Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Amnesty comes first as tragedy, then as farce. The arguments and even some of the characters from the1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) are the same as today. What has changed is the complete inability for any fair-minded person to take them in good faith.
As Grover Norquist is fond of reminding us, it was Ronald Reagan himself who signed the disastrous 1986 Amnesty. Of course, that Amnesty ensured that the state which made Reagan governor may well never vote Republican again. Furthermore, if the historic American nation is ultimately dispossessed, Reagan's triumph in the Cold War will have proven a Pyrrhic victory.
The same cannot be said of some of the other key players from 1986 who are active today—especially Senator Chuck Schumer
Florida GOP Sen. Marco Rubio seems well meaning enough. As second-generation conservative Americans, I know we both share a common passion for this great land of opportunity. But when it comes to comprehending the real agenda of the open-borders zealots he's allied himself with, Rubio doesn't have a clue.
And his abject ignorance threatens all of us who cherish American sovereignty and exceptionalism.
On Fox News' "The Sean Hannity Show" Tuesday night, Rubio defended his Gang of Eight "immigration reform" bill and insisted that we could and should have a system in place that vets foreign tourists and short-term visa holders based on their "national security" profiles.
"In essence, we should be able to analyze (whether) these are individuals coming from a part of the world that keeps feeding into the terrorist network," Rubio earnestly explained. "(W)e should be very careful about who we allow in and take into account every single measure or every single factor that we think could lead to somebody being more likely possibly a member of a terrorist organization or involved in terror."[Transcript ]
Great idea, Rubio! Newsflash: The concept of a national security entry-exit screening database is at least 10 years old. It's an idea that was sabotaged by the progressive soft-on-security ideologues with whom Rubio has recklessly partnered.
In the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush administration created NSEERS, the National Security Entry-Exit Registration System. Administered and championed by Justice Department constitutional lawyer, immigration enforcement expert and now-Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, NSEERS stopped at least 330 known foreign criminals and three known terrorists who had attempted to come into the country at certain official ports of entry.
NSEERS required higher scrutiny and common-sense registration requirements for individuals from jihad-friendly countries including Afghanistan, Indonesia
[See also "The Alien In Hokie Nation"—Buchanan On The Dark Side of Diversity, about an earlier Immigrant Mass Murder at Virginia Tech.]
Yet, some assertions appear true.
Islam is growing in militancy and intolerance, evolving again into a fighting faith, and spreading not only through proselytizing, but violence.
How to justify the charge of intolerance?
The Taliban blew up the Bamiyan Buddhas. The Sufi shrines of Timbuktu were blown up by Ansar Dine. In Saudi Arabia, Iran and Afghanistan, Christian converts face the death sentence.
In Nigeria, the Boko Haram attacks churches and kills Christians, as in Ethiopia and the Sudan, where the south seceded over the persecution.
Egyptian Copts are under siege. Assyrian and Chaldean Christians in Iraq have seen churches pillaged, priests murdered. In Indonesia, churches are being shut on the demand of Islamists. Sharia law is being demanded by militants across the Middle East, as Christianity is exterminated in its cradle.
Has Islam become again a fighting faith?
Chechnya, Dagestan and Ingushetia are the sites of Islamist uprisings using terror to rip these statelets from Russia. Muslim Uighurs are fighting to tear off a chunk of China and create an East Turkestan. Muslim Malays in south Thailand have fought a decade-long war of secession. Albania has acquired two sister Muslim states in Europe, Bosnia and Kosovo, both born in blood.
At the time of 9/11, al-Qaida seemed confined to Afghanistan. Al-Qaida may now be found in t
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Washington to be born?
(Apologies to the shade of W.B. Yeats.)
What rough beast? Why, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, Immigration Modernization, and World Peace For Ever Act. (I may have embroidered slightly there. Polemic license.)
Rough it certainly is, and its defenders have had to take extra chutzpa pills to keep their composure while they serve up bare-faced lies on nationwide TV.
Thus Janet Napolitano, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday on national security:
One of the real significant improvements made by this bill is to bring people out of the shadows. We know who they are. We know where they are.
“We know where you live,” was the traditional snarl of sectarian leg-breakers to potential victims in the Northern Ireland slums. Now that the Troubles over there have wound down, perhaps we could hire some of those guys in as consultants to the DHS, which is obviously in need of help in the know-where-they-are zone.
Under existing law, if you're illegally here, you can get a green card. It says you have to go back to your country of birth, you wait 10 years, and then you apply for the green card. All we're saying is, if you decide you wanted to stay here, you'll have to wait for more than 10 years...So I would argue that the existing law is actually more lenient, that going back and waiting 10 years is going to be cheaper and faster than going through this process that we are outlining.
