| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c" |
| Date: |
12 Aug 2004 03:12:19 AM |
| Object: |
934th GI Killed by Bush's Big Lie. Mission Accomplished |
"...The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and
exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trial
http://lunaville.org/warcasualties/Summary.aspx
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
Proudly plonked by Lani Girl and Crazyalec
The Bush 'balanced' budget: 1.2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: -3 million jobs and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -934 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
.
|
|
| User: "Bill Darnell" |
|
| Title: Liberals Protecting Illegal Aliens That Commit Murders!! |
12 Aug 2004 05:02:28 AM |
|
|
Liberals Protecting Illegal Aliens That Commit Murders!!
The Illegal-Alien Crime Wave
Heather Mac Donald
Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens.
Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the
police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their
immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of
a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after
having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly
weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and
know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a
cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who
will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against
enforcing immigration law.
The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in
immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and
Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These "sanctuary policies"
generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting
immigration violations to federal authorities.
Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a
power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even
mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. "We can’t even talk about
it," says a frustrated LAPD captain. "People are afraid of a backlash
from Hispanics." Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic,
gang-infested district sighs: "I would get a firestorm of criticism if
I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals]."
Neither captain would speak for attribution.
But however pernicious in themselves, sanctuary rules are a symptom of
a much broader disease: the nation’s near-total loss of control over
immigration policy. Fifty years ago, immigration policy might have
driven immigration numbers, but today the numbers drive policy. The
nonstop increase of immigration is reshaping the language and the law
to dissolve any distinction between legal and illegal aliens and,
ultimately, the very idea of national borders.
It is a measure of how topsy-turvy the immigration environment has
become that to ask police officials about the illegal-alien crime
problem feels like a gross faux pas, not done in polite company. And a
police official asked to violate this powerful taboo will give a
strangled response - or, as in the case of a New York deputy
commissioner, break off communication altogether. Meanwhile, millions
of illegal aliens work, shop, travel, and commit crimes in plain view,
utterly secure in their de facto immunity from the immigration law.
I asked the Miami Police Department’s spokesman, Detective Delrish
Moss, about his employer’s policy on lawbreaking illegals. In
September, the force arrested a Honduran visa violator for seven
vicious rapes. The previous year, Miami cops had had the suspect in
custody for lewd and lascivious molestation, without checking his
immigration status. Had they done so, they would have discovered his
visa overstay, a deportable offense, and so could have forestalled the
rapes. "We have shied away from unnecessary involvement dealing with
immigration issues," explains Moss, choosing his words carefully,
"because of our large immigrant population."
Police commanders may not want to discuss, much less respond to, the
illegal-alien crisis, but its magnitude for law enforcement is
startling. Some examples:
- In Los Angeles, 95 percent of all outstanding warrants for homicide
(which total 1,200 to 1,500) target illegal aliens. Up to two-thirds
of all fugitive felony warrants (17,000) are for illegal aliens.
- A confidential California Department of Justice study reported in
1995 that 60 percent of the 20,000-strong 18th Street Gang in southern
California is illegal; police officers say the proportion is actually
much greater. The bloody gang collaborates with the Mexican Mafia, the
dominant force in California prisons, on complex drug-distribution
schemes, extortion, and drive-by assassinations, and commits an
assault or robbery every day in L.A. County. The gang has grown
dramatically over the last two decades by recruiting recently arrived
youngsters, most of them illegal, from Central America and Mexico.
- The leadership of the Columbia Lil’ Cycos gang, which uses murder
and racketeering to control the drug market around L.A.’s MacArthur
Park, was about 60 percent illegal in 2002, says former assistant U.S.
attorney Luis Li. Francisco Martinez, a Mexican Mafia member and an
illegal alien, controlled the gang from prison, while serving time for
felonious reentry following deportation.
Good luck finding any reference to such facts in official crime
analysis. The LAPD and the L.A. city attorney recently requested an
injunction against drug trafficking in Hollywood, targeting the 18th
Street Gang and the "non-gang members" who sell drugs in Hollywood for
the gang. Those non-gang members are virtually all illegal Mexicans,
smuggled into the country by a ring organized by 18th Street bigs. The
Mexicans pay off their transportation debts to the gang by selling
drugs; many soon realize how lucrative that line of work is and stay
in the business.
