Remember to enter Amazon via the VDARE.com link and we get a commission on any purchases you make—at no cost to you!
Memo From Middle America | Mexican Meddlers Eager To Boost Obamnesty—With Birth Certificate Vending Machines At Mexican Consulates!
I write from Mexico, where my family and I are visiting for about a month. Of course, I try to keep up with the latest on the Amnesty debate in the US. And, of course, that's being covered here in Mexico. Guess what, Mexicans support amnesty, so it must be good for the United States, right?
Being here in Mexico while this is going on brings back memories. As longtime readers of VDARE.COM know, it was my experience living in Mexico for many years that helped transform me into an American immigration patriot. (See my article THE EDUCATION OF A GRINGO IN MEXICO, Or How Living in Mexico Helped Transform Me Into A VDARE.COM Contributor. )
The Mexican media and political class keep close tabs on U.S. immigration legislation—closer tabs than most Americans do. And of course Eduardo Medina-Mora, Mexico's ambassador in Washington, is particularly on top of things:
The Ambassador of Mexico in the United States, Eduardo Medina Mora, praised the migratory reform Project being discussed in the U.S. Senate.” Embajador de México en EU alaba avance en reforma migratoria, [By Angel Villarino, Terra.com, June 12th, 2013 ]
The ambassador prefaced his remark with a typical disclaimer - "The government of Mexico admits that the migratory reform in the United States is a domestic issue..." (Mexican diplomats say that when they're about to meddle) - but we cannot fail to recognize its deep impact."
The ambassador continued "The possibility that this reform is passed is a reminder of the best traditions that have made this country great." Actually, this reform is in the tradition of things that are destroying our nation.
Medina Mora's comments were made at an American Enterprise Institute symposium on June 12th—the same day the Senate voted to begin deliberations on S. 744. He was the keynote speaker at the symposium ludicrously entitled "Where is Mexico Headed?"
Where is Mexico headed? To the United States, obviously—in droves.
And the Villarino article included this equally ludicrous comment:
While other governments such as South Korea or China have lobbied to support migratory reform, Mexico (the country with the most migrants in the United States) has preferred to maintain itself at the margin.
Mexico at the margin of the immigration debate? Baloney! Mexico is already well-established in the United States with its 50 consulates and its flagrant meddling in our internal affairs apparently isn't an issue. (When was the last time you heard a GOP politician complain about it?)
Meanwhile, back in Mexico the Mexican Congress is also working on S. 744. Recently, Mexican congressman Miguel Alonso Raya [Twitter] presented a statement to the Comisión Permanente [Permanent Commission] of the Mexican Congress. (The Comisión Permanente is a sort of mini-Congress with 37 members, which is in session during congressional recesses.)
Raya’s memo was actually an exhortation telling the Mexican executive branch to "prepare to respond...to an unprecedented demand for documents on the part of Mexican migrants resulting from the approval of a migratory reform in the United States” and to "coordinate with the state governments, the chief of the Federal District and the municipal governments to respond to such a demand of documentation over nationality, identity and civil state." (This would include Mexican citizenship, birth and civil state documents).
In other words, this congressman wants the Mexican government to get ready to help Mexican illegal aliens to be legalized under S. 744.
Ayala pointed out, in fact, that there already is a demand for such documents,
You can try to put "conservative" lipstick on the lawless amnesty mob. In the end, however, it's still a lawless mob. The big government/big business alliance to protect illegal immigration got a lot of mileage using foolish Republicans Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan as front men. But the true colors of the open-borders grievance-mongers always show through.
After America said no to a pork-filled security-undermining amnesty bill in 2007, the No Illegal Alien Left Behind lobbyists changed their overtly thuggish tactics. They put down their upside-down American flags, stopped wearing their commie Che Guevara T-shirts and cloaked their radical "Aztlan" aspirations in the less divisive rhetoric of "reform" and "opportunity."
It was all just an act, of course. Inevitably, the mask has slipped. Over the weekend, illegal alien protesters descended on the private residence of Kansas Secretary of State and immigration enforcement lawyer Kris Kobach. As Twitchy.com reported on Saturday, 300 amnesty activists marched into Kobach's neighborhood and barged up his driveway and right onto his doorstep. It's how the Alinskyite "community organizers" roll.
Shouting into a bullhorn and waving their fists from his front porch, the property rights-invaders dubbed Kobach "King of Hate" for his work representing border security activists and federal customs enforcement agents who are fighting the systemic sabotage of immigration law. Thankfully, Kobach, his wife and their four young daughters were not home at the time.
But the aggrieved amnesty demanders are not done yet. And Kobach is not the only one in their crosshairs.