So we’re discussing a law that makes it harder than it currently is for illegal aliens to get green cards? So what’s in it for illegals and those seeking to keep them in the U.S.A.?
Registered Provisional Immigrant Status, that’s what. As Mark Krikorian testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday:
RPI status brings with it work authorization, a legitimate Social Security account, driver’s
The Boston Bombing is Just One of Millions of Reasons Why Another Mass Amnesty of Illegal Alien Invaders is Insane
If the Boston Marathon Massacre had never been committed, but instead someone had written a screenplay depicting such an attack, it would have been a black comedy featuring Keystone Kops and crazy Chechens. But it’s not a comedy. Four people are dead and over 170 wounded, many of them maimed for life, who should never have been harmed—because the attackers had no business being in our country.
Many of America’s problems today are best understood by contrasting Enoch Powell’s famous dictum
“The supreme function of statesmanship is to provide against preventable evils”
with the practices favored by our “statesmen.”
Since 1965, our rulers have enthusiastically supported calamitous immigration policies, and have always lied about the rationale and the foreseeable consequences.
Now, as the Gang of Eight seeks to hammer the last nail in America’s coffin with their new democidal Amnesty/ Immigration Surge scheme, they are channeling the spirit of communist playwright Lillian Hellman, about whom Mary McCarthy quipped, every word she wrote was a lie, “including ‘and’ and ‘the.’”
They tell us that there are 11 million invaders who would benefit. But the numbers, as in 1986, will certainly be higher—guesses range up to 24 million (pdf) and even 40 million, plus an ultimate additional 120 million to 200 million through the unfixed “family reunification” feature that has been in the law since the catastrophic 1965 Act.
They tell us that they will collect fines and back taxes from the Amnestied invaders; that the Amnesty will be hard and demanding; that “triggers” must be hit, before the amnesty will be completed; that a “commission” of border state governors would have the legal power to halt any amnesty, based on the lack of fulfillment of various requirements.
We cannot trust the leaders of our two-party bipartisan duopoly on anything—let alone this nation-breaking legislation.
It has been estimated that it would cost $2,000 per background check of each criminal candidate for amnesty—that would mean as much as $80 billion for the initial “immigrants,” plus another $400 billion for their “relatives.”
We all know Obama will do no such thing. Heck, even the beneficiaries of the 1986 amnesty were never vetted. Obama is already keeping some violent illegal alien felons out of jail, while freeing others. He loves non-white criminals.
Thus Boston is devastating to the Gang of Eight’s irresponsible Amnesty proposal. But it is even more devastating to legal immigration, which the Gang wants to increase massively. Above all, it is devastating to the refugee and amnesty programs.
As VDARE.com’s Thomas Allen and Refugee Resettlement Watch’s Ann Corcoran have documented for years, the refugee program—in which foreigners are accepted for admission here while they are still overseas—is a racket, with which private agencies profit off of the American taxpayer by bringing in grifters who are almost never victims of persecution.
Then there are the Somali Jihadis, who play persecuted, game us for refugee status, and then return to Somalia to wage Holy War.
Then there are all of the “refugees” who claimed to be relatives of “refugees” already here. DNA screening proved that the second group of grifters had no relation to the first group.
But let’s say you were able to find the proverbial honest refugee. These people are the most primitive cusses on the face of the earth. They don’t understand the concept of a doorknob. They cook by setting the kitchen floor on fire. And they immediately form gangs, and prey on the civilized, white Americans in the formerly beautiful cities they get placed in and destroy—e.g., the Somalis and Hmong who have stolen public parks from the Americans of the Twin Cities. No sane government would accept them. They constitute one endless Mariel boatlift.
And then there is the Asylum scam—people who arrive in the U.S. as visitors and then demand to stay.
Perhaps the most famous asylum scammer: African Moslem Nafissatou Diallo, who gave an Academy Award-worthy performance as she recounted to American authorities the gang-rape she never endured back in Guinea. Diallo was subsequently involved in money-laundering, and last December she shook down French politician Dominique Strauss-Kahn for millions of dollars, after having unsuccessfully sought to have him falsely imprisoned for yet another “rape.”
Who said crime doesn’t pay?
Miss Diallo has never been punished, let alone deported.
The Boston Bombers’ family, the Tsarnaevs, were also asylees. Asylum from what? These are not the kind of people who flee terror; they are the kind whom others flee!
They’re from Chechnya, an area whose people are in competition with the Afghanis and Somalis—just coincidentally, all Moslems—for the title of most warlike people on the face of the earth.
