Archive for the ‘immigration’ Category


In an article from the not-too-distant archives (6 days ago), World Net Daily posted a three-paragraph snippet from the Arizona Republic under the headline, “Federal Judge Halts Sheriff Joe’s Workplace Raids.”

For those who haven’t been following the immigration issues in Arizona, Joe Arpaio, who has been sheriff of Maricopa County for over two decades and is self-described as “America’s Toughest Sheriff,” has been the subject of lawsuits in the last few years for discrimination and for superseding his state authority by attempting to enforce federal laws, which time and again courts have ruled is not legal. The latest setback is described as such:

A federal judge issued a preliminary injunction Monday blocking Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery from enforcing two state laws that make it a felony for undocumented immigrants to use stolen identities to obtain work.

The injunction essentially prevents Arpaio from continuing to conduct his controversial worksite raids to arrest undocumented workers and Montgomery from prosecuting them.

However, Arpaio had already announced in December that he planned to disband his worksite unit at the end of January or in early February once they completed an ongoing investigation.

This follows from court-mandated training and oversight after previous lawsuits against Sheriff Arpaio.

That said, Arpaio is something of a folk hero among the very conservative American population that WND caters to. Therefore, WND posts a lot about him and his various battles against the Evil Mexicans and Evil Obama and Evil Feds and various other Evils. In fact, I’ll be doing a post that’s the subject of over a dozen WND posts in the last few months about Arpaio suing President Obama for his move of functional amnesty for undocumented immigrants illegals … as soon as it’s resolved (latest from two days ago was that Arpaio requested an expedited hearing or some such thing).

So, this latest development could only boost Arpaio’s standing among these über-conservatives: If he won, it’s vindication for his draconian attempts to enforce immigration laws, and if he lost (which he did), then he’s a martyr.

Which he is to many WND commenters. However, rather than express that directly, most highly rated comments are railing against the judge, such as by “Ponyrunner” (“I believe the judge needs a hearing of his own. A competency hearing. ILLEGAL aliens have NO rights in this country.”). Note that there’s railing against most judges in stories posted on WND, especially when ruling that same-sex marriage bans are unconstitutional.

Advertisements

Brian C. Joondeph wrote a column for WND, published on February 2, 2014, entitled, “Immigration Speech John Boehner Should Give.” I have no idea why it has no comments, for it seems right up an ültra-conservative’s alley. I reproduce it here in full for commentary purposes:

My fellow Americans, the majority of you believe that our current immigration system is broken and in need of major change. Now 92 million of you are not part of the American workforce. With the best interests of America in mind, particularly those who are not working, House Republicans propose the following changes to our immigration laws.

Going forward, the U.S. will only welcome foreigners who will be useful to American society, contributing to national progress. They must have the necessary funds to support themselves and their dependents. Foreigners will be barred from the U.S. if they are detrimental to our economic or national interests.

If they are not good citizens or have broken laws in their home country, they will be denied entry into the U.S. Furthermore, they must be physically and mentally healthy before entering the U.S.

A national registry will keep track of the entire U.S. population, with foreign tourists and immigrants assigned a unique tracking number. Foreigners with false immigration documents will be fined or imprisoned, as will any foreigner falsifying their signature on a government document.

Any foreigner who is deported and who re-enters the U.S. without authorization may be imprisoned for up to 10 years. Foreigners working in the U.S. without a proper work permit can also be imprisoned. Transportation companies bringing undocumented foreigners into the U.S. will be fined.

Non-U.S. citizens will be prohibited from participating in American political life, including protests and demonstrations and any public expression of political opinion. Foreigners may not own American land within 60 miles of a national land border or within 30 miles of the coastal border. To serve in the military, one must be American by birth. This also holds for captains, pilots, engineers and mechanics.

Wow.

Just … wow.

