|
   
|
The American Civil Liberties Union is teaming up with three other groups to monitor attempts by Minuteman Project-style groups to do in California what the MMP managed to do in Arizona. Details here or here. These are the three other groups: 1. The Association of Immigration Law Attorneys. Since that phrase only returns a few search hits, I'm going to assume the reporter got their name wrong, and that's actually referring to the "American Immigration Lawyers Association": AILA's attitude towards anti-terrorist measures reflect the radical views of its executive director, Jeanne Butterfield. Before she was elected to head AILA, Butterfield was executive director of the Palestine Solidarity Committee. The PSC had acted as the political arm of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine terrorist organization in much the same way that Sinn Fein acted as a representative of the Irish Republican Army. Besides excusing PFLP terrorist attacks and campaigning against U.S. aid to Israel, the PSC under Butterfield also supported Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and was active in the antiwar movement opposing American intervention to liberate Kuwait. The PSC and PFLP are Marxist organizations... 2. The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association. If their name ("The Race Lawyers Association") wasn't enough of a clue, what appears to be their sister organization in San Francisco was started by Cruz Reynoso (former member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission who was voted off CA's Supreme Court), and Mario Obledo, who also founded MALDEF. But, for the best clue to where they're coming from, search for their name here: tinyurl.com/8jz8v. 3. The San Diego branch of the National Lawyers Guild: The NLG was founded in 1936 by Communist Party USA (CPUSA) lawyers and liberal fellow-travelers. A watershed moment for the organization occurred in its third year, when its National Executive Board chose not to adopt an amendment to the NLG Constitution condemning dictatorship and supporting democracy - an amendment its Communist organizers called "divisive." "The real aims of the National Lawyers Guild," read a 1950 report by the House Committee on Un-American Activities, "as demonstrated conclusively by its activities, . . . are not specified in its constitution or statement of avowed purpose. In order to attract non-Communists to serve as a cover for its actual purpose as an appendage to the Communist Party, the National Lawyers Guild poses benevolently as 'a professional organization which shall function as an effective social force in the service of the people.'" The NLG has also appeared at all three of the anti-Minuteman or anti-SOS protest in SoCal, most recently the one in Baldwin Park. See also "Violent lefties protest Minuteman Project". Of course, the NLG's background is quite similar to the ACLU's history: Its co-founder Roger Baldwin candidly stated, "I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose -- the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don't regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it." On a hilarious note, the NC Times story ends with this: Monitoring will be modeled on similar efforts by the ACLU in Arizona. Now, see this. The ACLU team in Arizona spotted and tried to report someone they thought had illegally entered the U.S.: Sean Hannity. Hilarity ensued as it turned out that Hannity had been inside the U.S. all the time. On a more serious note, see "Border Patrol Has Issues with ACLU Operatives in Monitored Sector", "The political correctness industry is in a tizzy right now", "N.M. ACLU suspends chapter over Minuteman Project", and the links in "ACLU sends in the heavyweights". In a perfect world, the Minutemen would be considered to be the mainstream group, and the press would tag organizations like the ACLU, NLG, and AILA with labels like "controversial" or "present or former communist fronts" or "very far-left if not completely communist". If you think the MSM should consider telling the truth more often, please send the links in this post to any outlet that considers the ACLU to be a mainstream group. 
Documents obtained by Judicial Watch using the FOIA reveal the extent to which Bush's immigration plan resulted in a spike of illegal immigration, and administration attempts to cover up that fact. The details are in Bush "Temporary Worker Proposal" Caused Increase in Illegal Immigrant Crossings, New Docs Show. The first document is entitled "U.S. Border Patrol Survey Analysis". On January 7, 2004 (after Bush announced his plan), the BP started asking detained illegal crossers why they came. Approximately 45% said it was because of Bush's plan, which was widely perceived as an amnesty. The survey only lasted three weeks before the administration cancelled it. That's where the other document Judicial Watch obtained comes into play. Entitled "White House Approved Talking Points", it includes the following: Do not talk about amnesty, increase in apprehensions, or give comparisons of past immigration reform proposals... Do not provide statistics on apprehension spikes or past amnesty data... Note that president Bush continued to promote his immigration plan long after the survey had found this spike in crossings, including during the presidential debates and on Bill O'Reilly's television show. UPDATE:From the Dallas Morning News and Knight-Ridder comes Administration accused of withholding information on immigration. An administration spokeswoman says there was no attempt to cover up, the memo was just to avoid clouding their survey results. She says that the White House didn't initiate or halt the survey, that Judicial Watch's conclusions are based on incomplete data, and that the illegal immigration spike began before Bush's speech.
