Polite Kid

The CNN debate transcript, at least the first part of it, is here.
Just a few quotes, mostly on questions to do with immigration and sovereignty:
Ernie Nardi: This is Ernie Nardi from Dyker Heights in Brooklyn, New York, with a question for the ex-Mayor Giuliani.
Under your administration, as well as others, New York City was operated as a sanctuary city, aiding and abetting illegal aliens.
I would like to know, if you become president of the United States, will you continue to aid and abet the flight of illegal aliens into this country?
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: Ernie, that was a very good question. And the reality is that New York City was not a sanctuary city. (OFF-MIKE) single illegal immigrant that New York City could find that either committed a crime or was suspected of a crime. That was in the executive order originally done by Ed Koch, continued by David Dinkins and then done by me.
The reason for the confusion is, there were three areas in which New York City made an exception. New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn't allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week.
The other two exceptions related to care -- emergency care in the hospital and being able to report crimes. If we didn't allow illegals to report crimes, a lot of criminals would have gone free because they're the ones who had the information.
But, most important point is, we reported thousands and thousands and thousands of names of illegal immigrants who committed crimes to the immigration service. They did not deport them. And what we did, the policies that we had, were necessary because the federal policies weren't working.
The federal policies weren't working, stopping people coming into the United States. If I were president of the United States, I could do something about that by deploying a fence, by deploying a virtual fence, by having a BorderStat system like my COMSTAT system that brought down crime in New York, and just stopping people from coming in, and then having a tamper-proof ID card.
Cooper: Time.
Governor Romney, was New York a sanctuary city?
Romney: Absolutely. It called itself a sanctuary city. And as a matter of fact, when the welfare reform act that President Clinton brought forward said that they were going to end the sanctuary policy of New York City, the mayor actually brought a suit to maintain its sanctuary city status.
And the idea that they reported any illegal alien that committed a crime -- how about the fact that the people who are here illegally have violated the law? They didn't report everybody they found that was here illegally.
And this happens to be a difference between Mayor Giuliani and myself and probably others on this stage as well, which is we're going to have to recognize in this country that we welcome people here legally.
But the mayor said -- and I quote almost verbatim -- which is if you happen to be in this country in an undocumented status -- and that means you're here illegally -- then we welcome you here. We want you here. We'll protect you here.
That's the wrong attitude. Instead, we should say if you're here illegally, you should not be here. We're not going to give you benefits, other than those required by the law, like health care and education, and that's the course we're going to have to pursue.
Cooper: Mayor Giuliani?
Giuliani: It's unfortunate, but Mitt generally criticizes people in a situation in which he's had far the -- worst record.
For example, in his case, there were six sanctuary cities. He did nothing about them.
There was even a sanctuary mansion. At his own home, illegal immigrants were being employed, not being turned into anybody or by anyone. And then when he deputized the police, he did it two weeks before he was going to leave office, and they never even seemed to catch the illegal immigrants that were working at his mansion. So I would say he had sanctuary mansion, not just sanctuary city.
Cooper: All right. I have to allow Governor Romney to respond...
Romney: Mayor, you know better than that.
(Laughter)
Giuliani: No ...
Romney: OK, then listen. All right? Then listen. First of all ...
Giuliani: You did have illegal immigrants working at your mansion, didn't you?
Romney: No, I did not, so let's just talk about that. Are you suggesting, Mr. Mayor -- because I think it is really kind of offensive actually to suggest, to say look, you know what, if you are a homeowner and you hire a company to come provide a service at your home -- paint the home, put on the roof. If you hear someone that is working out there, not that you have employed, but that the company has.
If you hear someone with a funny accent, you, as a homeowner, are supposed to go out there and say, "I want to see your papers."
Is that what you're suggesting?
Giuliani: What I'm suggesting is, if you ...
(Crosstalk)
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude, that your whole approach to immigration...
Romney: I'm sorry, immigration is not holier than thou, Mayor. It's the law.
Giuliani: If you're going to take this holier than thou attitude that you are perfect on immigration...
Romney: I'm not perfect.
Giuliani: ... it just happens you have a special immigration problem that nobody else up here has. You were employing illegal immigrants. That is a pretty serious thing. They were under your nose.
(Applause)
And ...
Romney: I ask the mayor again. Are you suggesting, Mayor, that if you have a company that you hired who provide a service, that you now are responsible for going out and checking the employees of that company, particularly those that might look different or don't have an accent like yours, and ask for their papers -- I don't think that's American, number one.
Number two ...
Cooper: We got to move on.
Romney: Let me tell you what I did as governor. I said no to driver's licenses for illegals.
I said, number two, we're going to make sure that those that come here don't get a tuition break in our schools, which I disagree with other folks on that one.
(Applause)
Number three, I applied to have our state police enforce the immigration laws in May, seven months before I was out of office.
It took the federal government a long time to get the approvals and we enforced the law. And Massachusetts is not a sanctuary state, and the policies of the mayor of pursuing a sanctuary nation or pursuing a sanctuary city...
Cooper: We've got a number ...
Romney: ... are, frankly, wrong.
Cooper: We've got a number of questions from our viewers on this topic, so we have a lot more to talk about on this. You will have another chance to respond.
(Applause)
Giuliani: And it's really hard -- it's really hard to have employer sanctions...
(Audience booing)
Cooper: All right. Let's play this next video from the same topic.
(Begin video clip)
Michael Weitz: Good evening. There are thousands of people in Canada and Mexico waiting to come to America legally. They want to become American citizens. They want to be part of the American dream. Yet, there are those in the Senate that want to grant amnesty for those that come here illegally.
Will you pledge tonight, if elected president, to veto any immigration bill that involves amnesty for those that have come here illegally?
Thank you.
Cooper: Senator Thompson?
(Applause)
Thompson: Yes, I pledge that. A nation that cannot and will not defend its own borders will not forever remain a sovereign nation. And it's unfair...
(Applause)
We have -- we have thousands of people standing in line at embassies around the world to become United States American citizens, to come here to get a green card, to come here and to assimilate and be a part of our culture. They are part of what has made our country great. Some of our better citizens. We all know them and love them.
Now, it's our country together -- their's and ours, now together. It's our home. And we now get to decide who comes into our home.
And to place somebody above them or in front of them in line is the wrong thing to do.
We've got to strengthen the border. We've got to enforce the border. We've got to punish employers -- employers who will not obey the law. And we've got to eliminate sanctuary cities and say to sanctuary cities, if you continue this, we're going to cut off federal funding for you, you're not going to do it with federal money.
(Applause)
Now, there are parts of what both of these gentlemen have just said that I would like to associate myself with.
First of all, of course, Governor Romney supported the Bush immigration plan until a short time ago. Now he's taken another position, surprisingly.
(Laughter)
As far as Mayor Giuliani is concerned, I am a little surprised the mayor says, you know, everybody's responsible for everybody that they hire, but we'll have to address that a little bit further later. I think we've all had people probably that we have hired that in retrospect probably is a bad decision.
(Laughter)
He did have a sanctuary city. In 1996, I helped pass a bill outlawing sanctuary cities. The mayor went to court to overturn it. So, if it wasn't a sanctuary city, I'd call that a frivolous lawsuit.
(Applause)''
One question to Tom Tancredo was from a man who said he 'needed' guest workers for his business, and he wanted to know what Tancredo would do to help him.
...Well, I'll tell you, I'm not going to aid any more immigration into this country, because in fact, immigration...
(Applause)
... massive immigration into the country, massive immigration, both legal and illegal, does a couple of things.
One of it is, makes it difficult for us to assimilate. The other thing is that it does take jobs.
I reject the idea -- I reject the idea, categorically, that there are jobs that, quote, "No American will take." I reject it.
(Applause)
Now, what they will do...
(Applause)
... what you can say -- what you absolutely can say to these people is that there are no -- there are some jobs Americans won't take for what I can get any illegal immigrant to do that job for. Yes, that's true.
But am I going to feel sorry if a business has to increase its wages in order for somebody in this country to make a good living? No, I don't feel sorry about that and I won't apologize for it for a moment. And there are plenty of Americans who will do those jobs.
(Applause)
[...]
Cooper: We've got another question from a YouTube watcher. Let's watch, please.
YouTube question: Good evening, candidates. This is (inaudible) from Arlington, Texas, and this question is for Ron Paul.
I've met a lot of your supporters online, but I've noticed that a good number of them seem to buy into this conspiracy theory regarding the Council of Foreign Relations, and some plan to make a North American union by merging the United States with Canada and Mexico.
These supporters of yours seem to think that you also believe in this theory. So my question to you is: Do you really believe in all this, or are people just putting words in your mouth?
Cooper: Congressman Paul, 90 seconds.
Paul: Well, it all depends on what you mean by "all of this." the CFR exists, the Trilateral Commission exists. And it's a, quote, "conspiracy of ideas." This is an ideological battle. Some people believe in globalism. Others of us believe in national sovereignty.
And there is a move on toward a North American union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and it eventually ended up.
And there is a move on toward a North American Union, just like early on there was a move on for a European Union, and eventually ended up. So we had NAFTA and moving toward a NAFTA highway. These are real things. It's not somebody made these up. It's not a conspiracy. They don't talk about it, and they might not admit about it, but there's been money spent on it. There was legislation passed in the Texas legislature unanimously to put a halt on it. They're planning on millions of acres taken by eminent domain for an international highway from Mexico to Canada, which is going to make the immigration problem that much worse.
So it's not so much a secretive conspiracy, it's a contest between ideologies, whether we believe in our institutions here, our national sovereignty, our Constitution, or are we going to further move into the direction of international government, more U.N.
You know, this country goes to war under U.N. resolutions. I don't like big government in Washington, so I don't like this trend toward international government. We have a WTO that wants to control our drug industry, our nutritional products. So, I'm against all that.
But it's not so much as a sinister conspiracy. It's just knowledge is out there. If we look for it, you'll realize that our national sovereignty is under threat.
Cooper: Congressman Paul, thank you.
(Applause)''
Reading through the transcript it does appear that Romney and Huckabee had a sharp exchange over the immigration issue, specifically over tuition breaks for illegals. When reminded of his favoring children of illegals in that respect, Huckabee resorted to claiming the moral high ground by saying we are a 'better country' than to punish children for their parents' acts. And then Huckabee went into his Abraham Lincoln-esque story about coming up from poverty.
In all, the debate doesn't seem to have revealed anything I didn't already know, and it confirmed my already-existing perceptions of the candidates. I think this series of debates (which are not real debates, anyway) have done little but produce a certain campaign fatigue in many of us; I'm hearing people say they are sick of the election and the candidates.
Any thoughts?

