August 2005 » The Immigration Blog

Peter Brimelow, editor of VDARE.com, once noted that "one of the few rational justifications for writing books is that you get to quote yourself." Though I'm not an author, I’ll offer my own (still timely) quote from March, 2002, which was published by Michelle Malkin in her book, Invasion:

"Between the incompetence of the INS, the complete lack of alien detention center space, and the bureaucracy of the EOIR, our system for deporting known illegal aliens and criminal alien residents is a sad joke. But no one is laughing.
"If all of the illegal aliens and deportable resident alien criminals were rounded up tomorrow, the system would not be capable of handling them. It would be an absolute disaster. The INS and EOIR wouldn’t have the foggiest idea of what to do with them! The aliens would all be released back out on the street on immigration bonds and go back right where they were as if nothing happened, while their cases would grind on through the system of Immigration Court hearings and endless appeals."

Yes, the same problem exists today with the EOIR [Executive Office for Immigration Review within the Department of Justice] and the new Department of Homeland Security’s three-headed bureaucracy.

And that’s why real deportation enforcement -- through summary removal of illegal aliens and criminal alien residents -- and the success of the California Border Police initiative in California are inextricably linked together.

The grass-roots blaze will erupt when people start finding out what really happens to removable aliens after being arrested in droves by a brand new state-level "Border Police." For what happens: see quote (above).

Get the full story in my latest column on VDARE.com -- 08/29/05 - Guard The Border But Don't Forget Deportation Enforcement!

One problem with the GOP elites is that they seem to see the business benefits of illegal immigration to the exclusion of the heavy toll it exacts elsewhere, especially in the lives of law enforcement officers. LA County Deputy David March was murdered in the line of duty by illegal alien Armando Garcia in 2002. Garcia seems to have a habit of slipping in and out of the US to commit crimes (he's also wanted for a couple of counts of attempted murder and drug dealing) but now remains in Mexico. Probably. The truth is, authorities never know where he is from one day to the next. As long as Mexico won't apprehend him and extradite him for trial to the US, he will be getting away with killing an American cop.

You'd think a law-and-order Republican like Rep. David Drier (R-CA) would be in favor of bringing this cop-killer to justice, but you'd be wrong. He is against extradition. So in next year's election, Powder Blue Report delivers some sobering news for Drier--he'll face an opponent, who is March's father.

Adding March to Minutemen founder Jim Gilchrist, who is running to replace Rep. Chris Cox (R-CA) in a safe GOP district, then factoring in Democrat flanking on the issue from New Mexico and Arizona's governors, and you have a recipe for a GOP crack-up centering on the illegal immigration fault line next year. Many otherwise staunch Republican votes could go to third-party runners who pledge attention to the issue, or even to Democrats who are toughing up for purely political reasons.

In the past couple weeks there's been a spate of editorials and reports that imply that we need "immigration reform", and, oddly enough, most of them seem to be reading from the same script.

Here are their main points:

- They mention the Richardson/Napolitano epiphany...

- There are just two or three options for this "reform": the McCain-Kennedy mass amnesty, the Cornyn-Kyl version thereof, or, perhaps, Bush's nebulous version. None of the ones featured below suggest the revolutionary concept of simply enforcing our current laws...

- In one way or another they work in the stock talking point "the system is broken and needs fixing..."

- They mention one or more other canards: illegal aliens take the jobs Americans won't do, the choices are between mass deportations (which we're told is impossible) and an amnesty plan of some kind, etc...

- According to these editorial and reports, the U.S. has strong immigration enforcement. And, it's been beefed up and much has been spent to no avail. But, we're told, enforcement won't do it alone. Oddly enough, none of those featured below discuss interior enforcement or prosecuting employers...

- The various amnesty schemes are described using words like "comprehensive" or "sensible"...

Here's a list. See if you notice any major differences between these:

8/26 WaPo editorial: "Border Emergency"

8/25 CBS News report: "Arizona Border Dispute" (more on this Bryan Sanders report)

8/25 International Herald Tribune report from Brian Knowlton: "Letter from Washington: Immigration strains spread into heartland"

8/23 AP report: "Congress divided over solution to immigration problems" (also here as "Borderline Division")

8/22 Chicago Sun-Times editorial: "Washington must move now to stem illegal immigration"

8/22 Orlando Sentinel editorial: OK guest-worker plan (doesn't mention a specific amnesty plan; more here)

8/22 Huntsville AL Times editorial: "Bush to the rescue?"

