Open borders anarchy

I've always hated the very concept of "sanctuary cities". Essentially, what cities who proclaim themselves to be "sanctuary cities" are doing is saying, "We don't give a hoot what the law says, we're not complying with it. So, now we have a situation where cities all over the country are declaring that they will not comply with federal law, which can occasionally lead illegal immigrants killing people: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/07/16/cstillwell.DTL. It seems pretty elementary to me that if these people had been deported, they would not have been here to commit their criminal acts.

I think that that there is a pretty easy solution to the problem of "sanctuary cities". The Federal Government should simply cut off all federal funding to city. If that city wants to flout federal law, why should it benefit from federal funds?

Dancing around the issue

There is an interesting article in the New York Times (yes, even that left wing bastion still has some interesting points to make) on the "baby crisis" in Europe: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?ref=magazine&pagewanted=all. The article is on point in that it notes the existence of a very real problem--Europeans aren't having kids, or enough of them, anyway. However, the way that Europe is dealing with this crisis--importing Muslims who are changing the continent in ways that were unimaginable even 10-15 years ago--is what interests me most. All we have to do is look at the changing face of France, Holland, Germany, Great Britain, etc., to understand the impact of not only the immigration--immigration itself is a good thing--but who is being "imported". It's a fair question to ask if European political elites ever considered the true impact of the decisions they made 20+ years ago................

They just noticed?

There's a story circulating the wires that Spanish is becoming the primary language in Miami: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080529/D90V6OEO0.html. BECOMING????? I lived in Miami for three years in the early 1990s, and I can tell you with 100% certainty that that was already the case back then. Miami is a suburb of Havana, and it has been for quite some time.........

A local front in the battle over illegal immigration

I've weighed in a couple of times on this issue, but have been wary of saying too much. After all, I myself am an immigrant to the United States, albeit a legal one, and I arrived already equipped with a full command of the English language (those who know might dispute that).

That said................I don't think that it's too much to ask immigrants to the United States to speak English. This country was built on a shared culture, the primary unifying element of which is the common language. When this country absorbed millions of German, Italian, Russian, Jewish, Polish, Ukrainian (etc., etc.) immigrants, they weren't offered services in their native languages. It was a "sink or swim" crash course in learning the local culture, and the think is, they did it. Even if parents couldn't speak English all that well, they learned enough to get by. In my mind, this forced assimilation created a shared bond that turned everyone into AMERICANS. Now, it seems as though there is an attitude that focusses on individual cultures at the expense of a national one. That's not healthy for the nation's future, in my view.

The local angle on this is that the owner of one of Philadelphia's most famous Cheesesteak shops, Geno's, posted a sign which asked those who were ordering food to do so in English: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20071215_Vento__No_barrier__just_a_view_on_English.html. The sign was not rude, and it was agreed by all that not one single person had ever been denied service if they were unable to do so in English. Nonetheless, some were "offended" by the sign (and we now live unfortunately in a time where PC mandates that no one should ever be offended), and a complaint was filed with the local human relations commission. The stakes are quite high, as Geno's could be fined heavily or even lose its business license: http://www.kyw1060.com/Owner-of-Geno-s-Faces-Hearing-on---Speak-English--/1338950. There was a quote from one of the commissioners which made me do a double-take. He commented that the sign reminded him of the signs he used to see in the segregated southern states when he grew up (you think that he's tipping his hand as to which way he's going to vote?).

Look, I know that I'm not a "visible minority", so I can't pretend that I understand what they feel., but to me that comment seems patently absurd, especially given the stipulation that no one was ever denied service (or given preferential service) at Geno's. This rhetoric is inflammatory and unhelpful. Joey Vento, the owner of Geno's, has said that anything less than a complete exoneration will lead him to shut his business down. I can't say that I blame him.....................

No refugee status for you!

Two deserters from the American Armed Forces who fled to Canada to avoid being sent to Iraq in 2004 have been denied refugee status by the Canadian Supreme Court: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/11/15/hinzman-decision.html. To be more precise, the Court refused to hear their appeals of earlier decisions denying them refugee status.

I have to say that I am pleased by this decision. Let's not forget that unlike during the Vietnam War, there is no draft currently. Those in the Armed Forces have joined voluntarily, and it seems only logical that if you do join the military, you should go where they tell you. Then again, I will concede (as one Ron Paul supporter keeps harping) that I am not and have never been in the military. So, maybe I have no right to comment at all on this issue.

Quebec keeps losing people

There is a report out that Quebec keeps losing people; i.e., more people are moving out than are moving in: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/10/29/qc-quebecmigration1029.html.