Labels: American Sovereignty, Amnesty, Elections, Gop Ron Paul, Illegal Immigration, Presidential Candidates, Presidential Debates

Martinez Says He's Not Backing Down On Immigration Reform
Sen. Mel Martinez told the Tampa Tribune editorial board today that he�ll continue pressing for immigration reform, despite the criticism his prominent role in the issue got him from the conservative wing of his own party.
[...]
Martinez said he put heavy penalties and requirements for earned citizenship in his bill last year, hoping to prevent the "amnesty" accusation. But now, he said, he realizes he can�t stop that accusation, so he�ll proceed regardless of the critics.
He even appeared to say he would put lighter penalties into his new version of the bill. But a spokesman later said that�s not what Martinez meant.
"Dealing with the 12 million [illegal immigrants] here, we all want to say it�s not with amnesty," he said. "Unfortunately, we allowed those who would call amnesty anything other than deportation to sort of define amnesty."
Realistically, he said, the country can�t deport all illegal immigrants here now, so the question is what requirements to impose to bring them to "a regularized status."
In his previous bill, "We had so many penalties and what not on these people, by the way, and trying not to make it amnesty, and it still got called amnesty. So this time around I�m going to be a little lighter on the sentences and try to just say call it what you willl. We�ve got 12 million people, we�ve got a broken-down system, we�ve just got to find a way to come to some sensible outcome."
And of course, in Martinez's universe, a 'sensible outcome' is citizenship for all.
Is anybody surprised by this? When Martinez was named as the choice for RNC head, we all knew this was part and parcel of the amnesty push. Putting a Hispanic face in that position was an important gesture to the 'Hispanic community.'
This article perpetuates the by-now urban legend that 44 per cent of Hispanics voted GOP in 2004:
The Republican share of the Latino vote fell from 44 percent in 2004 to 30 percent this year, according to FOX News exit polling data. With the Hispanic vote making up 8 percent of the electorate in 2006 compared to 5 percent in 1996, the largest and fastest growing ethnic minority in America will be essential to winning elections down the road, say Republicans looking to recover from this year's losses.
"We can do better, we need to do better," said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee.
"We believe that the party that captures and motivates and gets the Hispanic vote to turn out is going to be the party who wins the White House" in 2008, said Brent Wilkes, national executive director of the League of United Latin American Citizens, the nation�s largest and oldest Hispanic rights group.''
Steve Sailer debunked the '44 percent' myth, but that hasn't deterred the GOP from citing that phony figure again and again and again and again. As long as they can keep deluding the gullible GOP faithful into believing that Hispanics would be solid GOP voters, if only we cater to them, and pass the amnesty... And the dutiful media keep on repeating the falsehood of the 44 per cent, and speak of the GOP's need to 'win back' the precious Hispanic vote. Uh, you can only win back something you previously had, and neither the GOP nor George W. Bush ever had 44 percent of the Hispanic vote. And even if they did, (which they didn't) it would still mean that 56 percent of Hispanics did NOT vote GOP, doesn't it? But as long as they keep on exhuming that old lie, they can pretend that Hispanics are essential to the GOP's re-election and success. So on we go, with the amnesty juggernaut gaining speed.
But Martinez, Danny Diaz, and the rest of the Hispanic amnesty-pushers should be careful; they are weakening the argument put forth by the 'can't we all get along' crowd, who say 'Hispanic-Americans are just as angry about illegal immigration as the rest of us. They aren't in favor of amnesty.' Now this piece of propaganda was never persuasive to me; my own personal experience says otherwise. There might be the occasional Lupe Moreno who considers herself American first and foremost, but such pro-American Hispanics are the exception, it seems. For every Lupe Moreno, unfortunately there are many leftist Hispanics who call her and patriotic Hispanics like her 'coconuts' or 'racists. Speaking of those leftist Hispanics she said:
They've practically spit in my face. They called me a racist more than I can count. But you know what, it gets to the point where that word doesn't mean anything anymore. They are groups of hatred.''
How many elected Hispanics oppose illegal immigration and amnesty? Since supposedly most Hispanic-Americans oppose amnesty, it should be a piece of cake to name a few public figures of Hispanic ancestry who oppose it. Funny; I can't think of one, out of all the elected Hispanics, congressmen and women, mayors, governors, or whoever. Similarly with Hispanic pundits or journalists. Even those like Linda Chavez, who is half -Anglo, are pro-amnesty. Ditto Bill Richardson, the half-Anglo politician and seeming presidential wannabe, who is pro-amnesty.
Martinez's arguments are pretty hackneyed, such as 'we've got a broken-down system'. What a lame pretext for abolishing our borders. Our government deliberately refuses to control our borders, letting in millions of illegals, then says ''Woops! Oh look; our borders are broken, our system is broken! Guess we'd better abolish borders and give everybody citizenship, since obviously our system is broken and our borders are unenforceable.''
No; the solution is obviously to start enforcing our laws and protecting what is ours, instead of letting burglars and pilferers break in and run rampant, then recommending that we give away our prized possessions and heirlooms to the thieves 'because the locks are broken', and then give them the keys and the deed to the family homestead. But no; common sense won't prevail, with our current leadership; they are hellbent on not just giving away what our ancestors worked and fought and bled for, but giving it away to whoever can grab a piece of it, regardless of their merit , or their potential to appreciate it or make wise use of it.
And what kind of message is it when our elected officials say things like we 'can't' deport all those illegals who are here now (and by the way, Mel: there are way more than 12 million illegals here; we didn't all fall off the turnip truck, so don't insult our intelligence.) Any elected official who chants the 'we can't' mantra is a disgrace. America would never have come into existence if our forefathers had whined 'we can't' the way these weaselly politicians and party hacks do.
Martinez himself is an immigrant. So often we hear of how legal immigrants appreciate their citizenship, and don't support giving amnesty to those who cut in line and broke the laws to get here. But I just don't see much evidence of that.
There are and have been many worthy immigrants, among them my late lamented colleague, who blogged as 'Aussiegirl', and other patriotic immigrants like Balint Vazsonyi, the writer and concert pianist who truly understood and loved the American heritage and way of life. Vazsonyi and others like him understood that it was something of a privilege to be given residency here, and an even greater privilege to be granted citizenship. It's a truism that we seldom appreciate what we don't have to work for, or what does not cost us much in terms of effort or personal sacrifice. By giving American citizenship away to those who have proven their lack of regard for American laws and the American system, let alone for the American people, we are making it a thing of little value. Truly when we give citizenship away to virtually anybody who makes it across the finish line, we cheapen it immeasurably.

Labels: Amnesty, Borders, Immigration, Politics

It's good to see the 'DREAM Act' defeated -- for now.
Of course there is squawking from the usual quarters, but that too is music to the ears, just as long as the amnesty-in-disguise was defeated.
For now.
Recently I heard, as many of you probably did too, about a potential GOP version of the 'DREAM Act' which may be in the works. I hope there is still enough determination to see this thing stopped, once and for all, but reading some of the exasperating comments online among the 'mainstream' conservatives does not exactly inspire hope.
There are still people stuck in that mode of saying 'I'm not against immigration, just ILLEGAL immigration' from the people who think that all legal immigration is good, and that immigration is our lifeblood, keeps our country renewed, and similar twaddle.
As of now, we still have a kind of de facto amnesty in place; once they set foot on our soil, chances are they will stay. Even those who commit crimes and are deported are usually back in the blink of an eye. And once they have kids here, they are home and dry. Legal or not, they are still given most of the rights of citizens, and then some, in certain cases.
Sure, a few are deported, if only for show, yet it seems that this is enough to satisfy some Americans. They read the news stories about the deportation of a handful here and there, and think 'good, they're enforcing our laws.' Yet for every one that is sent home or who goes home voluntarily, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands coming into our country.
The battle was won this time, but the war goes on.