Good news: there’s a bill in Congress to detain and deport aliens based on their membership in known dangerous street gangs and criminal organizations.
The L.A. Times reports on Save Our State's latest rally in "Immigration Protest in Baldwin Park Is Peaceful" from Wendy Thermos. It includes the following summary of the counter-protesters: Next to City Hall, where about 60 protesters opposed to illegal immigration waved signs and American flags, about 600 counter-protesters sang, danced, chanted and beat drums to urge tolerance. There's a good chance that as you read the last you thought to yourself, "there's probably a lot the LAT isn't telling me". In addition to the singing, dancing, chanting, and general party atmosphere, here are some of the signs the Los Angeles Times failed to mention: http://tinyurl.com/atoxl this: this: Another large banner was from a Socialist organization, which has also appeared at past protests. And, the National Lawyers Guild was there, as were the San Gabriel Valley Neighbors for Peace, last mentioned here. If you're sensing a common thread among the protesters, and you think the L.A. Times report was basically lying to you, please send a short, polite note to: readers.rep *at* latimes.com.
Comprehensive coverage of the latest Save Our State rally in southern California over at Euphoric Reality.
From today's post: The GOP has only one vulnerability: border security. I will broadcast an entire show on that subject from San Diego today. That should be interesting. Last year KFI 640 AM hosts John and Ken conducted a "Political Human Sacrifice" in which they tried to get voters to "fire" Rep. David Dreier (R-CA) for his support of illegal immigration. Hewitt was one of Dreier's staunchest defenders, reportedly even bad-mouthing John & Ken: link, link.
He's a pro-immigration enforcement politician who won't be getting any La Raza awards--or White House invitations--any time soon. Read more here.
Yesterday Richard Stana of the Government Accountability Office told a House panel that under the Bush administration workplace enforcement of immigration violations had fallen sharply. For instance, consider the numbers of employers who received formal letters warning about possible fines for violating immigration laws: Under Clinton in 1999: 417 employers In part this is certainly due to more focus on the border and on possible terrorism, and ICE does have a specific program targeting illegal aliens working at sensitive facilities: see the fairly frequent arrests at Navy shipyards for examples. However, no doubt a good part of the drop-off is due to "other factors." Complete details in "Employer sanctions decline" (also here as "Auditors find drop in immigration enforcement at worksites"), or in "Critics cite lax efforts to enforce federal worksite immigration laws". UPDATE: There are more quotes in "Witness says ICE lax on employers". UPDATE 6/23/05: Unfortunately, Drudge is linking to the Reuters report "Lawmakers seek to crack down on illegal immigrants" from Alan Elsner. As a breezy introduction to current issues, it's OK, but it is somewhat misleading and it buries the lede. It starts out: Life for the estimated 10 million illegal immigrants living in the shadows in the United States could soon get even tougher as states and the federal government pass new legislation cracking down on them... It goes on to mention Arizona's Prop. 200 without mentioning the efforts in Arizona to block it or reduce its impact, then it quotes the National Council of La Raza (National Council of The Race), then it mentions Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)'s guest worker program, then it quotes the NCLR again. Only in the 12th paragraph does it say this: In recent years, the government has done almost nothing to enforce the law banning the employment of illegal immigrants. That and the next paragraph discuss the content of the rest of this post. Then, it gives a paragraph to what was discussed in the post "Can employers verify Social Security numbers?" and it closes with a quote from Dan Griswold of the Cato Institute.