8/20 People's Weekly World report: "DeLay hit for anti-immigrant remarks" (OK, this one is just here for comic relief, but it does fit the pattern)

8/19 Baltimore Sun editorial: "Deal making"

8/14 David Brooks: "Two Steps Toward a Sensible Immigration Policy" (If this reads like a Tamar Jacoby column, perhaps that's because he uses her terrorists/busboys false choice, and perhaps it's because he quotes her towards the end. Here's more on this David Brooks column.)

What, you are probably wondering, is going on? Was there a central meeting held at which talking points were issued? Why are none of these intelligent people able to come up with any worthwhile ideas? Why are they trying to sell their readers on something that is bad for America and that most people don't want?

Why, you might wonder, do none of these reports mention anything about going after those who employ illegal aliens? Could there be a less-than-wholesome reason why they wouldn't mention that effective tool against illegal immigration? Why do none of them mention the idea of using that to slowly but surely reduce business' dependence on illegal labor? If they're unwilling to even discuss that, should anything they say be given any weight whatsoever?

SIAs--special interest aliens--are citizens of countries that either sponsor terrorism or in which terrorism festers. Deroy Murdock reports via Rep. Tom Tancredo that SIAs are increasingly swarming across our border with Mexico:

Between October 1, 2002, and June 30, 2003, Department of Homeland Security figures show 4,226 Special Interest Aliens were apprehended on America's Mexican and Canadian borders. By June 30, 2004, that number had swelled 42.5 percent to 6,022 SIAs from "Countries of Interest" such as those the State Department considers sponsors of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan, Syria) and others where militant Islam simmers (Afghanistan, Egypt, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen).

Full fiscal-year 2004 data record the capture of 7 Saudis, 10 Syrians, 18 Lebanese, 19 Iranians, 25 Egyptians, 28 Jordanians, and 164 Pakistanis, among others. If these figures seem small, recall the havoc 19 Middle Easterners unleashed on September 11.

"One must take into account that even the most conservative estimates of the number of folks getting by the Border Patrol are two or three times the number caught," Tancredo said. If so, at least 18,000 SIAs entered America just in the first nine months of 2004.

Perhaps these illegal aliens come here for what most immigrants want: freedom, prosperity, and better lives. But some who violate our borders do so to destroy those things.

"Recent information from ongoing investigations, detentions, and emerging-threat streams strongly suggests that al-Qaeda has considered using the southwest border to infiltrate the United States," former Homeland Security deputy secretary James Loy told the Senate Intelligence Committee last February. "Several al Qaeda leaders believe operatives can pay their way into the country through Mexico and also believe illegal entry is more advantageous than legal entry for operational security reasons."

This should surprise no one who has given more than two seconds' thought to national security after 9-11. With visas for SIAs harder to come by and with increased if at time inept airline security, the Mexican border is the past of least resistance into the US. And the President's Amnesty By Another Name proposal only made things worse.

The unenforced border remains our national security Achilles heel. If terrorists do strike us on our soil again, and that attack has any connection to border insecurity, it won't be just a wartime attack and tragic loss of life--it's the end of the Bush presidency and GOP credibility on national security. Period. If it happens after Bush's watch, he'll still get the blame. And he'll deserve it, unless his administration gets serious about border security in a hurry.

Yesterday the ACLU and other groups reiterated their plans to monitor the activities of the California Minutemen and the Friends of the Border Patrol when they start their patrols on the California border in September. From this biased report:

...The "San Diego Legal Observer Coalition" is a joint project of the American Civil Liberties Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association, La Raza Lawyers of San Diego and National Lawyers Guild of San Diego...
...The opposing factions got into a series of heated shouting matches and scuffles while camping out in the rugged terrain surrounding the international boundary last month.

There were reports of shots fired, but no serious injuries.

Civil rights groups have decried the California Minutemen and Friends of the Border Patrol as armed and dangerous reactionaries with grudges against Latino immigrants...