After tea party activist turned Kansas state representative Amanda Grosserode condemned the mob action publicly on Facebook, racist insults and threats littered her page. Roberto Medina Ramirez wrote: "I'll give her something to be disgusted about!" Doris Lynn Crouse Gent chimed in: "OMG! Maybe her drive should be next." Matt S. Bashaw echoed the call: "Maybe her house should be next." Facebook user Jude Robinson also ranted on Grosserode's page: "Since Kobach steals taxpayer money spreading hate around the country, he deserves what he gets."
Dennis Paul Romero left this message for Grosserode: "(N)azi kkk and she is proud of it." A user writing as "Paul-says Fckmarkzuck" left death threats under Romero's comment: "Gotta start killing all the Nazis. Politicans (sic), bankers, and priests. Cops, lawyers, and Judges. ASAP." The same user added: "Just another b*tch that needs to die off already."
The radicals of Occupy Kansas posted an inflammatory photo of Grosserode with the race-baiting caption: "Kansas State legislator Amanda Grosserode says she is 'disgusted' by Hispanic protesters." Grosserode wasn't disgusted by their ethnicity. She was disgusted by their actions. No matter. Race/ethnic card: activated.
Gina Long pounced: "(S)he is stupid and doesn't like brown people."
Previously By Anthony Boehm: Funny Thing: Anti-German Racism In Czech Election Doesn’t Bother U.S. Main Stream Media
Sixty years ago this Monday (June 17), the people of the Soviet Occupation Zone (SOZ) a.k.a. East Germany rose against their leaders. Scores were killed in the uprising, including, thank all the Gods, over 100 functionaries of the Soviet-imposed “Socialist Unity” (SED) Communist puppet regime.
This is an anniversary which will probably not be noted much in the MSM, in the US or in Germany. After all, the victims were not members of any preferred group— just Germans, co-ethnics of what is still, despite our all political elite’s efforts, the largest component of the American population.
The uprising occurred in the framework of the Cold War tensions of the 1950s. West Berlin-based US radio did its job and incited the citizens of the SOZ to resist an increased work quota. Amazing as it seems in retrospect, a people that had been raped and plundered by the Soviets and their SOZ collaborators for eight long years found the will to take to the streets to demand that the new quotas be rescinded. Thousands took to the streets across the SOZ and huge crowds converged on the center of Berlin, carrying homemade anti-regime signs demanding all-German elections and chanting, "Death to Communism!", "Down with the Government!"—and even “Long live Eisenhower.”
Their trust in the then-U.S. President was sadly as misplaced as that of the Hungarian revolutionaries in 1956. The US did not intend to actually do anything to support the Germans or roll back the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe.
Soviet troops, together with elements of the Communist regime’s Volkspolizei , fired into the crowds and put down the rising by sheer brutality, with many shot to death on the streets or summarily executed. Others were murdered by the Communist regime after what passed as trials.
This June 17th Uprising was the occasion of the famous poem by Bertolt Brecht, The Solution:
After the uprising of the 17th of June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow cited these lines in his National Review cover story Time To Rethink Immigration [June 22, 1992] which ultimately grew into his 1995 book Alien Nation: Common Sense About America’s Immigration Disaster:
If "Comprehensive Immigration Reform" Is So Popular, Why Won't They Say It's Amnesty + Immigration Surge?
[Originally published on WND, June 12, 2013. Updated for VDARE.com with more links.]
The famous joke says that you can always tell when a lawyer is lying—his lips move.
Similarly, you can tell that backers of S.744, the 1,000-page Schumer-Rubio immigration bill that has been rushed to the Senate floor this week, are terrified that justly outraged American patriots will tar and feather them and run them out of town on a rail—they always describe their insanely radical and grossly self-interested proposal as “immigration reform” or, frequently, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform.”
Of course, it’s a deception. “Immigration reform” could logically mean just about any change in the current chaotic, stuck-on-full-throttle immigration system. It could even mean an immigration moratorium—no net immigration. In fact, in view of America’s multi-year unemployment crisis, that is exactly what it should mean.
And, shamelessly, S.744′s backers are actually presenting the measure as an enforcement and anti-amnesty bill (they redefine amnesty) in what appears to be a lavishly funded election-campaign-style phone bank offensive, which I’ve heard about from states as far flung as Montana and Alaska.
But what S.744 actually comprises:
- Amnesty—the 11 million (20 million?—nobody knows) illegal aliens in the U.S. will be allowed to stay, which is what matters. Period.
- A legal immigration surge—legal immigration will be doubled or even tripled, from its already record levels. By some counts, this “reform” could mean as many as 33 million legal immigrants in the next decade. By comparison, only about 10 million legal immigrants arrived 1990-2012—and only about 2.5 million in the 1950s.
