of illegal aliens. And, they also oppose high-tech innovations that would make farms more efficient and enable us to compete against countries where labor is even cheaper.

While many politicians are basically paid to be on the growers' side, do they really want to end up supporting everything that goes with it?

Related:
"The Mirage of Mexican Guest Workers"
Hanson on illegal immigration and guest workers
"The new grapes of wrath"
Miami Herald "endorses indentured servitude"

Posted at 07:24 AM | Comments (5)

"Why Bush's border scheme won't work"

Clarence Page says the latest version of Bush's immigration "reform" scheme is an amnesty. And:

...What's missing is a serious crackdown on the biggest magnet that draws illegal immigrants: jobs. Employers and consumers love cheap labor, as long as it is not competing directly for their jobs. Bush shows no desire to get in the way of that cozy relationship.

We don't need tougher penalties for employers who knowingly hire illegals; we only need to enforce the tough penalties that already have been legislated. Instead, employer sanctions have been so poorly enforced that prosecutions of employers have plummeted in recent decades. When the law lacks teeth, it is ignored.

The result has been a make-believe immigration policy: The president pretends that undocumented workers will police themselves, and the rest of us pretend to believe him.

We need something more sensible. America thrives on immigration. It is part of our national character. But we also need some semblance of order--and fairness!

Posted at 05:41 AM | Comments (6)

Ken Mehlman constructs strawman about illegal immigration

Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, was spotted yesterday constructing massive strawman arguments at a meeting of the Republican Governors Association. To hear the WaPo tell it:

Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman urged his party Thursday to oppose rising anti-immigrant sentiments in the debate over border security and illegal immigration, suggesting that the GOP risks being on the wrong side of history and electoral politics alike if it embraces an exclusionary message.

Could Mehlman give examples of wide-spread "anti-immigrant sentiments"? While some have "anti-illegal immigrant sentiments", and many have "anti-illegal immigration sentiments", I'm not aware of too many people who oppose legal immigrants. In that light, isn't Mehlman basically, well, lying?

If Mehlman wants to have an inclusionary message, he should stress that we admit almost a million legal immigrants per year. Wouldn't reaching out to those be the best way to show that the GOP is an inclusive party? If Mehlman can't figure that out by himself - or knows that but for one corrupt reason or another refuses to admit that distinction - does he really deserve his job?

He issued a strong call for tougher enforcement of immigration laws but extolled the contributions of immigrants and denounced those who have sought to close the country to foreigners.

What exactly is he talking about? Could Mehlman or the WaPo provide any examples of people who want to do what he claims they want to do?

Most Americans want to close off this country to illegal aliens. Anyone who pretends that implies all "foreigners" is simply lying. And, is it really a good idea to lie about what your base wants?

Previously:
Jorge Arbusto has a new site
Democrats, Republicans grovel before National Council of The Race
And: Mehlman attended Bilderberg

Posted at 12:49 AM | Comments (3)

Tamar Jacoby downplays threat of dual citizenship

Let's say you were the Washington Post, and you were seeking a reviewer for the book "The 50% American" by Stanley A. Renshon. While I haven't read the book, it discusses the pernicious threat posed by dual citizenship.

Who would you choose to do the review? Well, obviously, if you're the WaPo, you could choose Frank Sharry, or perhaps the head of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, or perhaps Bob Avakian. Unfortunately, the latter personage wasn't available or something, and they ended up choosing cheap labor cheerleader Tamar Jacoby.

Needless to say, she downplays the risk, even going as far as saying that Mexico offering dual citizenship is a good thing:

But now that they don't have to shed one association to embrace the other, many are much more comfortable becoming U.S. citizens.

Would you like to play? "Not being forced to decide which team I was on in the basketball game made playing much easier. And more fun!"

We're told that even for those who are conflicted, it's just a "passing phase":

First-generation Americans have always lived between two worlds, one foot in the old place and the other in the United States. And eventually they have always tilted in one direction or another, with some returning home and others putting down roots here.

