More on the negligent parent front

We've had this discussion before. And here we go again. It's getting worse, y'all, not better. And it's going to continue to get worse, not better. Call me what you will (I've likely been called worse by better), but there's simply no way in hell that I'd ever, in a million years, place any of my children in a situation like that, including the boys but especially the girls. Indeed, as I've said several times before, I don't consider it one of my parental responsibilities to go about destroying their natural defense mechanisms endowed in them by their Creator. Quite the opposite.

Speaking of which, I learned only yesterday that we have a group of workers, of Mexican descent, working across the way in our neighborhood. Apparently one of them had the idea the other day to stop his vehicle and talk to two of my daughters while they were walking to a friend's house about a block away. To which the girls beat a path back to the house. But the larger point is that apparently the individual in question is looking to get his *ss in a sling.

Read More

'Wise Latinas' feeling their oats

Check out Auster's consecutive articles on the subject, here and here. (Note: I've embedded the links to the articles in the order they were posted at VFR)

Read More

Randy Brogdon on the specter of Specter's 'defection'

I wrote about the specter of Senator Specter's defection from the Republican party on April 29, and asked the question "how much idiocy can be crammed into a single article?" As was made strikingly evident in the article in question, it all depends on the idiot writing the article, as well as the idiots on all sides whom the writer quotes. In that particular case it was like unto a couple of dozen circus clowns exiting a V.W. But anyway,...

Oklahoma Republican State Senator Randy Brogdon of Owasso released a public statement concerning Arlen Specter's 'defection' on April 28, in which Brogdon stated the following:

Every day, dozens of 'conservatives' in Congress defect to the other party when they join with Obama by voting for new government programs, increased deficit spending, and billions in federal earmarks," said Brogdon. The only difference is that Senator Specter finally admitted he is in lockstep with the Democratic [sic] leadership. (emphasis added)

My only beef with that portion of Mr. Brogdon's statement is his referring to the Democrat 'leadership' as the 'Democratic' leadership. But that's a whole separate issue which basically boils down to semantics.

Randy Brogdon obviously gets it. He knows that Senator Specter was, while donning the mask of a Republican, nothing more than a subversive and an infiltrator, and that he is/was far from being alone. Few 'conservatives' (not to mention liberals) seem to be able to come to this understanding on their own. I can't tell you how many conversations of very recent antiquity I've had with (nominal) conservatives in which they express genuine anguish over the fact that the official U.S. Senate numbers are now 59 Ds, 41 Rs. If, they say, that jackass prevails in Minnesota, we are all but doomed. But we're already all but doomed, and we have been since January 20. There aren't 41 reliable Republicans in the U.S. Senate, and there weren't 42 a couple of weeks ago. Are you kidding me? The Minnesota situation is not only bogus, it is a diversion. And any conservative worth his salt ought to be smart enough to know it.

(I think too many of you are putting way too much stock in what Sean Hannity and the like have to say on the matter. Pay more attention to the public statements of Senate 'Republicans' like Olympia Snowe, John McCain, what's-his-name from South Carolina (I know his name, do you?), and etc., all of which have said publicly, on the heels of Specter's 'defection,' that the Republican party is becoming too conservative; that the Republican party needs to become more inclusive, blah, blah, blah. In other words, they seek to destroy the Republican party from within. Y'all don't understand that?)

As I've said numerous times, there are enough RINOs in that body to pass any self-destructive, anti-American (yes, anti) piece of legislation that comes down the pike with several to spare for another issue -- you know, so that one or two don't have to take all the flac all the time, and be outed themselves subversives and infiltrators, which they most definitely are nonetheless. And John McCain, my friends, is among them. Speaking of which, thank you Senator McCain for your service and your suffering in Vietnam. Now please be gone from public life before we have to drum you out. Comprehende Amigo? And that goes for the rest of you infiltrators. But I digress...

I did want to mention that Senator Brogdon is running for the governorship in Oklahoma. Someone as clear-headed as Brogdon, who sees the subversive nature of the Arlen Specters of the world and the danger it poses to conservatism, definitely has my endorsement.

Brogdon was also among those Oklahoma legislators who refused a specially made copy of the Koran from Governor Henry's illegitimate, falsely named, secretive Muslim front group which I've also written about at this blog. Does anyone think that so-called "council" will remain intact under a Brogdon governorship? Furthermore, does anyone believe that our Tenth Amendment Resolution would be vetoed under Brogdon's leadership? On the immigration front, Governor Henry did sign Oklahoma's immigration bill into law, but not before he was dragged kicking and screaming, in fine Janet Napolitano style, to the signing table, announcing to the public that "immigration is an issue exclusive to the federal government." Later when the law was challenged, Governor Henry indicated that it was up to the courts to decide whether Oklahoma has the right and the responsibility to its citizens to protect them and our state against invasion. I've already thoroughly refuted the abjectly stupid (not to mention, dangerous) assertion that immigration is federal issue exclusive to the federal government by its own decree, so I don't think I need to go over it again. Given Brogdon's positions on other issues, how do you think he'd come down on the immigration front, particularly on Oklahoma's unalienable right to protect herself from her enemies, foreign and domestic?

