Ever wonder how many bricks were delivered to Congress (the Senate in particular) during the recent debate over immigration? Or about what happened to them once they arrived?

Well, here are your answers.

If the impact was notable, so were the logistical difficulties, particularly given the mail screening and other protective measures put into effect at the Capitol after the anthrax attacks of 2001.

Initially, organizers of the Send-a-Brick Project encouraged people to send bricks on their own, and Ms. Heffron said things had gone relatively smoothly.

But many people, she said, preferred that the organization itself send the bricks and an accompanying letter to selected lawmakers.

The project will do it for an $11.95 fee. So when 2,000 individually boxed bricks showed up at once, Senate officials balked, threatening to force the group to pay postage to have each delivered to its intended recipient. The dispute left the bricks stacked up until an agreement to distribute them was worked out.

"We received them and we delivered them to all the addressees," said a spokeswoman for the office of the Senate sergeant-at-arms.

As the bricks landed in Congressional mailrooms and cramped offices, the effort was applauded in some offices but drew a bemused response elsewhere.

"Given the approval ratings of Congress these days, I guess we should all be grateful the bricks are coming through the mail, not the window," said Dan Pfeiffer, a spokesman for Senator Evan Bayh, Democrat of Indiana.

The senders of the bricks were encouraged to add a letter telling lawmakers that the brick represented a start on building a border wall.

Many could not resist putting their own message on the bricks. "No Amnesty," said a typical one, referring to a contested Senate plan to allow some illegal immigrants to qualify eventually for citizenship. "Stop the Invasion, Build a Wall," said another brick painted like a flag and shown on the group's Web site at www.send-a-brick.com.

Besides the border fence, the group supports technology improvements for border security, added money and personnel for the Border Patrol and an enhanced security presence in general on the southern border.

The brick effort was scheduled to wind down this week, though the organization encouraged people to continue if they desired.

On Tuesday, representatives of the architect of the Capitol collected bricks from lawmakers' offices and stacked them on loading docks with plans to donate them to a nonprofit group.

This is actually a pretty fun article -- though it shows just how out of contact some of our legislators really are.

Posted by: Greg at 03:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 425 words, total size 3 kb.

That is what I'm getting from this post over at Euphoric Reality. Here are some of the elements the new "immigration bill" includes, according to Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Robert Rector.

*The bill supposedly would protect American workers by ensuring that new immigrants would not take away jobs. However, the bill's definition of ''United States worker'' includes temporary foreign guest workers, so the protection is meaningless.

*It extends the Davis-Bacon Act's requirement for the payment of ''prevailing wage'' to all temporary guest workers. That puts them ahead of Americans, who have this protection only on federal job sites.

*Foreign guest farm workers, admitted under the bill, cannot be ''terminated from employment by any employer ... except for just cause.'' In contrast, American ag workers can be fired for any reason.

Now what that means is that foreign workers admitted under the guest-worker provisions won't just get "jobs that Americans won't do" -- they potentially can get jobs that Americans want to do, if the employer prefers to hire foreign workers. It guarantees them the "prevailing wage" -- usually the union scale, while not guaranteein American workers that wage. Furthermore, it eliminates the "at will" employment provisions of most state laws in relation to these foreign workers -- meaning that they have a level of job security denied American citizens. So let's see here -- equal rights to American jobs, higher wages guaranteed, and more job security than American workers have. Remind me whose county this is again, and who the members of the US Senate represent?

Kate O'Beirne and Mickey Kaus have more.

Posted by: Greg at 03:12 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 286 words, total size 2 kb.

Michelle Malkin has details on this shocking provision of the Senate immigration bill, as well as the granting of amnesty to everyone who can walk, run, crawl, jump, fly or swim into the USA.

Does the Senate immigration bill essentially give Mexico veto power over our border fences? Hearing this from several readers and sources. Reader Greg writes:

Senator Cornyn gave Lou Dobbs a statement saying the last-minute Amendment SA 41[8]8 says Mexico must be consulted before any fence is constructed.

From F/R thread:

I heard this on Sean Hannity's Fox Radio broadcast a short while ago and just now on "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN:

Arlen Specter, according to Congressman John Kyl of Arizona, slipped a provision into the Immigration Bill the Senate passed today requiring the U.S. to consult with Mexico BEFORE building a wall in any area along the border.