Cops and prosecutors universally know the immigration status of these
non-gang "Hollywood dealers," as the city attorney calls them, but the
gang injunction is assiduously silent on the matter. And if a
Hollywood officer were to arrest an illegal dealer (known on the
street as a "border brother") for his immigration status, or even
notify the Immigration and Naturalization Service (since early 2003,
absorbed into the new Department of Homeland Security), he would face
severe discipline for violating Special Order 40, the City’s
sanctuary policy.
The ordinarily tough-as-nails former LAPD chief Daryl Gates enacted
Special Order 40 in 1979 - showing that even the most unapologetic
law-and-order cop is no match for immigration advocates. The order
prohibits officers from "initiating police action where the objective
is to discover the alien status of a person" - in other words, the
police may not even ask someone they have arrested about his
immigration status until after they have filed criminal charges, nor
may they arrest someone for immigration violations. They may not
notify immigration authorities about an illegal alien picked up for
minor violations. Only if they have already booked an illegal alien
for a felony or for multiple misdemeanors may they inquire into his
status or report him. The bottom line: a cordon sanitaire between
local law enforcement and immigration authorities that creates a safe
haven for illegal criminals.
L.A.’s sanctuary law and all others like it contradict a key 1990s
policing discovery: the Great Chain of Being in criminal behavior.
Pick up a law-violator for a "minor" crime, and you might well prevent
a major crime: enforcing graffiti and turnstile-jumping laws nabs you
murderers and robbers. Enforcing known immigration violations, such as
reentry following deportation, against known felons, would be even
more productive. LAPD officers recognize illegal deported gang members
all the time-flashing gang signs at court hearings for rival
gangbangers, hanging out on the corner, or casing a target. These
illegal returnees are, simply by being in the country after
deportation, committing a felony (in contrast to garden-variety
illegals on their first trip to the U.S., say, who are only committing
a misdemeanor). "But if I see a deportee from the Mara Salvatrucha
[Salvadoran prison] gang crossing the street, I know I can’t touch
him," laments a Los Angeles gang officer. Only if the deported felon
has given the officer some other reason to stop him, such as an
observed narcotics sale, can the cop accost him - but not for the
immigration felony.
Though such a policy puts the community at risk, the department’s top
brass brush off such concerns. No big deal if you see deported
gangbangers back on the streets, they say. Just put them under
surveillance for "real" crimes and arrest them for those. But
surveillance is very manpower-intensive. Where there is an immediate
ground for getting a violent felon off the street and for questioning
him further, it is absurd to demand that the woefully understaffed
LAPD ignore it.
The stated reasons for sanctuary policies are that they encourage
illegal-alien crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with cops
without fear of deportation, and that they encourage illegals to take
advantage of city services like health care and education (to whose
maintenance few illegals have contributed a single tax dollar, of
course). There has never been any empirical verification that
sanctuary laws actually accomplish these goals - and no one has ever
suggested not enforcing drug laws, say, for fear of intimidating
drug-using crime victims. But in any case, this official rationale
could be honored by limiting police use of immigration laws to some
subset of immigration violators: deported felons, say, or repeat
criminal offenders whose immigration status police already know.
The real reason cities prohibit their cops and other employees from
immigration reporting and enforcement is, like nearly everything else
in immigration policy, the numbers. The immigrant population has grown
so large that public officials are terrified of alienating it, even at
the expense of ignoring the law and tolerating violence. In 1996, a
breathtaking Los Angeles Times exposé on the 18th Street Gang, which
included descriptions of innocent bystanders being murdered by
laughing cholos (gang members), revealed the rate of illegal-alien
membership in the gang. In response to the public outcry, the Los
Angeles City Council ordered the police to reexamine Special Order 40.
You would have thought it had suggested reconsidering Roe v. Wade. A
police commander warned the council: "This is going to open a
significant, heated debate." City Councilwoman Laura Chick put on a
brave front: "We mustn’t be afraid," she declared firmly.