Forget about “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”—S.744 must really be called the 2013 Amnesty/Immigration Surge Act.
Naturally, most public attention is focused on the amnesty provisions. And they are truly outrageous.
But the increase in legal immigration is the real kicker here. It’s been smuggled
Breitbart summarized it well:
An employee of Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform (ATR), together with a political ally of “Gang of Eight” member Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL), will argue Friday that groups opposed to the immigration bill pending in the U.S. Senate are "nativists," Breitbart News has learned.
ATR’s Josh Culling and Hispanic Leadership Fund (HLF) president Mario Lopez will make the argument on a conference call with mainstream media reporters on Friday at 11 AM EDT. Brad Bailey of an organization called Texas Immigration Studies will join them on the call.
(877) 888-4319: Norquist, Rubio Allies To Paint Immigration Bill Opponents As Nativists On Conference Call, by Matthew Boyle, June 13, 2013
Needless to say, genuine conservatives will not be fooled by this—Breitbart rightly notes that these people are “described” as “conservative leaders" by their PR types.
But the Main Stream Media can be expected to play along. When HLF president Mario H. Lopez (email him) surfaced some months ago with an article on this stuff in Human Life Review, VDARE.com’s Washington Watcher said all too accurately that “the MSM, which usually presents the Religious Right and Grover Norquist as the root of all evil in America, has done its job in hyping this supposed controversy.”
The Treason Lobby regularly smears opponents of amnesty by tying them to “White nationalism”. This can’t literally be true, since “White nationalism” is something of a fringe movement, whereas opposition to amnesty polls in the 70s and 80s with actual Americans. (Up to 88 percent with African-Americans, but I suppose “black nationalism” isn’t objectionable as far as the MSM is concerned.)
Moreover, as I explained in an article entitled Communism, Socialism, Cultural Marxism, Democratic Hegemonists, Crony Capitalism, Ethnic Agendas, Treason Etc.—The “Ugly Roots” Of Immigration Enthusiasm, immigration enthusiasts claiming that Dr. Tanton and people like, well, me, are at the “root” of opposition to immigration have unspoken or even open nefarious agendas of their own.
Thus it’s obvious that something called the Hispanic Leadership Fund is for Hispanic immigration even it costs non-Hispanic Americans money. I called them Ethnic Agenda-Mongers. It’s even more obvious that Conservatism Inc. types like lobbyist Grover Norquist support the wealthy employer against the poor or even middle-class American worker. I called this species Crony Capitalists.
But now there’s a new evilmonger in sight—Jeb Bush, the former governor of Florida. He is married to Columba Garnica Gallo, from Guanajato, Mexico, and is the father of the half-Mexican George P. Bush, who seems to have been indoctrinated by his mother as a Hispanic race warrior—he told a Hispanic Republican rally in 2000 that "She told me we have to fight for our race, we have to find the leaders who represent us". [Reuters, August 2, 2000]
In spite of these Hispanic credentials, Jeb Bush in a recent speech at the Faith and Freedom Coalition’s Road to the Majority conference accused Hispanic immigrants of being “more fertile” than regular Americans. (He and Columba have three grown children.) See Jeb Bush: U.S. economy needs immigrants because they’re ‘more fertile’, Aaron Blake, Washington Post, June 14, 2013.
Hold on a minute! Doesn’t Bush realize it is officially Hateful to refer to immigrant fertility?
Years ago, similarly referring to the extraordinary philoprogenitiveness of Mexican immigrants, Dr. John Tanton made the following very mild joke (in a private memo):
This quote gets over 11, 000 hits on Google, and was quoted in 21 actual printed books, mostly by left-wing Latino academics. (Sample titles: White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race and Voices of the U.S. Latino Experience .)
Neocon princess Linda Chavez, hearing about this memo, resigned from the Official English group US English in a Politically Correct panic. She subsequently brought the story up in 2003, defending Arnold Schwarzenegger from charges of evil associations, saying she resigned because the memo’s reference to fertility (like Jeb, she has three children.) was “anti-Hispanic and anti-Catholic.” [English and Arnold, Townhall.com, August 20, 2003, see also Don't Listen To Linda Chavez, by Sam Francis, August 28, 2003]
I’m joking, of course. Jeb Bush’s speech was full of hateful
S.744, the Obama-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill now being rushed through the U.S. Senate, is not just the 1986 Amnesty writ large: although little-noted, it’s simultaneously the disastrous1965 Immigration Act, which restarted immigration after a 40-year lull—also writ large. Accordingly, I’ve been documenting problems that the 1965 act appears to have exacerbated: violent crime; poverty; and now inequality.