When the terrorists’ uncle Ruslan said that “Chechens are peaceful people,” and that
In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon killing spree by foreign-born jihadists, see-no-evil bureaucrats in Washington are stubbornly defending America's lax asylum policies. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano told the Senate Tuesday that the screening process is rigorous, effective and extensive.
These people can't handle the truth. Or tell it.
The Tsarnaev brothers reportedly were granted asylum by "derivative" status through their parents. After entering on short-term tourist visas, the mother and father (an ethnic Chechen Muslim) won asylum and acquired U.S. citizenship. Next, younger son Dzhokhar obtained U.S. citizenship. Older son Tamerlan, whose naturalization application was pending, traveled freely between the U.S. and the jihad recruitment zone of Dagestan, Russia, last year before the bombers' gunfight in Watertown, Mass., last week left the Muslim terrorist dead.
Though they had convinced the U.S. that they faced deadly persecution, the Tsarnaevs' parents both returned to their native land and were there when their sons launched last week's terror rampage. Authorities will not reveal any details of the sob stories the Tsarnaevs originally spun to win asylum benefits for the entire family.
The whole thing stinks. And it's an old, familiar stench. Immigration lawyers have been working the system on behalf of asylum con artists for decades. The racketeers coach applicants with phony stories and documents from "chop shops" and game their way through "refugee roulette."
Asylum and refugee claimants are being rubber-stamped at all-time-high rates. Government data analyzed by the nonpartisan TRAC website show that "the odds of an asylum claim being denied in Immigration Court reached an historic low in FY 2012, with only 44.5 percent being turned down. Ten years ago, almost two out of three (62.6 percent) individuals seeking asylum lost their cases in similar actions. Twenty years ago, fewer than one out of four (24 percent) asylum applicants won their cases, while three out of four (76 percent) lost."
Soft-on-enforcement lobbying groups argue that it's better to err on the side of allowing bogus asylum-seekers and refugees to stay than to get serious about cracking down on fraud and send undeserving foreigners home. It's not "practical" or worth it, they say.
But what about the "if it saves just one life" standard set by President Obama? Why does it only apply to gun control? Why won't Washington err on the side of public safety by reexamining and overhauling our fraud-riddled asylum, detention, deportation and visa issuance policies after the Boston jihad?
In case you'd forgotten, the Tsarnaevs were not the first murder-minded jihadists to benefit from ineffective policing of our asylum and refugee policies. As I've reported previously:
- Ramzi Yousef landed at New York City's JFK airport from Pakistan and flashed an Iraqi passport without a visa to inspectors. He was briefly detained for illegal entry and fingerprinted, but was allowed to remain in the country after invoking the magic words "political asylum." Yousef was released for lack of detention space and headed to Jersey City to plot the deadly 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
- Gazi Ibrahim Abu Mezer, a Palestinian bomb-builder, entered the U.S. illegally through Canada in 1996-97. He claimed political asylum based on phony persecution by Israelis, was released on a reduced $5,000 bond posted by a man who was himself an illegal alien and then skipped his asylum hearing. In June 1997, a federal immigration judge ordered Mezer to leave on a "voluntary departure order." Mezer ignored him. He joined the New York City bombing plot before being arrested in July 1997 after a roommate tipped off local police.
- Mir Aimal Kansi, convicted in 1997 of capital murder and nine other charges stemming from his January 1993 shooting spree outside the CIA headquarters in McLean, Va., also exploited our insane asylum laxity. Despite his history as a known Pakistani militant who had participated in anti-American protests abroad, Kansi received a business visa in 1991. After arrival, he claimed political asylum based on his ethnic minority status in Pakistan. While his asylum application was pending, he obtained a driver's license and an AK-47, murdered two CIA agents and wounded three others.
- Somali national Nuradin Abdi, the al-Qaida
Such is their total control of public debate that, before the perps turned out to be two Chechen Muslim immigrants, Salon’s David Sirota notoriously felt free to panic Let’s hope the Boston Marathon bomber is a white American (April 16, 2013).
In the wake of the unfortunate truth unfortunately emerging, desperate Treason Lobbyists are experimenting with
- anathematizing any mention of Boston—e.g. Senator Patrick Leahy’s bullying opening statement at the April 22 hearing, exactly like the current Orwellian attempt to anathematize “illegal immigrant;”
- the Big Lie—as RedState.com’s brilliant Daniel Horowitz put it
When it comes to the Gang of 8 immigration deform bill, night is day and up is down. The latest iteration of preposterous declarations comes from John McCain and Lindsey Graham in response to the Boston bombing and its implications for open borders. They had the unbridled impertinence to suggest that their bill, which will bring in millions of more temporary and permanent immigrants from all over the world in addition to granting citizenship to 11 million illegals, “will strengthen our nation’s security.”