Governor Brogdon -- it has a nice ring to it, don't ya think.

Read More

Another impotent State Legislature inadvertently reveals the reason for its impotency

One of the most destructive and oft repeated lies that was ever perpetrated on the American public is the lie that immigration is an exclusively federal issue:

Most opponents also point out that immigration is a federal issue, and most legislators say Congress should handle it – Texas has a budget to pass, jobs to create and public schools to monitor, all in less than five months.

Many of this year's bills are unsuccessful repeats from the last session, when only three immigration bills – out of 72 – ultimately passed. Supporters acknowledge that most were kept at arm's length even by devout conservatives such as former House Speaker Tom Craddick, R-Midland, who felt they belonged in Congress. And the measures face even longer odds under a moderate speaker and a House that is almost evenly divided now among Republicans and Democrats.

Am I the only one to see that immigration has a direct impact on all of the above (Texas's budget, creation of jobs, the monitoring of public schools, etc.)? Moreover, am I the only that sees that the unwillingness of the Texas legislature to deal with the immigration issue and to declare it a "federal issue" which belongs in Congress is what's leading Texas and the Texas legislature to become ever more democrat(ic) and liberal?

Allow me to echo the prediction of Mark Krikorian who recently said in a video-interview dealing with the subject of immigration that Texas will soon follow in the footsteps of California in that it will become a swing state progressively moving more to the left until it is firmly in the Democrat column. Why? Because as I've pointed out more times than I care to count, immigrants to this country are, and always have been since the inception of this country, by and large, natural democrats. Among the best explanations for this tendency among immigrants to gravitate to the Democrat party was stated by Noah Webster who wrote:

Many of them come here with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.

They don't make a great distinction between the two because they do not and cannot know the difference. In other words, the regimes they've lived under all of their lives, and the regimes their parents and grandparents have lived under all of their lives, etc., have always been oppressive and arbitrary. This being all they've ever known, how could they possibly be aware of the difference (I'm speaking in generalities; I admit of the occasional exception, as did Mr. Webster)? Moreover, whenever our government acts in a way that does not suit them or their way of thinking, how could they possibly understand the distinction between the arbitrary enactments of their own governments and the lawfully executed legislative enactments of our own?

The bottom line here is that it is, always has been and ever shall be, a losing proposition for non-democrats to cater to immigrant groups whether they be Hispanics or any other ethnicity. The best that can possibly be accomplished by doing so is to corrupt your party's principles for the sake of gaining votes you're never going to get, and to simultaneously alienate your base which will result in a net loss, not a net gain, of voters loyal to your party. In other words, to turn your state and your nation over to liberal multiculturalist Democrats.

Wake up Texas!

Read More

Krikorian v. Nadler

Mark Krikorian lays to waste Richard Nadler's neoconic vision for a newly invigorated hispanicized Republican party beginning here.

Read More

Reminder

My original post on the topic being now pushed down the page, I thought I'd post a new entry reminding you to watch the five segment interview with Mark Krikorian, author of The New Case Against Immigration, both Legal and Illegal, which is now complete and posted online here.

Note: Scroll down the page to find other interesting interviews, including a post election interview with the newly elected Chairman of the RNC, Michael Steele, in which Mr. Steele discusses his impression of the personality type of Mr. Obama.

Read More

Mark Krikorian presents the fiscal case against immigration

Watch this interview with Mark Krikorian, part two of a five part series not yet complete, if you're interested in the fiscal case against immigration.

Of course the concerns of immigration restrictionists go beyond fiscal problems created by influxes of immigrants, and Mr. Krikorian's book certainly deals with more than the economic impact immigrants in large numbers present, hence the need for five separate parts in this series. Here is the main page where you can access all five parts of the interview once the series is complete.

Read More

New CIS report claims Latino move to left part of a "Broader Electoral Movement"

I thought readers might find this CIS report interesting and informative. Here is a summary of the report which makes for much quicker reading if you're short on time. Also, see this angry rebuttal published at a site called America's Voice -- I'm so glad America has a voice, aren't you? It reminds me of the time the GOP sent out to "select" Republicans a questionaire concerning President Bush's "initiatives," in which those select few of us who received the questionaire were informed that we spoke for Republicans in our areas, so it was vitally important that we fill out and return the questionaire so that the voices of the masses might be heard through us. I was so excited to learn that I spoke for hundreds, maybe even thousands of Republicans in my area, and I was so certain that they'd be equally excited to know that I was speaking for them, and that the GOP selected me to be their voice without even consulting them about it, that I sent a nice letter to the GOP telling them how I really felt about it. But I digress...