The shots were reportedly fired at the California Minutemen; if they had been fired at the other side, don't you think the report would have included that information? For more, here's a transcript of a CNN report:

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Outnumbering the minutemen, a group of aggressive protesters who tried to drive the civilian volunteers away. They included anarchists, communists and advocates of returning the southwest to Mexico... This local rancher had to be rescued by sheriff's deputies after protesters surrounded his motorcycle. One minuteman did leave his post, but most others stood their ground. This state senator was also harassed by the mob while touring the minuteman outposts... Well, it's amazing. There were a wide range of groups. Most of them advocating just completely disassembling the borders, doing away with the borders... I mean, we talk about the open borders crowd on this program. This really was the open borders crowd. They're talking about there should be no border here.

The earlier post "How much more can the ACLU discredit itself?" has more on the groups with which the American Civil Liberties Union is associating itself. Especially see this link: tinyurl.com/8jz8v. Compare, for instance, the "progressive-revolutionary perspective" quote at that link, and the use of the term "reactionaries" in the article. And, note that back in July the San Diego County Democratic Party printed an announcement from the Legal Observer Coalition. Just how "progressive" are these organizations that the Dems and the ACLU are involved with?

Homeland Security chief Michael Chertoff hints that the administration may have seen the light on illegal immigration at last:

Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, acknowledging public frustration over illegal immigration, said Tuesday that the federal government's detention and deportation system must be fundamentally restructured.
"We have decided to stand back and take a look at how we address the problem and solve it once and for all," Chertoff said during a breakfast meeting with reporters.

The NEW YORK TIMES is planning a front page placement for the Chertoff comments on Wednesday, newsroom sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT.

The unusually blunt assessment by the nation's top immigration official comes after governors in New Mexico and Arizona recently declared a border-related "state of emergency," citing a surge in smuggling and violence associated with the steady flow of illegal immigrants.

That's from Drudge, so you know it's at least 80% accurate.

The coming crackdown will be too late for a family that was sued by illegals and ended up losing their ranch--to the illegals. Yes, you read that right. Go check out the story to find out how a US court awarded the property of American citizens to illegal aliens who trepassed on it. To call it an outrage is to severely understate it.

Moira Breen sent me this link today--it's just infuriating. Banks have begun issuing home loans to illegal aliens based on their Individual Tax Identification Numbers, since they don't have SSNs. The result of this is, naturally, encouraging more people to come here illegally.

That's infuriating in and of itself, but the tone of the story struck me as dishonest. The illegal alien interviewed mentions that he has four children, three of whom were born in the US--the story never touches on the fact that those three kids are automatically US citizens. The illegals are consistently referred to as "undocumented workers," which makes them sound like they forgot to fill out proper job applications when what they actually did was line-jump a very long process while failing to pay the fees associated with legal immigration. And they broke the law and continue to live outside the law every day they remain outside the legal immigration system.

And then there's the FDIC's role in encouraging banks to loan money to "unbanked immigrants." We have a section of the government encouraging an industry to serve a population defined by its systematic breaking of US law. In. Sane.

**Attention all Californians -- please read this vital information for the future success of the California Border Police Initiative.**

In the wake of the hugely-successful Minuteman Project, the California Border Police Initiative currently gathering signatures in the Golden State is shaping up to be yet another shot-heard-round-the-world, 9.9 magnitude earthquake against illegal immigration, the likes of which America has never seen.

But without enacting comprehensive summary removal of illegal aliens and criminal aliens at the federal level, these heroic state efforts will be largely for naught.

The bottom line: any increased boots-on-the-ground immigration enforcement by police officers, immigration agents, the U.S. Border Patrol—or even a citizen Border Protection Corps—also desperately needs companion immigration legislation from Congress to see to it that the aliens arrested for immigration violations are actually deported!

For immigration law enforcement to work, America needs summary deportation, not perpetual immigration litigation in the federal courts.

Read the full story in my latest column on VDARE.com:

08/22/05 - Coming from California: An Immigration Reform Tsunami?

RELATED ARTICLES in the Juan Mann archive on VDARE.com:

06/17/03 - Arrest, Yes—But Don’t Forget The EOIR

08/23/04 - DHS Detention Centers–Ellis Islands for the "New America"?

01/04/05 - Deportation System Broke—Treason Lobby Against Fixing It

07/04/05 - A Second Independence Day: Summary Deportation Now (Or Counter-Insurgency Later?)

According to AZ Representative J.D. Hayworth, making new laws to counteract the illegal alien entries is absolutely ridiculous. When exisiting laws are not followed and obeyed, does anyone believe adding more will be effective? When there are 4000 attempted crossers every night in AZ alone, it is not only a crisis.......IT IS A FULL-SCALE INVASION.