Labels: Amnesty, Border Enforcement, Congress, Illegal Aliens

"The punishment suffered by the wise who refuse to take part in the government, is to live under the government of bad men." - Plato
That quote from Plato comes to mind as I read this piece about the 'immigration issue.'
This op-ed piece from the Washington Times takes a very pessimistic tone in regard to the pending amnesty bill.
Immigration disaster looming
Judging by what took place in the first hours of the Senate immigration debate last week, critics are deluding themselves if they expect lawmakers to improve the bill when debate resumes after the Memorial Day recess. Most of the organized political pressure on the immigration issue is coming from open-borders advocates intent on enabling more illegals to obtain amnesty and bring their relatives to the United States, and from Washington elites on the left and the right who think anyone who doesn't share their permissive philosophy is backward and xenophobic. Unless the American people rise up en masse and tell their senators in no uncertain terms that they cannot accept amnesty, the Senate bill will easily pass and no one should be surprised if it passes with amendments making it even more harmful to taxpayers and detrimental to hometown safety and homeland security.
[...]Right now, the open-borders side is on the offensive, while border-security proponents face an uphill battle in the Senate.''
The op-ed writers are simply being realistic; there are highly organized, activist, well-funded groups pushing aggressively for the amnesty to be passed, and our side, the side of the American people, seems to consist mostly of individuals and a few immigration restrictionist lobbying groups. We are not evenly matched. The fact is, it is a David-and-Goliath situation, and we the people, though the majority, are little David, and the Senators and their open-borders partners are Goliath.
However, the fact is, despite the money and the activist pressure groups pushing mightily for amnesty, there are far more Americans who oppose it, and who want our borders closed and our laws enforced. We are the majority, despite the opinions of people like Linda Chavez, who in her recent Townhall piece, asserted that we 'nativists' are a tiny minority. No; we are the majority, and our American system is theoretically based on majority rule, and the will of the majority should always prevail, as Jefferson said. The amnesty forces, the open borders zealots, are the minority, despite the loudness of their voices and the depth of their pockets and their stranglehold on the media. They are the 'tiny minority' as of now. For their will to prevail over the will of the majority of the citizens of America is an injustice, and a usurpation of our rightful power. We have to remember that: we, the people, are the repositories of power in this country, and our elected officials govern with the consent of the governed. If they are acting as rogue officials, representing foreign interests and corporate interests, not the American people, they are violating the principles on which America was founded. The prospect of our country being transformed by millions of strangers is troubling enough, but the deeper issue is that our government, in taking the side of these aliens, has displaced the American people from their rightful position of power. This is deeply wrong; our Founding Fathers warned of this kind of thing.
Here is someone who understands this, and who may be on the right track in proposing a Constitutional Convention. He makes his case here:
Why 'we the people' need to assert our sovereignty, or risk losing it
by Frank Miele
In the France of Louis XIV, the king could say without a shred of irony, "L�etat, c�est moi! The state, it is I."
In the years following the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, Americans could proudly say, "The state, it is we the people."
But in this day and age, who exactly is invested with sovereignty in the United States of America? Is it "we the people"? And if so, why do we feel so disenfranchised, so alienated, so used?
[...]Or perhaps sovereignty today belongs to the Congress of the United States? Could our elected representatives have seized power from us, right under our noses, and left us none the wiser?
[...]...last week I proposed that the people of the United States, through their state legislatures, ought to take back the reins of power and ask for � no, demand! � a convention to propose amendments to the U.S. Constitution � in particular, an amendment that requires border enforcement and denies citizenship to anyone in this country illegally, including those who were born here because their parents were here illegally.
If you think it is going to happen any other way, you are mistaken. And if you think the Constitution should not be handled by "we the people" because it is too fragile and too delicate, then you missed the point of having a Constitution. We are a self-governing people. It is not "we the dead people" who have the power in this country; it is "we the living."
[...]we should not be afraid to seize the power granted to us by our forbears and by God in order to revivify the words of Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed" and "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
[...]Thus, taking my cue from Jefferson, I am calling for a constitutional convention to quickly and once and for all establish the duty and necessity of the commander in chief acting to secure the borders of the country against foreign intrusions of any kind and establishing the authority of the Congress to regulate legal immigration but never to provide blanket amnesty of any kind for illegal residents of this country.
Such drastic action is necessary because it now becomes apparent that the people of the United States can no longer depend on the Congress of the United States to do our business. A constitutional convention may well be the only way to deprive the Senate of its plan to legitimize as many as 20 million illegal immigrants and change the face of America for all time.''
Please read the whole piece; Frank Miele is a rarity in the media these days: a real patriot who understands what is at stake.
I think we should do all we can, including keeping up the pressure on the politicians, but I believe Miele is right; Americans have become too disengaged, and too willing to be passive and assume that our politicians 'represent' us and our interests, when it's clear that most of them do not, at this point.
It may be that we need something as dramatic as a Constitutional convention; we Americans have to reconnect with our rightful role as the repositories of power in this country. We have to remind our forgetful politicians that they govern only by our consent, and that if we withdraw that consent, then they have lost their legitimacy to govern us.
Most of our Senators, judging by the crucial votes on the amnesty bill, have already broken their contract with us, their constituents, and have shown that they do not respect the will of the people. Something is needed to get their attention, and to remind them of their solemn responsibilities to us.
As Miele says at the conclusion of his piece,
Let�s take back our Constitution, and take back our country.'
"When once a republic is corrupted, there is no possibility of remedying any of the growing evils but by removing the corruption and restoring its lost principles; every other correction is either useless or a new evil."- Thomas Jefferson
"If ever time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin."
- Samuel Adams
Friends, those 'vain and aspiring men' sit in the halls of power now. Are there enough of us "experienced patriots to prevent the country's ruin?"

Labels: Amnesty, Illegal Immigration, Open Borders, Senate

Here is a lot of useful info on the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, S 2611, also known as the Amnesty bill, via the Heritage Foundation's Robert Rector.
An important paragraph here:
The Heritage estimate that 103 million immigrants would gain legal status under S.2611 explicitly included: legal immigrants who would enter the country under current law; illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S. who would receive amnesty; and the increase in new legal immigration that likely would result from the bill.
Also there is much good information in Ben Johnson's piece, Amnesty Intranational from FrontPage Magazine:
The concluding paragraph says
This Senate bill will comprehensively change our country and alter the dynamics of our workforce. Perhaps the House will comprehensively overhaul the Senate bill. Otherwise, the Republican Congress will soon experience a ''sweeping'' of another kind.

Labels: Amnesty, Bill, Senate

I've just been thinking: we all suspect, or know, that another amnesty bill is on the way, and that the odds are greatly in favor of it passing.
And this of course is not good. But if we must open the gates to the millions, at least that could potentially allow for some of our kin from Europe and the Anglosphere to come here. I read constantly of the exodus from the UK and other Western European countries; I don't know how many would like to come here, but our current immigration laws discriminate against them. Likewise for would-be refugees from South Africa or Zimbabwe; granted, a few manage to come here somehow, but the deck is stacked against them because our government openly discriminates in favor of Third World peoples, seemingly the less educated and the less skilled -- and the less compatible -- the better.
But if an amnesty is declared, applying to all illegals, would not some of our European and European-descended kin be among those given a 'path to citizenship'? Why are there not more from Western countries availing themselves of our lax enforcement policies? Are they just too law-abiding, or are they still too comfortable in their changing countries?
If we must have a flood of new 'citizens', it might be a silver lining in the cloud if some of our kin joined us.
Or would our anti-White government find a way to disqualify people who are not 'diverse' enough to enrich our country?

Labels: Amnesty, Illegal Immigration, Multiculturalism

Linda Chavez's opinion piece on immigration is hardly a surprise. Despite her claims to being a conservative, she has consistently been on the side of illegal immigrants, and in fact at one point, was denied a cabinet post in the first Bush adminstration because of the fact that she had harbored an illegal immigrant in her home as a domestic.
Linda's piece is full of name-calling and race-baiting, all of which confirms my impression that she is no conservative, but a neocon right-liberal. The neocons are as fond of using the race card as any of the liberals are. And although Linda Chavez accuses 'nativists' of not having any logic or facts on their side, she presents none herself. She simply states that the xenophobes believe all sorts of negative stereotypes of Mexicans, and it's obvious she takes offense at this fact, although she herself, being an American, should have no reason to take offense. There's the rub: obviously she identifies with the Mexican illegals more than with Anglos or other Americans. She has shown us clearly where her allegiances are, and they are not with conservatism, and most certainly not with traditional America. Blood trumps culture, as I have said before. Linda is born and bred an American. She is culturally American. She probably speaks Spanish with an American accent. But she has as much as admitted that her heart is with her illegal distant cousins, not with her fellow Americans, not with me. and not likely with you, my readers.
So again, as with Ruben Navarrette, her ethnic kinsman who writes pro-illegal articles gloating about the "re"conquest of America by Mexicans, Linda has shown us where her allegiances are. She is siding against fellow Americans in favor of illegal Mexicans, just as Navarrette and Mel Martinez and Luis Gutierrez and so many others are doing.
I'm not even going to protest at her labeling people like me and other immigration restrictionists as racist or xenophobic. I have no interest in playing that game; liberals of both right and left love to race-bait, and they love to see the target wriggle and squirm and protest and sputter their innocence. I won't dignify the race-baiting by any rebuttal; one can't refute a charge of racism anyway, and the race-baiter is not interested in hearing any defense. They simply want to silence and discredit people. And they are in the wrong for trying to do so. Plain and simple. I won't get caught up in their game.
Am I a 'nativist'? Probably. Is that bad? Not in my book or my ancestors' book either; it's just the natural state of being. We are all born with an inclination to side with our own and to put our own people first. Linda proves that, but her people are the Mexican people, evidently. So Linda is just as nativist or ethnocentric, but merely in favor of Latinos.
Some people insist, in the absence of any real evidence, that people of Hispanic descent who were born in this country are opposed to illegal immigration. I'm a skeptic on that point; I say show me. Prove it. Anecdotes don't count, such as 'I have a friend (neighbor, co-worker, colleague) who is Hispanic and he/she doesn't like illegal immigration.'
Fine; show me your friend/neighbor/coworker who opposes illegal immigration and I'll show you quite a few more Hispanic legislators, congressmen and congresswomen, Senators, local officials, journalists and 'pundits' (like Ms. Chavez) who are avid proponents of amnesty, and who identify as Hispanic first, American being a distant second.
When push comes to shove, I think blood trumps all, and as Lionel Sosa says today in the Los Angeles Times, quoted here at the VDare blog, 'blood runs thicker than politics.' Sosa, apparently a Republican, has decided to work for self-proclaimed Latino Democratic presidential candidate Bill Richardson Lopez (Bill Richardson as was; but he wants to go all Hispanic on us all of a sudden. He's another exhibit in my case here.) So Lionel Sosa says right out that 'blood runs thicker than politics' and it looks as though it certainly is for Linda Chavez, as she sacrifices whatever tatters of conservative principles she may have had in favor of sticking up for her race, her people. Shouldn't her people be Americans? I have read that her Mexican ancestors came here many generations ago, and she is, after all, half Anglo-American. Sosa, at least, is all Hispanic as far as I have been able to determine.
What is it with people like Chavez, Richardson (Lopez), and Geraldo Rivera, who have only half Hispanic ancestry, but who suppress their allegiance to the non-Hispanic side in favor of the Hispanic ancestry? It is almost always that way with people of mixed parentage: the European ancestry is shunned while the non-European is emphatically embraced. I suppose that simply reflects how our society has devalued European heritage as inferior or 'boring' or dull, or guilty, while non-European ancestry is exciting and 'vibrant'. And then one has the heady experience as a 'minority' of being a self-righteous victim. There are a lot of benefits and power that go along with being a member of a 'victim' group these days. It must go to one's head; it must feel empowering and morally superior.
I would bet that, as the Latino presence becomes more dominant here, and as our collaborationist government sides with the Latinos consistently, those in our country of Hispanic descent will start to identify more strongly with their Latino roots. Many American-born Hispanics will probably take up Spanish more avidly and speak it more often with their Mexican-born friends and neighbors. They will likely become less Americanized, especially in border states and other areas with a large Mexican/Central American colony. The same process has happened in some European countries with their Moslem populations; the more assimilated ones began to become more radicalized and more Islamic in culture and religious practice with the growing presence of Moslem immigrants in European countries. Some of the third-generation descendants of immigrants began to be more Moslem than their parents. The same will likely happen in America. We will see a lot of triumphalism and gloating among the Latinos as they see our worthless politicians truckling to them and taking their side.
Just as lots of people in the West comfort themselves by believing strongly in the 'moderate Moslem majority', the same people, liberals and neocons, believe with little evidence that Hispanics are mostly opposed to illegal immigration, and moreover, that they are conservative, well-assimilated, and on our side. No doubt some are, but we will shortly find out how many, as Hispanics will start to choose whether they are on the side of Americans or on the side of their kin from South of the border. As the country becomes polarized, the 'Hispanic community' will choose one way or the other, and if human nature holds true, blood will be the stronger tie.
So we will see more Hispanics in public life openly siding with their own over the rest of us.
I would like to think I am wrong; I would be happy to be proven wrong by events, but I am calling it as I see it at this moment, based on what people like Linda Chavez, Geraldo Rivera, and Ruben Navarrette are telling us.