It’s nice that this guy is putting this out there so everyone can see how much of a xenophobic hypocritical racist bigot he is. Why do I level those charges? Well, let’s see …

  • To get in, you have to be “useful” and monetarily stable. So much for the plaque on the Statue of Liberty*.
  • We’re going to do a background check on you and you can’t have gotten into any trouble before.
  • We’re going to have our doctors check you out to make sure you’re physically okay. And not hearing voices … unless those voices are God, Jesus, or Angels.
  • We’re going to track each and everyone one of our citizens.
  • We’re going to track every foreigner who’s here.
  • If you’re not a citizen (remember, we track everyone, so we know who you are, what your status is, and where you are), you can’t go to protests or demonstrations of any public or political nature. So much for the First Amendment (freedom of assembly).
  • If you’re not a citizen, you can’t buy any property here. Guess that means we’ll be nationalizing all coastal holdings by BP, Shell, all those buildings owned by Saudis, etc.
  • We have a problem with army recruitment, but we’re going to restrict signing up to just people born here. Not just fightin’ folks, but EVERYONE.

Wow. So, that’s why I call him a xenophobic hypocritical racist bigot. The hypocritical part comes in because conservatives allegedly hate Big Government (except in peoples’ bedrooms), but this guy wants the government to check everyone out mentally and physically and keep track of every single person, where they go, who they are, etc.

*“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”


Apparently so. In this blog, I have now written 149 posts (including this one) in the few short months since mid-July. I’ve covered a lot of crazy things. A lot of offensive things. Stuff like “stand your ground” laws are only protested by non-white people. Or colleges not teaching dogma makes WND readers scared. Or anything from Pamela Geller, like Obama follows Sharia and the Senate was going to vote to fund al Qaeda.

Lots o’ crazy going on. But, apparently, some are too crazy for WND. Yes, apparently that’s right. According to Right Wing Watch, Peter Brimelow’s latest column was too extreme for World Net Daily. In the column, Brimelow was arguing that Democrats’ “support” for immigration reform was actually support for an invasion and colonization of the United States by non-white immigrants. And this is treason. Why? Because it reduces the overall percentage of whites.

Now, I happen to be very, very white. Sunlight doesn’t burn me, it just goes through — I’m so white I’m practically translucent. So, it’s hard for me to picture myself and understand how non-whites (in another era, I’m sure Brimelow would refer to them as “coloreds”) would react to hearing that. But, I can at least imagine that they would find it offensive if they decided to even let Brimelow’s bigotry affect them emotionally. But, with that in mind, how is that different from WND publishing a column by Linda Harvey saying that homosexuals are pedophiles and homosexuality is a path to self-destruction?

In the same vein, Right Wing Watch has examples of other WND columnists who wrote similar things about immigration. And, obviously, they made it on WND. So … who knows? But, this does shed a tiny bit of interesting light on WND in that apparently, at least as far as some WND editors are concerned, some people are too extreme even for them.


World Net Daily yesterday posted a snipped and link to a Washington Post article that they headlined as, “50 House Republicans to Vote for Amnesty?” The jist is in the first two paragraphs:

Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) told Post Politics’ Ed O’Keefe in a newly released interview that the House has more than enough GOP votes — around 40 or 50 — to pass comprehensive immigration reform if it were brought to a vote.

But Gutierrez said Republicans who support the idea are staying deliberately quiet to avoid a backlash from conservative activists.

As I state in the About page for this blog, WND is not Republican. It is conservative. Über-conservative. So far to the right they nearly fall off the edge of our flat, 6000-year-old world.

So you can imagine how the commenters reacted to this news that the “conservative” party would have some members who would even think of voting for some sort of immigration reform that includes any sort of amnesty and anything short of deporting all them illegals and erecting a giant force field around ‘Mer’ca.

For example, “amdatme” has the highest-rated comment – by 50% – at 17 up-votes and 0 down: “Flunkin blankstards… every last one of them. If you want to know what’s wrong with this country, It’s blankstards like these traitor Republicants. Actually, they are cowards that should change from being Republicants to Demoncraps.”

The next-highest is currently three tied with 11 up and 0 down:

  • “Tripmom92”: “traitors one and all…. should be removed from office.”
  • One question Mexicans – Why don’t you like you own country??? Get Out. Luis Gutierrez, get out! Quit begging people to take these Mexicans!!!
  • Don’t you clean your house before inviting your neighbors? We have much to do before we should EVER be thinking about amnesty for illegals. How about protecting the rights of your OWN CITIZENS FIRST!!!