But of course immigrant pandering trumped public safety. Law-abiding
residents of gang-infested neighborhoods may live in terror of the
tattooed gangbangers dealing drugs, spraying graffiti, and shooting up
rivals outside their homes, but such anxiety can never equal a
politician’s fear of offending Hispanics. At the start of the
reexamination process, LAPD deputy chief John White had argued that
allowing the department to work closely with the INS would give cops
another tool for getting gang members off the streets. Trying to build
a homicide case, say, against an illegal gang member is often futile,
he explained, since witnesses fear deadly retaliation if they
cooperate with the police. Enforcing an immigration violation would
allow the cops to lock up the murderer right now, without putting a
witness’s life at risk.
But six months later, Deputy Chief White had changed his tune: "Any
broadening of the policy gets us into the immigration business," he
asserted. "It’s a federal law-enforcement issue, not a local
law-enforcement issue." Interim police chief Bayan Lewis told the L.A.
Police Commission: "It is not the time. It is not the day to look at
Special Order 40."
Nor will it ever be, as long as immigration numbers continue to grow.
After their brief moment of truth in 1996, Los Angeles politicians
have only grown more adamant in defense of Special Order 40. After
learning that cops in the scandal-plagued Rampart Division had
cooperated with the INS to try to uproot murderous gang members from
the community, local politicians threw a fit, criticizing district
commanders for even allowing INS agents into their station houses. In
turn, the LAPD strictly disciplined the offending officers. By now,
big-city police chiefs are unfortunately just as determined to defend
sanctuary policies as the politicians who appoint them; not so the
rank and file, however, who see daily the benefit that an immigration
tool would bring.
Immigration politics have similarly harmed New York. Former mayor
Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend
the city’s sanctuary policy against a 1996 federal law decreeing that
cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the
INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. The INS, he claimed, with
what turned out to be grotesque irony, only aims to "terrorize
people." Though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On
September 5, 2001, his handpicked charter-revision committee ruled
that New York could still require that its employees keep immigration
information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and
government. Six days later, several visa-overstayers participated in
the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.
New York conveniently forgot the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary laws
until a gang of five Mexicans - four of them illegal - abducted and
brutally raped a 42-year-old mother of two near some railroad tracks
in Queens. The NYPD had already arrested three of the illegal aliens
numerous times for such crimes as assault, attempted robbery, criminal
trespass, illegal gun possession, and drug offenses. The department
had never notified the INS.
Citizen outrage forced Mayor Michael Bloomberg to revisit the city’s
sanctuary decree yet again. In May 2003, Bloomberg tweaked the policy
minimally to allow city staffers to inquire into immigration status
only if it is relevant to the awarding of a government benefit. Though
Bloomberg’s new rule said nothing about reporting immigration
violations to federal officials, advocates immediately claimed that it
did allow such reporting, and the ethnic lobbies went ballistic. "What
we’re seeing is the erosion of people’s rights," thundered Angelo
Falcon of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. After
three months of intense agitation by immigrant groups, Bloomberg
replaced this innocuous "don’t ask" policy with a "don’t tell" rule
even broader than Gotham’s original sanctuary policy. The new rule
prohibits city employees from giving other government officials
information not just about immigration status but about tax payments,
sexual orientation, welfare status, and other matters.
But even were immigrant-saturated cities to discard their sanctuary
policies and start enforcing immigration violations where public
safety demands it, the resource-starved immigration authorities
couldn’t handle the overwhelming additional workload.
The chronic shortage of manpower to oversee, and detention space to
house, aliens as they await their deportation hearings (or, following
an order of removal from a federal judge, their actual deportation)
has forced immigration officials to practice a constant triage. Long
ago, the feds stopped trying to find and deport aliens who had
"merely" entered the country illegally through stealth or fraudulent
documents. Currently, the only types of illegal aliens who run any
risk of catching federal attention are those who have been convicted
of an "aggravated felony" (a particularly egregious crime) or who have
been deported following conviction for an aggravated felony and who
have reentered (an offense punishable with 20 years in jail).
That triage has been going on for a long time, as former INS
investigator Mike Cutler, who worked with the NYPD catching Brooklyn
drug dealers in the 1970s, explains. "If you arrested someone you
wanted to detain, you’d go to your boss and start a bidding war,"
Cutler recalls. "You’d say: 'My guy ran three blocks, threw a couple
of punches, and had six pieces of ID.' The boss would turn to another
agent: 'Next! Whaddid your guy do?' 'He ran 18 blocks, pushed over an
old lady, and had a gun.' - But such one-upmanship was usually
fruitless. "Without the jail space," explains Cutler, "it was like the
Fish and Wildlife Service; you’d tag their ear and let them go."