I'm checking into it. If anyone has more specific info, please send along. Update: It's Dem Sen. Chris Dodd's amendment included in Specter's manager's package that passed.

The Senate by Cboldt blog reports:

UPDATE @ 17:16 - Senator Specter notes that the managers package is ready for a vote, he says that it (the package) makes making sausage look good. Senator Kyl asks to speak for one minute on the managers amendment. He says it has been in busy negotiations, right up until now. Federal, state and local entities in the US would be required to consult with Mexican government before building a wall. I predict this amendment, S.Amdt.4188, will pass. Off to find the language that Senator Kyl referred to.

UPDATE @ 17:23 - Found it. Senator Dodd talked against a fence on May 18, and his S.Amdt.4089 contains the following language:

(b) CONSULTATION REQUIREMENT.--Consultations between United States and Mexican authorities at the federal, state, and local levels concerning the construction of additional fencing and related border security structures along the United States-Mexico border shall be undertaken prior to commencing any new construction, in order to solicit the views of affected communities, lessen tensions and foster greater understanding and stronger cooperation on this and other important issues of mutual concern.

UPDATE @ 17:40 - Bonus prediction (the managers' amendment), now four for four. Senator Frist voted against the managers' amendment, for what it's worth.

S.Amdt.4188 - Specter: Managers' amendment, a collection of amendments, including Dodd's S.Amdt.4089 that requires local, state and federal governments to consult with Mexican counterpart authorities before commencing new construction, was PASSED on a 56 - 41 vote.

Republicans who voted for the Mexican consultation requirement:

Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Chafee, Coleman, Collins, Craig, Graham, Hagel, Lugar, Feingold, Collins, McCain, Specter, Stevens, Warner, Martinez, Murkowski, Snowe and Voinovich

Dems who voted against:

Lincoln

Let's hope the House of Representatives stands tough -- but based upon recent actions related to the Jefferson case, I'm not hopeful.

Posted by: Greg at 02:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 483 words, total size 4 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

I've have no desire to ignore employers -- and neither do any of the other conservative bloggers I know.

Just once, I'd like to see a corporate executive whose company has knowingly hired illegal immigrants doing the perp walk for his offenses --- handcuffed, disgraced, chaperoned by law enforcement officials as cameras record his every tentative step. For just a few days, I'd like to see the conservative blogosphere roasting the textile mill managers and onion field owners who routinely make a mockery of immigration law with a wink and a nod at forged documents.

I don’t disagree up to this point – and have seen many of my fellow bloggers make exactly that point. We would like to see much greater enforcement of employer sanctions. In fact, one reason we don’t like the amnesty proposals set out by the hug-a-wetback crowd is because we recall that the last time there was an amnesty (back in 1986), the feds quickly dropped all pretense of employer sanctions once the amnesty was in place. Indeed, that simply opened the floodgates, as more and more illegals came with the certainty (confirmed by current rhetoric) that another amnesty would come once critical mass was reached. We don’t blame these folks for wanting to come to America – we blame their governments for pushing them north and or government for doing so little to stem their tidal flow.

That is why I am outraged by the next part of this column.

Business executives remain a core Republican constituency, so it's unlikely they'll end up facing criminal charges for illegal hiring. Besides, darker-hued Mexicans and Guatemalans seem to make more inviting targets than middle-aged white men.

From time to time, I've suggested that the most inflammatory rhetoric swirling at the fringes of the illegal immigration debate is born not of legitimate concern about overwhelmed social services but rather out of an old-fashioned xenophobia that cannot accept "the other." That suggestion is usually greeted with denunciations from critics who claim they merely want the nation to enforce its laws.

So why is there so little criticism of business executives who routinely flout the law? Why has the legislation endorsed by law-and-order Republicans emphasized border security but slighted workplace enforcement?

Are there some xenophobes out there? Yeah – but most are much more concerned about law and order than the Latin Peril. While many of us are concerned about the displacement of America’s culture, history, and language, we are more concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. And the Sensenbrenner bill (supported by most conservative bloggers) did include harsh sanctions against employers – it is the Senate bill and the President’s proposal, both trashed as harsh by the liberals, that fails to substantially address the demand side of the illegal immigration equation.