Researchers at the International Labor Organization have measured national income inequality using a statistic called the “Gini coefficient.” Gini coefficients can range from 0 (perfect equality in income among all households) to 100 (one household receives the entire national income and the rest get nothing.) Like golf, low Gini scores win.
The recent ILO [PDF] report puts the U.S. Gini coefficient at 47.7 in 2011, or almost half way toward the theoretical maximum of 100. By comparison, inequality in the other 25 developed countries range from 20 to 35.
Moreover, inequality is rising faster here than anyplace else. The U.S. Gini coefficient rose even during the stock market collapse of 2008 to 2009. Market meltdowns like that usually have a leveling effect on inequality.
So it seems as if “American exceptionalism” includes the ability of our wealthy to garner a disproportionate share of national income.
Liberals blame the greed and avarice of the richest 1% —aided and abetted by financial de-regulation etc... Conservatives, to the extent that they fret over inequality, focus on the shocking lack of skills among large swaths of the bottom 99%—the result of an inefficient public education system substantially controlled by teacher unions.
Both sides believe income inequality will increase unless their policy agendas are put in place.
Both sides ignore U.S. economic history—and the role of immigration.
Jay Gatsby notwithstanding, the Roaring Twenties marked the start of a forty-year period during which ordinary workers got richer while the rich got relatively poorer. After an early recession unemployment dropped below 5% and stayed below that level for most of the decade. Americans found themselves sharing broadly similar lifestyles in a way not seen since before the Civil War.
But all of that went into reverse in the 1970s—right about the time that the 1965 Act became effective (and illegal immigration got underway again).
From the end of World War II until the late 1960s the rich-poor divide was remarkably stable, even narrowing over long stretches. The de facto immigration moratorium in place from the mid-1920s to the mid-1960s forced America to draw on unused and under employed minorities to meet its internal labor force needs.
That things started to come apart around 1970, as can be seen by eyeballing the trend in mean and median family income:
Mean is the average income, calculated by dividing total income by
Next year should be a banner year for the GOP, and may yet be.
The White House is bedeviled by scandals, the second-term curse has caught up with the Obama presidency, and prospects for the U.S. economy seem dicier than a few months ago.
History is also on the GOP's side. In the second midterm elections, Presidents Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower, JFK-LBJ, Nixon-Ford, Reagan and Bush II all suffered big losses. It has become a tradition.
But if the GOP is favored to hold the House and make gains in the Senate, the long-term prognosis for the party remains grim.
First, libertarianism is breaking up that old gang of mine.
Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham call for air strikes on Syria. But no echo is heard, as the Republican Party becomes anti-interventionist.
Yet the acid test comes after Friday's Iranian election, as the neocon war drums begin to beat.
Libertarian Republicans believe the National Security Agency is Big Brother and the Brave New World at hand. National security Republicans back the agency's right to access private data banks to protect us from terrorism.
On how to deal with 12 million illegal aliens—send them home or grant them amnesty and a "path to citizenship"—the party's rancorous division will be starkly visible when the bill reaches the House.
But the existential crisis of the GOP, from which it has turned its eyes away since George H.W. Bush, is demography.
Yet the matter cannot be avoided now, for it is on page one.
In demographic terms, more white Americans died in 2012 than were born. Never before—not during the Civil War bloodletting, not during the influenza epidemic after World War I, not during th
We all know now what the vengeful Obama IRS has been doing to conservative nonprofits the past four years: strangling them in the crib. But do you know how much pampering and largesse far-left welfare-state charities have received while limited-government groups suffered? You don't know the half of it.
This was the dinner for Professor Zhang Yitang I mentioned here. Prof. Zhang is currently famous for having cracked an outstanding mathematical problem earlier this year. [Solving a Riddle of Primes, By Kenneth Chang, NYT, May 20, 2013] The dinner was organized by old friends of his—mainland Chinese who had, like him, come to study in the U.S.A. in the 1980s. Most of them had had some association with the Chinese Alliance for Democracy, which flourished in the 1980s and 1990s among expatriate Chinese intellectuals.
It was humbling to be among these people. One fellow diner had spent eleven years in jail, much of it in solitary confinement. Another had been imprisoned for four years at the age of sixteen after participating in the 1978-79 “Democracy Wall” movement. (She now works for a New York-registered foundation, Women’s Rights In China.)
Although the general mood was one of celebration for Prof. Zhang’s achievement, there was a whiff of melancholy about the occasion. The democracy movement’s U.S. branch has quiesced; their magazine has suspended publication; the activists have built lives and careers for themselves here in the U.S.A. and drifted away from each other.
One of them remarked to me wistfully at the dinner that it had been many years since she’d seen so many of that generation of dissidents all together in one place.