But even when immigration officials actually arrest someone, and even
if a judge issues a final deportation order (usually after years of
litigation and appeals), they rarely have the manpower to put the
alien on a bus or plane and take him across the border. Second
alternative: detain him pending removal. Again, inadequate space and
staff. In the early 1990s, for example, 15 INS officers were in charge
of the deportation of approximately 85,000 aliens (not all of them
criminals) in New York City. The agency’s actual response to final
orders of removal was what is known as a "run letter" - a notice
asking the deportable alien kindly to show up in a month or two to be
deported, when the agency might be able to process him. Results: in
2001, 87 percent of deportable aliens who received run letters
disappeared, a number that was even higher - 94 percent - if they were
from terror-sponsoring countries.
To other law-enforcement agencies, the feds’ triage often looks like
complete indifference to immigration violations. Testifying to
Congress about the Queens rape by illegal Mexicans, New York’s
criminal justice coordinator defended the city’s failure to notify the
INS after the rapists’ previous arrests on the ground that the agency
wouldn’t have responded anyway. "We have time and time again been
unable to reach INS on the phone," John Feinblatt said last February.
"When we reach them on the phone, they require that we write a letter.
When we write a letter, they require that it be by a superior."
Criminal aliens also interpret the triage as indifference. John
Mullaly a former NYPD homicide detective, estimates that 70 percent of
the drug dealers and other criminals in Manhattan’s Washington Heights
were illegal. Were Mullaly to threaten an illegal-alien thug in
custody that his next stop would be El Salvador unless he cooperated,
the criminal would just laugh, knowing that the INS would never show
up. The message could not be clearer: this is a culture that can’t
enforce its most basic law of entry. If policing’s
broken-windowstheory is correct, the failure to enforce one set of
rules breeds overall contempt for the law.
The sheer number of criminal aliens overwhelmed an innovative program
that would allow immigration officials to complete deportation
hearings while a criminal was still in state or federal prison, so
that upon his release he could be immediately ejected without taking
up precious INS detention space. But the process, begun in 1988,
immediately bogged down due to the numbers - in 2000, for example,
nearly 30 percent of federal prisoners were foreign-born. The agency
couldn’t find enough pro bono attorneys to represent such an army of
criminal aliens (who have extensive due-process rights in contesting
deportation) and so would have to request delay after delay. Or enough
immigration judges would not be available. In 1997, the INS simply had
no record of a whopping 36 percent of foreign-born inmates who had
been released from federal and four state prisons without any review
of their deportability. They included 1,198 aggravated felons, 80 of
whom were soon re-arrested for new crimes.
Resource starvation is not the only reason for federal inaction. The
INS was a creature of immigration politics, and INS district directors
came under great pressure from local politicians to divert scarce
resources into distribution of such "benefits" as permanent residency,
citizenship, and work permits, and away from criminal or other
investigations. In the late 1980s, for example, the INS refused to
join an FBI task force against Haitian drug trafficking in Miami,
fearing criticism for "Haitian-bashing." In 1997, after Hispanic
activists protested a much-publicized raid that netted nearly two
dozen illegals, the Border Patrol said that it would no longer join
Simi Valley, California, probation officers on home searches of
illegal-alien-dominated gangs.
The disastrous Citizenship USA project of 1996 was a luminous case of
politics driving the INS to sacrifice enforcement to "benefits." When,
in the early 1990s, the prospect of welfare reform drove immigrants to
apply for citizenship in record numbers to preserve their welfare
eligibility, the Clinton administration, seeing a political bonanza in
hundreds of thousands of new welfare-dependent citizens, ordered the
naturalization process radically expedited. Thanks to relentless
administration pressure, processing errors in 1996 were 99 percent in
New York and 90 percent in Los Angeles, and tens of thousands of
aliens with criminal records, including for murder and armed robbery,
were naturalized.