[Immigration Deform Bill is a National Security Risk, April 21, 2013. Emphasis in original]
At VDARE.com, we view all this with icy detachment. We were scientifically interested, of course, to see if this was yet another example of something we uniquely report: Immigrant Mass Murder Syndrome—37 cases, 337 dead, when we counted a couple of years ago; there have been more since them. (The first sign that it probably was: when the Main Stream Media began to report the color, not of the suspects, but of their hats. You get good at this kind of thing).
But we knew from long and bitter experience that only three outcomes were possible:
- The perp would be a white American, in which case there would be an attempt to lynch conservatives/ Republicans/ anyone associated with the historic American nation.
(The only palliating factor here: repeated recent MSM embarrassments like the wholly false allegations that Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance was implicated in the 2011 Arizona/ Gabrielle Giffords shooting or that the Aurora CO “Dark Knight” killer was a member of the Tea Party.)
- The perp would be a minority American, in which case there would be a search for “root causes,” which might very well turn out to be “white racism.”
- The perp would turn out to be an immigrant, in which case there would be warnings about “rushing to judgment” and “backlash” and the story would be stuffed down the Memory Hole.
I have intense personal experience of this process. In April 1995, I was being interviewed in the Bloomberg studios on the first day of the publicity tour for my notorious book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster when news of the Oklahoma City bombing began to flare across the TV monitors.
For a couple of days thereafter, the fear in the eyes of my immigration enthusiast debating opponents was stark. They already knew, after their disastrous defeat in California's Proposition 187 the previous year, that their position had no support whatever in the country at large. Now they were afraid that a popular backlash would rout their elite enforcers.
In the event, of course, the government arrested a native-born American, Tim McVeigh. The elite enforcers proclaimed that white militias and "hate radio" talkshow hosts were to blame. (Indeed, this was the beginning of the Left’s counter-attack after the Democrats’ shocking loss of Congress in 1994 that saw Clinton unexpectedly re-elected in 1996). Our book tour became a nightmare of cancelled TV appearances and aborted print stories.
Under the circumstances, it was testimony to the underlying power of the immigration issue that Alien Nation garnered the ultimately rather large volume of publicity that it did.
Naturally, I wondered for several years thereafter: what if the perpetrators really had been Arabs?
Well, on September 11, 2001, I found out: Arab terrorists crashed
This is no Joke. H/T One Old Vet
Working my way through the intimidating backlog of One Old Vet’s Amnesty news compendiums accumulated since I last wrote on them, I find in Friday’s 57-strong collection the transcript of Rush Limbaugh’s interview with Marco Rubio EIB Interview: Why, Senator Rubio? April 18, 2013 rushlimbaugh.com
In this Limbaugh, who really understands the immigration issue, asked an extremely penetrating question:
The last time you were here, you were very certain -- you assured everybody -- that until the border was secure, there would not be legalization of a pathway to citizenship. Now people who've seen the bill say that what actually happens is that the legalization does take place and that then there's a commission that has 10 years to figure out border security.
Which is true?
(The bill had actually been made public at 2-25AM (!) that morning)
Rubio dealt with this awkward query by lying:
The Department of Homeland Security has …the following goal: a hundred percent awareness of border, 90% apprehension. They have five years to meet that standard. If in five years the border is not 90% apprehension, 100% awareness, they lose control of the border issue to a commission that is not a Washington commission. It is a commission that will largely be driven by the governors of the border states.
(VDARE.com emphasis). As I noted yesterday in Gang Bill Omits Empowered Border Commission Rubio Promised - Will He Denounce? Byron York has demonstrated that this is just not true. The Commission – on which the Border Governors will only be a minority if they are on it at all – is not structured to assume legal power over anything, ever.
James Fulford writes: This column was posted to WND.com four days ago. It was quickly posted to FreeRepublic.com, and just as quickly pulled by moderators. This is because even before the $PLC started smearing us, we were banned by FreeRepublic for being “divisive.”
This was inspired, apparently, by Steve Sailer’s seminal article GOP Future Depends on Winning Larger Share of the White Vote, November 28, 2000. FreeRepublic was wrong then, and is wrong now. Since Sailer wrote that article we’ve seen George W. Bush win a presidential election in which he galvanized the white vote, and John McCain and Mitt Romney lose elections in which they didn’t. VDARE.com’s conclusions remain relevant, and FreeRepublic remains irrelevant, and of course unfree. This version of Peter Brimelow’s article contains many added links.
Everyone knows that the Republican Party needs to extend amnesty to 12-20 million illegal aliens in order to win the Hispanic vote. Right? But, to quote Josh Billings: “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
And it’s not just that Hispanics will never vote Republican anyway—because they are poor and naturally like government redistribution, and because they have eyes and can see that Marco Rubio is a white Cuban, not a Mexican.