The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico recently suspended their Las Cruces chapter because one of the board members of that chapter, Clifford Alford, is trying to start a Minuteman-style project in the state. However, Alford has also had a falling out with the main MMP, and the groups are no longer associated with one another. There appears to be more here than meets the eye, and some have speculated that his efforts could even be a "false flag" operation. Alternatively, he could actually mean what he says and he wants to create a kindler, gentler version of the MMP. In this June 12 article both groups say non-nice things about the other Today's AP report ("ACLU Suspends Southern Chapter Over Minuteman Issue") quotes the N.M. ACLU: Gary Mitchell, a Ruidoso attorney and president of the [N.M.] ACLU board of directors, said the suspension of the southern chapter was a technical move to make sure the leader of the New Mexico Minutemen - a spinoff of the controversial civilian border patrol group the Minuteman Project - no longer had authority to act or speak on behalf of the ACLU. That article includes these quotes from Mitchell: "We will not tolerate racism and vigilantism in the leadership structure of our organization... They are repugnant to the principles of civil liberties and the mission of the ACLU... Las Cruces has a large number of passionate, committed civil libertarians... The ACLU intends to work with them to protect all people's civil liberties, regardless of their race, national origin or immigration status." Even illegal aliens have rights, but violating those rights is against the charter and spirit of both the MMP and (presumably) Alford's spin-off. So, if these groups intend to respect the civil rights of the illegal aliens they spot, why would the ACLU be so strongly opposed? That's a toughie. Previous coverage of this group starts in "ACLU sends in the heavyweights".
In my latest column on VDARE.com, I analyze some of the outrageous loopholes in immigration law which allow foreign drunk drivers residing legally in the United States to have a free pass to wreak havoc on our highways. Deport Foreign Drunk Drivers! – Amend The Immigration Act! And I offer specific amendments to the Immigration Act to close these loopholes for good! Model Amendments to the Immigration Act The truth of the matter is that the chaos of immigration litigation in the federal immigration bureaucracy has gotten so bad that even a criminal alien resident convicted of repeat felony drunk driving – who was drunk behind the wheel and killed someone – can’t be ordered deported and stay deported from the United States. The time is long overdue for Congress to do something about these ridiculous loopholes and get the dangerous alien drunk drivers off of our highways and out of the country for good! Read the Full Story on VDARE.com
Los Zetas appears to be one enemy that the United States did in fact help create:
The U.S. Justice Department is warning local police in Arizona and California a group of rogue Mexican military commandos may be headed this way. They're thought to be setting up new drug smuggling routes and it could bring new violence to the border area.
The Intelligence Bulletin we obtained says the Zetas are responsible for hundreds of violent drug-related murders. It says they've executed journalists, murdered people in Dallas, McAllen and Laredo, Texas. They even detained two DEA agents and recently they've shot at Border Patrol agents. At the Arizona border with Mexico agents are already seeing a major increase in violence.
On Saturday the Save Our State group protested about illegal alien day laborers in front of a Home Depot in Alhambra, CA. There was a counter-protest, but it was apparently peaceful. There are pictures here, and the AP report includes this: Home Depot said in a statement it does not support illegal immigration but can't stop workers from standing near its stores. That might well be true. However, Home Depot has funded the development of several day laborer sites at or near its stores. And, according to the GAO up to 90% of those day laborers are illegal aliens. And, according to the Daily Breeze, a lobbyist is receiving $10,000 a month to lobby the L.A. City Council about day laborer sites. And, L.A. City Councilman Ed Reyes wants all big box hardware stores in L.A. to have day laborer sites. There may or may not be a connection, but if this passes Home Depot could possibly deflect criticism of its day laborer sites on to the city. How could HD be blamed for simply abiding by a city ordinance? While boycotting Home Depot is certainly one option, a perhaps even more effective suggestion is here. Previous coverage of Home Depot in "Save Our State Makes Itself Inconvenient (Again)". As for the protest itself, SOS is the same group that was surrounded in the Baldwin Park near-riot, and apparently some of the same counter-protesters were at this event as well, including the San Gabriel Neighbors for Peace and Justice. That group was also at the Garden Grove incident. For laughs, compare that report with the one from People's Weekly World: tinyurl.com/ad8xl.