Another powerful political force, the immigration bar association, has
won from Congress an elaborate set of due-process rights for criminal
aliens that can keep them in the country indefinitely. Federal
probation officers in Brooklyn are supervising two illegals-a
Jordanian and an Egyptian with Saudi citizenship - who look "ready to
blow up the Statue of Liberty," according to a probation official, but
the officers can’t get rid of them. The Jordanian had been caught
fencing stolen Social Security and tax-refund checks; now he sells
phone cards, which he uses himself to make untraceable calls. The
Saudi’s offense: using a fraudulent Social Security number to get
employment - a puzzlingly unnecessary scam, since he receives large
sums from the Middle East, including from millionaire relatives. But
intelligence links him to terrorism, so presumably he worked in order
not to draw attention to himself. Currently, he changes his cell phone
every month. Ordinarily such a minor offense would not be prosecuted,
but the government, fearing that he had terrorist intentions, used
whatever it had to put him in prison.
Now, probation officers desperately want to see the duo out of the
country, but the two ex-cons have hired lawyers, who are relentlessly
fighting their deportation. "Due process allows you to stay for years
without an adjudication," says a probation officer in frustration. "A
regular immigration attorney can keep you in the country for three
years, a high-priced one for ten." In the meantime, Brooklyn probation
officials are watching the bridges.
Even where immigration officials successfully nab and deport criminal
aliens, the reality, says a former federal gang prosecutor, is that
"they all come back. They can’t make it in Mexico." The tens of
thousands of illegal farmworkers and dishwashers who overpower U.S.
border controls every year carry in their wake thousands of brutal
assailants and terrorists who use the same smuggling industry and who
benefit from the same irresistible odds: there are so many more of
them than the Border Patrol.
For, of course, the government’s inability to keep out criminal aliens
is part and parcel of its inability to patrol the border, period. For
decades, the INS had as much effect on the migration of millions of
illegals as a can tied to the tail of a tiger. And the immigrants
themselves, despite the press cliché of hapless aliens living
fearfully in the shadows, seemed to regard immigration authorities
with all the concern of an elephant for a flea.
Certainly fear of immigration officers is not in evidence among the
hundreds of illegal day laborers who hang out on Roosevelt Avenue in
Queens, New York, in front of money wire services, travel agencies,
immigration-attorney offices, and phone arcades, all catering to the
local Hispanic population (as well as to drug dealers and terrorists).
"There is no chance of getting caught," cheerfully explains Rafael, an
Ecuadoran. Like the dozen Ecuadorans and Mexicans on his particular
corner, Rafael is hoping that an SUV seeking carpenters for $100 a day
will show up soon. "We don’t worry, because we’re not doing anything
wrong. I know it’s illegal; I need the papers, but here, nobody asks
you for papers."
Even the newly fortified Mexican border, the one spot where the
government really tries to prevent illegal immigration, looms as only
a minor inconvenience to the day laborers. The odds, they realize, are
overwhelmingly in their favor. Miguel, a reserved young carpenter,
crossed the border at Tijuana three years ago with 15 others. Border
Patrol spotted them, but with six officers to 16 illegals, only five
got caught. In illegal border crossings, you get what you pay for,
Miguel says. If you try to shave on the fee, the coyotes will abandon
you at the first problem. Miguel’s wife was flying into New York from
Los Angeles that very day; it had cost him $2,200 to get her across
the border. "Because I pay, I don’t worry," he says complacently.
The only way to dampen illegal immigration and its attendant train of
criminals and terrorists - short of an economic revolution in the
sending countries or an impregnably militarized border - is to remove
the jobs magnet. As long as migrants know they can easily get work,
they will find ways to evade border controls. But enforcing laws
against illegal labor is among government’s lowest priorities. In
2001, only 124 agents nationwide were trying to find and prosecute the
hundreds of thousands of employers and millions of illegal aliens who
violate the employment laws, the Associated Press reports.
Even were immigration officials to devote adequate resources to
worksite investigations, not much would change, because their legal
weapons are so weak. That’s no accident: though it is a crime to hire
illegal aliens, a coalition of libertarians, business lobbies, and
left-wing advocates has consistently blocked the fraud-proof form of
work authorization necessary to enforce that ban. Libertarians have
erupted in hysteria at such proposals as a toll-free number to the
Social Security Administration for employers to confirm Social
Security numbers. Hispanics warn just as stridently that helping
employers verify work eligibility would result in discrimination
against Hispanics - implicitly conceding that vast numbers of
Hispanics work illegally.