Labels: Amnesty, Conservatism, Illegal Immigration, Political Parties

From the 24Ahead blog, we read that Rupert Murdoch of Fox News has testified in favor of ''comprehensive immigration reform'', which in English is 'amnesty for illegal aliens.'' This is no surprise, and it will also be unsurprising when the liberals/leftists continue to identify him as a ''right-winger''. Will any of the avid Fox News cult members finally realize that Fox is not a ''conservative'' news source? And that Murdoch is not on the side of majority White Americans?
Murdoch, with his extensive media holdings and concomitant power is almost the living example of what I envision in my mind when I think about the globalist elites. He and his soul-mate Soros. Speaking of the devil, there was. from 1997, this interesting article about Soros, linked on the WTPOTUS blog recently.
He and Murdoch seem to worship at the same altar on the subject of immigration.
From the discussion of the Soros article:
THE EMMA LAZARUS FUND
It might strike a person as odd that one of America�s richest men would decide to take a leading role in calling for a more tolerant, open attitude toward immigration. But when one learns the man is George Soros, perhaps this is not surprising. Soros, profiled earlier this month on the popular television newsmagazine 60 Minutes, has a reputation for being a tough businessman, but also one of the world�s leading philanthropists. Until recently, he was best known for giving money to help promote open societies in Eastern Europe.
But recently Soros chose to tackle the issue of immigration. Soros knows first hand the importance of an open immigration policy. He is, after all, a Hungarian Jew who survived the Holocaust and knows that for many, the right to immigrate can be a matter of life and death.
Recently Soros created the Emma Lazarus Fund, an initiative of Soros� Open Society Institute. Emma Lazarus was the 19th Century Jewish-American poet whose famous words from her poem "The New Colossus" welcoming impoverished immigrants to American shores are on a plaque on the Statue of Liberty. The poem, beginning with the famous words "Give me your tired, your poor�" is one of the most famous in American literature and is now synonymous with America�s welcoming historical attitude to immigrants.
According to Soros, the Fund has the following goals:
"First, in appropriate instances, it will pay the cost of applying for citizenship for legal immigrants who wish to become naturalized Americans; second, it will assist community and social service organizations that help legal immigrants by providing English-language instruction and other services that help them qualify for citizenship; finally, the Fund will assist organizations conducting efforts, both in the courts and through public education campaigns, on the issues of naturalization and immigration."
Soros does not intend the Fund to promote open borders. Rather, he says the issue is one of justice � equal treatment and the rule of law, regardless of immigration status.''
Compare the above with the comments of Murdoch on immigration, quoted in the 24Ahead blog entry:
''It is nonsense to talk of expelling 12 million people," testified Murdoch. "Not only is it impractical, it is cost prohibitive."
Murdoch cited a study that gauged "the price of mass deportation at $285 billion over five years," which amounts to $57 billion per year, adding that "there are better ways to spend our money."
"A full path to legalization--requiring unauthorized immigrants to register, undergo a security check, pay taxes and learn English--would bring these immigrants out of a shadow economy and add to our tax base," said Murdoch.
He continued, "According to one study, a path to legalization would contribute an estimated $1.5 trillion to the Gross Domestic Product over 10 years."
One thing these men have in common is that they are both men of no fixed allegiances; they breathe the rarefied air of those above common loyalties such as the rest of us share. Neither of them seem to have loyalty to any particular country, though they are happy to profit from, and use, and manipulate Western countries.
Soros is the darling of the left, and their biggest money patron, while many on the ''right'' think that Murdoch is on our side. It's clear that Soros, Murdoch, and the rest of the lesser-known elites are on nobody's side but their own. Even the illegal immigrants they are advocating for and lobbying for are not of any real concern to them, merely weapons to be used or fodder for some plan to benefit themselves and their own little group.

Labels: Amnesty, Controlled Media, Corporate Elites, Elites, Globalism, Immigration, Open Borders

This story is enough to raise your blood pressure.
A group that preaches racial superiority and divisiveness wants to enact a stealth illegal immigration bill -- not dissimilar to chain migration. The bill will reward illegal immigration to the direct detriment of all American taxpayers and especially the elderly.
Kind of puts Judge Sotomayor's membership in La Raza in a new light, doesn't it?
Groups like La Raza encourage the Balkanization of America. They promote mutually hostile political groups that do not form a "melting pot", that do not utilize a common language, and that do not share the principles of America's founding.
Read the rest at the link. At the bottom of the post, there is a quote from a press release which supports the above story as being plausible.
I haven't spent much time blogging about immigration, legal or illegal, lately, or about amnesty. I think I said in the past that amnesty is more or less irrelevant at this point, as illegal immigration continues unabated as far as I can witness, and that since illegals enjoy a kind of de facto amnesty, why should they worry about whether or not an actual amnesty passes? And the linked blog piece indicates that such is the prevailing attitude among the illegals and their apologists. They enjoy just about every privilege that is supposedly reserved to citizens, without having the same responsibilities. Amnesty seems inconsequential to them. They are our equals and more, as far as our 'government' is concerned, so why would they want to change anything?
This idea of 'health care for all' seems designed to benefit the illegals and others who are outside the legitimate system. It will benefit very few, if any, of us.

Labels: Amnesty, Ethnic Advocacy Groups, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Lliberalism, Socialized Medicine