So while Cynthia Tucker wants to make it about race, for most conservatives it is not. I guess it is just her reflexive liberalism requiring that anything involving conservatives ultimately come back to our presumed racistsexisthomophobicfascist tendencies. Too bad she cannot move past that crap and stay on point, for she has a good one.

She is, after all, right when she notes the failure of government to act to stop employers from hiring illegals.

The more promising solution lies in cutting off the flow of jobs. If a few business executives were imprisoned for illegal hiring, the practice would experience a sudden drop in popularity. And if our southern neighbors come to understand that there is no work available for undocumented workers, fewer --- far fewer --- will try to sneak into this country.

The technology required to implement a nationwide system for instant verification of Social Security numbers would be much cheaper and more reliable than the motion detectors, dirigibles, unmanned predator drones and other high-dollar gizmos that Homeland Security wants to buy for the southern border. It would work as easily and quickly as an instant credit check. With such a system, business owners could be required to verify employment status; they'd lose the ruse of forged documents. But Congress has not appropriated funds to develop a nationwide verification tool.

Nor has it made any effort to remove the myopic regulations that hinder workplace enforcement. For example, the Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ lots of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security.

Don't think this useless system results from mere oversight or incompetence. The dysfunctional hodgepodge of regulations is preferred by the GOP, its business constituency and more than a few middle-class Americans, who benefit from cheap labor. Sure, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has started to do a few high-profile raids of factories and fields certain to yield undocumented laborers. But those raids will wither away after November.

I cannot disagree with a word she says on the matter. We have the technology, but not the will to use it. Let’s send Congress and this administration the message that it is time to take real steps against employers of illegals.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 915 words, total size 6 kb.

UPDATE: I seem to have used a certain term in this post, a term that I have always understood as referring to immigration status, but which i am now informed is racially/ethnically insensitive. I apologize. I won't change the word on my site, though, because I do not go back and hide my mistakes or bury evidence of my own errors.

I've have no desire to ignore employers -- and neither do any of the other conservative bloggers I know.

Just once, I'd like to see a corporate executive whose company has knowingly hired illegal immigrants doing the perp walk for his offenses --- handcuffed, disgraced, chaperoned by law enforcement officials as cameras record his every tentative step. For just a few days, I'd like to see the conservative blogosphere roasting the textile mill managers and onion field owners who routinely make a mockery of immigration law with a wink and a nod at forged documents.

I don’t disagree up to this point – and have seen many of my fellow bloggers make exactly that point. We would like to see much greater enforcement of employer sanctions. In fact, one reason we don’t like the amnesty proposals set out by the hug-a-wetback crowd is because we recall that the last time there was an amnesty (back in 1986), the feds quickly dropped all pretense of employer sanctions once the amnesty was in place. Indeed, that simply opened the floodgates, as more and more illegals came with the certainty (confirmed by current rhetoric) that another amnesty would come once critical mass was reached. We don’t blame these folks for wanting to come to America – we blame their governments for pushing them north and or government for doing so little to stem their tidal flow.

That is why I am outraged by the next part of this column.

Business executives remain a core Republican constituency, so it's unlikely they'll end up facing criminal charges for illegal hiring. Besides, darker-hued Mexicans and Guatemalans seem to make more inviting targets than middle-aged white men.

From time to time, I've suggested that the most inflammatory rhetoric swirling at the fringes of the illegal immigration debate is born not of legitimate concern about overwhelmed social services but rather out of an old-fashioned xenophobia that cannot accept "the other." That suggestion is usually greeted with denunciations from critics who claim they merely want the nation to enforce its laws.

So why is there so little criticism of business executives who routinely flout the law? Why has the legislation endorsed by law-and-order Republicans emphasized border security but slighted workplace enforcement?

Are there some xenophobes out there? Yeah – but most are much more concerned about law and order than the Latin Peril. While many of us are concerned about the displacement of America’s culture, history, and language, we are more concerned about the economic impact of illegal immigration. And the Sensenbrenner bill (supported by most conservative bloggers) did include harsh sanctions against employers – it is the Senate bill and the President’s proposal, both trashed as harsh by the liberals, that fails to substantially address the demand side of the illegal immigration equation.