Of course, the problem is that they'll tilt in the wrong direction while still remaining here. If someone is going to be a Mexican partisan, then they should do that in Mexico. Being so here is bad for this country. For just one example, consider the Mexican-"Americans" in the California legislature. And, of course, those foreign countries that provide dual citizenship do so in part to obtain political power inside the U.S.

Posted at 11:50 PM | Comments (1)

"Bush Talks Tougher on Immigration, but It's Still Amnesty"

From this:

[...Bush's hot air...]

It is hard not to be skeptical of this White House when it starts saying it will enforce our immigration laws because it has utterly failed to do so to date. Its de facto immigration policy has been the Clinton administration's...

After Hurricane Katrina, Homeland Security declared a holiday (though it has no legal authority to suspend laws) from employer sanctions laws – not only in the storm-tossed areas, but nationwide. This opened the doors for unscrupulous employers to hire illegal aliens – thus displacing or hedging out hurting Americans whose jobs had been destroyed.

As the administration negotiates behind the scenes as Congress drafts immigration enforcement legislation, the Bush crowd continues to oppose the most promising ideas, such as the CLEAR Act to get state and local police a constructive response from federal authorities and mandatory employment verification to shut off the “jobs magnet.”

All the while, the administration has hawked a massive amnesty to legalize virtually all 10-12 million illegal aliens. This scheme has been, and continues to be, packaged as a “guestworker” program.

Regardless of how the president labels it, the plan he described in his Arizona speech is his same old amnesty plan. The illegals get legalized, they get to keep the jobs they came here to steal, and six years later no political will will exist to make them go home. Politicians will end up giving them green cards and then citizenship.

Do we need the foreigners? The fact is that there are no jobs Americans won’t do or don’t want. For instance, Census figures show that in the most immigrant-filled jobs, in farming, fishing and forestry occupations, 61.2 percent of workers are Americans. But Americans can’t afford to take jobs for immigrant-caused wage-depressed low pay and lacking decent benefits.

We really don’t need more foreign workers. We need consistent enforcement of the immigration laws on the books. We need to let market forces regulate themselves without government command-and-control manipulating the labor supply...

Posted at 02:33 PM | Comments (2)

"Boob Bait for Bubba"

Rich Lowry:

The late Democratic Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan called it "boob bait for bubba" — tough-sounding rhetoric designed to placate conservative voters. Moynihan applied the phrase to Bill Clinton's 1992 pledge to "end welfare as we know it," which it later became clear that he had no intention of following through on when he became president (eventually, Republicans pressured him into it). President Bush is offering his own "boob bait" in the form of speechifying at the border about a crackdown on illegal immigration.

It's not that Bush doesn't intend to use better technology to police the border and end the "catch and release" policy that waves illegals into the country, as he is now saying. But these steps are primarily meant to diminish opposition to a new guest-worker program and what would effectively be an amnesty for illegal aliens. It's a crackdown as prelude to a letup; in other words, Rove bait for red-staters.

A Republican close to the White House has told Time how Bush wants to lull his conservative supporters into swallowing some sort of amnesty and a guest-worker program, i.e., a "comprehensive" approach: "Bush decided to give these guys their rhetorical pound of flesh. In return, he wants a comprehensive bill, which is what he has always wanted. He's just going to lead with a lot of noise about border security..."

Posted at 09:48 PM | Comments (3)

Bush promotes "temporary" worker scheme, tries to pull wool even further over citizens' eyes

For the past four years, president Bush has managed to fool millions of Americans into thinking that he's the "homeland security" president. Figuring "once a sucker, always a sucker", he's now reiterated his push for a "temporary" worker scheme and pledging to get tough on border security.

Speaking today, he said in part:

"Together with Congress we are going to create a temporary worker program that is going to take pressure off the borders, bring workers out of the shadows... People in this debate must recognize that we will not be able to effectively enforce our immigration laws until we create a temporary worker program..."

The full WH fact sheet is at whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051128-3.html

Anyone who even pretends that these "guest" workers wouldn't stay here and end up bringing even their most distant cousins to join them is simply lying to you.