I question some of the findings in the report, particularly the overarching claim, or conclusion, that the Latino movement to the left in the late election is part of a broader electoral movement to the left; a movement which includes white males among other conservative demographic groups.

With all due respect to Mr. Gimpel, I think he leaves out of his study a couple of important factors. First there is the reality that many Americans like myself abstained in the presidential election, albeit I'm not sure there's a way to measure that number of voters accurately. Second, there is the reality that John McCain was such a poor candidate in virtually every conceivable way; that in terms of appeal he is simply out of Obama's league. When the choice is between two liberals, and everybody knows it, so-called "moderates" are going to go with the leftier and the more attractive of the two candidates every single time.

But my biggest beef with the report is the conclusion drawn from the numbers that Latino voters simply do not care about immigration policy ... as part of a broader electoral attitude. I think that is just naive at best; as if to say that Latinos do not identify with their cultural and ethnic heritage, that when push comes to shove, so to speak, Latinos are culturally and ethnically neutral.

Anyway, here are the concluding paragraphs of the report:

In summary, the 2008 election has no clear implications for immigration policy making and for a very straightforward reason: Neither candidate campaigned on the issue, nor was it clear that their positions were appreciably different.

Over the long term, Republicans can expect to enlarge upon their voting margins among Latinos as Latinos become more prosperous and move into areas of existing Republican Party strength where they can develop ties to other GOP adherents. As it stands, what separates Republican-identifying Latinos from Democrats is primarily religion and income. Involvement in Evangelical church circles is clearly associated with Republican Party gains among Latinos, but promoting religious conversion seems like an unusual and possibly controversial way to go about building a base of party support.

As long as Latinos remain in lower income brackets, an outcome virtually assured by sustained high levels of unskilled immigration, the Democrats will continue to maintain their lopsided edge. American ethnic history has shown that the path to Republican Party identification is a slow and multi-generational one. The greater the education and skills deficit new immigrants arrive with, the longer this political migration process will take.

I'm interested in your take.

**********

I decided to read a bit more at the site presumptuously named "America's Voice," and I ran across this item which is apparently a speech given on August 21, 2008, to the Police Foundation of the city of Phoenix, by the city's Mayor, Phil Gordon who states in his opening remarks:

When this nation was founded, no one ever conceived or imagined that immigration enforcement was an issue that would ever fall to mayors and local police departments. But because of federal neglect -- here we are.

Now there's a politician totally disconnected from his nation's history. And I'm quite certain he isn't alone in this uninformed thinking. In fact, I'll bet he's in the majority among his peers.

Now, it's one thing to argue that the federal government ought to have exclusive authority in the realm of immigration standards and enforcement, but it is quite another to assert, dogmatically even, that no one ever conceived or imagined that local governments and law enforcement agencies would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws in their own backyards. This guy obviously doesn't know squat about the original U.S. Constitution. He obviously thinks that (if he's ever bothered to even read the phrase) the granting of hte power to create a "uniform rule of naturalization" to the national government is the same thing as sole and exclusive federal authority in the realm of immigration law and law enforcement. It is not.

What is worse is that the folks who presumptuously claim to represent "America's Voice" have this tripe posted at their website, as if there is anything factual about it. They don't know or understand the difference either. They have an agenda -- Comprehensive Immigration Reform -- and anything they perceive to be helpful in forwarding that agenda, any "authority" they can cite to push their agenda through, they will.

This is a good example of one of the biggest problems we face in this country. What our Mayor is complaining about is the fact that his state legislature created immigration legislation which, naturally, put it on local authorities to enforce. Just as is so common these days, our Mayor hasn't even given the law time to work; he hasn't even given anyone time to make the proper adjustments, which they will in time. Our Mayor expects instant results, and when they don't come, instantaneously, he screams and yells at the top of his lungs saying stupid things like "no one ever imagined local governments would be tasked with enforcing immigration laws." Then comes along a group presuming to speak for the American People and they publish that crap. It is the same thing that happened shortly after Oklahoma's immigration law went into effect. The first time someone suffered the God-awful inconvenience of having to provide a birth certificate as proof of citizenship for driver license revewal, due to their own neglect no less, people started screaming and hollering about how "unjust" this new law was. These same folks, incidentally, were staunch opponents of Oklahoma's law before it ever went into effect.

Read More

The late election and what it portends for immigration restriction

I predict that under the Hussein Obama administration the new Democrat controlled, virtually filibuster-proof, Congress is going to come to an agreement on "Comprehensive Immigration Reform," by and with the aid of that RINO John McCain, and other liberal RINO Senators. What this means effectively is that Oklahoma's H.B. 1804 (and all other state and local immigration restriction laws), while probably remaining on the books for symbolism's sake, will become shortly nothing more than a dead letter as the all-powerful central government will have comprehensively "occupied the field" of immigration, and comprehensively left no doubt that it "intended a complete ouster" ... of the state and local authorities on immigration restrictionism.