It didn’t help that last week marked the 24th anniversary of the Chinese government’s crushing of the student movement in Tiananmen Square. Twenty-four may not seem like a very round number to Westerners, but it is precisely two duodecadal cycles of the traditional Chinese calendar: 1989 and 2013 are both Years of the Snake. My dinner partners had it in mind.
In the context of U.S. politics, this was also the week when China’s new leader Xi Jinping paid a call on Barack Obama, while Chinese blogs had just got through batting around some controversial remarks Joe Biden made at a commencement speech last month. (The remarks went unnoticed here—who pays attention to anything Joe Biden says?—but caused a stir over there.)
It has therefore been with China on my mind that I’ve been watching the SchMcGRubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill drag its weary length along through the U.S. Senate chamber.
For better or worse, our two nations look set to dominate geopolitics across the next few years, yoked together in a to-and-fro dance of mutual dependency and mutual suspicion.
Some problems we have that they don’t, mainly our vast and unsustainable public debt. Some they have that we don’t: massive environmental degradation, restless border colonies. We also have some problems in common: slowing economies, unemployed college graduates, widening wealth gaps.
(Class resentment in China when I lived there 30 years ago was aimed at the gao-gan-zi-di—the “princeling” offspring of senior Party officials and old revolutionaries. Nowadays there is a whole menagerie of spoiled brats: fu-er-dai, guan-er-dai, xing-er-dai, hong-er-dai…I find it hard to remember which is which. There’s a taxonomy here.)
And then, in the longer term, there are the prospects of demographic disaster,
Democrat Wonders Why Big Government and Big Business Snoop On US Citizens—But Not On Illegal Aliens?
Seems like the big boys in government and business and their ethnic auxiliaries have settled in on a multiplicity of efforts to make life for us average US citizens as complex and ugly as possible.
Welcome to Opposite World again. As the U.S.
The Senate has “opened debate” on S. 744, the nation-breaking Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill—the first crucial vote comes at 2.15 pm today, June 11—but the Main Stream Media knows that the only way it will pass is if debate is closed. Politico did its part with a recent piece cheer-leading the environmentalist movement’s sell-out to the Treason Lobby: Greens move to heal immigration reform rift , By Darren Samuelsohn,[ email him] June 2, 2013.
Environmentalists are getting off the sidelines and backing immigration reform — but it wasn’t easy.
During the Senate’s last go round on the issue in 2007, greens stayed silent to avoid airing their dirty laundry — an internal dispute that some in the movement feared would be seen as racist.
Their family feud was so rough that it twice nearly ruptured the Sierra Club when a vocal faction — including some of the movement’s leading luminaries — argued too many new immigrants living the American dream could spell doom for the planet.
Fast forward to 2013, and the Sierra Club, BlueGreen Alliance and Greenpeace are among those out publicly in support of the kinds of comprehensive immigration reform measures pursued by President Barack Obama and the Senate’s Gang of Eight. [Links added by VDARE.com ]
I was part of that “vocal faction” in 2004 and documented our struggle at VDARE.com in a series of articles. We were merely honest environmentalists who remembered the obvious truth, which had been the Sierra Club’s historical position for 30 years, that more people represent increased strain on America's natural resources.
But, as it subsequently turned out, the Sierra Club management had been simply (and secretly) bribed to switch sides. Wealthy investor David Gelbaum specified the strings attached to his $100 million donation: “I did tell [Executive Director] Carl Pope in 1994 or 1995 that if they ever came out anti-immigration, they would never get a dollar from me.”[The Man Behind the Land, By Kenneth R. Weiss, Los Angeles Times, Oct 27, 2004).
The Sierra Club obediently fell into line, with a new official policy in 1996 of “neutrality” on immigration and population growth. A group of grassroots members (SUSPS) attempted to overturn the change. But after years of effort, they learned that the fix was in. The Sierra Club's leadership simply ignored its own democratic processes and demonized its own members as, guess what, “racists.”
Note, however, that the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge cheerleaders still need to smear their opposition. Thus Politico’s Samuelsohn charges that the anti-immigration “faction” said immigrants would “doom the planet.” Absurd. We just pointed out that admitting millions from the Third World would greatly increase their use of natural resources compared to what they would have used at home. Immigrants don’t relocate for the better recycling opportunities; they want to become part of the American consumer economy and buy lots of manufactured stuff.
Even more absurd, Samuelsohn swallows whole the Environmentalist Establishment's ludicrous rationale:
Atop their list of reasons why: the prospect of 11 million new green-minded voters.