So while Cynthia Tucker wants to make it about race, for most conservatives it is not. I guess it is just her reflexive liberalism requiring that anything involving conservatives ultimately come back to our presumed racistsexisthomophobicfascist tendencies. Too bad she cannot move past that crap and stay on point, for she has a good one.

She is, after all, right when she notes the failure of government to act to stop employers from hiring illegals.

The more promising solution lies in cutting off the flow of jobs. If a few business executives were imprisoned for illegal hiring, the practice would experience a sudden drop in popularity. And if our southern neighbors come to understand that there is no work available for undocumented workers, fewer --- far fewer --- will try to sneak into this country.

The technology required to implement a nationwide system for instant verification of Social Security numbers would be much cheaper and more reliable than the motion detectors, dirigibles, unmanned predator drones and other high-dollar gizmos that Homeland Security wants to buy for the southern border. It would work as easily and quickly as an instant credit check. With such a system, business owners could be required to verify employment status; they'd lose the ruse of forged documents. But Congress has not appropriated funds to develop a nationwide verification tool.

Nor has it made any effort to remove the myopic regulations that hinder workplace enforcement. For example, the Social Security Administration is able to identify companies that routinely employ lots of workers using fake numbers. But by law, Social Security is forbidden from forwarding the names of those companies to Homeland Security.

Don't think this useless system results from mere oversight or incompetence. The dysfunctional hodgepodge of regulations is preferred by the GOP, its business constituency and more than a few middle-class Americans, who benefit from cheap labor. Sure, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has started to do a few high-profile raids of factories and fields certain to yield undocumented laborers. But those raids will wither away after November.

I cannot disagree with a word she says on the matter. We have the technology, but not the will to use it. LetÂ’s send Congress and this administration the message that it is time to take real steps against employers of illegals.

Posted by: Greg at 04:18 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 921 words, total size 6 kb.

Let's treat Mexicans like Mexico treats Americans and other foreigners.

Even as Mexico presses the United States to grant unrestricted citizenship to millions of undocumented Mexican migrants, its officials at times calling U.S. policies "xenophobic," Mexico places daunting limitations on anyone born outside its territory.

In the United States, only two posts — the presidency and vice presidency — are reserved for the native born.

In Mexico, non-natives are banned from those and thousands of other jobs, even if they are legal, naturalized citizens.

Foreign-born Mexicans can't hold seats in either house of the congress. They're also banned from state legislatures, the Supreme Court and all governorships. Many states ban foreign-born Mexicans from spots on town councils. And Mexico's Constitution reserves almost all federal posts, and any position in the military and merchant marine, for "native-born Mexicans."

Recently the Mexican government has gone even further. Since at least 2003, it has encouraged cities to ban non-natives from such local jobs as firefighters, police and judges.

Mexico's Interior Department — which recommended the bans as part of "model" city statutes it distributed to local officials — could cite no basis for extending the bans to local posts.

One more reason to close the southern border and deport the immigration criminals who stream in from Mexico.

Posted by: Greg at 12:08 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 220 words, total size 2 kb.

This US diplomat is undercutting the immigration policies of the United States. As such, US Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza needs to be fired by the President -- or Congress needs to act to force his resignation.

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza described building a fence along the U.S.-Mexico border as un-American in a speech to the University of Texas at Austin graduating class Saturday night.

"Simply building walls does not speak America to me," said Garza, a former Texas railroad commissioner and a close friend to President Bush. "I know we can be both a welcoming society and a secure and lawful one."

Congress currently is debating proposals for building fences as a means of controlling illegal immigration. President Bush, who has opposed fences in the past, this week endorsed a limited fence-building proposal for Arizona and California.

The Chonicle calls his speech "a message of tolerance for the millions of Latin American immigrants who have poured into the United States in recent years". That is a miccharacterization. Garza's speech was nothing less than an apologia for law-breaking and border-jumping by those who disrespect our country, and a call for more of the same. As such, Tony Garza does not speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans -- and if President Bush does not wish to further alienate the American people, he needs to fire his old friend immediately, for it is his message that is truly un-American.