Hmm, I have a couple of interesting theories. Maybe it has SOMETHING to do with the fact that the economy is far better elsewhere in Canada. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that people don't necessarily want to be held hostage by racist language laws. Maybe, contrary to the article, it has nothing at all to do with the fact that Quebec, which is one of the most politically correct places in North America, is not "tolerant" enough of minorities.

Dare to DREAM

This neverending Presidential Primary season (is it just me, or does it seem as though this thing has already gone on MUCH too long? And, we still have over 13 months until the elecction!) has geneated any number of stories, but the one that just grabbed my attention, thanks to the sleuthlike abilities of the Bookworm (on my blogroll. Her thoughtful comments are always worth a look-see) is Senator Barack Obama's supporting the DREAM Bill. The long and the short of this bill is that it would give in-state tuition rates to illegal immigrants, but it would NOT do so for poor Americans who are already citizens. This has one Obama supporter a little bit perturbed, shall we say: http://www.fogcityjournal.com/news_in_brief/jc_barack_dream_act_070927.shtml.

I actually think that she's right. This bill is utterly ridiculous and completely unfair. How can anyone argue seriously that those who come here illegally should have an advantage over those who are either born here and are poor, or who emigrated legally and are poor? Where is the logic in that? Where is the FAIRNESS in that? Isn't "fairness" one of those things that seems to concern immigration advocates so much?

The battle over Illegal Immigration comes to New Jersey

Last weekend, there was a protest against Illegal Immigration in Morristown, New Jersey. While there were plenty of people there who meant well on both sides of the debate, the nutcases were also out in full force, both on the left: http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/88909.html, and on the right: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=407055&highlight=morristown.

It's more than a little scary to me that these nutcases are roaming around this country...........

A person who doesn't get it on Illegal Immigration

Today's Philadelphia Inquirer published an Op-Ed from a person who believes that the problem with immigration lies not in the fact that the illegal immigrants have broken the law by being here, but in the fact our unfair and dicriminatory society has wrongly barred them: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070730_Immigration_issue_not_about_lawbreakers__but_broken_law.html.

This is more of the typical, left wing tripe that argues (implicitly in the case of this Op-Ed, explicitly in others) that those who don't favour a blanket amnesty and open borders are nothing but a bunch of racist yahoos.

A local angle on the battle over illegal immigration

A local municipality called Hazleton had recently enacted a law which imposed stiff fines on businesses who were found to have employed illegal aliens. Of course, those in favour of amnesty and the Open Borders crowd immediately challenged the constitutionality of the law, and yesterday, a federal judge in Scranton, Pennsylvania, struck it down on the grounds that immigration issues are solely within the purview of the federal government: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20070727_Court_voids_Hazleton_law.html.

I have a question for the judge. What are we supposed to do when the federal government has completely abdicated its responsibility on this issue? And to the extent that Washington is "addressing" the problem, it is generally acting against the interests and wishes of the vast majority of the country.

The Mayor of Hazleton has vowed to appeal, and I hope that he does. This is too important to just give up now.

Immigration Woes

From the "And herein lies the problem" department, we have this story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20070706/pl_bloomberg/atizf6kmwd6g. When people such as myself opposed the now moribund immigration reform bill, this is why. That bill would have done nothing to remedy situations such as this one. And, for the most part, I don't think that the leadership of either party gives a rat's a-- about the situation. Their only concern is either bringing in millions of new potential voters (in the case of the Democrats), or legalizing millions of cheap workers (in the case of the Republicans).

Either way, it's a joke...............

The proposed Immigration Bill

I am already on record in previous posts as being dead set against this proposed immigration bill. Well, today is "do or die" day for both the supporters and opponents: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070628/ap_on_go_co/congress_immigration. Either the Senate debate on the bill will be limited, in which case it will almost certainly pass, and once it is reconciled with a House version, will eventually be signed into law by President Bush, or debate will not be limited, in which case it will likely be left to the next Congress and President to work on this issue. Supporters of the Bill need 60 votes to limit debate, and it's going to be close.

Roughly 78% of the American public is opposed to this bill, with good reason. It does nothing to fix the leaky borders. It gives the government 24 hours to investigate whether an alien has a criminal record (the same government which can not get a legal citizen a passport in less than three months). I could go on and on, but why bother? The bottom line is that this bill stinks, for lack of a better word, and I am incredibly resentful of a Congress and President who are trying to force a Bill down our throats while muttering their collective breath that we're all racists, stupid, or both.

Open Borders?