The libertarian Cato Policy Institute has produced a new study "Backfire at the Border: Why Enforcement without Legalization Cannot Stop Illegal Immigration" authored by Prof. Douglas S. Massey of Princeton. The executive summary is here, and you can download the full PDF at that link. A news report is here, which includes the following: ...Massey recommends that Congress build on President Bush's immigration initiative to enact a temporary visa program that would allow workers from Canada, Mexico, and other countries to work in the United States without restriction for a certain limited time. Undocumented workers already in the United States who do not have a criminal record would be given temporary legal status. The executive summary says, a "border policy that relies solely on enforcement is bound to fail." That is quite misleading. Our efforts at border enforcement are not anywhere near as effective as they could be, and interior enforcement is practically non-existent. Given those facts, his argument is a bit of a strawman. In an earlier article ("Closed-Door Policy") he wrote: Why has the United States chosen to militarize a peaceful border with its closest trading partner, a democratic country that poses no conceivable threat to U.S. security? Obviously, that's either extraordinarily naive or extraordinarily disingenuous. Allowing millions of people to resettle lands that they refer to as their "Lost Territories" does indeed pose a considerable threat to our security. Last month, Massey testified at an immigration "reform" hearing called by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Others who testified included Deputy Secretary Department of Labor Steven J. Law, Tom Donahue of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and Dan Griswold of the CATO Institute. Hardly a balanced panel, as described here. Note that Griswold was involved in or the inspiration for Bush's guest worker plan. For more on the plans to integrate North America, see "A North American Community Approach to Security" (Senate testimony from a CFR-linked American University professor) and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. For more on the Cato Institute and their funding, see this.
The L.A. Daily News reports on the latest Pew Hispanic Center study that estimates that we've got 10.6 million people living here who were born in Mexico, and over half of those are here illegally. Over a quarter of those live under the poverty line, twice the rate for the native-born. Bear in mind that other estimates of the illegal alien population have been much higher. I'm sure many other countries with large populations would jump at the chance to do the same thing the Mexican elites have managed to do: export a large chunk of their poor in exchange for money sent back home and even gain political power in the host country. Needless to say, this arrangement also makes political reform in Mexico more difficult. For some of the effects this has on Mexico, see "Mexico's other migrant wave".
The U.S. government offers the "Basic Pilot Employment Verification Program" that employers can use to quickly verify the Social Security numbers of prospective employees. A company has grounds to refuse to hire someone if their name doesn't match the SSN they provided. Just one catch: the program is voluntary. See "Few firms use migrant ID service" for the details. How few? Just 4,385 out of the more than 5.7 million companies in the U.S. and 101 out of 96,000 companies in Arizona. That's only partially because when the program was started in 1997 it was originally just for CA, NY, FL, IL, and TX. In 1999 NE was added, and it became nationwide in December of last year. As pointed out in the article, many companies would be at a competitive disadvantage if they used this program and hired only legal workers, while their competition continued to hire illegal workers. For a clue as to how that might be solved, see "RICO Lawsuit Against Employer of Illegal Aliens Succeeds!" A federal appeals court has held that companies whose competitors use illegal alien labor to underbid them may sue their rivals under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute (RICO)...
Hats off to the Connecticut Citizens for Immigration Control who are preparing a demonstration for Saturday, June 25 outside the Hartford office of Senator Joseph Lieberman, protesting their junior Senator’s support for the recently introduced “McKennedy” illegal alien amnesty bill. (S. 1033)
Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is just across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas. Texas reader BwB sends in word that over the weekend Nuevo Laredo witnessed a deadly shootout between local police and the federales:
NUEVO LAREDO, Mexico — One federal agent was shot and 41 municipal cops were held under military guard Saturday after a shootout between city and federal police.
Oscar Mendoza Arriaga, a municipal police commander, said Saturday's shooting was the result of confusion because the federal agents weren't in uniform.
Immigration round-up: - Police in Hudson, N.H., have arrested a fourth illegal alien on trepassing charges. “Our position is that if you entered the country illegally, you committed a crime,” Hudson Police Chief Richard Gendron told The Lowell Sun. “The United States government has spent billions of dollars on Homeland Security since September 11, 2001, and it starts with illegal aliens. They should not be here.” - Rep. Tom Tancredo is still considering running for President to call attention to the immigration issue. - The Washington Post profiles the Bush Administration's use of immigration law as an anti-terror tool. Oddly, the article omits the most prominent example of this policy--the arrest of Zacarias Moussaoui for an expired visa in Auugst 2001. If civil liberties and Muslim groups were in charge, Moussaoui would not have been arrested on a "minor" immigration violation and presumably would have participated in the September 2001 or subsequent hijackings. - Daniel Pipes has questions about the Lodi, California, arrests of five men of Pakistani origins. - The Los Angeles Times argues that Mexican nationals on Death Row in the U.S. should have their sentences commuted if they were not informed of their right to consult with the Mexican consulate before trial. Patterico rebuts. (Via James Fulford.) - Arizona's Proposition 200 goes to court. - "The family of slain Los Angeles sheriff's Deputy David March finds both solace and sadness in the arrest in Mexico of a man suspected of killing a Denver police officer," the L.A. Daily News reports. Update: Blogger Trey Jackson interviews Newt Gingrich about the border.