Both those things are true, of course, but the real reason the current Hispanic hysteria is wrong is that there simply aren’t that many Hispanic voters. Whites will continue to dominate the U.S. electorate for the foreseeable future.
And it’s whites—especially the white working class, above all in the North—who are up for grabs.
And, remember, this was an election in which minority turnout rose because of Democratic anti-white race-baiting, and GOP turnout fell because
However, the mad push by the Gang of Eight reminds me of the madness of another Gang—the Gang of Four in China, so hipped on the ideology of its late Chairman that it bulldozed all in its path until brought down by the sheer weight of its perfidies, even in that repressive society.
The Boston Marathon terrorist tragedy offers several, what should be non-ideological, lessons. For example, it’s now obvious that anyone in this country, citizen or immigrant, can be found and quickly. Positive, rapid ID can be done. So we are talking only of the will to do the ID job—doing the right thing so we know who is in the US and why, legally or illegally. Doesn’t it seem obvious that in our society, which values the rule of law, our rightful identity should be made as transparent, simple and as secure as possible?
But the key lesson:
- The insane scale of unneeded alien imports since 1965.
There appeared on my breakfast table today an article in the Wall Street Journal which told us volumes about these two young terrorists. [Life in America Unraveled for Brothers, By Alan Cullison, Paul Sonne, and Jennifer Levitz, April 20, 2013]
It brilliantly documents the alienation that can grow even after years and some success in a new country:
Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 years old, became a successful Golden Gloves boxer. His younger brother, Dzhokhar, 19, was a nursing student and became an American citizen just last year, on Sept. 11.”
How symbolic is that September 11th stamping of citizenship?
But the WSJ continues to weave the story of why “a close examination of the
John Derbyshire On Six Things That Should Be Done Instead Of The Gang Of 8's Nation-Breaking Amnesty/ Immigration Surge
Call me insensitive if you like, but I couldn’t help smiling at Friday morning’s conjunction of events.
10:00am Time appointed for that hearing. Hearing commences.
Suddenly, just as politicians and commentators were getting to grips with the Gang of Eight’s 844-page Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, our ruling class lost control of the discourse. In Friday’s hearing they struggled manfully, but not very convincingly, to regain that control.
Both the refugee program and the asylum program have been significantly strengthened in the past five years such that we are much more careful about screening people and determining who should and should not be coming into the country.
Is that true? Iraqi terrorist Ramadan Alwan came here in April 2009, according to Refugee Resettlement Watch. That’s only four years. Perhaps he was admitted before that “significant strengthening” got significantly strong.
Also from the hearing, here were Lindsey Graham and John McCain, apparently speaking in unison: “We have 11 million people living in the shadows, which leaves this nation vulnerable to a myriad of threats.” [Boston terror fears raised at Senate immigration hearing, By Alan Silverleib, CNN, April 19, 2013
Meanwhile the subject of that hearing, the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act, demands our attention.
I had a go at reading it on Wednesday. By twenty pages in to the thing, though, I had lost the will to live.
I had forgotten that reading legislation is a specialist skill of the minor sort, like reading mathematical papers. You need to get a few under your belt before you can follow what’s happening.
(Math papers have soft brown spots in them that send the experienced reader’s spirits plunging. “It easily follows that . . .” can hide a multitude of sins. Even worse is: “It follows from a well-known 1952 result by Pumpernickel that . . .” It might or might not. You can waste half a day trying to find out, even if somebody did translate Pumpernickel’s paper from the original Czech. I suppose something analogous applies to legislation.)
Well, I shall wait for the summaries done by people fluent in Legisperanto. Even then, though, my motivation for reading will be low. In the present state of our political culture, all this portentous high-legislative activity comes loaded with insincerity. Congress proposes, but the almighty federal bureaucracy disposes.
Or not, as we see with the multitude of unenforced immigration laws already on the books. Senator Jeff Sessions at Friday’s hearing:
We have laws today that are utterly ignored, and I have no confidence that this administration, based on what we’ve seen, will ever enforce any law.
You might think me too cynical, but I am at the advantage here of having been through the U.S. immigration system. Even if this new law were to get passed, and even if this administration, and the next, and the next, made sincere efforts to enforce it, they could not.
The USCIS people—and don’t get me wrong: they are nice people, dealt with me courteously, and I have no doubt are doing their best—cannot handle their current workload. Give them ten or twenty years to master this new bureaucratic extravaganza that Schumer, Rubio & Co. have cooked up, they might just possibly re-attain their current unimpressive level of mastery; but to imagine that the Act, once passed, will swing smoothly into action, all the things in it happening and being done, is wild fantasy.