Well, how about this? A Zogby poll taken of Mexicans found that a large majority of them believe that the American Southwest (California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Nevada) rightfully belongs to them: http://www.immigrationcontrol.com/AIC_Zogby_Mexican_Poll.htm.

And there's our government, in seeming cahoots with the "Open Borders" crowd, doing nothing to stop the "Reconquista".

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Call me a nativist, racist, or whatever. Seal the damned border and THEN deal with the issue of the 12,000,000 illegal aliens already here.

Immigration Bill

I've been fairly silent on this issue, given my status in the U.S. as an immigrant. The thing is, though, I followed the rules. I filled out every form, crossed every "T", dotted every "I". As it turns out, I shouldn't have bothered: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19221467/.

If it makes me a racist or "nativist" to say that it is wrong that people who broke the law and didn't follow the rules should not receive the same treatment as me, so be it. Actually, if you look at what the President and Congress are preparing to force down our throats, the illegal immigrants (don't give me this crap about them being "undocumented residents". That's just so much PC gobbledygook) will actually get a better deal than I am ever going to receive.

What I can't fathom is that this bill has such bipartisan support despite being opposed by a majority of Americans. Then again, Victor Davis Hanson has it right. You have the Dems salivating over the prospect of millions of potential new voters, and the Repub elites joyously contemplating keeping that pool of cheap labour: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/06/who_is_illiberal_on_immigratio.html. More on the same subject from the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan: http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110010210.

That's just bogus.............

On Being an Australian

This was forwarded to me in an e-mail, and I have cut and pasted it into this blog entry. It is directed to Canadians, but it could just as easily be addressed to people here in the U.S.:

Australia Now, Canada Tomorrow??????

Excerpts from an on going debate in Australia.

This is true and can be checked at http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/australia.asp

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Shari law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia, as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.

A day after a group of mainstream Muslim leaders pledged loyalty to Australia and her Queen at a special meeting with Prime Minister John Howard, he and his Ministers made it clear that extremists would face a crackdown. Treasurer Peter Costello, seen as heir apparent to Howard,
hinted that some radical clerics could be asked to leave the country if they did not accept that Australia was a secular state, and its laws were made by parliament "If those are not your values, if you want a country which has Shari law or a theocratic state, then Australia is not for you", he said on National Television.

"I'd be saying to clerics who are teaching that there are two laws governing people in Australia: one the Australian law and another Islamic law that is false. If you can't agree with parliamentary law, independent courts, democracy, and would prefer Shari law and have the opportunity to go to another country, which practices it, perhaps, then, that's a better
option", Costello said

Asked whether he meant radical clerics would be forced to leave, he said those with dual citizenship could possibly be asked to move to the other country. Education Minister Brendan Nelson later told reporters that Muslims who did not want to accept local values should "clear off. Basically people who don't want to be Australians, and who don't want, to live by Australian values and understand them, well then, they can basically clear off", he said.

Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.

Quote: "IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It. I am
tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali, we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians."

"However, the dust from the attacks had barely settled when the 'politically correct' crowd began complaining about the possibility that our patriotism was offending others. I am not against immigration, nor do I hold a grudge against anyone who is seeking a better life by coming to Australia." "However, there are a few things that those who have recently
come to our country, and apparently some born here, need to understand."
"This idea ofAustralia being a multi-cultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. And as Australians, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle."

"This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom"

"We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society .. Learn the language!"

"Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God
offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture."

"We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us."

"If the Southern Cross offends you, or you don't like "A Fair Go", then you should seriously consider a move to another part of this planet. We are happy with our culture and have no desire to change, and we really don't care how you did things where you came from. By all means, keep your culture, but do not force it on others.

"This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you
every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, 'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'."

"If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here So accept the country YOU accepted."

Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves, Canadians will find the backbone to start speaking and voicing the same truths !

This could apply to all of our Immigrants' both Legal and illegal

If you agree , please SEND THIS TO EVERYBODY YOU KNOW!

If you disagree hit the delete button!"

Londonistan

London has become an incredibly fertile breeding ground for Jihadists, a fact not lost on the iconoclastic Christopher Hitchens: http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/06/hitchens200706?printable=true&currentPage=all.

I like to rail against what is happening in France, with its 5,500,000+ Muslims, but Great Britain is not all that far behind..............if it is behind France at all.

San Francisco

Stories like this are examples of why San Francisco is regarded with disdain by the rest of the country: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/04/22/BAGADPDGNF18.DTL. I mean, it's nice that San Francisco already governs itself like it is not part of the rest of the country, but maybe the time has come for the rest of California (and the country, for that matter) to call the city on it bluff. Let 'em have a vote and once they decide to secede, we can all collectively say "see ya".............