Well, the first cloture vote is over, and from the perspective of what's best for Americans, it did not go well.
FAIR, The Federation for American Immigration Reform, in their statement, uses the term 'tragedy' in referring to the amnesty bill.
This proposal -- if enacted -- will totally and utterly destroy the integrity of US immigration system for a generation. It will alter irrevocably what it means for our children and grandchildren to live in America. It reflects a total disconnect between the immigration enthusiasts in Congress and its impact on the average American community.''
The one comfort we have is that there is another cloture vote coming up on Thursday, and 60 votes are needed to pass it. So if five Senators change their votes, that would make the difference. (The vote was 64-35 today). So it ain't over till it's over. Still, the discouraging news is that some who voted 'yes' today had previously voted no.
In another encouraging sign, House GOP rebukes Senate bill:
House Republicans yesterday unveiled a resolution expressing their disapproval of the Senate immigration bill. It was offered by Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and simply read: "resolved the House GOP Conference disapproves of the Senate immigration bill."
The move puts the House Republican Conference at odds with President Bush, who has endorsed the Senate bill. Hoekstra said that while he preferred not to break with the president, the language and content of the Senate bill compelled him to vocalize his opposition.'
[...]
"There�s growing momentum on the House side to have our voices registered on the Senate immigration bill," Hoekstra said during a press conference yesterday.
Hoekstra said the amnesty provision, no matter how strict the language, was a deal-breaker for most House Republicans.
"That�s why the fundamental bill has no credibility, and basically what we are saying today is it is dead on arrival in the House, we can�t have secret deals, this has to go through committee, it has to go in pieces," echoed Rep. Mark Souder (R-Ind.). "A comprehensive bill will not pass the House."
Over at NRO's The Corner, Stanley Kurtz speaks of the Bad Vibe:
Something about this immigration battle doesn�t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there�s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That�s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that�s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.
Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it�s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it�s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we�re at each others� throats, there�s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.
[...]
Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America�s divisions. I fear it�s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it�s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.''
I second what Kurtz says. The bill may pass the Senate, and then die in the House, at least if the House is truly more responsive to the will of the majority than the elitists and sellouts in the Senate. But regardless of what the ultimate outcome of this particular bill is, I am troubled by what it is telling us about our system and about the prospects for our Republic.
Thomas Jefferson, in his first Inaugural address in 1801, said
Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
At Conservative Heritage Times, Michael Hill says
...But our classroom civics books did not tell us that majority rule only works where there is already a consensus of sorts on the fundamental issues within a particular society. For instance, in a Christian nation that enjoys a high degree of homogeneity in its racial and ethnic make-up, language, institutions, and inherited culture, most matters up for a vote are largely superficial policy issues. They don�t tamper with the agreed-upon foundations of the society. However, in a multicultural and multiracial polyglot Empire such as ours is today, the concept of majority rule is often fraught with dire (and even deadly) consequences for the losers, especially if the winners bear a grudge.
As I write, the U. S. Senate has just voted 64-35 (with 60 votes needed) to move ahead with Senate Bill 1639, the infamous Amnesty Bill. If the bill becomes law, which many of its supports now think is inevitable, it will grant legal status to between 12-20 million illegal aliens already in the country. This will literally open the floodgates to tens of millions more Third World immigrants over the next few decades. It will mean the end of society as we know it.
Who stands to lose by this devil�s bargain? The descendants of America�s founding stock will be the losers. Our ancestors bequeathed us a republican society based on Christian moral principles, the English language, racial (and some degree of ethnic) homogeneity, and British legal and political institutions. All this will be gone with the wind when we throw open the golden door to unlimited immigration.
Only the South, as reflected in the votes of most of its Senators, opposed this radical transformation. Some 80% of Southerners oppose amnesty. It is not surprising, then, that of the 35 "no" votes, 17 came from the South. That�s almost half of the total opposition to S. 1639. Only 11 Southern Senators (including Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Trent "NAACP" Lott of Mississippi) voted for the Amnesty Bill.
Perhaps Americans in other regions outside the South are quite happy with the idea of giving the country away to Third World illegals. But if the rest of the country is determined to go straight to hell, is the South obliged to go along for the ride just so "democracy" can be upheld?
[...]
If, in the cause of furthering America�s democratic institutions, you place your future in the hands of those who have already betrayed you, then you and your children will ultimately be dispossessed of life, liberty, and property in the name of democracy (and other dubious ideologies). You will have meekly acquiesced to the whim of a temporary majority because you did not have the nerve to walk away from the holy ground upon which you were commanded to kneel and worship the idol.''
Hill's conclusion is that secession may ultimately be necessary for those who can't or won't go where our elites are forcibly taking us. Some will call me unrealistic or extreme, but I agree with him. Maybe the fact that my forefathers chose secession once before makes it more thinkable to me.
We can only hope that the amnesty does not become law, but I am sorry to say that even if it does not, even if it goes down in flames in the House if not the Senate, it is not needed in order to utterly transform this country. The status quo, with unprecedented numbers of legal immigrants and refugees placed here at the whim of the United Nations, plus uncontrolled borders, will be enough to drive a stake through the heart of traditional America. The status quo is all that is needed for Bush and the rest of the Open Borders fanatics to have their wish of an America which is a multicultural banana republic. So, if we can trust our few honest Senators and Congressmen to do what is right, and to carry out the will of the people, yet we fail to close our borders and curb our promiscuous immigration policies, the result will be the same as if we had passed the amnesty; it might simply happen a little more slowly.
And again, the immigration issue is an ominous one not only for the transformation it portends, but it shows us clearly that our political classes are no longer responsive to us.
The status quo is unacceptable. Any politician who represents the status quo, or who won't actively oppose the status quo is unacceptable. The present crop of presidential candidates, with a few exceptions, notably Hunter, Paul, and Tancredo, represent the failed status quo, and are unacceptable.
I will go further: anybody who claims to care about the future of America, especially anyone who claims to oppose open borders and multiculturalism, yet who supports any of the mainstream candidates, is not being honest with us or perhaps with himself.
No doubt there is a streak in human beings that wishes not to rock the boat, to keep things as they are. Many people naturally distrust change, and that, in the right circumstances, is a good, honest, conservative trait, which serves society well. But in a situation like the present one, in which our elected officials are actively working against us, and essentially striking at the very foundations of our Republic, there is not much left of our country to preserve, so change is imperative. There are times when a change of course is absolutely required, as when we are in a vehicle with no brakes heading for a cliff. Sometimes we have to put the thing in reverse.
We have to face the unpleasant fact that these are the times our Founding Fathers alluded to, as in this passage from Thomas Jefferson:
Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers (adminstrators) too plainly proves a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing us to slavery."
There is a systematic plan evident, and a series of oppresssions. Folks, this time it's not just a matter of electing the other party. Both parties are complicit in this; neither party is properly responsive to the will of the people. There are a few individual exceptions but for the most part, both parties are culpable and a real housecleaning is in order.

Labels: Amnesty, Immigration Reform, Political Parties, Presidential Candidates, S1639, Senate

The Washington Times editorial writers give their post-mortem on the amnesty bill, and declare that it was killed by the American people.
The people killed amnesty
The justifiably furious reaction of the American public, which deluged senators with telephone calls, e-mails and faxes, forced the Senate to reverse itself yesterday and send the amnesty bill crashing to defeat � a potentially fatal blow. It was a devastating setback for the Bush administration and its Democratic Party allies, in particular Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Ted Kennedy.
In addition to being an extraordinary substantive triumph for the American people, it was a huge victory for the conservative movement. Talkers such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham and many others played an indispensable role in making available the research by the Heritage Foundation and NumbersUSA and analysis from editorial pages such as this one to tens of millions of Americans in a very short period of time. But ironically, by demonstrating in a powerful way its ability to reach and educate the public about the specific problems with the bill, talk radio has also made liberal politicians like Sen. Dianne Feinstein even more determined to revive the so-called Fairness Doctrine (the equal-time policy enforced by the Federal Communications Commission until it was eliminated in 1987 at the urging of President Reagan) in an effort to take away the one part of the mass media that conservatives dominate.''
They are right about the people delivering the coup de grace to the bill, by means of their calls, e-mails, and faxes.
However does talk radio in general deserve as much credit as this op-ed piece gives them? I don't listen to most of the personalities mentioned. Rush Limbaugh, however, I know has been a Johnny-come-lately to the borders issue, having been conspicuous by his absence from the debate until very recently, when he finally deigned to address it. And from what I hear, he was glibly predicting the amnesty bill would 'sail through' the Senate. Rush obviously underestimated the American people. Hannity has covered the border issue on Fox News, but to my knowledge, he is one of those people who makes quite a show of saying that he opposes only illegal immigration. In fact, most of the talk show personalities fit that category. Still, credit should be given where due, even if these talk radio people often play it safe and allow only politically correct criticisms of immigration. For instance, it's pretty much a given that any criticism of legal immigration is not allowed; only illegal immigration is fair game for debate. That is a huge problem that must be dealt with; if the open borders fanatics (and that is what they are) decide to forget amnesty for the time being, and just work on expanding legal immigration, what response will the 'respectables' have to that, since they have committed themselves to opposing only illegal immigration?
Too much of the debate on immigration is confined within the politically correct bounds of what is allowed to be discussed. If talk radio is to be really useful the debate should be broadened to include the full range of conservative opinion. Those who criticize talk radio for being 'too conservative' are clueless; the majority of talk radio hosts personalities are moderate/right-liberal.
But as far as mobilizing people to oppose the amnesty, the blogosphere has been a real force, I think. The old media, including the Washington Times, seem to have a blind spot where the blogging world is concerned. Some are of the belief that only a relative few log onto the Internet for news and discussion. I believe that more people than ever are turning to the Internet for these things, having found the old media to be hopelessly biased when covering political matters, and too focused on junk news when they are not force-feeding us propaganda. The Internet has created a group of very well-informed people, and these people in turn are exerting an influence on their friends and family who may not be Internet-savvy themselves.
VDare, Michelle Malkin, FAIR, and others who focus on the immigration issue have played a big role. The Internet is the only news source where you can access a full range of opinions and commentary. I think for many of us, the Internet expanded our horizons beyond the limited world of spoon-fed politics in the old media, including cable news channels.
So now that the people have killed amnesty, or at least stopped it in its tracks, what next? This should be an occasion for the people to feel their oats, and realize the power that resides in acting as a united group. The American people, as I've said before, are like Gulliver tied down by Lilliputians. We have for too long relinquished our strength, and allowed ourselves to be rendered immobile. There is still considerable power in a united majority.
Historian Will Durant said
'The political machine works because it is a united minority acting against a divided majority.''
If the majority in this country only realized the power that inheres in the majority when that majority acts as one, we might be able to rediscover our strength, and break the self-imposed bonds that restrain us.