Just look again at the name of the thing: “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act.”
My first thought: shouldn’t that be three Acts? Can someone give me a reason why we should not have a Border Security Act, followed by an Economic Opportunity Act, then capped with an Immigration Modernization Act?
The Gang has dropped the word “comprehensive” from their bill, but its spirit is still there in the title; and it is exactly that “comprehensive” spirit that makes this legislation so monstrously, malevolently, wrong.
Here are things that need to be done about U.S. immigration, in the order they need doing, with no step being commenced until the previous step is satisfactorily complete.
(1) Rigorously enforce all the people’s laws currently on the statute books. That would include speedy, humane repatriation of any illegal alien that can be identified as such. (We could start with this guy.)
It would also include compliance with the Secure Fence Act of 2006: “The double-layered fencing on the border that was enacted by Congress in 2006, but never completed, must finally be built.” (Why did I put that in quotes? Because I lifted it from page 26 of the 2012 Republican Party Platform, that’s why.)
As well as reducing the number of current illegal aliens and preventing entry of new ones, enforcement of existing laws would give the public some confidence that new laws will likewise
Soren Dayton [Message him on Twitter] describes himself in his Twitter Profile as "Prism Public Affairs, Republican political operative, blogger, husband, cook. All opinions my own." Actually, his opinions aren't his own—they're extremely derivative.
His guilt-by-association attack on immigration restriction in the Daily Caller today, Opinion: Leaders of anti-immigration groups aren’t exactly conservative , is based on material from
- The evangelical publication World Magazine
- The Wall Street Journal
- the New York Times
- The Human Life Review (a hit piece by Mario H. Lopez)
- The Wall Street Journal again (support for his contention that REAL Christians support immigration reform)
The REAL Christians turn out to be Southern Baptist Dr. Richard Land and the Evangelical Immigration Table, a Treason Lobby group on the Religious Left. For some reason he doesn't directly quote the Southern Poverty Law Center, but of course he doesn't have to—Human Life Review and the New York Times do it for him.
It's the usual garbage about immigration restrictionists being abortionists, eugenicists, and so on, repeatedly debunked here on VDARE.com. It includes an attack on Dr. John Tanton, a great patriot whom even some mainstream restrictionists seem unwilling to defend from the PC enforcers. See The Tale Of John Tanton: CIS' Krikorian, Kammer Make Fatal Concessions To SPLC.
Of course the patriotic immigration restriction movement includes many political strands. Since immigration restriction is supported, in principle, by over 70 percent of Americans, it would be hard to confine its enthusiasts to members of one political party, since neither party can command more than fifty percent.
In a piece called Communism, Socialism, Cultural Marxism, Democratic Hegemonists, Crony Capitalism, Ethnic Agendas, Treason Etc.—The “Ugly Roots” Of Immigration Enthusiasm, I pointed out that immigration enthusiast side, to which Dayton belongs, had a number of evil associations themselves—also from both sides of the left/right divide.
Dayton starts his column with an experience of his own:
In 2007, I met a field organizer who had worked against immigration reform.[Not named in the article.] He was not who you might imagine. His background was in the labor and environmental movements that so many conservatives deplore... Even though the activist was working for an immigration restrictionist group[also unnamed] that many people instinctively think of as “conservative,” the truth is that he, like many other immigration opponents, was not conservative. He was a union-promoting environmentalist, [emphasis added] just like many of the figures involved in the formation and funding of groups that will voice strong opposition to the new immigration reform bill this week by claiming, inaccurately, that it is not “conservative” enough.
Here Dayton is using the Cultural Marxists of the New York Times, and Mario H. Lopez's ethnic agenda (masked as religious) in the name of crony capitalism—it someone is a "union-promoting environmentalist", he must care more about American workers, American air, American land, and American water than he does about the profits of American corporations.
The client list of Prism includes
And no doubt many others. The "Confidential Federal Contractor", by the way, is one Prism is not prepared to name:
As the war with Iraq proceeded
During President Eisenhower’s first term, 60 years ago, the United States faced an invasion across its southern border.
Illegal aliens had been coming since World War II. But, suddenly, the number was over 1 million. Crime was rising in Texas. The illegals were taking the jobs of U.S. farm workers.
"Philadelphia Freedom"? Philadelphia will hold an urgent public meeting to discuss the most important issue in the city today (April 18). It's not crime, education, or urban blight–it's the publication of Being White in Philly, [By Robert Huber, Philadelphia Magazine, March 2013] a magazine article that Mayor Michael Nutter doesn't like.