Whether we believe the motives of Governors Richardson (NM) and Napolitano (AZ) are genuine or suspect, their declarations of emergency for certain counties in their states are welcomed by people from across this country. The "alarms" are way overdue, but we will accept them.......delayed as they are. I for one will be thankful that two more voices are being heard in the halls of Congress and throughout print media, radio, and television.

The previous thread "Will the Dems outflank the GOP on immigration?" discussed New Mexico governor Bill Richardson's border emergency declaration, briefly offering hope that at least one political party will not support illegal immigration. Those hopes were quickly dashed. And, as it turns out, John Fund's article on this appears to have been wrong for an unknown reason when it said that Richardson wanted to meet with the Minuteman Project. In fact, he does not.

This thread (warning: loads Quicktime and might cause browser crash) quotes a Richardson cable appearance:

"...I have not asked the Minutemen to do anything. In fact, I don't believe their function is the right one... In fact, I have said that I don't believe that the Minutemen should proceed into New Mexico, that I think that this is a case where trained law enforcement personnel, Border Patrol, sheriff's department, local New Mexico state police. So that report [presumably Fund's article] is totally false. I don't know where they came up with it. In fact, I have said that I don't believe the Minutemen are needed in New Mexico. In fact, this is why I took this action, to beef up law enforcement hirings in the New Mexico border..."

Chris Simcox of the MMP wanted to meet with Richardson and had discussed that with his staffers. However, apparently the talks stalled.

MediaMatters quotes the article "Governor's Words Rile Mexicans; Border Security Drives Debate", but omits the more damning bits:

...Richardson plans to spend about $50,000 to fence the stockyards at the Columbus Port of Entry, but has no other plans for fencing along the 180-mile New Mexico-Mexico border, [Richardson policy adviser Bill Hume] said.
Richardson said Monday he is not in favor of closing the border.

"We're looking to increase law enforcement to knock back the illegal activity associated with the immigration," Hume said.

In other words, the massive illegal immigration is OK, it's just the "illegal activity" associated with it that's a problem for Richardson.

Richardson hopes his commitment to border security might keep the Minutemen from carrying out a planned October blitz in New Mexico, Hume said.
"We do not look with favor on volunteer civilian border guards," he said.

Richardson spokesman Billy Sparks said e-mail response to Richardson's statements "has been overwhelmingly favorable." Of about 200 e-mails, he said, about 190 were supportive of better border protection.

When it becomes clear that Richardson is just blowing smoke I would imagine those numbers to shift in the other direction.

UPDATE: The L.A. Times publishes a guest editorial from Richardson entitled "In New Mexico..." It includes the details of his epiphany:

All of this crystallized for me last week during a helicopter tour...

And, he tries to pass the buck:

...Border security and immigration issues are clearly a federal responsibility. And those of us from border states have continuously urged the federal government to increase funding, expand patrols and dedicate more resources for border security. Yet our pleas have been met mostly by inaction... Legislation signed by President Bush last fall called for 2,000 more border agents, yet his own budget proposal this year funded only 210 additional agents...

He's correct that the feds aren't doing their job. But, as the quotes above and in the previous post make clear, Richardson (and other officials in the Southwest) are part of the problem too.

And:

We will continue pushing the federal government to find a long-term, comprehensive solution to illegal immigration and porous borders.

I believe that's code for support of the Kennedy-McCain amnesty or similar plans.

8/21/05 UPDATE: Richardson was on ABC's This Week program and said:

"A fence at the border is not going to work because, first of all, they're easily porous, and that sends a message that America is a nation that is not valuing immigrants... [as an alternative to the fence] You [add] border agents - 10,000 of them. Couple them with new technologies, like some of these [unmanned] vehicles and lasers and detection equipment..."

If he means that it's certainly not as bad as some of his other statements.

Meanwhile, Joe Guzzardi says that it doesn't matter whether Richardson and Napolitano really believe what they've been saying lately.

The warfare in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico is spiralling out of control:

Tony Garza, the U.S. ambassador to Mexico, recently described a brutal gun battle that took place on July 28 in Nuevo Laredo, Tamaulipas, between "armed criminal groups," as having "included unusually advanced weapons." This since the combatants used an arsenal that combined automatic weapons, bazookas and hand grenades, in the attack on an apparent safe house of one drug cartel by those of another.

Actually, hundreds of different caliber shells were subsequently found at the war zone-like scene, along with AK-47 rifles, handguns and ski masks. And if that is not disturbing enough, a state policeman who asked not to be identified said that investigators found numerous photographs of municipal police officers at the residence, an apparent hit list of officials sentenced to death. Further intelligence revealed that each of the photographs listed the officer's name and assigned location, along with maps to their homes.

Officials are quick to call this a war between rival drug cartels, and they brazenly state that Americans are not targets of the violence. Yet U.S. Border Patrol agents are being fired upon, and U.S. border area police officials are witnessing Mexican paramilitary types escorting drug shipments north onto U.S. soil.

The targeting of law enforcement officials on both sides of the border, and specifically the planning and routine execution of Nuevo Laredo police officers and city officials shows that the specter of terrorism is hiding out in the open along our national border with Mexico, although not everyone sees this clearly.

Terrorists are ideologically, politically or issue oriented. They commonly work in small, well-organized groups or cells. They are sophisticated, skilled with weapons and attack strategies, and they possess efficient planning capabilities. And the differing types of terrorists pose national, international and paramilitary threats.

The attacks on Mexican and U.S. soil, along with the paramilitary sightings, should convince U.S. and Mexican officials, as well as the public at large, that these are terrorist attacks. Must there be suicide-homicide and related bombers to convince us that these are terrorist acts?

Unfortunately, the answer to that question is probably "Yes."

The Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) is trying a new tactic in the battle against in-state tuition for illegal aliens – they’ve filed a formal complaint [PDF] against the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties for not enforcing existing anti-discrimination laws. What a concept!

Read WLF's letter of complaint [PDF].

They got the idea from a recently unsuccessful suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas – (Day v. Sebelius). Basically, WLF decided to take the Kansas lemons and make Texas lemonade.

Ironically, the same issue of “standing” worked to the benefit of real immigration reformers in defending the hard-won victory at the Arizona ballot box in Proposition 200. The Treason Lobby’s challenge to Prop. 200 that was dismissed in federal district court was also rejected on August 9 in “Friendly House v. Napolitano” [PDF] before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Ninth Circuit rejected the Treason Lobby’s claim on the issue of “standing.” The particulars of the Prop. 200 case were expertly explained by FAIR and WLF [PDF] in recent press releases. A Washington lawyer filled in the blanks on the standing issue in the Kansas case.

Read the full story: 08/15/05 - Our Legal Eagles Counter-Attack Over In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens and "Standing to Sue" in the Juan Mann archive on VDARE.com.

Perhaps, but they're going to have to try much harder and they're going to have to actually believe it rather than just paying lip service. On Friday New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson declared a "border emergency" in four NM counties, promising a total of $1.75 million to be used for building a small fence, opening a DHS office, more officers, and the like:

The declaration says the region "has been devastated by the ravages and terror of human smuggling, drug smuggling, kidnapping, murder, destruction of property and the death of livestock... [It] is in an extreme state of disrepair and is inadequately funded or safeguarded to protect the lives and property of New Mexican citizens."
...Richardson... criticized the "total inaction and lack of resources from the federal government and Congress" in helping protect his state's residents along the border...

There's a (mainstream) liberal case to be made against illegal immigration, but it involves quite a bit more than just building a fence around a cattle yard.

And, Richardson's past actions have supported illegal immigration. Here's a quote from 1996:

"These are changing political times where our basic and programs are being attacked. Illegal and legal immigration unfairly attacked. We have to band together and that means Latinos in Florida, Cuban-Americans, Mexican-Americans, Puerto Ricans, South Americans - we have to network better - we have to be more politically minded - we have to put aside party and think of ourselves as Latinos, as Hispanics, more than we have in the past."

John Fund's "Run for the Border" has more, including this:

But Mr. Richardson sang a different tune in late 2003, when he showed up at a rally for the "Immigrant Workers Freedom Ride" and told them, "¡Viva la raza! . . . Thank you for coming to Santa Fe. Know that New Mexico is your home. We will protect you. You have rights here."

That also points out that Richardson has asked Chris Simcox of the Minuteman Project for a meeting. And, as could be expected, the Mexican government criticized Richardson's declaration.

If the Democrats want to get serious about this, perhaps they should choose someone other than Richardson to do it. And, perhaps they should consider all the reasons why control of illegal immigration doesn't have to be just a conservative issue.

8/16/05 UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh thinks it's just for show. The AP offers no real news in "Richardson defends border emergency declaration" but does show how they might attempt to spin this. The WashTimes offers "Border-control Democrats and President Bush": "The moves are mostly symbolic... But as political theater, they are significant...". There's a roundup of reactions inside Mexico here. And, from the me-too file comes "[AZ Gov. Janet] Napolitano Declares Emergency, OKs Funding for Border".

8/18/05 UPDATE: If his past statements and actions didn't make it clear enough that Bill Richardson supports illegal immigration, this statement from today's NewsHour will:

"...In fact my state, New Mexico, is the most immigrant friendly state. We have licenses for undocumented workers. We have scholarships for them to go to our university because we want to integrate them; we don't want them out driving without insurance..."

The other person on the panel was Carlos de Icaza, Mexico's ambassador to the U.S. I'm sure he was happy to hear that NM is an "immigrant"-friendly state and that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans on this issue. If you read the rest of the transcript you'll see that interviewer Jeffrey Brown basically just sat there rather than asking either person even slightly tough questions. If you'd like to suggest that the NewsHour does a better job next time, use this form to send them a message.

8/19/05 UPDATE: Mark Krikorian paints a bleak picture in "Liberal Two-Step: Dems pay lip service only on border control."

Leo Banks has finished another powerful writing for the Tucson Weekly. "Ranchers 75 miles from Tucson say bad policies have resulted in a daily invasion of drugs, death, pollution, and violence." The people on the ground in Arizona are living daily with all these travesties. They say that the rhetoric coming from the highest levels of government is 'crumbling to pieces on the hot desert ground!!'

'Images from the Battleground' is a MUST READ expose of the reality of open borders and leaders who continue to sweep the critical information under the rug. It is our responsibility to lift up the rugs, to shake them vigorously, and force the light to shine at what is underneath.

Where do you think this statement appeared:

[M]ore than half of all meth used in the U.S. is produced in Mexico and smuggled across the border.

A Tom Tancredo speech? A FAIR press release? A Save Our State rally?

Click on the extended entry for the surprising answer.

The statement appeared in an unsigned editorial on Opinion Journal, which is part of the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

(Hat tip: Clinton W. Taylor.)

The mother of a slain 19-month-old girl, killed as her illegal father used her as a human shield while blasting away at Los Angeles police officers, continues her avaricious crusade against the LAPD. Lorena Lopez, the baby's mother, should clean up her own house first. Turns out baby Suzie Marie Pena had cocaine in her system when she was shot during a gun battle between her border-jumping Salvadoran father, Jose Raul Pena, and an LAPD SWAT team. The Lopez family looks worse and worse, even as it makes ever more inflammatory charges against the LAPD.

Jose Raul Pena had abducted his toddler daughter Suzie from Lorena Lopez’s home after physically threatening Lopez . Both Lopez and her 19-year-old daughter (by another man than Pena) called the police on a domestic violence charge. When the police found Pena at his auto dealership, he began shooting at them from behind the cover of his baby. After wounding an officer, Pena and his tiny human shield were both mortally shot.

The Lopez family immediately launched a crusade against the LAPD, blaming the officers for the daughter’s death and initiating a budget-busting law-suit against the beleaguered department. Hispanic and black anti-cop activists held daily protests against “police brutality.” Lopez’s attorney has just upped the ante by demanding a federal probe of the child’s death, claiming that the LAPD “is incapable of investigating its own officers”—an absurd claim undoubtedly intended to distract attention from the unraveling of the myth that Pena was a “good person” and the family a safe haven.

For it turns out that the real “brutality” against baby Pena even preceded her father’s decision to use her as a human sandbag. There was enough cocaine in circulation in the Lopez home to have found its way into the baby’s bloodstream in the days before the shooting. Add the cocaine poisoning to the multiple fathers that have contributed children to Lopez’s family, and you have a portrait of classic underclass dysfunction.

The Lopez-Pena saga demonstrates the growing reality of the fabled “Hispanic family values”—characterized by the highest rates of out-of-wedlock child bearing and high school drop-out behavior in the nation. To be sure, many immigrants lead exemplary lives of self-discipline, self-improvement, and economic striving. But while no one has been paying attention, a growing proportion of Hispanic immigrants—illegal and legal alike—are developing full-blown underclass habits, including uncontrolled gang violence, which are already costing the country dearly in welfare, social services, and prison expenses.

Check out the Powder Blue Report's take on an immigration forum that took place in California August 11. Tom Tancredo and the Minutmen's founder Jim Gilchrist were there.

NBC San Diego reports that "[a]n alleged illegal immigrant accused of smuggling people into the United States while working as a Border Patrol agent served four years in the U.S. Navy."

Related: P.C. Insanity at the Pentagon

Los Angeles Times reporter Lisa Richardson has an interesting article about Save Our State's efforts to reach out to the black community in Los Angeles:

Save Our State, the in-your-face anti-illegal immigration group, was thrilled. Its long-held desire to forge ties to the black community was at last to be realized.
Invited to speak to a black community forum in Leimert Park this month, SOS founder Joseph Turner was sure that by the time he finished expressing his outrage about the impact of illegal immigration on jobs, schools and neighborhoods, Save Our State would have new, equally outraged allies.

But it was not to be. Turner's invitation was rescinded shortly after it became public. The story of how and why that happened says much about how heated the debate over immigration policy has become in black communities in Southern California and how much the tone of that debate has discomfited many black leaders.

Read the whole thing.

And that provokes a fine and justified rant from La Shawn Barber.

The newest stats say that Texas joins California, New Mexico and Hawaii as majority-minority (the latter being majority Asian, which makes sense).

The problem with this as I see it isn't necessarily the numbers of immigrants, it is the quality. Immigrants should respect our laws, respect our culture and adopt our values. Otherwise, if they have no interest in doing these things, they should not emigrate. They should stay where they were born. Adopting our values and way of life should be part of the deal that allows them to come here.

What we have, though, is a bad neighbor to the south that is purging the lower levels of its racially stratified society by pushing them to come here however they can, to live in pockets, and never bother to assimilate into either our culture or values. These illegal immigrants so far don't seem very interested in becoming Americans. They want to be Mexicans, displaced. And that's the problem.

As anecdotal evidence, I visit a state park in Maryland frequently. We started visiting there last year. One thing we noticed right away this year was that on weekends it transforms into a Spanish-speaking mini-city. This year, the park added Spanish signs here and there and have added bilingual announcements over the loudspeaker. These are young families we are talking about; presumably the children are learning English at school and so forth. As far north as Maryland there shouldn't be a need for Spanish-language anything. Yet there is.

Maryland is one of a handful of states that are the next group to go majority-minority. Texas, California and New Mexico sort of make sense--they were, after all, once a part of Mexico. But Maryland? New York, Georgia and Mississippi aren't far behind--and none of them were ever a part of Mexico either.

Before anyone slaps me with the racist or xenophobe smear, I should remind everyone that not only am I not that, but that I created an immigrant ten years ago when I persuaded a woman entirely out of my class to marry me, who happens to be non-white and non-American. I don't have a problem with immigration per se. Skin color is as irrelevant to me as it can be. But my wife doesn't go around demanding by sheer stubbornness that the United States transform itself to cater to her culture. It's the values that matter, and that is precisely what is at risk.

The selection process for immigration judges at the Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has gone from one non-competitive extreme to another over the past ten years – from “white males need not apply” to private hand-picked appointments of Bush Administration loyalists without public notice or competition.

In the wake of an $11.5 million class action lawsuit settlement against the DOJ/EOIR in September, 2004, it appears that immigration judge positions are being awarded to hand-picked candidates without public job announcement by the DOJ’s Office of Attorney Recruiting and Management. So perhaps to avoid further charges of discrimination in public employment, the entire immigration judge selection process has gone behind closed doors under the federal government’s “Schedule A” hiring process.

Find out more in my latest column on VDARE.com -- 08/08/05 -- Bush Loyalists Hand-Picked As EOIR Immigration Judges.

But why would a Republican Party attorney or oil company executive want to make a career change and do EOIR Immigration Court hearings all day anyhow?

Also by Juan Mann:

09/20/04 - Fire Michael J. Creppy —DOJ’s $11.5 Million Man!

03/09/04 - The EOIR’s other directive -- White males need not apply

05/04/04 - The Enemy Within [II]: A Treason Lobby Pro Bono PR Office Inside EOIR!

As days trickle by into years, the legal American citizens remain forced to endure the madness of the illegal invasion. These travesties come in so many different forms.

Headline news has been highlighting the story coming from Nuevo Laredo, Mexico which is a stone's throw away from Laredo, Texas. The murder and mayhem there has again closed down the U.S. Consulate and sent travel warnings out by our federal officials to avoid this area for fear of your life. The drug cartels are again vying for more power and control with their billions of dollars.....and they are winning!!! Broad daylight shootings of honest city representatives and police officers are just some of their victims.

Another piece of madness comes in the form of raw sewage being dumped into the Tijuana River and flowing into most of the southern parts of California. With the third world's lack of proper infrastructure (thanks to corrupt governments), our citizens are forced to tolerate pollution on such large scales that it has become a huge public health hazard and of nightmarish proportions for the environmentalists.

Yes, the madness continues. What are you going to do about it?

On Monday the NYT published a guest editorial entitled "The Mexican Evolution". The author is Matthew Dowd, "the senior adviser to the Republican National Committee" and "the chief strategist for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign".

In a nutshell, it says that Mexican illegal immigration isn't that much of an issue, in fact, we might have already seen its "high-water mark" due to demographic shifts in that country. All we need to do is wait a decade or two and then we'll be left wondering what the fuss was all about:

...any long-term project to close off the United States-Mexico border may use up money that could be more useful elsewhere... legislators and government agencies should spend more time and resources addressing the problems of immigrants already here and our direct security needs, and much less time on prescriptive laws aimed at stemming illegal immigration from Mexico...

Steve Sailer and Mark Krikorian have responses to this editorial, and they both show the fallacies in his demographic-related argument. Worth noting is that he concentrates on Mexican illegal immigration, as if that's the only kind we need to be worried about. Of course, even if Dowd is correct about the demographics, those corrupt corporations that profit off illegal immigration and the illegal alien advocacy infrastructure aren't just going to dry up and blow away. They're simply going to find another country that can become our cheap labor supplier. In that case, Mexico might switch from sending its own people to facilitating sending people from other countries such as Brazil or Bangladesh or Zimbabwe. There are dozens to choose from.

I'd also suggest a more basic approach to this editorial: as one of the first attempts to propagandize this issue and sell the American public on allowing massive illegal or legal immigration, something that the vast majority do not want. In that light, whose side is the GOP leadership on?

Beware the “temporary” worker, the “departing” illegal alien, and smoke-and-mirrors ploys of feigned immigration law enforcement.

Beware of S. 1438 – the “Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of 2005” [PDF] – introduced by Senators John Cornyn (R-Tex.) and Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). The bill conceals a slick-packaged rehash of the unsuccessful Arizona amensty plan of two years ago by the Arizona trio of House members Jim Kolbe and Jeff Flake, and Senator John McCain.

Though the names have changed, the Cornyn-Kyl bill and the 2003 Arizona amnesty plan both contain the same deadly one-two punch against America. I identified the key treasonous components to watch out for in August, 2003: a massive scheme to import new foreign workers into the United States, and an amnesty plan for illegal aliens already in the United States.

The Cornyn-Kyl incarnation now uses an outright "non-immigrant temporary worker program" (Title V) and a hare-brained scheme called "deferred mandatory departure" (Title VI).

Find out more in my latest column on VDARE.com -- The Cornyn-Kyl Bill (S. 1438) – The Same Old Arizona Amnesty Sham!

Also by Juan Mann on the amnesty onslaught:

The Arizona Amnesty Bill – Two Disasters In One!

The Bush Betrayal And The Arizona Amnesty Connection

Amnesty Betrayals Past And Present —A Handy Reference Guide

Just not from the US government:

Mexico promised to tighten security on its U.S. border on Tuesday after Washington closed a consulate in the lawless city of Nuevo Laredo because police have failed to curb spiraling violence.

Nuevo Laredo, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, TX, has devolved to anarchy in the past few months as drug cartels battle for routes and the federales battle both the cartels and the corrupt local police. Street battles have reached the level of insurgency, with cartels weilding military hardware. The violence could easily spill over the porous, largely unprotected border. The US closed its consulate in Nuevo Laredo this week amid fears that the violence will keep spiralling out of control. In response to that, we get Mexico's promise of tighter security:

"Yesterday there was a Cabinet-level security meeting and the president gave instructions to radicalize the operation and raise its efficiency," said spokesman Ruben Aguilar.
He gave no details, except to rule out a curfew in Nuevo Laredo, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas.

Gee, I'm convinced.