According to a Robert Novak blurb, Bush's aides have (finally?) informed him that the conservative base is fed up with illegal immigration. Shortly thereafter, House members did the same. That resulted in last week's reports, such as "Bush to clear up illegals plan": House Majority Leader Tom DeLay said the president admitted yesterday [6/7/05] that he has not been clear enough on his solution to immigration problems and that he needs to do a better job. Similar reports in "DeLay says Bush wants to clarify his immigration, border proposals" and "DeLay says Bush agrees with him on immigration". Related press release in "FAIR Congratulates DeLay for Demanding Immigration Enforcement Before Implementing New Guest Worker Programs". Supposedly Bush will now try to get "immigration reform" in steps rather than as one big bill. And, Bush will concentrate on enforcement and border control before any sort of amnesty or guest worker plan. Based on past actions and statements from the Bush administration, I believe I have a general idea where they're coming from on this topic, and I think that's deeply at odds with true immigration reform (rather than the kind in quotes). For instance, I doubt whether those large corporations that support low-cost, pliable illegal labor would appreciate real reform. And, I don't think that Bush is going to turn his back on those corporations. Then, there's something that few people are familiar with but which I still consider shocking. Bush's guest worker program was "envisioned" to be open to a wide variety of employees. Affected workers included "nurses, teachers, high-tech workers, low-skilled workers". The concept could "apply broadly". Surely, a libertarian (or feudal) dream, but an American nightmare. Most odd plans come from the far left or the far right, but the concepts underlying the Bush amnesty plan seemed to come from a long-forgotten century in a far off land. For the full quote from Bush's assistant, see Bush "guest worker" program to be "open to any type of employee". For more, see "Analysis: Bush temp worker plan open-ended". Then, of course, there's Bush's relationship with Vicente Fox, and the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. Given the above, I'd suggest looking very closely at any future immigration proposals from the Bush administration. They might look good at first glance, but in the final analysis they'll probably just be the same old thing.
The Washington Post catches up with one of my heroes, New Ipswich, N.H., police chief Garrett Chamberlain, who is using trespassing laws to get a handle on illegal immigration in his town. If only we had more DHS officials who talked like this: "I'm just saying: 'Wait a minute. We're on heightened alert and it's post-9/11, and I'm going to let an illegal immigrant who I don't know from Adam just walk away?' " Chamberlain said. "That's ridiculous. If I find you are in my country illegally, I'm not going to worry about political correctness. I will detain you." Read the whole thing. *** Hasta la vista
Imagine the Treason Lobby's pro-criminal alien handmaidens in the media ever putting out a headline like:
Robert Samuelson devotes this week's column to the immigration issue: Immigration is crawling its way back onto the national agenda -- and not just as a footnote to keeping terrorists out. This year Congress enacted a law intended to prevent illegal immigrants from getting state driver's licenses; the volunteer "minutemen" who recently patrolled the porous Arizona border with Mexico attracted huge attention, and members of Congress from both parties are crafting proposals to deal with illegal immigration. All this is good. But unless we're brutally candid with ourselves, it won't amount to much. Being brutally candid means recognizing that the huge and largely uncontrolled flow of unskilled Latino workers into the United States is increasingly sabotaging the assimilation process. He cites a new study by Harvard University economists George Borjas and Lawrence Katz showing that Mexican immigrants and their children are not quickly climbing the economic ladder. And he makes this point: "For today's Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal), the closest competitors are tomorrow's Mexican immigrants (legal or illegal). The more who arrive, the harder it will be for low-skilled workers already here to advance."