Prepare to be overrun by Mexican and other third-worlders, America! Most of you who support immigration restriction to one extent or the other have literally been dragged kicking and screaming to create your own state and local laws on immigration -- kicking and screaming that immigration is a federal issue and a federal responsibility. Well, believe me when I say that the feds have heard you and they will respond to your dependency in fairly short order.

Read More

Federal Preemption on Immigration

I wrote, on Sept. 23, to Senator Coburn asking that he do all in his power to effect a clean reauthorization of the E-Verify system. On Sept. 29 I received from Senator Coburn's office, and under his signature, a reply concluding with the following two paragraphs:

Please let me assure you that I am strongly supportive of this extension. This is the only tool our employers have currently to help them stay in compliance with the law. I will vigorously work the rest of the year to ensure that E-VERIFY does not expire.

If we are to take any measurable action in curbing illegal immigration, one of the first things we must do is to turn off the job magnet and eliminate employment incentives - this is why an employer verification system is an essential part of any immigration reform. However, as long as the system is voluntary, we will not have a level playing field. I am aware of this problem and an immediate solution must be found. In addition, we must secure our borders and reform our visa system. I will continue to work for sensible immigration reform and I appreciate any additional feedback you may have. It is imperative we end illegal immigration if we are to maintain the security and prosperity of our nation. (emphasis mine)

Well, I'm not sure what to Senator Coburn's mind constitutes a "measurable action in curbing illegal immigration," but for my part a reduction of 1.3 million illegals in a single year IS "measurable" and significant. If we stayed on pace, in just five years the number would be reduced by a full half.

For our purposes here, however, I want to focus on the italicized statements in Senator Coburn's reply to me. As a United States Senator, Senator Coburn must mean, in his comments, that he intends to push for a federal initiative to make registration with E-Verify mandatory, thus creating a "level playing field" between state and state, employer and employer, individual and individual.

As a strong advocate for a (gradual) return to balanced constitutional government -- which would include, in part, a return to state initiated immigration law and law enforcement -- I have a bit of a problem with Senator Coburn's "top-down" approach to this issue. However, I do understand, I think, why Senator Coburn and other immigration restrictionists would feel compelled to take this position. In this connection let us look at this CIS article from September 16:

Another court rejects challenge to mandatory use of E-Verify
By Jessica Vaughan, September 16, 2008

Yesterday, a Rhode Island judge rejected a request from the ACLU and three others to halt the state’s implementation of Governor Don Carcieri’s Executive Order requiring all state contractors, vendors, and grantees to use E-Verify, or lose their government contracts. This ruling, while preliminary, is the latest positive test of strength, both for the E-Verify program and for state action to prevent illegal employment.

The ruling is noteworthy for several reasons:

1. The court appears to have ignored the main complaints from the ACLU and other plaintiffs (a domestic violence non-profit and two college professors who have contracts with the state to provide professional services) that E-Verify is “riddled with significant flaws” and “inaccurate”. Actually, the independent evaluations of E-Verify, one by the research firm Westat and the other by the Social Security Administration’s inspector general, have found the E-Verify is remarkably accurate. (See my recent testimony for more information with links to the Westat and SSA/IG report). It provides swift confirmation for eligible workers – 99.4% are confirmed on the first try. It also accurately identifies illegal workers – of all the workers who are flagged as possibly ineligible on the first try, 95% turn out to be illegal.

2. The judge stated clearly that the Governor has the authority to require state contractors and others named in the order to use E-Verify.

3. Interestingly, the ACLU did not try to argue that the Governor’s order was pre-empted by federal law, which has been one of the most common objections that opponents of immigration law enforcement have raised against state-level immigration initiatives. ...(emphasis mine)

In this case I'd like to focus our attentions on no. 3 in Miss Vaughan's list of noteworthy items attending this particular court ruling.

Indeed, as Vaughan says, this has been one of the most common objections raised against state and local initiatives on immigration. Arizona's law was challenged on this basis in the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and Oklahoma's law was challenged on the same basis in the Tenth Circuit Court. And as you all know the two cases have resulted in very different outcomes. Somehow I get the feeling that these disparate lower court rulings are bound to wind up in the U.S. Supreme Court for final settlement. I won't venture a guess as to what the outcome will ultimately be, but if past history (particularly over the last hundred or so years -- I think I smeall that pesky fourteenth amendment again.) is any indication, we may safely assume that federalism, as a governing principle in America, will receive, in this case, yet another death blow. To wit:

Increasingly, lawmakers in states and localities within the United States are proposing, and in some cases enacting, laws and ordinances that would, in effect, enforce existing federal immigration law or create new immigration law. The localities claim that they simply are passing laws pertaining to the
state or locality’s power to regulate licensing, contracting, or the like. These state and local laws — which their authors dress up as laws to regulate housing, employment, and local law enforcement — are in actuality attempts to regulate immigration. Almost all of the proposed state and local initiatives are preempted by the federal government’s exclusive authority to regulate immigration and are therefore unconstitutional.