But the “Greens” at least understand what Grover Norquist and company ignore, that most Hispanics prefer big government and the Democratic Party. In fact, a 2012 Pew poll found that Hispanic predilection for welfare-style governance lasts for generations. In the eyes of the Sierra Club and their cronies, “environmentalism” simply means voting for Barack Obama.
The liberal bureaucrats who have captured the Sierra Club once blogged, “Yep, We’re Too White” and claim to see more diversity as a worthwhile goal. But no white leader of the organization has ever volunteered to resign from a well-paid position so a diverse person could take it.
“Right now, there are 11 million people who don’t have the tools, who can’t act without fear. They can’t vote. They can’t engage in the public process. They can’t advocate for clean energy without the threat of deportation,” Brune added. “Nobody should live under those circumstances.”
Apparently, we are supposed to believe illegals are longing to hit the streets and “advocate for clean energy.” But in fact, they already demonstrate frequently in public—but with demands for legalization and access to American jobs.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer welcomed the greens’ entry to the debate, noting that illegal immigrants often live and work in places that are more vulnerable than the general population to higher levels of air, water and soil pollution. But they can’t speak up now for fear of deportation.
Illegals “can’t speak up for fear of deportation”? Loudmouth illegal alien Jose Antonio Vargas testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee last February and no officers stepped in to cuff the guy. Apparently, Barbara Boxer doesn't even notice what goes on in her own workplace.
Environmentalists say their work on the immigration issue also gives them solid ground to stand on as they engage on issues intertwined in this legislative fight.
It can be challenging to keep up with enviros’ relationship to industry. Previous Executive Director Carl Pope stirred up controversy when he partnered with Clorox to give it the Sierra Club endorsement with a seal of approval on products, aka Green Works. In return, Clorox “donated” $470,000 to the Club in 2009 to help with its environmental issues.
When the Florida chapter of the Club had a problem with the unprecedented product endorsement, the head office in San Francisco suspended the entire state chapter of 35,000 members for four years.
Resistance Is Futile! to anyone threatening the Sierra Club’s connection with a wealthy donor.
In 1997-98, the Sierra Club faced a mutiny from within its own ranks over whether to end a long-standing position of neutrality on immigration. The question: whether to back a new stance favoring “an end to U.S. population growth at the earliest possible time through reduction in natural increase (births minus deaths)” and “through reduction in net immigration.”
Several environmental heavyweights, including former Kennedy and Johnson administration Interior Secretary Stewart Udall, Earth Day founder and former Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Gaylord Nelson, Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson and Earth First co-founder Dave Foreman, spoke up for the ballot initiative.
This is often forgotten, several years after the fact. Many serious conservationists were endorsers of the immigration limitation reformers, despite pressure from Sierra Club bureaucrats, who were focused on liberal loyalties and future donations. Additional endorsers included: Prof. Al Bartlett (famous for his arithmetic, population, energy lecture), Lester Brown (the environment author and founder of Worldwatch Institute), California Congressman Tony Beilenson, the late, iconic nature photographer Galen Rowell and many others.
But it went down
This week, the full U.S. Senate is debating S.744, “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill. What is at stake is not merely the dispossession of the historic American nation—but its extinction.
The Open Borders Lobby, both “Left” and “Right,” has one implicit theme when it comes to labor and immigration—traditional Americans don't count.
Thus, just as for years the government has been “disappearing” crime, it has also been “disappearing” unemployment. The official unemployment rate is now “only” 7.6 percent (11.8 million), the real combined rate of unemployment and underemployment, according to Shadowstats’ John Williams, is 22.9 percent (over 30 million?).
But now the fashionable talk is of something called a “jobless recovery.” The millions of remaining unemployed have become invisible. This practice began under Bill Clinton and was maintained by George W. Bush, both aiming to benefit politically from “good” numbers. The Main Stream Media is complicit—thus between 2001 and 2010, America lost 2.8 million jobs to Red China alone (PDF) with the subject all but ignored in the public debate.
The one major administration measure that has any chance of passage this year could not be more perfectly designed to worsen the problems of the long-term unemployed: the Rubio-Schumer immigration reform… The bill guarantees—is intended to guarantee—ultra-slack labor markets across a wide variety of specializations for years and decades to come.
That heresy is no doubt why Frum has since been fired.
If the Amnesty/Immigration surge bill passes both houses of Congress and is signed into law, there will be catastrophic consequences. As many as 24 to 44 million new legal workers—plus anywhere from 120 to 220 million new “Americans” will be added via chain migration.
Critically, these government-sponsored invaders will enjoy a host of government-originated privileges and programs denied to actual Americans—especially whites.
- Amnestied invaders and their relatives will enjoy Affirmative Action at all skill and educational levels (even South Asians are eligible), along with American blacks. The white American working class will be discriminated against throughout the job market.