UPDATE: Video of the big speech here.

Posted at 02:37 PM | Comments (10)

"Sanctuary Cities: A New Civil War"

From this:

What is most remarkable about sanctuary cities is that they are illegal. In 1996 Congress passed two laws dealing with the subject: the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Under both statutes state and local governments could no longer prohibit employees from inquiring about immigration status or tipping off immigration authorities. The Court of Appeals upheld both provisions in New York v. U.S. (1999).

The Appeals Court remarked that "the City's sovereignty argument asks us to turn the Tenth Amendment's shield against the federal government's using state and local governments to enact and administer federal programs into a sword allowing states and localities to engage in passive resistance that frustrates federal programs." The court concluded that where the federal government has undoubted power to act, as in the case of immigration, the Supremacy Clause "bars states from taking actions that frustrate federal laws and regulatory schemes. We therefore hold that states do not retain under the Tenth Amendment an untrammeled right to forbid all voluntary cooperation by state or local officials with particular programs."

Posted at 08:55 AM | Comments (4)

"Guest-worker concept doomed to fail"

J.D. Hayworth writes another letter about an AZ Republic article.

Posted at 06:54 AM | Comments (1)

"College Grads Who Are Illegal Immigrants Face Barren Job Market"

The NY Sun offers today's "well, duh" article.

Posted at 03:53 AM | Comments (4)

Fred Barnes supports "comprehensive immigration reform"

From the Tamar Jacoby file comes Fred Barnes with El Grande Old Party?. Summary: Bush should capitulate to corruption and embrace a massive illegal alien amnesty.

Posted at 10:52 PM | Comments (3)

Open border advocate Rep. Jim Kolbe won't run again

That Arizona representative made the decision a few days ago, and here's a fitting tribute:

When someone retires or passes away, we try to say something nice about that person, we downplay his negatives and point out his positives. I would like to do the same for Congressman Jim Kolbe, but I really don't have the time to do that much research, other then to say, I wholeheartedly approve of his decision to leave Congress.

A possible replacement is Randy Graf, who, unlike Kolbe, is opposed to illegal immigration. Kos thinks that district is a potential opening for the Dems. The WSJ-wing of the GOP would probably be willing to let a Dem win rather than help elect someone who wants to stop the illegal labor. Hopefully Graf will be able to show that they're both wrong.

Posted at 07:50 PM | Comments (2)

Gullible US News reports on illegal immigration

US News has a four-screener called "Border Wars". Despite all the words, they don't delve too deep into the issue, such as the seamy corruption underlying the efforts to keep the cheap labor flowing. And, they take Tamar Jacoby, the AILA, and DHS head Michael Chertoff seriously.

Posted at 03:36 AM | Comments (0)

Will Julie Myers get a recess appointment?

The cronyism of the Bush administration would be comic if it weren't so bad for the country. As previously discussed, Bush nominated Julie Myers to head the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau. She's the niece of Air Force Gen. Richard Myers, she worked for Michael Chertoff when he was at the Justice Department, and she's now married to his current chief of staff. Oh, and she has no experience in immigration or with heading up such a large agency.

And, according to Debbie Schlussel, Bush might give her a recess appointment (nofollowpolicy) while no one is looking.

Posted at 07:39 PM | Comments (1)

"Word war muddles immigrant debate"

This article goes in to the use of loaded language to obscure the immigration "debate", something that you are probably familiar with, but if you aren't check it out. I note, however, the following:

George Lakoff, a Democratic political consultant and linguist at UC Berkeley, said anti-immigration groups so far appear to be winning the language war, and the word "amnesty" is their most powerful rhetorical weapon.

I hope that "linguist" is the one who used the term "anti-immigration".