The result: hiring practices in illegal-immigrant-saturated industries
are a charade. Millions of illegal workers pretend to present valid
documents, and thousands of employers pretend to believe them. The law
doesn’t require the employer to verify that a worker is actually
qualified to work, and as long as the proffered documents are not
patently phony - scrawled with red crayon on a matchbook, say - the
employer will nearly always be exempt from liability merely by having
eyeballed them. To find an employer guilty of violating the ban on
hiring illegal aliens, immigration authorities must prove that he knew
he was getting fake papers - an almost insurmountable burden.
Meanwhile, the market for counterfeit documents has exploded: in one
month alone in 1998, immigration authorities seized nearly 2 million
of them in Los Angeles, destined for immigrant workers, welfare
seekers, criminals, and terrorists.
For illegal workers and employers, there is no downside to the
employment charade. If immigration officials ever do try to conduct an
industry-wide investigation - which will at least net the illegal
employees, if not the employers - local congressmen will almost
certainly head it off. An INS inquiry into the Vidalia-onion industry
in Georgia was not only aborted by Georgia’s congressional delegation;
it actually resulted in a local amnesty for the growers’ illegal
workforce. The downside to complying with the spirit of the employment
law, on the other hand, is considerable. Ethnic advocacy groups are
ready to picket employers who dismiss illegal workers, and employers
understandably fear being undercut by less scrupulous competitors.
Of the incalculable changes in American politics, demographics, and
culture that the continuing surge of migrants is causing, one of the
most profound is the breakdown of the distinction between legal and
illegal entry. Everywhere, illegal aliens receive free public
education and free medical care at taxpayer expense; 13 states offer
them driver’s licenses. States everywhere have been pushed to grant
illegal aliens college scholarships and reduced in-state tuition. One
hundred banks, over 800 law-enforcement agencies, and dozens of cities
accept an identification card created by Mexico to credentialize
illegal Mexican aliens in the U.S. The Bush administration has given
its blessing to this matricula consular card, over the strong protest
of the FBI, which warns that the gaping security loopholes that the
card creates make it a boon to money launderers, immigrant smugglers,
and terrorists. Border authorities have already caught an Iranian man
sneaking across the border this year, Mexican matricula card in hand.
Hispanic advocates have helped blur the distinction between a legal
and an illegal resident by asserting that differentiating the two is
an act of irrational bigotry. Arrests of illegal aliens inside the
border now inevitably spark protests, often led by the Mexican
government, that feature signs calling for "no más racismo." Immigrant
advocates use the language of "human rights" to appeal to an authority
higher than such trivia as citizenship laws. They attack the term
"amnesty" for implicitly acknowledging the validity of borders.
Indeed, grouses Illinois congressman Luis Gutierrez, "There’s an
implication that somehow you did something wrong and you need to be
forgiven."
Illegal aliens and their advocates speak loudly about what they think
the U.S. owes them, not vice versa. "I believe they have a right . . .
to work, to drive their kids to school," said California assemblywoman
Sarah Reyes. An immigration agent says that people he stops "get in
your face about their rights, because our failure to enforce the law
emboldens them." Taking this idea to its extreme, Joaquín Avila, a
UCLA Chicano studies professor and law lecturer, argues that to deny
non-citizens the vote, especially in the many California cities where
they constitute the majority, is a form of apartheid.
Yet no poll has ever shown that Americans want more open borders.
Quite the reverse. By a huge majority - at least 60 percent - they
want to rein in immigration, and they endorse an observation that
Senator Alan Simpson made 20 years ago: Americans "are fed up with
efforts to make them feel that [they] do not have that fundamental
right of any people, to decide who will join them and help form the
future country in which they and their posterity will live." But if
the elites’ and the advocates’ idea of giving voting rights to
non-citizen majorities catches on - and don’t be surprised if it does
- Americans could be faced with the ultimate absurdity of people
outside the social compact making rules for those inside it.
However the nation ultimately decides to rationalize its chaotic and
incoherent immigration system, surely all can agree that, at a
minimum, authorities should expel illegal-alien criminals swiftly.
Even on the grounds of protecting non-criminal illegal immigrants, we
should start by junking sanctuary policies. By stripping cops of what
may be their only immediate tool to remove felons from the community,
these policies leave law-abiding immigrants prey to crime.