Labels: Amnesty, Blogosphere, Majority, Media, Politics, Talk Radio

The massive amnesty push is under way again. They've regrouped after last year's setback and are gearing up.
First, we have this story:
Senator Clinton Aligns With Bush on Immigration
by Russell Berman
As Senator Clinton prepares to face off with many of her Democratic rivals today, she aligned herself directly with President Bush on the issue of immigration, using a campaign stop in South Florida to highlight a rare point of agreement with an administration that she criticizes at every turn.
Speaking to about 300 community leaders in an area with a large immigrant population, Mrs. Clinton staked out a centrist position on the hot-button topic, saying she supported a "pathway to legalization" for the nation's 11 million to 12 million estimated undocumented immigrants, but only if they waited in line and paid fines. She described her stance as "basically" what the president has proposed.
"I think, on this issue, the president is right," Mrs. Clinton said.
[...] Mrs. Clinton did not mention the fence issue yesterday. She has said she supports a wall "in certain areas," but she made clear that tougher enforcement of current immigration laws was a top priority. While she scoffed at the suggestion of deporting all illegal immigrants, she had strong words for those who break the law. "The ones who are criminals, let's deport them. If they're criminals, let's move them back to where they came from," Mrs. Clinton said, drawing applause from the crowd.''
And this one:
Senate illegals bill near complete
Senators and lobbyists are putting the final touches on a comprehensive immigration-reform bill that includes an easier citizenship path for illegal aliens and weaker enforcement provisions than were in the highly criticized legislation that the Senate approved last year.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who ardently supports citizenship rights for illegals, will introduce the bill as early as next week, according to Senate sources knowledgeable about the negotiations. If the Senate Judiciary Committee can make quick work of the bill, it could be ready for floor action in April.
Mr. Kennedy drafted this year's bill with help from Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, and outside lobbyists. Mr. McCain and the outside groups share Mr. Kennedy's support for increased immigration and leniency for illegals already in the country.
Among the most active participants have been the Essential Worker Immigration Coalition (EWIC) and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Both groups support giving current illegals a path to citizenship and increasing the flow of foreign workers into the country.''
And on Lou Dobbs Tonight, this report:
LISA SYLVESTER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): Senator Ted Kennedy and his staff have been quiet on the details of their new immigration proposal. It's by invitation only.
Even moderate Republicans like Senator Arlen Specter have not been offered a seat at the table. But the Chamber of Commerce and other special interests are having a hand in offering the legislation.
One Republican Hill staffer complained, "The Chamber has seen more than the senators when it comes to the actual writing on paper."
ROY BECK, NUMBERSUSA: Senator Kennedy has been inviting the stakeholders of this bill to come in. So that's the Chamber of Commerce. And it's the National Council of La Raza, and it's the immigration attorneys. Basically, the stakeholders are people who make money or gain power off of it. But how about the American people?
SYLVESTER: Kennedy's new bill will be introduced as early as next week. It may closely parallel legislation he offered last year with Senator John McCain. That was more generous to illegal aliens than anything that passed the House or Senate.
Under the previous proposal, all illegal aliens would be allowed to stay in the United States. After six years, they could pay a $1,000 fine and apply for a green card. A new guest worker program would be established, and most companies would not be required to check work eligibility of future workers.
If the new immigration plan reflects the old, it could put off swing lawmakers.
REP. BRIAN BILBRAY (R), CALIFORNIA: You're seeing Republican senators who had supported the concept before backing away off on this, because they went home in December and actually got an earful form their constituents. And you're seeing a lot of members of the Senate that had supported Kennedy before are not going to buy off on this now.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Here, Mexico's ambassador says that his country is planning on launching its own lobbying campaign to pass a 'guestworker plan' or amnesty. So now we have foreign governments, big business, National Council of La Raza, and other profiteers, namely immigration attorneys, all arrayed against the American people.
Hillary Clinton, it's worth noting, declares herself to be in agreement with President Bush on the border issue; she too favors amnesty, although she may say the obligatory things about 'deporting the criminals' -- they all say this, and then in the next breath, declare the need for a 'path to legalization' or 'regularizing the otherwise law-abiding' and so on. Talk is dirt cheap. It's all duplicity. Amnesty is amnesty, and if Hillary or any of the rest of the pack of politicians really meant to deport the criminals, they would deport all illegals. But of course they don't mean it; the tough talk is meant to gull the easily-deceived party faithful.
So Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush are on the same page, as regards the border issue. That should (but won't) give pause to the party loyalists on both sides. As much as the Democrats hate President Bush, the Republicans despise Hillary Clinton, and yet it does not seem to trouble many of them that these two are now officially soulmates on the border question. How much more of an illustration do we need that the two parties are Tweedledee and Tweedledum, as has often been said? The Republicans may be marginally better than the Democrats on some issues, but in general they both toe the line, where borders and sovereignty are concerned.
The respectable Republicans, the country-club and Main Street types, who are slavishly PC in most instances, are proud of looking down on Tom Tancredo, with his unseemly 'nativism'. But they know, deep down, that the GOP needs to have at least a Tancredo or two, someone to buck the system and stand up for those inconvenient conservative principles, because it gives the Party cover. When some of us disgruntled voters threaten to jump ship, then they will cite the existence of Tancredo as proof that 'the Republicans are the only patriotic party' or some such pat phrases. But one swallow doth not a spring make. The GOP will have to rediscover some conservative principles (which I am not convinced they can or will do) in order to retain the loyalties of many fed-up conservatives. They cannot maintain their base by pointing at the Democrats and saying 'see how much worse they are?' The lesser of two evils is still evil.
And last, the open borders brigades are planning more protest marches, like those of last spring, that shocked many previously unaware citizens into activism. To this I say, 'bring it.' It may well galvanize those who haven't yet been provoked into awareness. The illegals and their allies may be overplaying their hand, at this point, and I say that's a good thing.