Posted at 02:35 PM | Comments (2)

Mexico to US: take our potential rioters, please

The column "Could riots such as in Paris occur elsewhere?" from Mexico's Ana Maria Salazar says that Mexico could have similar riots to those that occurred in France. But:

One important factor, however, has greatly helped reduce the risk of riots and violence in Mexico. There is an "escape valve" that the poor and discriminated in Europe do not have: the possibility of crossing illegally into the United States and getting a job. Authorities have calculated this "escape valve" has permitted more then 400,000 Mexicans to cross into the United States each year. Perhaps it is this factor alone that has stopped major uprisings in Mexico during the last couple of decades...

And, all America thanks the Mexican government for sending its people to us, thereby avoiding necessary reforms. But, what about all those potential rioters that Mexico has gifted us with?

As Paris burns, U.S. legislators will probably push for a bill that systematically seeks to close the "escape valve" by closing the U.S.-Mexico border. Ironically, they would be shutting down the very thing that could be preventing the riots that they fear.

Of course, if that were coming from a government official it would be a threat. As it is, it's just a warning.

We need to slowly back away from this issue by working to disincentivize illegal immigration and encouraging as many potential rioters as possible to go home.

Better the riots occur there than here. After all, our elected politicians are paid to prevent things like rioting, and perhaps they should do their jobs.

Posted at 12:26 PM | Comments (1)

Home loans for illegal aliens: Fresno TV station tries real reporting

KFSN ABC-30 out of Fresno tries a little real reporting on the issue of banks giving mortgages to illegal aliens. It's not an in-depth report, but it's more than other sources have done.

They report on the experiences of an illegal alien known only as "David". It includes this:

But getting a loan from the bank almost didn't happen. An employee from the bank called and said it seemed they had a problem.

The problem was David's social security number ... it's a fake.

I thought that was a crime? And, why would a bank give a home loan to someone who lied on their application by providing a fake SSN?

Who's involved?

The Valley non-profit group Acorn is helping people like David. They set him up with Citibank in Fresno, where a social security number is not required.

Who's on the American side?

But [Diana Hull from Californians For Population Stabilization] says the [potential $60 billion market from this practice] is not just a bad idea ... she insists it's also against the law. "There is a law against aiding and abetting illegal aliens to continue to live in the United States. Issuing a mortgage to an illegal alien is helping him establish himself and remain the United States, which is clearly illegal. It's a felony," she says.

Hall says the problem goes all the way to the top, and she pins much of the blame on the largest of government institutions, like the FDIC, the IRS and the Social Security Administration.

Is "David" confused about his status? Let's find out:

"I work hard like any other citizen and I try to live just like a normal citizen. And I have everything, I think I still have my rights."

The problem, of course, is that "David" is not a citizen. He does have certain rights, but not the same rights as a citizen or a legal immigrant. Pretending otherwise simply devalues American citizenship, something that our leaders are probably also in favor of.

Then, comes a little bit of real reporting:

Despite the accusations that what they're doing is illegal, Citigroup and Acorn stand by the program.

Acorn issued a statement saying everything about their program is legal. They say in the United States, it is perfectly legal for non-citizens to own property.

When asked about its opinion on whether the program is indeed legal, or unlawfully entices illegal immigrants to stay, the U.S. Attorney's office refused an answer.

That last bit is certainly interesting, and simply reinforces what Hull says above.

Posted at 04:38 PM | Comments (3)

"Uniformed Mexicans with guns, bulldozer seize drug-bust truck from Border Patrol"

From this:

U.S. Border Patrol agents were backed down this week by armed men, dressed in what appeared to be Mexican military uniforms and carrying military weapons, who seized a captured dump truck filled with marijuana from the U.S. agents and dragged it across the border into Mexico with a bulldozer.

The border incident occurred Thursday evening when Border Patrol agents attempted to pull over a dump truck on Interstate 10 in Hudspeth County, Texas. The driver fled from the agents, exiting the freeway and driving toward the Rio Grande which runs within 2 miles of the interstate in this portion of West Texas.

The driver abandoned the truck after it became stuck in the river bed, escaping into Mexico...

The BP agents called for backup and began removing marijuana bales from the truck. Then, the uniformed Mexicans showed up. No shots were fired.