For the past seven weeks, this almost comically cautious article touching on the liberal white experience in a crime-ridden black city has dominated the news in the City of Brotherly Love. Despite its milquetoast language, it has inadvertently shown just who wants to keep America a “nation of cowards” when it comes to discussing race.
Huber’s piece offered virtually no statistics about the almost-entirely black face of crime in Philadelphia. It relied on interviews with anonymous white Philadelphians too afraid to use their real name because of the totalitarian nature of the climate for racial discourse in America. But it still manages to convey the confused alienation of whites forced to watch the continuing collapse of the society they built.
Mayor Nutter, once a hero to Conservatism Inc. for calling out black flash mobs terrorizing Philadelphia’s streets, [Philadelphia mayor talks tough to black teenagers after ‘flash mobs’, By Dave Boyer, Washington Times, August 8, 2011] has now called on the Orwellian-sounding “Human Rights Commission” to investigate the magazine for possible “incitement.”
In a letter to Rue Landau, [Email her]the executive director of the so-called Philadelphia Human Rights Commission, Mayor Nutter compared pointing out black failure to yelling “fire” in a crowded theater:
While I fully recognize that constitutional protections afforded the press are intended to protect the media from censorship by the government, the First Amendment, like other constitutional rights, is not an unfettered right, and notwithstanding the First Amendment, a publisher has a duty to the public to exercise its role in a responsible way. I ask the Commission to evaluate whether the “speech” employed in this essay is not the reckless equivalent of “shouting ‘fire!’ in a crowded theater,” its prejudiced, fact-challenged generalizations an incitement to extreme reaction. [PDF]
Philadelphia was the first city in the U.S. to establish a Human Rights Commission and it has become a model for the rest of the country. (They’re epidemic in Canada). They have now evolved into a kind of emotional Affirmative Action for nonwhites in cities around the country. For example, Commission's take on the tiresome outbreaks of violence in Philadelphia's public school: there has not been enough multicultural education!
Similarly, the Commission sees the publication of Being White in Philly as the problem—not the fear of crime and conflict that it describes.
With a veiled threat, the Commission intoned:
“They spoke for you. We want to hear from you. Philadelphia painted one picture of intergroup relations in your community. We want to hear directly from you about intergroup relations in your diverse and changing community.” [PDF of meeting announcement]
Memo From Middle America | Remind Amnesty Boosters That Mexico Has A Booming Economy And Fifteen Billionaires!
Instead of giving amnesty to these millions of illegal aliens, why don’t we just ask them all to go home?
Amnesty boosters of both parties don’t even consider that possibility. If they were even asked about it, they would probably be shocked. After all, how could we send illegal aliens back to Mexico?
Mexico is often presented both by its defenders and its detractors (for different reasons) as a poverty-stricken country.
Well, Mexico is poor compared to the United States. But it’s not a poor country by world standards.
- Mexico has the world’s 11th-largest economy and it’s currently booming. One advantage Mexico has over us: its much lower public debt ratio.
- Mexico’s GDP per capita is $15,300, much lower than that of the U.S. ($49,800) but higher than that of China ($9,100).
- Mexico ranks a fairly respectable #61 on the UN’s Human Development Index , which is higher than most Latin American countries. (The U.S. is at #3).
And there are plenty of rich Mexicans, many millionaires, in fact. And even some billionaires (dollars, not pesos).
Forbes Magazine annually releases its list of billionaires, and this year the list included fifteen Mexicans. [The Richest People On The Planet 2013, By Luisa Kroll and Kerry A. Dolan, March 4, 2013] (Last year it listed eleven and eleven the year before that. )
We can learn a lot from the list of Mexican billionaires—about a side of Mexican society rarely presented in the U.S. Mainstream Media. We learn about Mexican-U.S. relations, and the growing links between globalist plutocrats in both countries.
- The richest Mexican of all, of course: Carlos Slim, who was also named by Forbes as the 11th most powerful man in the world. Of Lebanese extraction, Slim’s net worth was $73 billion as of February 14th, 2013. Since that date, Slim’s América Móvil stock has fallen, and Slim might actually drop to the second position below that of Bill Gates. But so what, we’re still dealing with scores of billions of dollars.
Slim is a telecoms magnate, with Telmex and América Móvil and all sorts of seemingly-random enterprises he acquires, including soccer teams (2 in Mexico, one in Spain). But did you know that Slim now owns 3% of Apple Inc.?
Of special interest to Americans should be the fact that Slim owns 8% of the New York Times. Given that Slim is a promoter of illegal immigration, do you suppose the New York Times is more likely or less likely to give a fair hearing to the patriot side in the immigration debate? (On the other hand, how good was the NYT on the issue before Slim bought into it in 2009?)