This fact sheet explains general preemption principles and provides immigrant rights advocates with analytical tools for determining whether anti-immigrant initiatives proposed in their states and localities can be legally challenged on preemption grounds. (emphasis mine)

I don't really care to get into a discussion about the constitutionality/unconstitutionality of a given law or governmental principle. As I've said so many times before, this term "unconstitutional" is greatly overused from both the left and the right. What it generally boils down to, by my experience, is that if you think a law or some ruling principle is wrong or unfair or immoral, or whatever, then to you it is unconstitutional, and vice versa.

I simply reject the idea that the federal government has "exclusive" authority over the matter of immigration. And I damn sure object to the idea propagated by this organization that all that is needed for our masters the federal government to secure to itself exclusive authority in this matter is for the Congress to simply act to occupy the field. Taken to its logical conclusion, this makes all state powers subject to the whims of the federal Congress. What a dangerous, unAmerican concept!

I could, and probably should, say a lot more on this subject. But for the time being I'm going to end the entry here. Suffice it to say that while I'm an admirer of Senator Coburn and I appreciate much of what he's done as a U.S. Senator, I don't think I can get on board with his implied solution to the immigration crisis. And I've written him to this effect.

Read More

Saving E-Verify

Here again, I've written numerous times about the E-Verify system and why it is essential to maintain it as a federal clearinghouse for determining employment eligibility of prospective employees.

Below is what I wrote to Senators Inhofe and Coburn this morning on the importance of reauthorizing E-Verify this week:

Dear Senator,

I'm writing today to ask that you do all in your power to stop Senator Menendez's attempts to force his will on the Senate body and the People at large regarding reauthorization of the E-Verify system.

As a strong advocate for state initiated immigration law, and cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the clean reauthorization of this vital tool for determining the eligibility of prospective emplyees.

Recent Census Bureau reports indicate that our efforts at the state and local level to force attrition on the vast number of illegal immigrants currently in our country are working, but we must do more. The efficacy of Oklahoma's (and Arizona's and Georgia's, etc.) law depends on the existence of E-Verify as a federal clearinghouse for verifying employment eligibility of all new hires.

However, I believe that yielding to Menendez's demands for an additional 550,000 greencards issued to aliens in exchange for his ending his filibuster would send the wrong message and set the wrong kind of precedent. We need to be reducing the number of greencards we're alloting, not increasing them. And we should not allow a rogue Senator from a sanctuary state to determine policy for the entire nation, nor to set such a precedent.

Again, please do all in your power to force a clean reauthorization of E-Verify.

Sincerely, ...

Here is Roy Beck's appeal on the subject.

Read More

FrontPage Interview with Mark Krikorian

Mark Krikorian is the Executive Director at the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS), and the author of the new book The New Case Against Immigration.

Over at the CIS website, where I've spent a lot of time this morning, is posted the FrontPage July interview with Mark Krikorian concerning his new book. Here is an excerpt from the exchange in which Mark Krikorian says something very familiar to yours truly:

FP: What are some of your policy recommendations for legal immigration and illegal immigration?

Krikorian: I go into some detail in the final chapter of my book about what reform would look like. With regard to illegal immigration, we need to pursue a policy of "attrition through enforcement," steadily and comprehensively applying the law to promote increased self-deportation by illegals so the total illegal population starts shrinking each year instead of continually growing. This isn't a pipe dream -- even the stepped-up enforcement we've seen over the past year seems to have caused a non-trivial drop in the illegal population. Maybe the two most important things to do in this regard are to require electronic verification of Social Security and related information for all new hires (something that's now voluntary) and to fully implement the check-in/check-out system for foreign travelers at our airports and border crossings (it's not even close to done). (emphasis mine)

Respecting the idea of self-deportation which Krikorian alludes to, I've personally always thought that the "we can't round them all up and deport them" argument is a poor one, emotionally based, and really just irrelevant to the issue. As I've said numerous times over at least the last two years, we needn't deport them, they will deport themselves if we'll remove the incentives for their being here. And this is exactly what began to happen -- they began deporting themselves -- when states such as Oklahoma and Arizona and others began to write their own laws denying social benefits and employment to illegals. As Mr. Krikorian says, it's not a pipe dream, it actually works, and we have solid evidence that it works. But of course anyone can see this who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool multicultist liberal.

But the entire interview is good, and I recommend that you read it. And even though I've not yet purchased my copy of the book (though I certainly plan to), I've read several reviews of the book by several respected authors, and based on what they've written I also recommend that you read the book. (Incidentally, here is a page at the aforementioned site which lists and provides links to numerous reviews of Mr. Krikorian's book if you're interested.)

Read More

How many immigrants naturalized?