Posted at 01:13 PM | Comments (2)

Greeley, CO: proposed ICE office meets illogical resistance

From this:

...Since October, when [Weld County CO] District Attorney Ken Buck started seeking support for bringing a federal office to Greeley to expedite and increase deportations of illegal immigrants who've committed crimes in the county, proponents of the move have squared off against detractors.

Big-name supporters of a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in Greeley include Republicans such as Buck, the Weld County commissioners, U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave and U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard.

Removing illegal aliens who’ve committed crimes, joined gangs and added to an overburdened criminal justice system, they say, is a no-brainer...

Speaking of which, let's fast forward a bit:

[Genie Canales, a professor of Hispanic Studies at the University of Northern Colorado] and many of the 600 demonstrators who packed city hall Nov. 15, she said, already worry about the public's ability to distinguish between people of Hispanic heritage, documented foreign-born residents and undocumented workers — referred to as "illegals." An ICE office would add fuel to the fire for the ignorant and intolerant, she said.

If there were no illegals there, there would be no chance of confusion. It's the demonstrators who are making that confusion worse, trying to conflate the terms "Hispanic" and "undocumented" and leading people to believe that all "Hispanics" are either illegal aliens or supporters of same.

Posted at 07:21 AM | Comments (0)

"U.S. Spends Hundred Times More on Illegal Aliens Than on Assisting American Homeless Veterans"

From this press release:

America is spending hundreds of times more money on benefits for illegal aliens than it is helping homeless veterans, charged a national veterans' leader.

U. S. taxpayers are footing a bill of over $70 Billion annually in benefits for illegal aliens, in education, health care, housing and prison costs, charged MAJ Brian A. Hampton USAR (ret), President of the Circle of Friends for American Veterans. Meanwhile, Hampton said the federal government is investing less than 1% of that amount helping 300,000 homeless veterans on our streets tonight.

Posted at 03:12 AM | Comments (1)

Illegal aliens arrested at WalMart construction site in Allentown PA

This one has an interesting union angle:

...Wal-Mart spokesman Marty Heires said the company would cooperate fully with federal authorities.

"We have written contracts with these subcontractors requiring that they follow all applicable local, state and federal employment laws," he said in a statement.

At least 120 illegal immigrants, most of them from Mexico, were detained, Schuylkill County Sheriff Frank McAndrew said. He said he began investigating the site and contacted federal officials after getting complaints from local tradespeople.

"You've got a situation here where illegal immigrants are coming into Schuylkill County and taking (local union workers') jobs for eight bucks an hour. They are working for poverty wages, and creating unemployment because our skilled tradesmen are out of work," McAndrew said...

Last we looked, unions like the far-left SEIU and the AFL-CIO are strong supporters of illegal immigration. Perhaps this is just a local exception. Needless to say, if unions got on the right side of this issue they might be able to bring all but the most racist Dems around.

Previously: A 2003 affidavit said WalMart knew subcontractors were hiring illegal aliens in the case for which they were fined. And, WM says they won't hire illegal aliens.

Posted at 03:24 PM | Comments (2)

Massachusetts: discounts for illegal aliens stalled; Boston Globe bias

The MA bill that would let illegal aliens take discounted college educations away from U.S. citizens has been delayed until 2006: "House delays tuition bill vote".

In other news, the Boston Globe isn't telling their readers the whole truth about this matter.

First, they don't use "illegal aliens", prefering instead "undocumented immigrants."

Second, let's consider their summary of the bill:

Under the proposed law, they would qualify for in-state tuition if they graduate from a Massachusetts high school after attending it for at least three years and if they sign an affidavit affirming that they intend to seek citizenship.

The truth of the bill is a "bit" more broad. As discussed here, they don't have to actually have graduated: they just need the "equivalent" of it. And, they don't even have to sign the affadavit: they can do that at a more convenient time. In other words, practically any illegal alien who lived in MA for three years would be eligible, and they wouldn't have to really do anything to take a discounted college education away from a citizen.