2. The second-wealthiest Mexican, and the world’s 32nd-richest man: Alberto Bailleres Gonzalez, who along with his family has a net worth of $18.2 billion. Bailleres gained his wealth from the mining industry—Mexico is the world’s largest silver producer and mining has been important since colonial times. Bailleres heads up Grupo Bal and Industrias Penoles. Besides mining and metallurgy, Bailleres also has his fingers in retail, insurance, agribusiness, medicine and the FEMSA soft drink bottler (more on that profitable company later).
3. The 40th-richest man in the world, with a net worth of 16.7 billion belonging to him and his family: German Larrea Mota Velasco. This tycoon also made his fortune through mining, specializing in copper , and his Grupo México also has mines in other parts of Latin America. Larrea’s railroads can reach 71% of Mexico.
4. Ricardo Salinas Pliego is a media tycoon and runs TV Azteca
In brief remarks to the nation yesterday on the Boston Marathon bombings, President Obama said that "we all have a part to play in alerting authorities. If you see something suspicious, speak up." In Washington, D.C., electronic signs urged commuters to be on guard. Law enforcement, big-city mayors and security experts all echoed that famous post-terrorism refrain: "If you see something, say something."
But who really means it?
In post-9/11 America, the truth is that our politically correct guardians only want you to see, say or do something if it can't be construed by grievance-mongers as racist, sexist, Islamophobic, homophobic, nativist or any other "-ist" or "-ic."
Face it: We live in a self-defeating culture that pays lip service to heroic action in times of crisis, yet brutally punishes the very kind of snap judgments and instant security profiling that make such heroism possible in the first place.
Just take a look at some of the caustic reactions to citizens and watchdogs who stuck out their necks during and after the Boston Marathon bombings. A quick-thinking spectator at the race reportedly tackled a 20-year-old Saudi Arabian student visa holder he believed was acting suspiciously. The student is not considered a suspect at this point, but remains a "person of interest" in the case. The student's home was searched Monday night in Revere, Mass., by a phalanx of law enforcement agencies.
Time magazine correspondent Michael Crowley clucked: "It'll be a real shame if a Saudi guy was tackled and held simply for running in fright—and for being an Arab." Music producer Sledgren took to Twitter to bemoan "prejudice America." Indian television anchor Gargi Rawat called the civilian's actions "sad." Gawker editor Max Read declared: "(T)his poor Saudi kid should sue the guy who tackled him."
For what? For taking all those "See Something, Say Something" ads seriously? Hang him!
If the Saudi student tries to sue, we already know who
Defining America Down—Jose Antonio Vargas (Yech!) And What's At Stake In The Latest Amnesty/ Immigration Surge War
The great Amnesty/ Immigration Surge battle of 2013 is about to begin. (Maybe). What's at stake is not simply policies or regulations. Congress is in effect about to determine what it means to be “American.”
If this year's treason has a multicultural mascot, it's illegal alien Jose Antonio Vargas. As a coveted diversity “twofer,” both non-white and gay, Vargas (a Filipino not a Mexican, as Steve Sailer has pointed out—but hey, what can you do?) is a hero to his friends and colleagues in the Main Stream Media, many of whom actively assisted in his law-breaking.
Note: Vargas is not called a hero because he served America in war, or rendered some public service. Objectively speaking, it's doubtful that the real problem facing the United States is a critical lack of homosexual journalists who think America is “racist.”
No, Vargas is a hero to Obama’s America precisely because he despises it—and wants to remake it.
Vargas’ law-breaking has been both blatant and public. In 2011, the New York Times published his lengthy description of his illegal activities. [My Life as an Undocumented Immigrant, By Jose Antonio Vargas, June 22, 2011]MSM reaction was ecstatic. Since then, Vargas has spoken before television cameras, college campuses, and even Congress. TIME magazine has put him on its cover. And, needless to say, there has been no attempt to enforce “strategic deportation” against this astonishingly arrogant criminal.
In a typically overwrought and verbose article, Vargas even attempts to answer the obvious question of why he hasn't been deported. After a few thousand words of moralistic hectoring, he recounts that he personally contacted Immigration & Customs Enforcement to ask what ICE planned to do with him. Astonishingly, even though Vargas's illegal status had been quite literally broadcast across the entire country, ICE said they had no record of his existence, even as an ICE agent spoke on the phone with him about his criminal status. [Not Legal, Not Leaving, Time.com, June 25, 2012]
As Vargas himself asserts, the “game changer” in the immigration debate has been the “coming out” of illegals around the country. Of course, such a tactic is only possible precisely because of the federal government's treasonous indulgence of illegals. It is the federal government's treasonous indulgence that