Labels: Amnesty, Gop, Government, Illegal Immigration, Open Borders

Peggy Noonan has written a column which almost sounds like she is opposing amnesty, but which is really a paean to immigrants; her usual gushing mixed in with phony tough talk.
I've interspersed my comments in bold and in brackets below.
Slow down and absorb
Why do people want to come here? Same reasons as a hundred years ago. For a job. For an opportunity. To rise. To be in a place where one generation you can be a bathroom attendant at a Brooklyn store and the next your boy can be the star of "Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour," with everyone in the neighborhood listening on the radio, or, today, "American Idol" with everyone watching and a million dollar contract in the wings. To be in a place of weird magic where the lightning strikes. Boom. You got the job in the restaurant. Crack. Now you're the manager.
[Sometimes Peggy is downright weird. Where does she get these ideas? From corny B-movies? And the allusion to 'Ted Mack's Original Amateur Hour' -- few people these days even recognize that allusion, and what the heck does it have to do with the illegal invasion, Peggy? And by the way: I don't buy that today's immigrants have the same motives as my ancestors. They came to a wilderness and created a civilized society from scratch. That's a little different than sneaking into an established country illegally and asking for handouts. But let's let Peggy continue:]
I asked myself a question this week and I realized the answer is "Only one." The question is: Have I ever known an immigrant to America who is lazy? I have lived on the East Coast all my life, mostly in New York, and immigrants both legal and illegal have been and are a part of my daily life, from my childhood when they surrounded me, to an adulthood in which, they, well, surround me. And the only lazy one I knew was a young woman, a European, not mature enough to be fully herself, who actually wanted to be a good worker but found nightlife too alluring and hangovers too debilitating.
But she was the only one. And I think she went home.
Everyone else who comes here works hard, grindingly hard, and I admire them. But it's more than that; I love them and I'm rooting for them. When I see them in church, (it is Filipino women who taught me the right posture for prayer; Central Americans helped teach me the Bible) I want to kiss their hands. I want to say, "Thank you." They have enriched my life and our country's.
[Peggy lives in a dream world, truly, if she thinks that lazy immigrants do not exist, 'except for one.' I've known immigrants who had little work ethic, bad attitudes, and an entitlement mentality. Ask anyone who works in a social services agency. All immigrants are not plaster saints, except in Peggy Noonan's gauzy, glamor-lensed world of idealized 'hard-working' immigrants. And if she could not have learned to pray, or learned her Bible, without immigrants to teach her, that is sad. Just sad. Plenty of Americans managed those things without having our moral betters from foreign lands to show us. And if Peggy's life would not be rich without immigrants, how did our -- excuse me, my -- forefathers ever survive, without all those enriching immigrants? I guess their America was grey, dull, drab, and impoverished, before all the huddled masses arrived to enrich our lives, along with Peggy's grandparents. Immigrants to the rescue, huh, Peggy?]
[...]So what should we do?
We should stop, slow down, and absorb.''
[Peggy goes on to say that we should 'Americanize' the immigrants; start teaching the story of our country again, teach them why they are part of something good here. Fine, Peggy, but I have a suspicion that the kind of history YOU and your fellow liberals would teach them is 'America is a nation of immigrants; the Statue of Liberty embodies America, diversity has made us great, immigrants built America" and so on; the usual sentimental, maudlin, PC twaddle that has encouraged us to passively allow mass illegal immigration in the first place.
Then, Peggy cuts to the chase, saying:]
Here is the truth: America has never deported millions of people, and America never will deport millions of people.
It's not what we do. It's not who we are. It's not who we want to be. The American people will never accept evening news pictures of sobbing immigrants being torn from their homes and put on a bus. We wouldn't accept it because we have hearts, and as much as we try to see history in the abstract, we know history comes down to the particular, to the sobbing child in the bus. We don't round up and remove.
[...]We do the small discrete things a nation can do to make the overall situation better. For instance: "You commit a crime? You are so out of here." And "Here, let me help you learn English."
[No, Peggy, I guess we won't ever deport anyone as long as there are so many Peggy Noonans out there to protect the illegals and to stir up emotion over them. Our ancestors, though, would have done it; they knew that sometimes tough decisions had to be taken. Such is life. And by the way: why would there be sobbing children involved? If the whole family goes home together, and they would, then who would be torn apart? Peggy, here's a novel thought: deporting simply means to SEND THEM HOME. Since when is sending someone home the height of cruelty?
Peggy, you are old enough to remember when occasionally some immigrant fell afoul of the law: some Mafia figure or sometimes even a petty criminal -- and they were put on a ship to the Old Country. Did that break up families? Maybe; but our society was tougher then, and we weren't the handwringers and weepers that we are today. So we sent people HOME. And guess what? Life went on. America survived and was the better for it. The deportees survived, presumably, back at HOME. With their relatives and friends and kin in the Old Country. And the sky did not fall, and the Statue of Liberty did not shed tears.
But back to Planet Peggy:]
Let's take some time and find out if the immigrants who are here see their wages click up and new benefits kick in as the endless pool stops expanding. It would be good to see them gain.
[...]Digest, absorb, teach. Settle in, settle down, protect our country.
Happy Memorial Day."
It would be good to see the immigrants gain? Really? I would call it a good thing to see Americans gain. There are plenty of Americans whose wages have been depressed by immigrant labor; there are too many Americans who have lost jobs and livelihoods because of immigration, legal and illegal. I want to see Americans gain, Peggy. Let Mexico worry about Mexicans, let Somalia worry about Somalians, and China about the Chinese. My place, and yours, in a just and sane world, is to take care of our own.
What a radical concept.
Peggy Noonan is one of those people who is labeled a 'conservative' -- someone please remind me why? What conservative principles does she uphold or embody? In all the important respects, this woman is a liberal flibbertigibbet. She is forever gushing about immigrants, and telling us about her Irish immigrant roots and her warm and wonderful life in multicultural Manhattan.
Yes, I know she was a speechwriter for Ronald Reagan and later, George Bush the elder ,and unless I am mistaken, she was the one who crafted some of Bush père's loopier phrases, like "a thousand points of light".
She is a good writer in a sort of fluffy, twee kind of way, but give me the plainspokenness and common sense of a Phyllis Schlafly any day over Miss Noonan's cotton candy nonsense. Peggy would probably be a crackerjack fiction writer; she could crank out lots of corny melodramas involving hard-working immigrants enriching the drab lives of dull whitebread Americans.
The Peggy Noonans of this world are the reason WHY we give in to all the demands made on us by the world. The sentimentalist, bleeding-hearts like her, who see everybody as just wonderful, are the reason why Western countries are being overrun by immigrants and riven by social division and conflict: because weepy-eyed sentimentality is stripping us of our common sense and natural self-protective instinct. Our countries now have a dominant group of soft-hearted, soft-headed, compassionate-to-a-fault, do-gooders and pollyannas. These people, whether or not they acknowledge it, are enabling the cynical corporate interests who want mass immigration.
And many of these busybody, we-are-the-world liberals are Republicans. Where is the party that represents the old, muscular, don't-tread-on-me America? Instead we have immigrant-besotted liberals like Noonan wanting to kiss immigrants' hands. What is it with Noonan and the hand-kissing? She wrote that same phrase about immigrants in a column about last year's confrontational Mexican-flag-waving protests. Bizarre. The immigrants are marching with Mexican flags and angry slogans about gringos going back to Europe, and Peggy wants to kiss their hands.
Peggy Noonan, far from convincing me that we should welcome all those immigrants, has only convinced me that the Republican party has far too many goofy people like her, who want to rescue and 'thank' all those colorful immigrants, and she has convinced me that unless we find an alternative to the GOP, we as a country are sunk.
No offense to anyone from New York, especially lifelong New Yorkers, but living in a city which is so very much unlike the rest of America tends to lead to an acceptance of multiculturalism. I am truly convinced that many lifelong New Yorkers truly do not see what the rest of us see: the drastic remaking of America. Those of us who grew up in what many New Yorkers call 'flyover country' remember an America which bore no resemblance to the polyglot, United Nations atmosphere which New Yorkers live and breathe. Maybe to New Yorkers it is a natural and desirable thing to be a minority in 'your' country, but the rest of us are decidedly uncomfortable with that; we don't want the America we know and love to be changed, without our consent, into something different and something in fact hostile to us.
If this country breaks apart due to this massive social engineering experiment being performed on us, we may see the country divided on an urban/rural basis, with big multicultural, heavily ethnic cities versus heartland, traditional America. I know which one I would prefer to be in. Noonan and her fellow xenophiles can live in the teeming cities with hundreds of nationalities and languages if they like, but me, I like my America American.
Peggy and her ilk can look down on me and feel superior to me all they want to; I know where my allegiances are: to my forefathers and my kin and my heritage. She and those who swoon over immigrants are free to dwell among them; in my America we believe in freedom of association. Her America does not.

Labels: Amnesty, Gop, Illegal Immigration, Media, Melting Pot, Multiculturalism

Today's immigration outrages come from the Lou Dobbs Tonight show on CNN. The first story has to do with pro-illegal agitators demanding that our government stop enforcing our immigration laws. If that demand did not show such incredible effrontery, it would be laughable, because ICE seems to enforce the laws only in the most desultory way possible. For the most part, they ignore the law and give illegals free rein in this country, with the blessing of those higher up. Still, the widespread freedom illegals are given in this country is not enough for the illegals and their American-born collaborators, as you will see in the transcript. They are asking for the whole enchilada: no more enforcement, no more deportations.
Notice that these spokesmen for the illegals are implying that only 'criminal' illegals, that is, those who have committed other crimes besides being here illegally, should be deported. As if being 'workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers' should have the run of this country, gives them license to break the country's laws with impunity. Actually they have that right in practice, because of the do-nothing approach of our government. But the illegals and their enablers want to rewrite the laws of this country over the heads of the American people. If that is not absolute proof of their hostility to democratic principles, I don't know what is. Maybe in benighted, corrupt Latin America, they do things that way, by agitation and rioting, but that is assuredly not the American way.
The second story is about the hearings involving the National Guard's rules of engagement on the border, and the recent troubling incidents there.
Excerpts from the transcripts are below. I have bolded certain phrases for emphasis.
PILGRIM: Pro-illegal alien groups today demanding federal agents stop enforcing our nation's immigration laws. Now, the groups say they want all deportations to stop until Congress passes an amnesty bill for illegal aliens.
Casey Wian reports.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
LUIS CARRILLO, ATTORNEY: Let's take a vote. Who says English first?
CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice over): A sign of the times, a news conference starting with a vote on whether to begin in English or Spanish.
CARRILLO: This young woman here was a victim of the recent ICE raids.
WIAN: Last week, ICE arrested more than 750 Los Angeles-area illegal aliens, one of the biggest sweeps of criminal foreign nationals in U.S. history. Now illegal alien advocacy groups claim ICE is using racial profiling to also target otherwise law-abiding illegal aliens, such as this 20-year-old mother of three.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: ICE said that I was illegal. And the agent proceeded to arrest me.
CARRILLO: ICE has given the impression to the public that they're only going after persons with criminal backgrounds, when the truth is that they're picking up workers, mothers, fathers, day laborers. ICE has a historic custom and practice of engaging in racial profiling, stopping only Latinos.
WIAN: The facts prove otherwise. ICE deported illegal aliens from 189 nations last year, including 1,364 Jamaicans, 624 Canadians, 489 Chinese. 431 Filipinos, and 405 Indians.
The majority of deportations, both criminal and otherwise, do involve Latin American citizens. But ICE says that's only because those are the home countries of the overwhelming majority of illegal aliens. ICE says its recent raids only targeted illegal aliens already ordered deported by a judge. However, ICE says there were collateral arrests.
Now a growing number of illegal alien advocates are demanding the federal government stop enforcing immigration law.
JAVIER RODRIGUEZ, MARCH 25 COALITION: We demand, we demand a moratorium against deportations. On deportations and the raids.
WIAN: The same groups behind last year's pro-amnesty street demonstrations are threatening more protests and marches this spring.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
WIAN: All this an effort to pressure Congress to grant amnesty to the 12 to 20 million illegal aliens now in the United States -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Casey, is there any reaction from federal authorities on this protest?
WIAN: These demands, federal authorities say, are absolutely ridiculous. I mean, could you just imagine what would happen at the border if ICE and the Border Patrol decided to stop deporting illegal aliens in anticipation of Congress passing some sort of a guest worker or amnesty bill? The borders would be absolutely flood. They would be overwhelmed, even more so than they are now -- Kitty.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much.
Casey Wian.
[...]Well, let's turn to our border security crisis. There are currently more than 6,000 National Guardsmen patrolling our border with Mexico. But just what are the guard's rules of engagement?
An Arizona National Guards spokesman said, "We don't apprehend. We don't detain. We don't transport." Arizona legislators also want to know just what the Guard's role is. And today they held a hearing on the National Guard's border role.
And joining me now is Warde Nichols, Arizona's homeland security chairman. And thanks for being with us.
WARDE NICHOLS, ARIZONA'S HOMELAND SECURITY CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Thank you for having me.
PILGRIM: Part of the hearing today was to sort out exactly happened. What did we establish at today's hearing on what happened?
NICHOLS: Well, unfortunately, what we established today is that the National Guard are there on the border as basically window dressing. They can't do anything. They -- all they do is radio in positions of illegals when they're coming across the border. They can't engage. They can't, you know, apprehend, detain. I mean they're there basically to just radio in -- radio in positions.
PILGRIM: Now, you have said that the gunmen who cross over from the Mexico side of the border appear to be testing the resolve of the National Guard. Explain a little bit what you -- what you mean by that.
NICHOLS: Yes, based off the stories that we got from General Ratochek (ph) today an exact account of the story. I believe that these were paramilitary personnel in Kevlar, vests carrying automatic weapons coming in to test the resolve of what the National Guard are going to do in these situations. Test -- test to see what their response is when they come across the border in these type of situations.
And we found out today that with rules of engagement in the type of things they have to adhere to, that our National Guard men and women on the border are, in my opinion, terrible risk. Their rules of engagement are terrible. Their hands are tied.
PILGRIM: The rules of engagement are what? They must retreat, correct, and cannot engage?
NICHOLS: Basically, yes. They have to -- there's three or four different things that they have to do in process. And basically, in a nutshell, they cannot do anything until fired upon.
PILGRIM: Now this area, tell us a little bit about this area, and what kind of people might be coming across.
NICHOLS: Well, in this type of area, it's out near Sasabe and in this area there's a lot of coyote, human smuggling going on. There's drugs that are coming across the border and now in this particular situation, we believe it was some type of paramilitary personnel.
PILGRIM: And -- and there was no engagement whatsoever?
NICHOLS: Well, again from General Ratochek's report, one the armed gunman got within about 30 feet of one of our guardsman. And they were standing there, looking at each other, rifles in hand, and at that point that's what our National Guardsman went a different position in a defensive position.
PILGRIM: They withdrew and called in...
NICHOLS: Yes, they called in the border guard. And that's another thing that we learned in the hearing today, that our border guard, our Border Patrol, are there basically taking care of our National Guard. I think it's a little reversed. Our National Guard men and women are trained military personnel. Yet they have to call the border guard, the Border Patrol in order to be able to do anything.
PILGRIM: Now this National Guard operation is called "Operation Jump Start". It's $760 million so far. Do you think that that's a waste of money or do you think that's effectively spent?
NICHOLS: You know, I can't say it's a complete waste of money, because we have gotten reports that they have been able to help Border Patrol apprehend and detain these people.
But again I would venture to say that if we use that money more wisely and we are able to put them there in a primary role, able to do the duties of the Border Patrol, we would have much more success in securing our borders.
PILGRIM: Now this particular group of National Guard troops were commended for their action. Do you think that that's something that should have been done? They were commended not only by the National Guard but Arizona's governor's office for their actions.
NICHOLS: Yes, I wouldn't want to belittle what the soldiers did in any shape, way or form. They were following out their directives and their orders. But that's what we were looking at today. What are their directives and what are their orders and what are their rules of engagement? And I would venture to say that they -- that their rules of engagement and their directives must be changed.
PILGRIM: Now, this is a state hearing. But what would you like to see happen?
NICHOLS: I would like to see more awareness about this issue brought forward. That people understand that our men and women on the border are at risk every day because of the directives of the federal government and the directives of the governors that they have signed on to in order to have the National Guard at the border. And they're putting their lives on line, and we've got to untie their hands.
PILGRIM: This is not just a state issue, because this border stretches across many states. Is there any thinking that perhaps a few states could get together and start to reexamine the rules of engagement?
NICHOLS: I would love the four border states to get together and, you know, look at the rules of engagement and look at what Border Patrol's doing on the border.
We know the governor of Texas, just in last week, signed a decree basically putting another 600 plus Texas National Guard on the border to act more in a primary role there and to be able to ride along with Border Patrol and assist. And that may be partially the way to go, but I don't think it goes far enough yet.
PILGRIM: In this hearing today, any input from Washington? And you are happy with the support you're getting from Washington?
NICHOLS: No, we didn't get any input from Washington. And quite frankly, unfortunately, Washington in their federal policies, immigration policies, border security policies, have failed us miserably here in Arizona, and we've got to do something about it.
PILGRIM: Any next steps decided on today?
NICHOLS: You know, I did tell the general in the hearing today that we would like to have him back at some point. As we let some of the thoughts simmer and understand what was said. And we hope to get more answers as we continue to mow through this process and be able to, again, make good policy decisions that we can bring awareness of the issue to the forefront.
PILGRIM: In the interim, would more National Guard troops help the situation?
NICHOLS: You know, we asked the general that. And he didn't really quite have an answer for us that issue. He said that he's apolitical. He's not going to get into the policies and the politics of it and that he's just there carrying out orders.
PILGRIM: Well, sometimes politics has to be practical.
NICHOLS: Yes, yes.
PILGRIM: Thanks very much for joining us this evening and explaining it.
NICHOLS: Thank you, Kitty.''