Previously: "Boston Globe does hit piece on Kerry Healey" and "Boston Globe's Yvonne Abraham makes fun of Minuteman Project".

Posted at 03:47 AM | Comments (2)

Could Paris happen here?

Mark Krikorian offers "L'Intifada en Los Estados Unidos", which discusses a few points previously made here:

1. The guest/temporary worker schemes will result in millions of people coming here to stay.
2. Those millions - mostly from Mexico - will give that country even more power over us than they already have.
3. If we tried to kick them out, it would result in civil unrest similar to that in Paris.

...a Mexican immigrant population of 20 or 25 million is qualitatively different from today’s already-huge 11 million. It would create more of a constituency for the Aztlan irredentism that is already a normal part of political debate on the Left in California; more immediately, it would facilitate the Mexican government’s anti-assimilation initiatives (described in detail here by Heather Mac Donald) designed to create a regime of shared Mexican-U.S. sovereignty over much of our population, with Mexico City serving, in effect, as a second federal government that local and state officials would be answerable to. And when we rouse ourselves to reassert our exclusive sovereignty, as the French state tried to do in the no-go zones of its immigrant suburbs, the pushback might well be as intense...

Then, he provides information on other countries we could get serf labor from (see my Bangladesh example):

if you want huge amounts of really cheap labor, go to Indonesia (242 million people, 88 percent Muslim, per capita GDP $3,500) or Pakistan (162 million, 97 percent Muslim, GDP $2,200) or Bangladesh (144 million, 83 percent Muslim, GDP $2,000) or Egypt (77 million, 94 percent Muslim, GDP $4,200).

Someone from the Cato Institute actually suggested that we bring tsunami victims here as guest workers. No, I'm not joking.

Neither George Bush nor John McCain - nor even Ted Kennedy - want immigrant uprisings in America's cities. But their immigration proposals would move us in that direction. We need to choose a different path.

Posted at 03:58 PM | Comments (2)

"The Myth Of No-Cost Immigrants"

From this:

The University of Florida finds that immigrant families have been costing that state a net $1,800 per household per year, a financial burden much larger than previously thought. [by David Denslow; article here, snippet here]

...In fact, a recent study by the Center for Immigration Studies found that the average welfare payout to immigrant households, both legal and illegal, has changed little and remains about $2,000 a year, which is 50% higher than the payout for natives.

In 1996, 22% of immigrant households were on the dole (compared with 15% for natives), according to CIS. By 2001, the share rose to 23%. Over that period, average Medicaid payments to immigrants jumped to $1,495 from $1,203.

Immigrant households account for a growing share of the welfare caseload.

The number of immigrants using at least one major welfare program has steadily increased, with the exception of a small drop in 1997.

Between 1996 and 2001, the number of immigrant households using the welfare system grew by 750,000 to more than 3 million — accounting for almost 18% of all U.S. households on welfare. That share is expected to rise with continued high rates of immigration.

And if you think immigrants, most of whom are poor Mexicans, will stop depending on U.S. welfare as they settle into jobs and even careers here, think again...

Posted at 06:34 AM | Comments (0)

"Gulf rebuilders concede hiring illegals"

From 11/12:

Contractors working in the Gulf Coast region say they are actively looking for local workers, but some acknowledge they are turning to day-laborer programs, which often include illegal aliens. "We are primarily working through a large number of subcontractors and being proactive in achieving local hiring. And, yes, they do access day-laborer type of forces whenever possible," said Chris Sammons, spokesman for the Shaw Group Inc. The Baton Rouge, La., engineering and construction firm, a prime contractor for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, has worked with 150 subcontractors to provide a range of services, including roof repairs, temporary housing and rebuilding assessments in hurricane-ravaged parts of Louisiana. "I think you'll see more of that," Mr. Sammons said of the day laborers. He did not give any details about the employment practices used by Shaw's subcontractors...

Posted at 03:33 AM | Comments (9)

NBC's Law & Order and their anti-Minuteman Project propaganda

Wednesday's Law & Order from NBC featured an episode about a member of the "Countryman Project" murdering a trucker who smuggled illegal aliens in to the U.S. Details in "'Minuteman'-like murderers convicted on 'Law & Order'".