OPEN TRACKBACKING: Conservative Cat, Outside the Beltway, Samantha Burns, Liberal Wrong Wing, Business of America is Business, Third World County, Adam's Blog, Blue Star Chronicles, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 05:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 282 words, total size 3 kb.

Send this guy back to Honduras -- not only is he here illegally, but he clearly doesn't understand the American concept of freedom of speech.

An Honduran teenager arrested for stealing an anti-immigration protest sign is facing deportation after authorities discovered he was allegedly in the country illegally, authorities said.

Joel Martines, 19, was arrested last Thursday after he allegedly stole a sign being carried by an anti-immigration protester outside a 7-11 convenience store, Southampton police said.

The site is popular with day laborers, many of whom are suspected of being in the country illegally, and has lately been the scene of protests by those favoring strict enforcement of immigration laws.

In addition to being charged with the felony theft of the sign, Martines was also charged with a misdemeanor for allegedly giving police false information about his age and identity.

While in custody, officials from the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency then determined that Martines allegedly entered the country illegally on Feb. 21, 2005, through Eagle Pass, Texas.

A spokeswoman for the Suffolk County District Attorney's office could not immediately say whether Martines was still in the custody of local authorities, or whether he was being processed by ICE officials.

Let's keep him here just long enough to get him the felony conviction needed to permanently bar him from US under the new Senate immigration bill. He is not needed or wanted here.

Posted by: Greg at 02:02 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 236 words, total size 2 kb.

Suffice it to say that virtually no one is happy with the proposal put forward in last night's speech by the President last night.

President Bush said last night that he will dispatch 6,000 National Guard troops starting next month to help secure the porous U.S.-Mexican border, calling on a divided Congress and country to find "a rational middle ground" on immigration that includes providing millions of illegal workers a new route to citizenship.

"We do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that," Bush said. He also called on Congress to end the U.S. practice of releasing into the country tens of thousands of people caught illegally crossing the southern border because officials lack the jail space or legal authority to detain them or send them home. He said every foreign worker should be required to hold a high-tech, tamper-proof identification card so U.S. companies could determine whether their employees are legal.

Unfortunately, this plan is flawed. The troops deployed to the border region are there for purposes of pushing paper, not stopping the flow of foreign invaders into the southwerstern part of the United States. Rather than stopping incursions by Mexican troops bringing illegal people and illegal drugs across the border, they will be filling out forms, processing paperwork, and answering phones.

In a rare prime-time speech from the Oval Office, Bush said the nation must move immediately to stanch the flow of illegal immigrants from its southern border by sending in the National Guard to free up U.S. Border Patrol agents in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas. The Guard troops will provide intelligence, surveillance and logistical assistance over the next two years -- not armed law enforcement.

It contains what amounts to an amnesty plan, in the form of a guest worker program and a "head of the line" citizenship program that puts the lawbreakers ahead of the law abiding.

We are a nation of laws, and we must enforce our laws. We are also a nation of immigrants, and we must uphold that tradition, which has strengthened our country in so many ways. These are not contradictory goals -- America can be a lawful society and a welcoming society at the same time. We will fix the problems created by illegal immigration, and we will deliver a system that is secure, orderly, and fair.

Unfortunately, what he is saying is that this "mation of laws" is going to allow those who broke the law to keep the major booty of their illegal activity -- life in the United States and eventual citizenship.

But let's face it -- there is no chance of the hard-line proposal of the House of Representatives being passed and signed. Doing nothing will result in more disaster at the border. Ands a plan that does impose meaningful border controls is better than the status quo. I therefore have to agree with Dafydd over at Big Lizards.

So that's it; if the anti-immigrant side of the GOP -- fair or not, that is the impression they leave -- persists in this folly, the idea that we can round up and deport eleven million people, and that we can just seal off the border and keep all the foreigners out, then bid adieu to the House, the Senate, and the White House, and gird yourself for twenty years of absolute hell on Earth. Because if we blow this, then that's how long the Republicans will have to wander in the wilderness until we're back in power.

Twenty years of socialist misery. Twenty years of staggering tax increases. Twenty years of racial preference poured down our throats with a gasoline funnel. Twenty years of imperialist judges nullifying elections and ruling by decree.

Twenty years of increasingly savage terrorist attacks; America will be Israel under Barak.

