Recent News

Israel's Egyptian border fence. NB armed IDF man.

Yesterday Israel HaYom, the free Israeli newspaper with which owner Sheldon Adelson is distorting the Israeli media market as much as he is the operations of the GOP, came out with a peculiar headline: Infiltrators sneak into Israel despite completion of security fence by Lilach Shoval April 28 2013. This announces-

For the first time since the recent construction of the security fence along Israel's border with Egypt, four African infiltrators and five other individuals managed to breach the barrier and enter Israel during April

but also reports

The African infiltrators, who scaled the 5-meter (16-foot) fence to enter Israel illegally, were apprehended by Israel Defense Forces patrols in the area and transferred to the Saharonim detention center near the border, where by law they will be held for at least three years

(My emphasis. No ‘Catch and Release’ for Israel!).

The IDF response was

A friend of mine who is a Roman Catholic and, despite his bishops’ best efforts, in favor of an immigration moratorium, forwarded me an e-mail exchange he thought I’d find interesting. He was right.

My friend follows a Catholic webzine called Crisis. It bills itself as “A Voice for the Faithful Catholic Laity” and focuses on social and moral issues and specifically Catholic matters about doctrine and what kind of padre the new Pope really is. It doesn’t look like immigration is a prominent concern, although the tone is pretty conservative overall.

On April 25^th my friend got his daily e-mail about what was new on Crisis that day. It included this:

Crisis Today

04/25/2013

Bishops Take Clericalist Stance on Illegal Immigration

Apr 25, 2013 04:10 am | George Neumayr

The proper configurations of immigration law is clearly a matter on which Catholics can disagree. But one would never know that from the recent pronouncements of the U.S. bishops. What they call on their web page the "Catholic Church's position...

Read More

That got my friend’s attention: was Crisis publishing an article openly critical of the Catholic bishops’ slavish support for the Schumer-Rubio Amnesty/ Immigration Surge? Good stuff! But when he followed the link from the e-mail, it was a dead end. The title of Neumayr’s article was there, along with a message saying “that content does not exist on Crisis.” [VDARE.com note: For now, it exists in Google’s cache. UPDATE: Posted by a bloggger here.]

My friend didn’t know what to make of that. Being eager to read what Neumayr had to say, he sent an e-mail to the editor asking for help to find the article:

I was looking forward to reading George Neumayr's Bishops Take Clericalist Stance on Illegal Immigration when I got this message. Unfortunately, following the link takes me to a page that says that content does not exist on Crisis. Help!

Best regards.

[_________]

He couldn’t help but wonder if someone hadn’t censored Neumayr’s article.

And that’s exactly what had happened. My friend received this polite reply from Crisis’s editor:

Dear [___],

The powers that be pulled the article. It was thought to lack sufficient regard for the complexity of the issue and thus might cause offense in some quarters. Sorry for disappointing you. We will try to address the topic again but in a more acceptable manner.

Cheers,

John M. Vella

Editor

That made my friend pretty angry, he says. Not at Editor Vella, [Email him] but at the shadowy “powers that be” who decided George Neumayr’s take on the bishops and immigration was unfit for Crisis. The teaser he had read did not look inflammatory at all, or even insulting to the bishops. So he wrote back

Dear John,

I'm very sorry to hear that George Neumayr's article for Crisis about our bishops and their illegal-alien advocacy was pulled.

I really was looking forward to Mr. Neumayr's analysis of why U.S. Catholic bishops seem so Hell-bent (this faithful Catholic chooses the expression deliberately) to flood the United States with all-too-often incompatible foreign nationals, including those who have already entered the country illegally or remained illegally, and to have them all whose numbers we cannot remotely begin to estimate—granted U.S. citizenship as quickly as possible. I won't delve into analysis of who benefits from such nation-destroying folly except to note that it is not ordinary Americans, Catholic or otherwise. Good shepherds do not betray their flocks by agitating for their displacement in their own pastures, and I know of nothing in Christian tradition or Magisterial teaching that justifies U.S. bishops' strident support for effectively unlimited mass immigration. On the contrary, their advocacy of such an unquantifiable transformation is irresponsible imprudence.