- Millions of amnestied foreign invaders will quit working in agriculture, and seek to move up, either to private service jobs (restaurants, bars, fast-food, hotels), construction, or other jobs to which working class Americans are desperately trying to cling.
- Millions of new illegal alien invaders and “temporary guest workers” will flood in to fill the jobs just left by the amnestied invaders, meaning that even agricultural jobs will be off-limits
- Traditional Americans, especially native-born whites, will find themselves under increasing pressure to attend college, even if they have no interest in it, because of this ethnic cleansing of working class jobs. When they graduate, they will be trapped by immense student loan debt. They will then find themselves under pressure to attend graduate school, for yet another worthless degree, requiring even more debt.
- If amnestied invaders decide to attend college, they will receive preferential admission and enjoy grade inflation (also here), allowing them to get better jobs than native-born white Americans;
- Anti-white discrimination in academia and the culture will be dramatically strengthened. Jobs for professors are notoriously being reduced, as universities chop up formerly full-time teaching jobs into part-time adjunct positions. But also, and much less well-publicized: academia has been on a simultaneous hiring binge, creating well-paid, non-teaching positions in what Alan Kors and Harvey Silverglate call, in their eponymous book, The Shadow University —the anti-white, minority and homosexual/feminist-dominated political fiefdoms like “Student Life” and “Multicultural Services” that are reserved for commissars who are anti-white, anti-intellectual, and of dubious educational attainment.
(I’ve reported on one characteristic activity of the Shadow University: promoting hate crime hoaxes to intimidate whites and extort ever-expanding power and budgets).
Amnesty will strengthen these trends, made it more difficult for Americans (especially whites) to receive a real education, and increase discrimination against them.
- Public school districts have been importing teachers by the thousands
National Data | May Jobs: Immigrants Still Far Ahead Of Americans—And Native-Born Hispanics Grab Most New Jobs
Unemployment ticked up to 7.6%, in May, according to the Payroll Survey. The economy created 175,000 jobs about the same average monthly job growth for the past year, but the labor force grew faster than employment. Nevertheless, the labor force participation rate for native-born Americans is lower this May than it was last May—signaling a lack of confidence in job prospects.
Immigrants, meanwhile, outpaced the native-born in jobs, participation rates, and unemployment reduction over the past 12 months. Remember that about 90,000 legal immigrants are admitted to the U.S. every month.
And among the native-born, Hispanics grabbed most of the new jobs.
The “other” employment survey, of households, shows a 319,000 job gain in May—the strongest showing since October 2012. The Household Survey now reports place of birth. For the third straight month, our analysis finds that native-born gained jobs at a faster pace than immigrants:
- Total employment rose by 319,000, or by 0.22%
- Native-born employment rose by 290,000, or by 0.24%
- Foreign-born employment rose by 29,000, or by 0.12%
That May 2013 is an anomaly is made clear in our New VDARE.com American Worker Displacement Index (NVDAWDI). It tracks native-born and foreign-born employment growth for every month since the start of the Obama Administration:
Native-born employment growth is the blue line, immigrant employment growth is in pink, and NVAWDI—the ratio of immigrant to native-born job growth—is yellow. To chart American worker displacement, we set both the native-born and immigrant employment indexes in January 2009 at 100.0.
Since January 2009:
- Foreign-born employment increased by 1.651 million, or by 7.6%. The immigrant employment index rose from 100.0 to 107.6
- Native-born employment rose by 26,000 or by 0.02%. The native-born employment index in May 2013 was 100.0, or virtually unchanged from the level of January 2009.
- NVDAWDI (the ratio of immigrant to native-born employment growth indexes) rose from 100.0 to 107.6 (100X(107.6/ 100.0)
To put it another way, after four years of President Obama’s economic “recovery,” native-born employment has finally clawed its way back up to the same level it was on his (first) inauguration day. Immigrants are already way ahead.
The long-term trend of native-born worker displacement is seen in the table
Memo From Middle America | Evangelical “Leaders” Need Reality Check—Evangelicals Don’t Support Amnesty
Recently, Mike Flynn on Breitbart.com revealed that this is true in the most literal sense
The Evangelical Immigration Table, a coalition supporting immigration reform, has launched a six-figure ad campaign pushing Congress to enact immigration legislation. The ads, urging evangelicals to "pray" for a path to citizenship, include the disclaimer that they were "paid for" by the Table. This is odd, because the group doesn't legally exist. It is a highly misleading claim.
Breitbart News confirmed on Monday that the actual purchase of the ads was made by the National Immigration Forum (NIF).