When we talk about the immigration situation in this country rarely do we speak in terms of exact numbers of immigrants who are granted citizenship. I've often cited the words of Noah Webster on the subject who wrote:

I consider it a matter of infinite consequence the cautious admission of foreigners to the rights of citizenship. Numbers of them who have recently arrived in this city come with violent prejudices against arbitrary government, and they seem to make no great distinction between arbitrary government and a government of laws founded on free elections.

Another founder I've cited on the subject before is George Washington. While this particular advice of Washington's has nothing to do with immigrants per se, it is logically derived from his statements that Washington, like his contemporary Noah Webster, took a very cautious approach to the admittance of foreigners to the rights of citizenship.

It is with indescribable regret that I have seen the youth of the United States migrating to foreign countries in order to acquire the higher branches of erudition ... Although it would be injustice to many to pronounce the certainty of their imbibing maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by sending abroad among other political systems those who have not well learned the value of their own.

And although it may be injustice to some to pronounce the certainty of their bringing with them to America maxims not congenial with Republicanism, it must nevertheless be admitted that a serious danger is encountered by bringing to these shores and naturalizing hundreds of thousands of foreigners every year who have not well shaken off the anti-Republican principles that they learned and practiced in their countries of origin.

So how many foreigners does the United States naturalize on an annual basis? Read this New York Times AP story to find out. It looks like we're headed for a banner year in 2008. And if the actual numbers do not alarm you, I doubt that you and I have anything more to talk about.

Read More

On the immigration front

Good news today out of Arizona. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals yesterday, Sept. 17th, upheld the provisions in Arizona's immigration law which requires employers to verify the employments status of all new hires, and penalizes employers for knowingly hiring illegal aliens:

PHOENIX (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejected a challenge by business and civil-rights groups that contend the law infringes on federal immigration powers.

The law, intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, imposes civil penalties on employers by suspending or revoking their business licenses when they are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

While it upheld the law, a three-judge panel of the court left the door open for other challenges, saying no one has been accused of violating the law since it took effect nine months ago.

This is very good news for people like myself who advocate for state and local immigration control.

Oklahoma has similar provisions in its law, H.B. 1804, which are currently under federal suspension pending further hearings in the 10th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. These provisions (sections seven and nine) are vital to the efficacy of Oklahoma's law. Let us hope that the 9th Circuit's ruling will help to effect a similar outcome in Oklahoma's case so that we in Oklahoma can get on with the business at hand; the business that should have begun on July 1st of this year.

Read More

Sharp upward trend in State initiated immigration legislation

According to this report from the National Conference of State Legislatures, the website of which I found simply by Googling the search words "states with immigration legislation", there has been a dramatic upward trend among the various states in this Union, over the last several years, in tackling the immigration situation at the state and local level.

It's not, by any means, and from an immigration restrictionist standpoint, all good news, but it is, overall, good news I think.

Certainly go to the site and read the entire report. But here's a couple of snippits:

We're witnessing a trend of states willing to take the lead in responding to immigration challenges when Congress will not," said William T. Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). "States are looking at creative solutions to law enforcement and work-site enforcement as well as considering the needs and contributions of legal immigrants to the United States.

[...]

State laws related to immigration have increased dramatically in recent years:

• In 2005, 300 bills were introduced and 38 laws were enacted.

• In 2006, activity doubled: 570 bills were introduced and 84 laws were enacted.

• In 2007, activity tripled: 1,562 bills were introduced and 240 laws were enacted.

Of course the concluding remarks in Mr. Pound's statement is a bone of contention with me. If it's legal then it's automatically good, right Mr. Pound? Because we all know that legal equals good, which is why the neocons are all for legal immigration and only oppose illegal immigration, which of course creates its own set of problems, as I and others have said so many times before.

The needs and contributions of legal immigrants -- and like I said, if it's legal it's automatically good, therefore we're working under the assumption that the contributions of legal immigrants is altogether positive, and that their needs are paramount -- is the specific language that offends me.

But like I said, the report is interesting and the site is interesting, and I'm sure I'll be referring to them again. And I hope you'll get some use from them too.

Read More

Quote of the day

The AP article I linked to in the previous entry contains the following quote by Arizona Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, a statement which deserves a post to itself:

Locals are just as responsible for the crisis in America in this invasion (of illegal immigrants) as the federal government.

Indeed, as I've said numerous times before. In fact, I'm not sure we're not more responsible...

Read More

Hypothetical:

Let's say that you were informed by a reliable source that a threat had been made against a friend (not a close friend, but a friend nonetheless) and fellow countryman's life by someone who is not a friend, nor a countryman, but a supposedly "documented" alien over a matter of a couple of thousand dollars -- a detail which to me is only relevant in that it establishes motive. And let's say, after having contemplated the implications of such threat which you learned of second-hand, you further asked of the person who informed you how serious, having heard and seen it with his own ears and eyes, the threat actually was. And he replied initially: "Very serious!...", but later in the conversation when he realized he had given out way too much information and implicated himself as a moral ingrate (among other things), began to recant his initial statement saying in effect "well, I don't really think he'll ever go through with it."