If U.S. Catholic bishops should want a primer in intelligent immigration law—which I rather doubt—they would with great profit study the immigration laws of Mexico. Those are laws written in Mexicans' national interest, and the Mexican government actually enforces them.

Given their reprehensible collective weakness in addressing

The Mexican Interior Secretary signing the memorandum with our own Janet Napolitano

The Boston Bombing and its aftermath has (quite rightly) dominated the news, but during the same time period the Main Stream Media has paid disgracefully little attention to the Washington D.C. visits of top Mexican officials and the signing of a “Memorandum of Understanding” with the Obama Regime.

Get ready for more of this—President Obama is scheduled to visit Mexico on May 2^nd and 3^rd.

The visits are yet a further example of Mexico’s meddling in American internal affairs—see Why Do We Put Up With This? Mexico’s New President Enrique Pena Nieto Openly Plans To Meddle In U.S. and Mexican Foreign Ministry Meddling In Amnesty Debate—Where Is U.S. Government (And GOP)?) The Mexican meddlers are colluding with the Obama Regime to facilitate the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill that the Treason Lobby wants to ram through Congress.

Further, their visits, and their attendant Memorandum of Understanding, also give us an idea of what the Obama Administration will do it if it fails to obtain an amnesty through the legislative route.

Mexican Foreign Minister Jose Antonio Meade Kuribreña visited Washington D.C. on April 19^th, meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

According to the website of the Mexican Foreign Ministry (Secretaría De Relaciones Exteriores, or SRE)”

…Meade and Kerry endorsed the commitment of both governments to cooperation…in the many issues that comprise the ample bilateral agenda. They agreed on the importance of taking full advantage of the links between the societies, the complementarities of the economies, and the political points of agreement between the governments.

El Canciller Meade realiza visita de trabajo a Washington, Estados Unidos, SRE, Comunicado 122, April 19, 2013. (AW translation and emphasis)

That’s bland diplomat-speak, but you can assume that

1. ”complementarities of the economies” is used to justify mass one-way immigration from Mexico to the U.S., and
2. Our two governments do agree on having a porous border between our two countries.

The Mexican Foreign Minister also

referred to the benefits for both societies of the adoption of laws and public policies that reinforce North America as a competitive and innovative region.

This sounds suspiciously like the North American Union stuff, or something similar.

Of course, immigration had to be brought up:

“….Meade again recognized the support that President Barack Obama has given to the process of migratory reform in his country [the U.S.]. He [Meade] stated that the government of Mexico will promptly accompany, within its scope of action, the debate that takes place within the American political system.”

This expression “promptly accompany” sounds awkward,

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.

But Reagan's mistake was one of ignorance, not malice. And more importantly, as his former Attorney General Ed Meese contends, he would not have repeated his error.

The same cannot be said of some of the other key players from 1986 who are active today—especially Senator Chuck Schumer

 [See also "The Alien In Hokie Nation"—Buchanan On The Dark Side of Diversity, about an earlier Immigrant Mass Murder at Virginia Tech.]

"I do not know the method of drawing up an indictment against a whole people," said Edmund Burke of the rebellious Americans.

The same holds true of Islam, the majority faith of 49 nations from Morocco to Indonesia, a religion that 1.6 billion people profess.

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.

"Islam has bloody borders," wrote the late Samuel Huntington. They are bloodier today.

At the time of 9/11, al-Qaida seemed confined to Afghanistan. Al-Qaida may now be found in t

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.

Yes—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.

Lies, lies, lies.

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.

Besides how would one even do a background check on these paper people? They have tons of “documents”—all of them fraudulent. No one knows who they are.

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

See also: Coolness Under Fire: Six Points To Remember About The 2013 “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. Amnesty War

The Boston Marathon bombings were an utter disaster for “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” a.k.a. the Amnesty/ Immigration Surge bill and the Treason Lobby knows it.

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.

You can take any ideological position you wish on immigration reform.  After all, it’s still a free country, although for how long is a good question.

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