But the non-enforcement of immigration laws in general has an even
more destructive effect. In many immigrant communities, assimilation
into gangs seems to be outstripping assimilation into civic culture.
Toddlers are learning to flash gang signals and hate the police,
reports the Los Angeles Times. In New York City, "every high school
has its Mexican gang," and most 12- to 14-year-olds have already
joined, claims Ernesto Vega, an illegal 18-year-old Mexican. Such
pathologies only worsen when the first lesson that immigrants learn
about U.S. law is that Americans don’t bother to enforce it.
"Institutionalizing illegal immigration creates a mindset in people
that anything goes in the U.S.," observes Patrick Ortega, the news and
public-affairs director of Radio Nueva Vida in southern California.
"It creates a new subculture, with a sequela of social ills." It is
broken windows writ large.
For the sake of immigrants and native-born Americans alike, it’s time
to decide what our immigration policy is - and enforce it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "none" |
|
| Title: Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X rated rant full of sexual content! Liberals Hate America! |
12 Aug 2004 05:26:43 AM |
|
|
Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X rated rant full of sexual content!
Liberals Hate America!
July 09, 2004
Kerry: I Don't Have Time For Briefings
On CNN last night, Larry King interviewed John Kerry on the status of
his campaign for president. On literally the first substantial
question of the interview, Kerry demonstrated why he is unfit for the
presidency during a time of war:
[KING:]Let's get to, first thing's first, news of the day. Tom Ridge
warned today about al Qaeda plans of a large-scale attack on the
United States, didn't increase the -- do you see any politics in this?
What's your
reaction?
KERRY: Well, I haven't been briefed yet, Larry. They have offered to
brief me; I just haven't had time [emph mine -- CE]. But all Americans
are united in our efforts to defeat terrorism.
I believe that John Edwards and I can wage a far more effective war on
terror than George Bush has. I think we can do a better job of making
America safe. But in these days ahead, we all join together no matter
what.
I'd say it's hard for Kerry to know what he can do in waging war on
terrorists if he doesn't even have time to be briefed on our progress
and the threats arrayed against us. Is he kidding? What could possibly
be more important to a nation at war, and to its leadership, than to
maintain a constant pulse on intelligence and military operations? The
Bush administration even offered to get him in for a briefing, and
apparently he refused.
Expect to see this on a Bush campaign ad really soon. It demonstrates
that the Democratic nominee does not take this issue seriously,
especially when you see where he happened to go after his interview
with King ended. Here's the briefing that Kerry and Edwards felt was
more important than a national-security briefing:
Whoopi Goldberg delivered an X-rated rant full of sexual innuendoes
against President Bush last night at a Radio City gala that raised
$7.5 million for the newly minted Democratic ticket of John Kerry and
John
Edwards.
Waving a bottle of wine, she fired off a stream of vulgar sexual
wordplays on Bush's name in a riff about female genitalia, and boasted
that she'd refused to let Team Kerry clear her material. ...
Singer John Mellencamp sang a specially written song that called the
president "just another cheap thug" and ridiculed him as the "Texas
bambino." ...
Also on the Bush-bashing team was comedian Chevy Chase, who claimed
the president is dumb as "an egg-timer" and said Edwards will make
Vice President ***** Cheney look "as bright as a bundt cake" when they
debate next fall. Latin comedian John Leguizamo said he refuses to
believe there are any Hispanic Republicans, claiming that's "an
oxymoron," because "Latins for Republicans - it's like roaches for
Raid."
Kerry could be seen laughing uproariously during part of Goldberg's
tirade - and neither he nor Edwards voiced a single objection to its
tone when they spoke to the crowd. They hailed the fund-raiser as a
great event. Edwards said it was "a great honor" to be there and
insisted, "This campaign will be a celebration of real American
values."
So this is the Democratic ticket -- they feel that vulgar "comedy" and
stuffing money into their pockets from Hollywood elite take a higher
priority than determining the safety and security of our country. If
you
agree with Edwards that this celebrates "real American values," you
have your dream ticket right here. For the rest of us with functioning
cerebral cortexes, this shows without a doubt that the Kerry/Edwards
ticket is a fiasco for America.
---------
Liberals Hate America!
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