Evangelicals Mislead on Funding of Immigration Ads, June 3 2013
Flynn goes on to explain that National Immigration Forum has received a lot of money from George Soros—as has the “Evangelical Immigration Table” itself. [National Immigration Forum Funded by Soros and the Left, by Matthew Boyle, Breitbart.com, June 3 2013] The Forum has also received a lot of money from hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer, a big GOP donor.
During the past few months, unusually, several positive Main Stream Media articles about evangelicals have appeared, celebrating the (supposed) support of Evangelical Christians for Amnesty. For example:
- Evangelical groups launch $250,000 immigration campaign by Alan Gomez, USA Today, May 29, 2013
It’s about the quarter-million dollar media push by the Evangelical Immigration Table, mentioned above. To be fair, this article does present another point of view and quotes NumbersUSA’s Roy Beck. But it fails ask the question “Where is the $250,000 coming from?”
- Why Evangelicals Back Obama on Immigration (and Why They Should Agree on Guns and Climate Change, Too) by Ron Fournier, National Journal, April 15, 2013 (updated May 30)
Subtitled “Pragmatic mega-church leaders are savvy about demographic shifts.” Yeah.
- For Evangelicals, a Shift in Views on Immigration by Julia Preston, New York Times, April 13, 2013
Two years ago, national evangelical leaders began to speak out in favor of legislation to give legal status to immigrants in the United States illegally. Now, as Congress is about to start a debate on overhauling the immigration system, conservative Christians, once inclined to take a hard line on immigrants they viewed as lawbreakers, are consulting their Bibles and coming around to the pastors’ view.”
Yeah again. But to Julia Preston’s credit, she points out that
In a poll released in March by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution, white evangelical Protestants were the least likely of the religious groups surveyed to support a path to citizenship for immigrants here illegally, with 56 percent of them favoring that approach. Among Hispanic Catholics, the group expressing the most support, 74 percent said they would allow those immigrants to become citizens. Only 41 percent of white evangelicals who identify with the Tea Party supported a path to citizenship, according to the survey.
- Evangelicals Push Immigration Path, Wall Street Journal, April 8, 2013
After decades of sitting on the sidelines of the debate, evangelical Christians are prodding Republican lawmakers to support a path to U.S. citizenship for the nation's illegal immigrants, based on their reading of Bible teachings. Evangelical pastors from pulpits across the U.S. cite Scriptures about welcoming strangers. Some compare illegal immigrants with modern-day lepers, who should be treated with compassion by Christians.
Hmm. Sorry to break this to you, Miriam, but some of them actually are modern-day lepers.
- Evangelicals Try To Soften Hearts On Overhauling Immigration, By John Burnett, NPR April 15, 2013,
“Evangelical Christians in the United States are raising their voices in support of immigration overhaul. Church leaders were largely mute during the earlier contentious debates over how to fix the nation's immigration laws, but now they are speaking out, telling conservative Christians and their friends in Congress that it's OK to embrace compassionate solutions.”
- Evangelicals Rally for Pathway to Citizenship and Immigration Reform, by Sarah McCaney, PBS, April 23, 2013
- An Evangelical’s Call for Immigration Reform by Carl A. Ruby, Tikkun, May 3, 2013
(Carl Ruby, whose website says he is "currently serving as a consultant for the National Immigration Forum" is an evangelical Amnesty booster who says he was inspired by Martin Luther King, Jr. to support
The story so far: the 2013 Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill, which aims to double legal immigration from what are already historic highs, must be regarded as the 1965 Immigration Act on steroids. The 1965 Act notoriously unleashed an era of mass immigration after a 40-year lull, and shifted the ethnic mix of new immigrants from predominantly European to Hispanic and Asian. It is responsible for setting the US on the path to a white minority by 2040 or so. It has had other consequences that the Main Stream Media won’t discuss, so VDARE.com (not for first time).is filling the gap. Today: poverty.
For two decades following the end of World War II, poverty rates fell like a stone. In 1947 nearly one-third (32%) of all families were officially classified as poor. [Have Antipoverty Programs Increased Poverty? By James D. Gwartney and Thomas S. McCaleb, The Cato Journal, Vol. 5, No. 1 1985] By 1959, only one-fifth (22.4%) of persons had incomes below the poverty line. By 1973 the fraction of American families living in poverty dropped by more than half, to just over a tenth (11.1%).
But then progress against poverty stalled—and it has never resumed. The poverty rate rose back into the 15% range in the 1980s and early 1990s. The late 1990s boom, and welfare reform, pushed poverty down to 11.3% in 2000. But it has been on an upward trajectory since then.
Poverty rates have never broken under the low set in 1973—forty years ago.
Here’s what it looks like on a chart: