DfDeportation's Blog

Lebanese militant released in Israel prisoner swap

By ZEINA KARAM – 1 day ago

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — Five Lebanese militants freed from prisons in Israel in exchange for the bodies of two captured Israeli soldiers returned home Wednesday to a boisterous welcome from hundreds of cheering spectators.

Israel released Samir Kantar and four others after Hezbollah handed over two black coffins with the bodies of the Israeli soldiers, closing a painful chapter from the 2006 war in Lebanon.

Kantar, who had been serving multiple life terms in Israel for a grisly 1979 attack, wiped away tears as he stood before a crowd in the coastal border town of Naqoura.

The five later flew to Beirut, where they received an official welcome from the president and were congratulated by Hezbollah leader Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, who was last seen in public in January.

"Your return is a new victory and the future with you will only be a shinning march in which we achieve the sovereignty of our land and the freedom of people," President Michel Suleiman said in his address. "I congratulate the resistance (Hezbollah) for this new achievement."

Winning freedom for Kantar was one of the reasons Hezbollah's leader cited at the time for going to war with Israel in 2006.

Kantar was convicted in a nighttime attack that killed a 4-year-old girl, her father and a policeman. Although polls showed Israelis solidly endorsed the exchange, many see Kantar as the embodiment of evil.

"Samir Kantar is a brutal murderer of children and anybody celebrating him as a hero is trampling on basic human decency," said Mark Regev, spokesman for the Israeli prime minister.

Wednesday's exchange was also a wrenching end to the war for Israel. The soldiers' capture by Hezbollah fighters in a cross-border raid in 2006 triggered the 34-day war. The campaign to bring Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev home had become a national crusade.

The soldiers' Hezbollah captors had withheld any information about them since they were taken, refusing to release pictures or allow the Red Cross to see them. It was not clear if Regev and Goldwasser were killed in the original raid or if they died in captivity. Evidence at the scene indicated both were seriously wounded.

Though officials had suspected they were dead, the sight of the coffins was the first confirmation of their fate.

Regev's father, Zvi, said he fell apart the moment he saw Hezbollah take the coffins out of a van and place them on the ground.

"It was horrible to see it. I didn't want to, I asked them to turn off the TV," he said, choking back tears.

"We were always hoping that Udi and Eldad were alive and that they would come home and we would hug them," he added, using Ehud Goldwasser's nickname. "We had this hope all the time."

An aunt of Regev's sank to the ground when she saw the coffins appear on a small TV hooked up outside the soldier's father's house. Some 50 friends, neighbors and family who had gathered there sobbed, rocked back and forth in prayer, lit candles or tugged at their hair. "Nasrallah, you will pay," several of the mourners vowed.

Other people in the crowd criticized Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, saying the soldiers died for nothing.

The swap was mediated by a U.N.-appointed German official who shuttled between the sides for 18 months.

On Wednesday, Israeli forensic experts examined the remains for several hours, checking dental records among other things, before confirming the soldiers' identities. Israeli generals then went to the families' homes to deliver the news.

After the confirmation, Israel released Kantar and the four other Lebanese prisoners to Hezbollah.

In the dead of night on April 22, 1979, Kantar and three other gunmen made their way in a rubber dinghy from Lebanon to the sleepy Israeli coastal town of Nahariya, 5 miles south of the Lebanese border.

There, in a hail of gunfire and exploding grenades, they killed a policeman who stumbled upon them, then burst into the apartment of Danny Haran, herding him and his 4-year-old daughter outside at gunpoint to the beach below, where they were killed.

An Israeli court found that Kantar shot Danny Haran in front of his child, then smashed her head with his rifle butt.

Haran's wife, Smadar, who had fled into a crawl space in the family apartment with her 2-year-old daughter, accidentally smothered the child with her hand while trying to stifle her cries.

Kantar, a Lebanese Druse who acted on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Front, a small faction of the PLO, denies killing the older child. He says she was killed in the crossfire as he battled Israeli police, and he has never expressed remorse. Kantar was 16 years old at the time.

Two members of his squad were killed in the raid, and the third, taken alive, was released in a 1985 prisoner swap.

Israel held on to Kantar for decades, hoping to use him as a bargaining chip to win new information about an Israeli airman whose plane crashed in Lebanon in 1986.

But despite dissatisfaction over Hezbollah's report on the airman, provided over the weekend, and under pressure from the captured soldiers' families to bring them home, Israel's Cabinet voted on Tuesday to release Kantar.

Hezbollah's commander in south Lebanon, Sheik Nabil Kaouk, called the swap an "official admission of defeat" for Israel.

Also Wednesday, a Red Cross tractor-trailer arrived in Lebanon carrying wooden coffins containing the bodies of Lebanese and Palestinian fighters. Part of the swap included Israel handing over the remains of some 199 fighters.

In addition to the two soldiers, Hezbollah also handed to ICRC officials body parts belonging to Israeli soldiers killed during the 2006 war.

Mexico’s warm greeting for Miss USA By Michelle Malkin  •  May 29, 2007 09:23 AM

Do you remember what happened in Guadalajara in 2004 during an Olympics qualification soccer match between the U.S. and Mexico? Let me remind you:

The boos nearly drowned out “The Star-Spangled Banner,” and a few dozen fans chanted “Osama! Osama!” as the United States was eliminated by Mexico in Olympic men’s soccer qualifying.

A loud anti-American crowd hollered as Mexico beat the United States 4-0 Tuesday night in the under-23 tournament, claiming a berth in the Athens Olympics. Mexico had already eliminated the U.S. baseball team from Olympic contention.

As U.S. players left the stadium for their bus, several fans — some clutching beers — chanted “Osama! Osama!” in reference to al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Police in riot gear had to protect the American players. Bags of urine were tossed at the US team.

Just a tiny minority of America-haters, right? Wrong. Throughout the week-long festivities leading up to the Miss Universe pageant last night, Miss USA, Rachel Smith, was booed and heckled. First, at a national costume event (half-way into the news segment):

Ms. Smith, who fell during the evening gown competition but recovered gracefully, was subjected to hatred again last night during the Top Five interviews, when hecklers in the audience launched into chants of “Mexico, Mexico” and disrupted her entire interview. The two hosts of the pageant, Vanessa Minillo and Mario Lopez, did nothing to chastise the crowd for the rudeness shown to their fellow American.

At least the hecklers didn’t yell “Osama.” Or maybe the microphones just didn’t pick it up this time.

Meanwhile, as Heather Mac Donald points out, the White House continues to attack opponents of mass amnesty as “nativists.”

Yeah, we’re the nativists.

***
Update: A diehard Miss Universe follower e-mails me that another Miss USA, Kenya Moore, was booed in Mexico during the 1993 pageant.

Pageant blogger Sophie Evans notes that Rachel Smith was booed throughout the entire program last night

More flashbacks:

Go back to March 2005, when Mexico beat the U.S. 2-1 in a World Cup qualifier…

Some Mexican fans responded by chanting “Osama! Osama!”

…For Mexico, the game was a measure of revenge for the United States’ 2-0 win in the second round of the 2002 World Cup, a game that dented national pride. But that match was played in South Korea, not Mexico, where the Tricolores are 54-1-4.

A large banner in the upper deck proclaimed: `”El Gigante No Ha Muerto,” or “The Giant Is Not Dead Yet.” There was booing and whistling during “The Star-Spangled Banner” and derisive chants whenever Kasey Keller took goal kicks.

Reconquista, what reconquista?

The origins of this intense rivalry, explains fan Gerardo Gonzales, are historical - and he is not talking soccer history.

“Every schoolboy knows about 1848,” he says, settling in for a lazy afternoon of serious soccer talk at a local cantina. “When they robbed our territory,” referring to when Texas, California, and New Mexico were annexed to the US at the as part of a peace treaty ending the war between the two countries, “that was the beginning.”

Big Weasel, Big Tax Hike, Big Scam
By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, WalterMooreForMayor.com
July 13, 2008

When someone asks you to vote for the proposed $30 million tax hike to fund "anti-gang programs," I want you to utter two words: "Big Weasel."

Big Weasel, you will recall, is the "ex" gang member whose "anti-gang program," called "No Guns," received over $1.5 million from City Hall in a single year.

But Big Weasel wasn't an "ex" gang member at all. The very next year, federal prosecutors charged him with selling an assault rifle, a machine gun, two pistols and two silencers. Turns out he was arming his gang. He pleaded guilty.

No one at City Hall bothers to monitor the hundreds of millions of dollars of your money they routinely hand over to sketchy, unregulated "non-profit" organizations like Big Weasel's.

City Hall, by the way, not only hands over your cash, but gives these unregulated groups your real estate, too. For example, City Hall recently decided to "lease" a fire station to a group called "Aztecs Rising" for ten years for just $1 per year. You and I can't rent a locker in a bus station for $1 per day, much less an entire building for $1 per yer.

City Hall, moreover, can't seem to get its story straight about how how much of your money it spends on these "programs:"

In October 2007, City Council Member Cardenas said, according to the Daily News, that the City spends $78 million per year on gang prevention, suppression and intervention.

In February 2008, a study for which the City paid $500,000 said the City's various "anti-gang" programs cost $160 million per year.

In July 2008, the City Council started claiming, in the proposed ordinance that would raise our taxes, that it spends only $24 million per year on such programs.

That's quite a disparity, isn't it?

Want to know why City Council knocked the number down so low -- from $160 million per year to just $24 million per year -- in the ordinance? They did it to con you into thinking they won't use the tax hike to fund other programs -- you know, like when they diverted money from the trash fee hike that was supposed to pay for 1,000 new police officers.

You see, the proposed ordinance says the new revenues cannot be used to "supplant the level of funding previously committed for the programs . . . ." So by setting the number artificially low, at $24 million, they can divert the extra $136 million or $54 million per year already spent on "anti-gang" programs to something really important -- like more subsidies for the developers who fund their campaigns.

That helps explain the second measure City Council approved the same day for November's ballot, which the Daily News summarized thus: "The ballot measure, approved by the City Council on Friday, would erase restrictions on height and the number of units in publicly funded low-income and senior projects." City Council does not care about your quality of life. More density means more units, more profits, more excuses to subsidize contributors' projects.

And you won't believe what passes for an "anti-gang" program. My favorite example is a "program" to teach kids how to install waterless urinals. Seriously: that's one of the programs on which City Hall squanders your money. But that one doesn't even show up in the budget, because it's funded through the DWP.

Hey, here's an idea: instead of funding more "Big Weasel" programs, let's pass Jamiel's Law, so our city is no longer a sanctuary for illegal alien gang bangers.

And while we're at it, let's hire more police. Let's keep hiring until we hit the number Bratton says he needs to make ours the safest big city in America, namely, 12,000, rather than the mere 10,000 officers that Villaraigosa has set as his goal.

The City has more than enough money to bring the police force up to 12,000 officers. Revenues and fees are at an all-time high of $7 billion per year. That's up $1.7 billion per year from just a few years ago.

We don't need a new tax. We don't need a new "Big Weasel" program. We need a new mayor, namely, yours truly, Walter Moore. Click here to help.

Barack Obama's "civilian national security force" (????)

Back on July 2, Barack Obama read his "public service" address, and it contained this line that hasn't received much notice:

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set... We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded."

What the Sam Hill? There's nothing at his Service page (barackobama.com/issues/service) discussing anything near such a program. He wants to increase the size of Americorps, create a "Homeland Security Corps", create other specialized groups, and give more power and equipment to the Reserves and Guard. But, considering that the U.S. military budget is nearly half a trillion dollars and they've got bunker busters and nuclear submarines and things like that, one might expect some sort of inkling of a plan.

And, of course, there's the creepy nature of his proposal, but nothing new there.

Illegal immigrant Convicted Of Assaulting Girl Gets 57 More Months

Illegal immigrant convicted of assaulting girl gets 57 more months
Las Vegas Sun
July 11, 2008

A deported illegal immigrant who returned to the United States and sexually assaulted a young girl will be spending another 57 months in federal prison.

Sergio Hugo Hernandez, 31, of Las Vegas, received that sentence Friday on top of a sentence of 10 years to life that he received in state prison for assaulting the girl, said Gregory A. Brower, U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada.

Officials said Hernandez — already convicted of carjacking and use of a deadly weapon in California — was deported from the country on July 29, 2003. He then was found in the U.S. on April 6, 2007, during an investigating into the sexual assault of a girl under age 14.

Hernandez was convicted Jan. 9 of two felonies tied to the sexual assault of the girl. In February, he pleaded guilty to being a deported alien found unlawfully in the U.S., and today was sentenced to the 57 additional months in prison.

The case was investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Henderson police.

July 11, 2008

Cheap Labor: Chao Pandering to LULAC

If Phil Gramm thinks we’re all “whiners,” then Labor Secretary Elaine Chao must think we’re all idiots. Chao appeared before the League of United Latin-American Citizens’s annual meeting yesterday and pushed for free trade and more cheap foreign labor. Will the pandering ever stop?

But did the Labor Secretary mention the fact that in the four industries in which illegal aliens are most prevalent in this country — that is, leisure, hospitality, landscaping and construction — over the past five years, wages have declined while the administration goes around blabbering, suggesting that more labor is needed in those industries? We doubt it.

Illegal immigrant speaks about life in sanctuary By SOPHIA TAREEN Associated Press Writer

 

CHICAGO --Flor Crisostomo stands before the worn wooden pews of the storefront church and tells the visiting students that she doesn't regret paying a smuggler to get her across the border.

 

The 29-year-old illegal immigrant has defied a deportation order to Mexico, where her three children live, - by seeking sanctuary at the Adalberto United Methodist Church for the past six months.

"There are angry people who don't understand why I am here," she tells the students in Spanish, as she wipes away tears. "I am here to help my children."

Crisostomo, who also writes about her experiences, often talks to school groups. She tells them how she immigrated to the U.S. in 2000 and was arrested in 2006 during a raid at an IFCO Systems site in Chicago.

She is one of 14 illegal immigrants are seeking sanctuary in churches nationwide, claiming the act helps illustrate the plight of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S.

Crisostomo recently sat down with The Associated Press to discuss sanctuary and the election.

Q: Why did you decide to live here and defy a deportation order?

A: We have to show the government that we are many, we are strong, we are humans and that we deserve respect in this country. There's a concept that we're criminals or living on welfare or Social Security. There are millions of cases in the U.S. (like me). The majority are forced out of their countries of origin because of trade policies created with this system of government.

Q: Why aren't the presidential candidates talking about immigration?

A: Because we can't vote for them. We're undocumented. (Also), it's a competition ... the one who touches the topic the least will have the most votes.

Q: If you could vote in the presidential election, who would you vote for and why?

A: Maybe (Barack) Obama. I think that he would govern with humanity.

Q: If you could have the ideal immigration reform, what would it have?

A: The first and the most important: reunite families. The most important thing is to stop violating the rights of children who are U.S. citizens. We need to re-negotiate NAFTA. ... Specifically, they can help farmers and help stimulate (the value) of local products like corn, flour, milk and sugar (in Mexico).

Q: Does that (policy) include learning English?

A: Yes, it's necessary for a day-to-day basis, but it's not possible for everyone. We can learn a little by little. But to force, "English-only" in the whole country, that's not fair also.

Q: Have you learned English?

A: The basics, but not much else.

Q: What would you say to people who say you're a criminal?

A: They have to study and learn about the situation, about the problem of immigration, why we are here ... They should be aware that without the 12 million undocumented, this country will fall.

Q: Tell me about the decision to come to the U.S. alone.

A: When you can't find economic resources in your own country, you have to look for some way to feed your family.

Q: When you were crossing, did you envision becoming a citizen and returning to get your children?

A: No. Only to make a future in our own country and return to be with them.

Q: So, you don't want to be a citizen?

A: Actually, I would like to be a citizen of the U.S.

Q: Why?

A: The plan changed from the moment I was arrested. This is a country and a government that tells the world that it's a country of democracy, of justice, of equality. The principles are contradicting, not corresponding in reality.

Q: Why would you want to be a citizen then?

A: Because we can make a change within this country. Being a citizen you can make more demands.

Q: Why live in this church?

A: Because this is a church that was made to help the fight of people who are undocumented. The church has opened its doors ... and is here to speak the truth politically.

Q: You never leave?

A: No.

Q:Do you miss your family?

A: My children understand why I'm here and are working within the situation in Mexico. I know that they have food to eat every day.

Q: Do you worry you'll be taken into custody by ICE?

A: No.

Q: Why?

A: Because this is church. I haven't killed anyone.

Q: What would you do if you got deported?

A: I wouldn't resist. They think they are doing the right thing.

Q: How long will you stay in sanctuary?

A: For the time that's necessary.

Mother of Juan Manuel Alvarez, convicted in train deaths, testifies

Daily News

Relatives of the man convicted of murdering 11 Metrolink passengers in a Glendale train derailment said Thursday that he was the product of a violent family that exposed him to incest, rape, substance abuse and drug trafficking over two generations.

Juan Manuel Alvarez’s mother, Leticia Ayala, told a jury that he was an unwanted pregnancy and that she had tried, but failed, to abort her unborn son using folk-medicine brews of herbs and leaves as well as traditional medications.

The nine women and three men on the jury will decide whether the 29-year-old Compton handyman will get the death penalty or spend the rest of his life in prison.

The testimony of family members came on the first day of closing arguments for Alvarez’s defense team. The sentencing phase of the trial follows his conviction last month on 11 counts of first- degree murder.

“Before you sentence the man, you take into account not just the offense, you take into account the man,” court-appointed lead defense lawyer Michael Belter told jurors at the outset of his closing argument.

Jurors did not seem as moved emotionally as they were during the prosecution’s presentation of testimony from family and friends of the victims of the Jan. 26, 2005, Metrolink train derailment. But they were visibly gripped by the accounts of sexual molestation, beatings, emotional abuse and abject family life described by the defense and family members.

Belter asked jurors to recommend life in prison without the possibility of parole for Alvarez, while acknowledging the gravity of his client’s deadly actions that irrevocably devastated the victims’ families.

“We are not here to offer any excuses or justifications,” he said.

The testimony given Thursday presented a tragic family from the border town of Mexicali, where the seeds of Alvarez’s violence can be traced. There, the Juan Alvarez Sr. family carried out unspeakable acts of extreme machismo and dominance over loved ones.

From the time he was a child, Alvarez was mercilessly beaten for no apparent reason by his father, using fists, belts and electrical cords, several relatives testified.

As children, Alvarez, his sister and others in the family were sexually molested by an uncle, relatives said on the witness stand.

Alvarez’s cousin, Otilia Guevara, testified that the same uncle raped her often, even while she visited her grandmother and with the knowledge of her grandmother and several family members.

And in the most emotional testimony of the day, Alvarez’s mother spoke tearfully about being a battered wife for more than two decades at the hands of an alcoholic, drug-addicted husband whose beatings caused the miscarriage of one of her unborn children.

And no one protested or reported the crimes.

“This was Mexico,” Ayala said through a translator.

Even after her husband abandoned her and her young daughter, Ayala said, she crossed the border from Mexico into the United States illegally on foot - five months pregnant with Juan - to be near the man who regularly physically abused her. She said she tried to abort her unborn son in Mexico prior to her U.S. journey.

When her husband was deported, Ayala said, she followed him back to Mexico with young Juan, who had been born in the U.S. In Mexicali, the battering continued and it took its toll on Juan to the point that his reticence to communicate led some teachers to believe he was a deaf-mute.

Young Alvarez, loved ones testified, was withdrawn and quiet - possibly from the physical abuse, to which relatives said he had grown so accustomed that he no longer cried.

“He would never cry,” said his mother.

“Never?” asked her son’s lawyer.

“Never.”

Prosecutors challenged parts of the testimony of Alvarez’s family members, except for his mother, whom they chose not to cross-examine.

Less moving were the testimony of Alvarez’s older cousin Beto Alvarez, who now is helping raise Juan’s son and his adopted daughter, and his estranged wife, Carmen, the woman prosecutors say Alvarez was attempting to impress and win back when he caused the disaster in which a Metrolink train derailed and smashed into another commuter train.

Carmen Alvarez told jurors she is now involved in another romantic relationship and plans to move on with her life.

Moments before she took the stand, Alvarez had turned to look at her and smiled - his only show of emotion to any of his loved ones.

Beto Alvarez was on the stand as defense lawyers introduced a message recorded on his home answering machine just minutes after Juan caused the derailment and carnage.

“I didn’t mean to do this, Beto,” Juan Alvarez said in the message.

“A lot of innocent people died. I don’t deserve to live, Beto. I apologize for everything. Please pray for me.”

McCain Launches Immigration Ad Targeted at Hispanics

Susan Davis reports on the presidential race.

Expected Republican nominee John McCain’s campaign released a new ad, “God’s Children,” today, tailored to Hispanic audiences that will run in the three Western swing states of Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico.

The ad features McCain from a June 2007 Republican primary debate performance in New Hampshire during which he extols the contributions Hispanic immigrants have made in the U.S., particularly through military service.

“My friends, I want you the next time you’re down in Washington, D.C., to go to the Vietnam War Memorial and look at the names engraved in black granite. You’ll find a whole lot of Hispanic names,” McCain says in the ad, “When you go to Iraq or Afghanistan today, you’re going to see a whole lot of people who are of Hispanic background. You’re even going to meet some of the few thousand that are still green card holders who are not even citizens of this country, who love this country so much that they’re willing to risk their lives in its service in order to accelerate their path to citizenship and enjoy the bountiful, blessed nation.”

McCain has broken with many in his party on the issue of immigration reform through his earlier advocacy of a path to citizenship for the estimated 12 million illegal residents—many Hispanic—currently in the U.S. Efforts to approve such an overhaul of immigration laws last year failed in the Senate—where McCain was a lead author of the bill.

The Arizona senator, acknowledging the divisiveness within his party as well as the push-back he received from angry voters during the primary season, has since conceded that comprehensive reform can only be achieved after the U.S. secures its borders first—a position he emphasizes on the campaign trail. (For more on McCain and immigration, read THIS recent Wall Street Journal story.)

Hard-line Republicans, such as former primary rival Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado—advocate for the deportation of those here illegally, as well as a halt to legal immigration. The latest ad also notably features a clip of Tancredo sitting on the debate stage while McCain speaks.

“So let’s from time to time remember that these are God’s children. They must come into country legally, but they have enriched our culture and our nation as every generation of immigrants before them,” McCain says in the ad.

On Monday, McCain will speak at a gathering of the National Council of La Raza, a nonpartisan Hispanic advocacy group. It is his third address to a Latino group in 15 days.

omment by Nobama - July 11, 2008 at 10:13 am

The suggestion that the American economy with its 300 million citizens needs immigrants is a lie. Read “The Economic Fallacies of Desperate Foreign Labor” @ theclearsky.blogspot.com/#70709516354357493 .
.
Allow me to explain in detail.
.
Consider the United States. It has about 300 million citizens. Its gross domestic product (GDP) is about $12 trillion. The GDP per capita is about $40,000.
.
Suppose that we inject 300 million desperate Indians (from India) into the USA. Its population suddenly doubles to 600 million people. The GDP remains the same at $12 trillion. The GDP per capita falls to $20,000.
.
In this scenario, we assume a constant level of technology. Over time, the GDP grows rapidly as the economy absorbs the 300 million Indians. Eventually, the GDP reaches $24 trillion, and the GDP per capita returns to $40,000. (Actually, the GDP per capita will exceed $40,000 slightly due to the comparative advantage of the larger population.) Once GDP per capita reaches $40,000, the growth spurt ends.
.
The propaganda game that pro-immigation bigots play is the following. They shout, “Look at the tremendous wealth that 300 million Indians added to the American nation. The GDP increased by $12 trillion to $24 trillion! Wow! Awesome!”
.
What is the error in the reasoning of the pro-immigration bigots? Well, the total GDP is not the correct measure of your wealth. The correct measure is GDP per capita. Adding 300 million Indians did not increase your wealth or my wealth at all.
.
There is no economic necessity, whatsoever, for H-1B workers, illegal aliens, or an open border.
.
When a nation, like the United States, has a sufficiently large population (on the order of hundreds of millions of people), dumping hordes of immigrants into the nation offers almost no economic benefit. Indeed, in the short term and the medium term, a large number of immigrants actually suppresses wages and diminishes working conditions — in both high-tech jobs and low-tech jobs.
.
A study by Harvard University demonstrated that illegal aliens from Mexico actually suppressed the wages of unskilled American labor by about 8%.
.
There is no economic justification for immigrants. Immigration can be justified on only ethical grounds. For example, the United States regularly offers political asylum to anyone who is fleeing dire political persecution.
.
How should we Americans deal with the flood of people from India, Mexico, and elsewhere? Washington should intervene aggressively in foreign countries that flood their people into the USA. A larger flood means a larger degree of intervention by us.
.
Consider Mexico. Its society is a total and utter failure because Mexican culture is a failure. To deal with this failure, we give the Mexican government a plan to Westernize Mexico. We order the Mexican government to implement this plan. If a Mexican politician obstructs this Westernization plan, then we aggressively punish the offending Mexican politician. We (1) freeze his assets (and the assets of his relatives) in the West, (2) declare him (and his relatives) persona non grata thoughout the West, and (3) deny him (and his relatives) any access to Western medical facilities even if such denial results in his death (or his relative’s death). Further, we Americans will fund and promote Mexican politicians who are committed to Westernization. We will run Mexico like a colony. Of course, if Mexican drug smugglers enter American territory, the American military will pursue them — even into Mexican territory. If the Mexican military interferes in our pursuit of Mexican criminals, then we kill the Mexican soldiers.
.
P.S.
—-
Most Americans have never taken a course in economics. As a result, they are easily manipulated by (1) lying, deceptive bigots in the pro-immigration groups, (2) lying, deceptive lobbyists for American companies, or (3) lying, deceptive American politicians who have been purchased by American companies or pro-immigration groups. Bigots, lobbyists, and politicians deliberately state economic lies in order to fool the ignorant American voter.

Obama: I embarrass myself! posted at 5:15 pm on July 11, 2008 by Ed Morrissey 

Barack Obama’s comment that Americans should teach their children Spanish rather than worry about whether immigrants speak English gave another example of his arrogance and elitist impulses earlier this week.  In a memorable moment, he pronounced himself “embarrassed” by Americans who travel abroad and can’t speak the local language — which called into question why he doesn’t get similarly perturbed by foreigners who move here and can’t speak ours.  Today, Obama tried to “clarify” his comments by wondering aloud why people found them offensive:

“This is an example of some of the problems we get into when somebody attacks you for saying the truth, which is we should want children with more knowledge. We should want our children to have more skills. There’s nothing wrong with that! It’s a good thing,” he said.

While the Obama campaign says that Obama speaks a little bit of Indonesian, Obama himself admits that he isn’t bilingual.

“I know because I don’t speak a foreign language. It’s embarrassing!” he said.

So now Barack Obama has managed the impossible — he’s thrown himself under his own bus!

Obama mischaracterizes both his earlier comments and the response.  No one argued that children should not learn a second language, although we may want to do a better job in teaching them their first language before worrying about adding another.  Obama specifically criticized the push to make English the official language of the US and the end of requirements to produce documents and signs in a multitude of languages to accommodate people who don’t learn English while living here.  Here are the original comments:

 

I — uh — I don’t understand when people are going worrying about “We need to have English only.”  They want to pass a law — “we just — we want English only”.  Now I agree that immigrants should learn English.  I agree with that.  But — but understand this.  Instead of worrying about whether, uh, immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!  You should be thinking about how your child can become bilingual.  We should have every child speaking more than one language.

You know, it’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup.  Right?

Clearly, he was not talking in the context of education policy. He was attacking people who want to stop pandering to those who refuse to assimilate when they move to the US. “They’ll learn English,” Obama states, but the evidence in every government office shows that we don’t expect them to do so, and many of them don’t. We spend a lot of money printing everything in several different languages — not just Spanish — which is a testament to the fact that we don’t.

And if Obama was speaking about education policy, he’d still be wrong. Most school districts require a second language in high school, although they don’t require it to be Spanish. Spanish wouldn’t help much in France or Germany anyway.

To no one’s great surprise, Obama tried spinning his way out of his elitist, snobby remarks by essentially lying about their context. He then contradicted repeated assertions during the campaign that he spoke Spanish (he did an ad in Spanish during the primaries). He’s flip-flopped on his own bilingual status and called himself an embarrassment as a defense.

What a week!

NCLR President Talks 

 

POSTED: 4:50 pm PDT July 10, 2008 UPDATED: 6:38 pm PDT July 10, 2008

 

SAN DIEGO -- Janet Murguia is proud of the work the National Council of La Raza does.

 

"We're celebrating 40 years as an American institution in this country. And over those 40 years, we have established a record of service and contribution, not just to the Latino community, but to our country," said Murguia.

 

Murguia, president of the NCLR, is excited to be holding the group's annual conference in San Diego during such an eventful year.

 

"The fact that it is a presidential election year is very exciting and we are seeing already that the Latino vote has made a difference in the primaries, and we are certain that it will make the difference in the outcome of this election," said Murguia.

 

But the NCLR is not without its critics. Some believe the organization is anti-American and pro-illegal immigration.

 

"We have a place on our Web site that responds to some of these ridiculous assertions about our organization, that we're willing to give the southwest back to Mexico, and that we're for open borders. Those are flat out lies, not true," said Murguia.

 

What exactly is the NCLR?

 

"This organization is an American institution that believes in the security of our borders. It believes in the importance of respecting all of law enforcement and the need to have interior enforcement as we look at a comprehensive immigration reform bill. But we also need to reflect that we are a nation of immigrants and a nation of laws and balance the two," Murguia said.

 

She added, "I think our goal (for this weekend's conference) is to make sure that our community feels empowered to be able to weigh in on these elections this year. It's a very historic time, and to do so in a very informed and educated way."

 

Helping to achieve that goal will be one of the highlights of the conference.

 

Senators Barack Obama and John McCain will both be addressing thousands during the conference in an attempt to gain the Latino vote.

July 10, 2008

Cannon’s Firing: The Treason Lobby Attempts Damage Control

By Marcus Epstein

That the defeat of pro-amnesty Congressmen Chris Cannon at the hands of political neophyte Jason Chaffetz was over immigration should be simple conventional wisdom.

Were it not for Cannon’s long and vocal support for amnesty, there is absolutely no reason why Chris Cannon should have had any problem in a Republican primary. Other than immigration, he has near impeccable conservative credentials—with a 96% lifetime American Conservative Union rating. He had oodles of money and outspent Chaffetz 7-1. He had the support of the entire Republican Establishment from George Bush (still popular in Utah) on down. And having the last name Cannon in Utah is like having the name Kennedy in Massachusetts or Byrd in Virginia.

Needless to say, the Treason Lobby is attempting damage control by claiming both that illegal immigration was not the main factor driving his defeat. Michael Barone, for example, writes, "Chris Cannon's defeat made [stopping a future ‘comprehensive immigration reform’ bill] a little, but only a very little, likelier."

Henry Fernandez [email him]of the Center for American Progress claims, it is "apparently not true is that there was a connection between Cannon’s immigration moderation [sic] and his loss."

This is all very interesting to me, because for the past three election cycles, my employer Team America, a political action committee founded to support anti-amnesty candidates, had supported primary challenges to Chris Cannon.

Each time we went after him, Cannon would pose as a restrictionist—he would say he’d secure the borders, oppose amnesty etc. Then, when he won, the Open Borders lobby would claim that the election was a referendum on Amnesty. And Cannon would go back to his pro-Amnesty ways.

In 2004 Cannon was challenged by Mark Throckmorton. At that point, many in the Open Borders world still openly used the word amnesty. But this was when Chris Cannon began to say he opposed amnesty. Following Cannon’s defeat of Mark Throckmorton, Tamar Jacoby [email her] wrote, "The immigration reform movement dodged a bullet" and this proved "Americans aren’t anti-immigrant—far from it" Grover Norquist said it showed "Immigrant-bashing failed."

In 2006, Cannon was challenged again, by John Jacob. The race was well timed—immediately after the Senate had passed its first comprehensive amnesty. Cannon suddenly came out against the Senate Bill. He ran on his record on border security, and accused all of his opponents of being racists.

It still looked like Jacob was going to pull it off. But in the last week of the campaign he didn’t run any ads, although he had plenty of money in the bank, and said the Devil was behind his personal financial problems. Cannon went on to win by a healthy margin.

But nonetheless exit polls showed that only 4.5% of the population wanted illegal aliens to stay in the country permanently and only 30.5% thought they should be able to stay as "temporary workers who should return home eventually". Most likely due to Cannon’s apparent last-minute conversion on immigration 35% of voters who said all illegals should return home immediately still voted for Cannon.

Despite this, the open borders lobby took his victory as a mandate for amnesty. Grover Norquist gloated that the election was "very helpful" to getting amnesty. Michael Barone [Email him] wrote: "It is conventional wisdom in many quarters that Republican voters overwhelmingly favor a border-security-only approach to immigration. Cannon's victory casts some doubt on that."

So how can these same people claim that this election, suddenly, has nothing to do with immigration?

They have one shred of misleading evidence, a discussion of an exit poll in the Salt Lake Tribune

“It appears the election simply did not, as some have argued, hinge on immigration.

"‘It may be a victory for them, but that's different than saying that's the reason he lost,’ says Quin Monson, assistant director of the center. ‘I'm sure they're celebrating for whatever reason, but there's not a lot of evidence’ to support their claims the issue brought down Cannon.  

“Roughly the same number of voters who were highly concerned about immigration in 2006, when Cannon won his last primary, showed up this time, when Cannon got whipped. Exit poll results show that more of those who said they had a tougher view on undocumented immigrants voted for Cannon's opponent, Jason Chaffetz, but a majority of those who backed plans like a guest-worker program also favored Chaffetz.”[Why did GOP faithful fire Rep. Cannon?| Immigration not the reason, BYU poll says, By Thomas Burr and Robert Gehrke, The Salt Lake Tribune, June 29, 2008]

The problem was that BYU hadn’t posted the results of the exit poll online. But, fortunately, they were kind enough to send me some more information on the poll. It suggests a very different interpretation than Quinn’s.

There was only one question on immigration:

“Thinking about immigrants who are now living in the U.S. illegally, which of the following options for immigration reform comes closest to your view?

Illegal immigrants should be required to go home immediately: 30.5%

Most illegal immigrants should be required to go home, but some should be allowed to remain in the U.S. under a temporary guest worker program: 40.6%

Most illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. but only as temporary workers who must eventually return home: 24.9%

Illegal immigrants should be allowed to stay permanently in the U.S: 4.1%

So only 4.1 percent supported allowing the illegals being able to stay in the U.S. permanently, much less on a "pathway to citizenship". And only 24.9% thought that most illegals should be temporary workers.

Of course "temporary workers" is usually a euphemism for amnesty. So it may seem discouraging that a majority of voters apparently showed some, very limited, support for temporary workers.

But the definition of "temporary" is critical in this election. Chaffetz’ platform included a well-intentioned plan that he called a "pathway to deportation" whereby illegal aliens could come forward get a truly temporary visa, so that they could get their affairs in order before their deportation, backed up serious criminal consequences if they did not go home.

Personally, I do not think this is a particularly wise policy. Unfortunately, we cannot snap our fingers and deport all illegal aliens tomorrow. Once the writing is on the wall that their presence in this country will not be tolerated, there will be plenty of time for them to get the message, collect their things and go home.

But my objections aside, it is clearly not an amnesty or even the "temporary worker" programs that are introduced as part of the "comprehensive immigration reform" supported by Cannon and his ilk.

Nonetheless, Chris Cannon used this as an excuse to try to campaign to Chaffetz’ right on immigration, "Here's a guy who before the convention was acting like Utah's version of Tom Tancredo, who now...in his Web site says illegal should be able to stay and get a temporary pass, and not do anything,"

This became a major sticking point in the election. But Chaffetz did a good job of clarifying his position and making it clear he opposed amnesty, and would oppose any importation of foreign workers. No doubt that a large percentage of voters who said they supported some form of "temporary workers" had Chaffetz’ plan in mind—not Cannon’s "temporary workers" who will stay here permanently.

Furthermore, another exit poll was conducted by the Utah Student Research Group. It found that immigration was virtually tied with the economy as the top issue for voters (and note that this is for the most important issue facing the country—not the issue that affected your vote). Of the people who found immigration to be one of their top issues, Chaffetz beat Cannon 79.4 to 20.6%

Cannon’s defeat is one of the greatest electoral victories for the patriotic immigration reform movement for many years— no matter how the Treason Lobby tries to spin it.

Obama: Your kids should learn Spanish Barack Obama addressed the issue of official languages yesterday by endorsing one: Spanish.  Instead of worrying about immigrants learning English, he told an audience, America should be teaching its children Spanish.  Every child should be bilingual, Obama said, but listen to the language he chooses later:

 

It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beaucoup,

Well, which is it — should we teach them Spanish or French? Maybe we should teach them Chinese, or perhaps Arabic. Immigrants come from around the world to live in America. Perhaps Obama doesn’t realize this, but they don’t all speak Spanish.  If our children have to learn foreign languages so that immigrants feel at home here, then we’d better plan on keeping them in school for about 30 years.

Also, Obama’s argument here makes no sense.  He’s complaining that Americans don’t speak the native language when we visit Europe, but that we don’t speak the immigrant language when people move to the United States.  With that argument, shouldn’t we expect Europeans to speak English when we travel there?

I agree that everyone should learn a foreign language.  I spoke French for a while, and I know a little Spanish from growing up in Southern California, and I studied Irish for several years.  The study of foreign language not only broadens one’s cultural perspective, but it also helps in understanding one’s native tongue.  However, to argue that Americans should learn Spanish as a higher priority than insisting that immigrants learn English is nonsense, and Obama’s argument for it is a giant non-sequitur.  It carries a strong whiff of America-bashing, too.

 

There’s nothing particularly exceptional about Obama’s position, unless you are an English-only partisan cowering in fear of your cultural identity being swamped by funny-looking people from strange lands. Or one of the similarly insecure patriots who believe any criticism of the U.S. is a sign of “blame-America-first” treachery. And I suppose the whole comment about “going to Europe” opens Obama up to more charges of elitism, and disconnection from the lives of those who, right now, can’t afford to even think about going to Europe.

But to most people who actually grasp the fact that we live in a complex, interconnected global economy, being able to speak more than one language just makes a lot of sense. Maybe those of us who do feel threatened by Spanish-language signs in government offices would sleep a little easier if we understood what they they were saying.

No one argues that a second language doesn’t help, but like Obama, Leonard seems to have divided the world into English and Spanish.  Government offices produce literature and signs in a multitude of languages; are we to learn all of them instead of having immigrants learn English?  Putting the onus of assimilation on the host is not just impractical, it’s downright rude.

If I emigrated to a country where English was not the language, I would not demand that the government produce signs and panphlets in English; I’d learn the language.  My children would learn it as well if I expected them to succeed in their new land.

Congressional Performance Congressional Approval Falls to Single Digits for First Time Ever Tuesday, July 08, 2008   -->

The percentage of voters who give Congress good or excellent ratings has fallen to single digits for the first time in Rasmussen Reports tracking history. This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

Last month, 11% of voters gave the legislature good or excellent ratings. Congress has not received higher than a 15% approval rating since the beginning of 2008.

The percentage of Democrats who give Congress positive ratings fell from 17% last month to 13% this month. The number of Democrats who give Congress a poor rating remained unchanged. Among Republicans, 8% give Congress good or excellent ratings, up just a point from last month. Sixty-five percent (65%) of GOP voters say Congress is doing a poor job, down a single point from last month.

Voters not affiliated with either party are the most critical of Congressional performance. Just 3% of those voters give Congress positive ratings, down from 6% last month. Sixty-three percent (63%) believe Congress is doing a poor job, up from 57% last month.

Just 12% of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11% to 13% throughout 2008. The majority of voters (62%) say Congress has not passed any legislation to improve life in America.

Voters hold little positive sentiment about the future. Just 41% find it at least somewhat likely that Congress will address important problems facing our nation in the near future, while 55% find this unlikely.

Despite these negative attitudes towards Congress, Democrats continue to enjoy a double digit lead on the Generic Congressional Ballot.

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

A separate Rasmussen survey found that half of all voters believe America’s best days are in the past. However, another survey found that 64% of voters also believe that the world would be a better place if more countries were similar to the United States.

  Mexican comic book sold at Wal-Mart called 'racist'

 

11:46 AM CDT on Tuesday, July 8, 2008

 

By Jeremy Desel / KHOU-TV

 

 

Video HOUSTON -- Shawnedria McGinty was not sure what to think when she found a copy of the comic book series “Memin Pinguin” on the shelves at her local Wal-Mart. After flipping through the pages of the popular Mexican comic book, however, one word came to mind – racist.

“OK, is it a monkey or a boy? Curiosity. So, I opened the book up,” she said. “This is, you know, rude.

“To me it was an insult. Then I saw the cover of this one and thought, (was it) against (presidential contender Barack) Obama or what?”

Head south of the border though, and you get a different reaction to “Memin Pinguin.” Historically, the character has been hugely popular on newsstands in Mexico and Latin American nations, with sales in the millions.

It was originally published in the 1960s, but has recently been re-issued and available on the shelves in Wal-Marts north of the border.

“They are calling him names. They call him an animal in one section. His mom is spanking his butt and it looks like they are drowning him,” said McGinty, who went so far as to buy a Spanish to English dictionary to better understand what was being said in the serial.

She found one passage particularly offensive. In the frame, Memin Pinguin is being kicked by a light-skinned man and is called “a black troublemaker.”

Activist Quanell X said the problem with the book is more than just words.

“This is poking fun at the physical features of an entire people. Making them look buffoonish (and) portraying the young (black) kid as stupid,” said Quanell. “Whenever they are beating him, they are referring to him as Negro. Even here when he is being punched, slapped (he is called) Negro.

“This is a disgrace.”

The Memin character is intended to be Cuban, but no doubt plays to dark-skinned stereotypes once thought to be reserved for white supremacists or the racially insensitive in this country.

Calls to Wal-Mart’s corporate offices for comment as to why the retailer carries the comic were never returned.

This is not the first time Memin Pinguin has stirred up controversy.

The character spurred debate in 2005 when the Mexican government issued a stamp commemorating Memin. At the time, many U.S. activists and political figures called the character racist.

The Mexican government protested the characterizations, asserting that Americans simply do not understand Memin’s cultural significance in Mexico.

That debate spurred the publisher to re-issue the old comics in a collector’s series that are available for purchase in the United States as, well as Mexico.