However, as you see in the screengrab from their site, they refer to it there as the "Minutemen", a name which I believe is a trademark. Now, NBC certainly has a lot of lawyers, but hopefully the MMP can find some of their own for what might just be a slamdunk case. Their promo, which I've cached just in case, also uses that trademark and not NBC's similar name.

While controversies sell, and some times the media creates a controversy simply to make money, I believe this goes a bit deeper. I believe this episode qualifies as propaganda. The writers and producers of the show are members of a certain class, what we might call the Nanny Employing Class: those who can afford a nanny and a housekeeper and other domestic servants. And, the last thing those people want to do is have their domestics be deported. The next to last thing those people want is for their domestics to think they're racists. And, since they aren't capable of understanding all the complexities inherent in illegal immigration - they're artists not thinkers - they come up with things like this.

The fact that propaganda such as this benefits those major corporations that profit off illegal labor may also play a part. After all, why bite the hands that might have advertising money in them.

And, apparently it was topsy-turvy land all over NBC: "NBC's E Ring: Christian Terroists Take Over Mosque!"

Please send a short, polite email to the president of NBC Entertainment letting him know what you think: Jeff.zucker *at* nbc.com

Posted at 10:54 PM | Comments (3)

Sean Hannity doesn't read this site

Sean Hannity interviewed DHS head Michael Chertoff and (perhaps he was being disingenuous) got a little confused:

HANNITY: Because you had made a controversial statement, and you seem to be backing off of it now, and it was that people that are here illegally, that they all ought to be sent back... And it seems like now you've sort of backed off that position a little bit, because there are million that we estimate that are in this country illegally...

CHERTOFF: Well, what I said, Sean, was this. I said everybody that we apprehend, that we catch at the border, who's coming in illegally, we ought to send back...

Now, of course, I was about the only person who didn't simply take Drudge's and AFP's word for it, and actually read what he said at the time: Chertoff promotes "Temporary Worker Program" at Senate meeting. Needless to say, the interview goes on, sounding very similar to what's in his prepared remarks discussed at that link:

Well, Sean, you know, it's really an issue of practicality [why we can't just tell all the illegal aliens in the U.S. to go home].

I mean, as a practical matter, we've got to identify these people and pull them out of the shadows.

Now, this is not an amnesty. This is not — the president's proposal is not a path to citizenship. It's clearly temporary, and it clearly envisions people who would have to commit to go back...

See the last link. Their scheme is clearly not temporary. Then, Hannity realizes the awful truth:

The only thing I would respectfully question you on or disagree with you slightly on is those that are here illegally, those that didn't respect the laws of the United States or our sovereignty, I want to go back to that question again, because basically you're saying they can stay.

Then, Chertoff lets Hannity in on the awful truth:

And we also want to punish employers who don't use the legally available channel for getting workers across to do temporary work.

And that's tough. I mean, a lot of people are not going to like the fact that we're cracking down on employers who — we're doing it now in nuclear plants, we're doing it now in critical infrastructure.

Those are about the only places where they do it. And, I wonder what would happen if the DHS decided to crack down on employers. Would those employers stop donating money to the GOP?

In other words, the choice to the GOP is as follows:
- Look the other way and get donations
- Enforce the law and don't get donations

Question: isn't one of the major differences between successful and unsuccessful countries the level of corruption in the country?

Posted at 11:31 AM | Comments (2)

Danbury newspaper threatened, called "traitors"

A Brazilian-oriented newspaper in Danbury, Connecticut took part in a WTNH-TV investigative report about illegal housing and documentation. Now, other Brazilian-oriented newspapers in that town have turned on them, including one calling them "Traitors". And, there have even been death threats. Details and pictures here:

Breno da Mata is the publisher of the newspaper Community News.

"They point out some stuff that's not their job," says da Mata. "Like what?" asks Alan Cohn. "They po