“gunny1” with 5 up and 0 down probably sums up the generic response of most WND readers: “One Word, TRAITORS”


I did a post yesterday on one of Joseph Farah’s commentaries, and this one deserves mention, too: “The End of Republican Party.” Basically, it’s a whiney piece saying that the Republicans control the House, therefore they can do everything Farah wants on the über-conservative agenda: Defund the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), somehow “defeat amnesty,” and supposedly other things that aren’t listed — really, these seem to be at the top of his wish list.

For those who’ve been out of civics for a long time or those not from the US, let’s review: Three branches of government. Two deal with passing laws. One writes them and passes, the other has to approve them, though the first can override disapproval (very rarely done).

That branch that writes the laws is the Congress, the legislature. We have a bicameral (“two-headed”) legislature with an upper (Senate) and lower (House) body. The Constitution states that all funding/tax-related bills (“pre-laws”) must be started in the House. But, anything that gets sent to the President (the Executive branch) for signing must be identical versions of bills passed both by the House and Senate. And the President can still veto.

With that in mind, let’s review: Farah wants the Republicans, which have a majority in the House, to pass a bill and kill a bill (not supermajority — >2/3 needed to override a veto, though the Senate controlled by Democrats also does not have a supermajority there). So on the immigration thing, I agree: The Republicans in the House can probably prevent this from happening. Though the political cost by all accounts but FOX and WND would be large for the Republicans.

As for defunding the ACA, not going to happen. To review: The Senate has to also pass an identical bill as the House, and the President has to sign it or a supermajority in both chambers of Congress has to override the President’s veto. Not gonna happen. I don’t care if every single Republican in the House voted to do this, it will NEVER pass with this Senate and President.

The only game they could play would be to refuse to do anything unless they get their way. That did not go over very well for Gingrich and the Republicans back in the 1990s against President Bill Clinton. I almost dare them to try.

There are over 260 comments to Farah’s post as of the time I’m writing this. There’s no real theme to them, though most agree with him, making me shake my head at America’s education system.


It appears as though I’m going to be using this title more than once. In this case, it’s to an article by former Congressman Tom Tancredo with the headline, “Dreams and Nightmares: Steve King Is Right Again.”

Immigration is obviously a big issue in the US right now. So is the latino vote, for latinos are rapidly outpacing African-Americans as the largest minority in the country. And, the Republicans have a “latino problem,” where something like only 27% voted for Mitt Romney in the last Presidential election (last year). Unsurprisingly, the Republican leaders are trying to keep racism in their party fairly quiet and try not to offend latino voters — statistically, Republicans are much more against any legal path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the country.

For those who didn’t hear, one of the most ardent advocates against any form of immigration reform is Congressman Steve King, a Republican from Iowa. Earlier this week, he stated:

“For everyone who’s a valedictorian, there’s another hundred out there who weigh a hundred and thirty pounds—and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling seventy-five pounds of marijuana across the desert. Those people would be legalized with the same act.”

Yeah. Nice job courting that latino vote. Republican leadership was quick to condemn him. Didn’t matter to Steve King: He took to the House floor a few days later and defended his remarks. He didn’t even pull the typical non-apology apology of, “If I offended anyone, I’m sorry for offending you.”

That’s what the latest WND article by Tom Tancredo is about. He does admit, “the exact words Rep. King used to challenge that premise are easy to criticize.” But he says that King is right, and “[i]t is disgusting to see Republican leaders joining this lynch mob.”

He also makes the point that there are many more drug smugglers than valedictorians. Um, duh. That’s like saying there are more lawyers than valedictorians. There can only be one (okay, sometimes two) valedictorians from each high school graduating class. Based on the US Department of Education, there are about 26,500 public high schools (so 26,500 valedictorians) but from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 730,00 lawyers in the US. It’s a non sequitur — one has nothing to do with the other, and clearly in something that is forced to be limited, there will be fewer opportunities available. There are more white drug dealers than white valedictorians, too. Ever think of that, Tancredo?

On the other hand, it’s nice to see a politician actually say what he thinks. If nothing else, US politics would be much more interesting if politicians couldn’t spin anything or lie but always had to tell the truth and whole truth.