Terry Jeffrey has the scoop: [T]he inspector general of the Social Security Administration has discovered that a California-based security guard company employed 4,321 people in 2001 whom the company did not correctly identify on W-2 forms, often an indicator that a worker is an illegal alien.
Here's a question for those who support guest worker programs and/or for those who don't strongly oppose illegal immigration: If we absolutely had to deport a significant portion of the illegal aliens currently in the U.S. as quickly as possible, how could we do it? If you need numbers, assume 1 to 2 million within 6 months. Please give a specific plan and succinctly describe two or three scenarios (favorable, unfavorable) for how that plan might work out from beginning to end. Rules: If you want to respond, please do so only by sending a trackback to this post and I'll post a summary in a future post. Others could help out by spreading word about this experiment to bloggers who fit the description given in the first sentence of this post.
Time marches on and so do the illegal invaders.......marching continuously into America! When do we, the American public, begin to have our concerns addressed by those whose oath says to "protect and defend the United States of America?" At this time of year when the heat intensifies, more deaths will take place in the Sonoran Desert of the United States of America.....deaths that should and could be avoided. If our politicians and our President would do what is right and fair for the American people, the legal citizens and taxpayers, then we could help alleviate the deaths of trespassers and of our homeland guardians. Never mind the fact that President Fox of Mexico WILL DO NOTHING BUT ENCOURAGE lawbreaking, our own government leaders have taken a pledge to abide by the Constitution of the United States. They must be held accountable for the misdeeds and for acts against their own citizens in pacifying and coddling our neigbors with PC agendas. Wanting our borders secured is not being racist. According to news items everywhere, crime and the intensity of these actions is not abating. It is a war along the Mexican border--I know this personally. My son Kristopher William Eggle was a victim of a hideous ambush and murder by an illegal drug smuggler from Mexico. Mexican Commandos are terrorizing the border towns and seeking to control them. If they are not forcibly stopped by military actions, they will become more violent and a force that will be mostly unstoppable. When will Americans wake up and realize their lives, their families, their friends, their homes,and their country are really at the crossroads of survival?
Last month, the USDA announced a new partnership with the Mexican government: MEXICO CITY, May 13, 2005-Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns and Secretary of Foreign Affairs for Mexico Ernesto Luis Derbez Bautista today signed a partnership arrangement to improve access to USDA rural development programs for eligible Mexicans in the United States. The State Department report "Pact Aims to Help Mexicans Living in Rural Parts of United States" informs us that this is (apparently) only open to Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. legally and it will provide loans and grants. It also includes this: ...The programs also support loans to businesses through banks and community-managed lending pools, and offer technical assistance and information to help agricultural and other cooperatives get started and improve the effectiveness of their member services. See the long transcript of Johanns' remarks in Mexico City on May 13 for more, including the information that this is related to the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America. All of these press releases point out that the Mexican consulates in the U.S. will be promoting this program and will be deeply involved in other ways. And, the press releases also switch back and forth between the "Mexican community in the U.S." and the Hispanic version thereof, presumably referring to U.S. citizens. Clearly there's some confusion within the upper reaches of the Bush administration. Apparently there are no American citizens who want loans and grants anymore or who could be enticed to buy property in these areas, and the Bush administration has decided that giving loans and grants to citizens of another country is the only option... While this policy is probably coming straight from the top, see Bush's Open-Borders nominees for more on Johanns.
The continued violence on our southern border with Mexico shows the intensity and the strength of purpose the Mexican drug cartels have. They plan to win and it looks as though they will succeed. According to writer Deanna Spingola, the American public bears much of this responsibility. We have been apathetic, uninformed, and easily distracted by the media and the government officials who choose to keep the truth from getting to the surface. Her article, 'What Do We Do? Where Do We Go?' documents the many excuses and challenges that we face. The multitude of reasons that people use for failure to get involved are many....here are a few..."I do not have time...I don't know where to start...Things are so bad that nothing will help." Do any of these excuses sound familiar? Please read Ms. Spingola's article carefully. What can you do to help? Remember.." It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government." --Thomas Paine from 'The Rights of Man' c. 1792. WE MUST STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT. It takes people with courage and boldness to speak out about the evils that befall our society. We must not let fear frustrate and stop our efforts....THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT OUR ENEMIES (within and without) PLAN ON.