Labels: Amnesty, Border Patrol, Borders, Illegal Immigration

I've often said that the best hope of this country is in the people, the real people of America.
Foehammer over at Foehammer's Anvil has a great post called Small Town USA vs. Sanctuary City, in which he reports on his recent experiences with a citizen of a liberal 'sanctuary city' and his contrasting experiences with small-town USA. The liberal 'sanctuary city' attitudes display little real knowledge of the realities of the world, while small-town Americans, contrary to the stereotype of small-town people as being insular and backward, have a much more savvy perspective, and consequently are better prepared to deal with the difficult realities facing America and the Western world. This tallies with my own observations in my experience living in both the liberal big cities and in the small-town environment. Paradoxically the small-towners are often much better informed about the wider world than the urban sophisticates.
The discussion thread following Foehammer's piece included a comment by Bill Strong, of Seymour, Indiana, who linked to his group's website
CHOICE - Coalition of Hoosiers for Order of Immigration Control and Enforcement
'Founded in 2006, "Because Americans have a CHOICE in immigration laws"
It looks like a very worthy effort and I wish that group all success; I think such citizens' groups, acting to preserve America, are a hopeful trend, one that seems to be taking hold in many places.
And the Patriot over at the People's Patriot blog writes about
One Way to Fight a Sanctuary City
The Patriot quotes an e-mail from a group called Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control, which appears to be a grassroots citizens' group. The group sent a letter to the Mayor of New Haven in response to the city's plan to issue 'municipal ID cards' to illegals. This is a novel approach: invoke the RICO laws against sanctuary cities.
For Immediate Release
CTCIC Sends Warning Letter to DeStefano
CT Citizens for Immigration Control sent a warning letter to Mayor Tom DeStefano of New Haven. The letter asserts that an identification card for illegal aliens would be a criminal violation of U.S. Immigration Law by inducing illegal aliens to reside in the United States.
The letter says the mayor and city officials issuing an ID, plus any citizen or organizations accepting such an ID card, would be subject to fines and imprisonment.
In addition, the letter says that such an ID card and its acceptance would be criminal racketeering. Officials implementing an ID Card and citizens accepting it would be engaged in immigration racketeering would be subject to private law suits under RICO.
"Mayor DeStefano will be putting himself, the City Council and other New Haven residents in financial jeopardy by passing this bill," says Mr. Streitz.
"If there is one person killed or injured by an illegal alien living in New Haven by homicide or vehicular accident, the mayor, the councilmen and anyone accepting this card would be personally liable," says Mr. Streitz.
"The parents of a murdered child are not going to want to hear the Mayor�s praise of illegals," says Mr. Streitz."
Again, it is encouraging to see the signs that people around the country are organizing and acting.
From the website:
We need you, our country needs you. Without your participation, our families' future and the future of the United States and Connecticut will remain dire. Collectively, we can reverse this trend and put ourselves back on the road to making and keeping America the greatest country in the world.''
Amen to that; we all need to be reminded that there are lots of people out there who see what is happening, and who care greatly about our country and our way of life. No doubt there are good traditional Americans living in the big urban centers, but such places are often actively hostile towards traditional American culture and attitudes. Small-town and rural America is the best hope we have for salvaging our country, or what is left of it. The internet is a great advantage for us in that even those of us who might live in alienating urban environments can find a kind of cyber-community with others of like mind. So even for those who may be isolated among the liberal multicultis in a big city can reach out to other traditional and conservative Americans via the Internet. Knowing that there are more of us than we may realize is encouraging.
And for Americans to act in this fashion is in the best tradition of this country; from such citizen activism this country was made.
We can all do something, and working with other citizens wherever we are is a heartening thing.
I applaud the good people of CHOICE and CTCIC, and all others, whether as individuals or groups, are doing their part. We are all needed; there will not be a man on a white horse to save the day for us; it's up to us.

Labels: American Culture, Amnesty, Illegal Immigration, Sanctuary Cities, Traditionalism

The latest I can find on the amnesty bill, S1639, is this piece from the editors at NRO.
Later today, the Senate will vote on whether to proceed on the bill. To revive the once-stalled bill will require 60 votes, which means that if the senators who vote no and the senators who don�t vote add up to 41, the bill is dead. The best vote count now has 33 no votes plus the non-vote of the ill Sen. Tim Johnson. Assuming this count is accurate, only seven more are needed to stop amnesty.''
They then look individually at the seven senators who supposedly have the power to stop this amnesty, and examine their positions. Some of these senators have been equivocal in their positions and thus might go either way.
The Washington Times has this report on the upcoming vote.
To pass the Senate, the bill must earn 60 votes today, survive a series of amendments, earn 60 votes in a follow-up vote likely to come Thursday, and then pass with majority support � all difficult tests on an issue that deeply divides both parties, and American voters.
"Our intelligence suggests that there will be the votes there to move on to the bill and to begin considering amendments," White House Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan told reporters yesterday as President Bush and his administration make a final push for the bill's passage.
[...]
Mr. Bush has made phone calls to senators, and two Cabinet secretaries have been such frequent lobbyists on Capitol Hill for the bill that Mr. Kaplan joked "they've basically been tenants up there for the last two or three months."
That's led to charges of arm-twisting and deals being cut.
"The American people have been working day in and day out to make the Senate understand they do not want this bill, and the administration is up on Capitol Hill trying to buy votes from senators," said Rosemary Jenks, government relations director for NumbersUSA. "When we see the final vote count, we'll know where to look for favors."
This thing looks like being close, too close for comfort. We will soon see.

Labels: Amnesty, Borders, Politics, S1639, Senate