What actions would you take?

Obviously you inform the person (friend or not) whose life has been threatened. Do you leave it at that, or do you take it further, notifying some local, state, or national law enforcement or immigration agency? Let's say that the person whose life has been threatened has expressed a fearfulness that to go to the authorities himself might provoke the threatening individual to actually act out on his threat. How would you handle such a situation, all of this considered?

Additionally, let me say this: People like the threatening individual in question have a tendency to create a "to be feared" intimidating image of themselves by going about "talking it up" to their friends and associates until one day they've painted themselves into a corner, feeling forced to act on their threats, or else be labeled a "blowhard". It's hard to determine what that point is, but it's a real phenomenon, and always a danger with people who make these kinds of "idle" threats...

Update: This issue seems to have been temporarily resolved in a meeting between the principals in which I've been told that a partial payment was made on the debt owed and a promise to pay the balance within a reasonable timeframe. In the meantime I'm keeping my eyes and ears open for any more threats of murder from the individual in question. Nothing could do my heart more good and serve to ease my mind than to have this person (along with his supposed accomplices) deported from this state and nation. That in itself (which I make no bones about) is probably enough for him to consider me his enemy numero uno.

Will yours truly be the next on his list of enemies which he wishes to kill? It would be a grave mistake on his part, I can assure you!

Read More

America for Americans

Dr. Yeagley has a nice Journal entry up entitled "Russia for Russians" in which he declares the importance of race consciousness, as opposed to race denial, in any well functioning society. Hence the title of this post.

Dr. Yeagley writes:

Letting anyone in the world come and live here--especially illegally, is essentially giving away what others have earned. This is criminal on the part of our government. While it is a good thing to care for the poor, one cannot eliminate poverty. Poor people might take some responsibility and stop multiplying irresponsibly and self-destructively. Poor people can exercise a little discipline, can they not? It is arrogant and self-righteous to think otherwise. After all, charity is for the poor, not for the conscience of the rich.

In a comment to the article (not yet posted at the time of this writing) I wrote, as I've written numerous times before, that wealth is often squandered away by those who acquire it via inheritance rather than earning it through their own industry and labor, independent of anyone else. It seems to me that the old adage "easy come, easy go" is particularly applicable in this case of inherited wealth. But I want to speak to the idea that the poor are capable of exercising discipline in this entry...

Yeagley says it is "arrogant and self-righteous" to think that poor people are incapable of exercising discipline and self-restraint. I definately agree with this, but not only is it arrogant to think otherwise, it is, in my humble opinion, uncharitable to give the poor reasons to not exercise self-restraint, which is to say that what many Americans deem to be "charitable" is in reality "uncharitable." Indeed, what we've come to call "humanitarianism" is very often, perhaps more often than not, it seems to me, its very opposite.

On that note, I was involved in a discussion a few years ago in another forum in which one individual was arguing that homosexuals, being wired as they are, cannot control their impulses to engage in sexually deviant acts. In other words, according to this individual, homosexuals are less human than the rest of us in that they, unlike the rest of us, simply cannot exercise self-restraint when it comes to their abberant sexual desires and behaviorisms. And as I wrote in response to this individual, "you're claiming that homosexuals are less human than you and me, what gives you the right, and upon what basis do you deny that homosexuals are less human than other humans?" As I recall, this individual responded by citing some scientific study conducted on fruit flies or some such. Again, homosexuals are not fruit flies, they're human beings like the rest of us human beings, which is to say that like the rest of us, homosexuals are moral beings, endowed with minds capable of reasoning and with free will. Because homosexuals choose to act on their perverse impulses is no indication that they're biologically incapable of restraining themselves or of even completely abstaining from sexual acts of any kind when necessary.

This is different than saying that a given race of people is not particularly inclined to be self-governing and independent, and so on and so forth. I've written before that I don't believe the Iraqis, for instance, are capable of self-government in the American sense of the term. What I mean by that is this: you can't take a person (or a nation) which is accustomed to living in bondage, self-inflicted or otherwise, and expect him to all of a sudden and immediately, once set free, begin to exercise all those qualities which mark self-governing, independent peoples and nations.

I've used the analogy of a prison inmate before to illustrate the point. Irrespective of whether he is guilty or innocent, a prison inmate who has spent a considerable amount of time in prison has, by necessity, learned certain survival techniques -- techniques which are generally unnecessary in a normal free society -- during his confinement. Turning such a person loose after thirty years of incarceration with the expectation that he'll immediately, or within a few years, be able to adjust to life outside the confines of his former prison environment and live a normal self-governing, independent lifestyle is unreasonable. Indeed, most of us don't expect this from former prisoners anyhow, which is the reason we don't give them complete freedom immediately upon their release from prison.