Late last night, news broke of the capture of illegal alien Raul Garcia-Gomez's arrest in connection with the ambush murder of Denver police officer Donnie Young. See: Rocky Mountain News Several of Garcia-Gomez's family members were also arrested and will be charged as accomplices. From the Post: Garcia-Gomez, who had been the subject of a police dragnet in Colorado, California and Mexico, was arrested about 6 p.m. in Culiacán, Mexico, about 1,000 miles south of Los Angeles. He was in the custody of U.S. marshals, who planned to bring him to Mexico City today to face extradition. The case will bring front and center Mexico's role as a safe haven for illegal alien fugitive criminals. Despite the reported cooperation of Mexican authorities in finding Garcia-Gomez, our neighbor to the south is a massive obstruction to victims' families seeking justice. As the Post notes: [T]he task of bringing him from Mexico to Denver could involve months of delicate negotiations with Mexican authorities, Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey warned. Law enforcement officials and prosecutors have been lobbying the Bush administration for years to renegotiate our criminal-friendly extradition treaty with Mexico. The open-borders-friendly White House and State Department have responded with foot-dragging, when they have bothered to respond at all. Speaking of obstructionism, Denver's local CBS news station has an appalling report on how investigators withheld details about Garcia-Gomez from patrol officers for 14 hours. Sanctuary? What sanctuary?
On May 23, I posted "Other than Mexicans", about the large numbers of non-Mexicans who are basically surrendering to the Border Patrol in Texas, knowing that they'll be released into the U.S. due to lack of detention space. Since that time, a few additional news reports have appeared. The latest is a long piece from Copley News Service entitled "Loophole to America". It concentrates on Brazilians, and it includes a chart showing 260 apprehensions of Brazilians in 1995 and 22,000 in the first nine months of this fiscal year. On May 30, Reuters offered "Non-Mexican immigrants swamp Texas border city". The author is Tim Gaynor, who was last mentioned here in relation to a biased report he wrote about the Minuteman Project. His latest report is not that bad. And, at least in Brownsville, the tide appears to be turning a bit. From "OTMs will now be put in jail or deported" (same story here under a different title): ...U.S. Magistrate Judge Felix Recio made a statement Thursday [to seven] Central Americans who were caught this week crossing the Rio Grande near Brownsville.
The border with Mexico is the path of least resistance if you want to get anyone or anything nefarious into the US. One Iranian (that we know of) seems to have figured this out:
An Iranian man is accused of trying to smuggle three of his countrymen into Arizona through Nogales, Sonora, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
Last September, Malhamdary told an FBI informant posing as a migrant smuggler that he had already sneaked in a group of 20 Iranians through Sonoita, Ariz. Wiretaps recorded Malhamdary asking the informant to help him obtain Mexican visas to be placed into Iranian passports so more Iranians could fly into Mexico City then slip through Arizona with a smuggler's help.
If you live in California, please contact your state Senators and tell them you oppose driver's licenses for illegal aliens. State Sen. Gil Cedillo's SB 60 would give illegal aliens a special form of California driver's licenses, and it apparently might be voted on this week. Note that yesterday he changed that bill from urgency status to regular. That means it can pass with a simple majority rather than the 2/3 majority urgency bills require. Information on SB 60 is here. You can look up your senator here. "Cedillo pushes new driver's license law for aliens" describes the bill. "Deadline Looms for Most Bills to Pass First House" describes how this week might be make it or break it time for Cedillo's bill. And, a month ago I posted "Gil Cedillo's latest trick", which described SB 591. That bill would have given illegal aliens - and only illegal aliens - no impound time when they were caught driving without a license. Thankfully, that appears to have been sidelined. However, SB 60 - which will just give driver's licenses to illegal aliens outright - is still going strong. Please contact your Senators today. UPDATE 6/02/05 3pm Pacific: SB 60 passed the Senate and now heads to the Assembly. Details in "Senate passes bill extending licenses to illegal immigrants". UPDATE 2 6/04/05. State Sen. Tom McClintock offers "SB60: The Intent is to Adopt California Policy That Ignores U.S. Immigration Laws": [Defines what the REAL ID Act does and doesn't say, and likewise for CA law...]
|