So why would we believe it about Iraqis or Mexicans?

Is it because we consider former prisoners to be criminals and guilty and therefore less trustworthy, as opposed to the Iraqis and Mexicans who were held in bondage in their native lands due to no fault or guilt of their own? I don't know, but as I said in the case of the prison inmate, whether he's actually guilty of a crime or not is irrelevant to the point. You can't expect him, after thirty years of incarceration, to just walk out of prison a "free man," free of all those tendencies and characteristics he learned merely to survive in prison, most of which are probably less than laudable to say the least. Does this make him "incapable" of exercising self-restraint? No; it simply means that he, like someone who engages in homosexual acts, has grown accustomed to indulging his baser instincts, which makes it all the more difficult to reform him.

Read More

History: Given enough time all immigrant groups can and will assimilate!

Zippy Catholic argues forcefully and reasonably over at 4-W (or W-4) that the success of Ellis Island immigrant assimilation to this country is no indicator that Mexican immigrants as one example, or Muslim immigrants as another, or any combination of those and other groups immigrating to this country currently will result in the same level of success as the Ellis Island immigrants. Zippy's basic (and reasonable) argument is this, success in one instance and under a given set of circumstances does not necessarily equal success in another instance under a different set of circumstances, which makes sense. To argue to the contrary is, as Zippy notes, a complete nonsequitur.

Now, personally I think it's completely legitimate to question the current orthodoxy which says that the Ellis Island example is unquestionably a shining example of successful immigrant assimilation, not to mention what that, granting the premise for the sake of argument, has to do with the ability or the desire of today's immigrant groups to assimilate in America, and America's determination to force them to assimilate.

Here's the way one commenter to the thread, "Blackadder", challenges Zippy:

The reason people tend to bring up previous waves of immigration is that many of the predictions of the dire consequences that will result from current waves of immigration were also made about previous immigration. If the supposed nasty consequences of immigration failed to materialize in the past, this should give us reason to be skeptical about whether they will happen this time around.

This is like the old argument against American involvement in the Vietnam conflict which states the following -- "everyone said that if America didn't involve itself in that conflict, that communism would overtake the world. That didn't happen, therefore American involvement in Vietnam was ill-founded, stupid, a waste of time and effort, and too expensive in terms of lives lost, American and otherwise." Yes, people actually make this argument. Now, I'm not defending America's involvement in the Vietnam conflict here, but you can see the similarities in thinking right? What is never considered by these people, and what we cannot know since America did get into the Vietnam conflict, is what might have happened had America not gone to Vietnam. The fact that we did enter that war materially changes everything. Likewise, making the simplistic observation that "the supposed nasty consequences of immigration failed to materialize in the past," without taking into account that the Ellis Island wave of immigration did not continue unabated, among other things equally important, is, well, simplistic at best, and disingenuous at worst.

The clear fact of the matter is this, America cannot remain America under current levels of immigration; that those "nasty consequences" that we immigration restrictionists warn about, most definately will materialize if the current wave of immigration to America from third-world countries is not drastically reduced, and soon.

I have also left a comment in the thread that you might want to check out.

Read More

Anti-illegal immigration rally to be held next month

For anyone interested in attending, such as me, and who can also free themselves up to attend, unlike me, there's a group out there called "RightMarch" touting their planned anti-illegal immigration rally, scheduled for next month to coincide with, and in close proximity to, the Democrat National Convention in Denver, as a "massive" event. Of course, in order for the event to hold true to its billing, average folks like you and me will need to be, if at all possible, in attendance.

From the page promoting the event:

In one month, August 25-28, the Democratic National Convention will be held in Denver, Colorado. This will be one of the biggest meetings of pro-amnesty, pro-illegal aliens politicians in a long, long time -- all eager to push their agenda against American sovereignty in front of fifteen thousand reporters and their television cameras from across the country.

All anyone will see or hear is pandering to the open borders special interest groups, like La Raza and MALDEF, for a whole week...

Unless WE step up and make our voices heard even LOUDER!

So we've decided to do exactly that! We're teaming up with Minutemen and local activists on the ground in Denver to stage this HUGE rally, which will feature dozens of prominent speakers and leaders in the fight for border security. We've secured a GREAT location at the spacious "Congress Park," right near the Pepsi Center where 35,000 people will be attending the Democrat Convention!

Imagine -- 35,000 people, including 15,000 reporters, hearing YOUR message AGAINST illegal immigration, LOUD AND CLEAR!

Everything's coming together... but we need YOU there to make it work!

Everything you need to know about the event -- where exactly the rally is to be held and in what proximity it is to the Democrat National Convention site, exact dates and times and so on and so forth -- may be had via the link provided above. If you're interested, or you know someone who is, then that's the place you need to go to get all the information you need.

I'll be watching, with interest, to see whether the scheduled rally indeed turns out to be all its promoters are cracking it up to be. I certainly hope so.

Read More