But at least, thank God, we will have stuck to our guns and refused to compromise in any way, shape, form, manner, style, jot, or tittle.

For the love of God, people... compromise means you must give a little. There is a middle ground. And if I'm wrong, if there is not, then we are all lost -- because John's side does not have the support of the American people and will never win.

Here are our choices:

1. We settle on a reasonable compromise bill that includes both border enforcement and also immigration reform, a guest-worker program, and some eventual normalization; and we try to make it the best bill we can, given those constraints; or...

2. We rend the party, the Democrats win, and then you'll find out what "amnesty" and "open borders" really mean. And minor things like the entire war on jihadi terrorism will trampled underfoot by the Democratic thugs who seize control of our country.

And all for the want of the simple art of giving a little to get a lot.

Think. Think. Think two times, three times... and don't throw away this magnificent opportunity -- just because you only get three-quarters of a loaf instead of the whole bloody thing on a golden plate.

I'd rather have a plan proposed by President Tancredo -- but if the best we can do is a plan by President Bush, I'll take it, because it is a damn site better than what we will eventually get from President Hillary Clinton, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Posted by: Greg at 10:43 PM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 913 words, total size 6 kb.

Here’s another item in the running for ‘Dumb Headline of the Year’.

Was 'U' instructor's speech free - or racist?

This ignores the very real possibility that, as would appear to be the case in this instance, that speech may be both.

Comments a University of Minnesota instructor made at an immigration rally are causing controversy about what is and is not considered racist.

Susana De Leon, an activist and part-time instructor of Mexican-American studies, was involved in a verbal confrontation at the rally in Owatonna.

"Yes, people from Europe are wet backs man... their backs so wet because they had to cross an ocean to get here,” De Leon said at the rally.

De Leon is also an immigration attorney who led the rally in Owatonna.

She added that it is not possible for minorities to be racist against white people.
Nathan Smit, of the Minnesota Coalition for Immigration Reduction, says he felt her comments were racist toward white people.

“It actually almost hurt my feelings,” Smit said.

De Leon said the confrontation escalated because members of the immigration group were being intimidating.

"Eventually they came and shove a sign in my face, and they're murmuring under their breathe the most terrible racist things,” De Leon said. “So there's a point, yes, I take the sign and I take it away."

Another member of the immigration reduction group said it was De Leon who escalated the confrontation – with her words.

"I would never say those things to anybody, even if I didn't like them,” said Paul Westrum. “But the thing is, because she's a minority she thinks she can get by with it."

Vivian Jenkins Nelson, a diversity expert from the Inter-race Institute and author of the ‘Diversity Dictionary’, would not condemn De Leon’s language, but did say it was not helpful.

"There are much bigger conversations that need our attention and effort than name calling at a rally somewhere,” Jenkins Nelson said.

Westrum and Smit said her language would be considered racist if a white person had used those terms.

But Westrum is more angry that she is paid by the public.

"I'd like to see her services terminated,” he said.

University officials declined 5 EYEWITNESS NEWSÂ’s request for an interview, but they said state employees have the same freedoms of speech and have the right to participate in political and social protests.

This speech is not classroom speech or speech made in any kind of official capacity. Rather, it is speech made as a private citizen. As such, the University has no basis upon which to take action against DeLeon. Paul Westrum’s call for her termination is really a call for the university to abrogate her rights as an American citizen – something no true patriot can support.

Which is not to say that I believe DeLeon’s words are appropriate or accurate – they are not. But the First Amendment generally protects reprehensible speech as well as praiseworthy speech.

Oh, and by the way, i have no problem with the word "wetback". It is a perfectly acceptable term for those who violate our laws, one that treats them with the contempt they so richly deserve. It is completely appropriate to use it for them, to distinguish them from citizens of the United States and welcome guests who have followed our laws to come here. It is a reference to status, not race, and therefore its use cannot be regarded as racist by any thinking person (which lets out most liberals and open-border advocates).

MORE AT Michelle Malkin, Ogre, Gringoman, Hot Air, Harisdrop, American Mind, ryanVOX, Commentary Page, Landgazing, Anchor Rising

Posted by: Greg at 11:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 610 words, total size 5 kb.

Ask them in Herndon, Virginia, where yesterday's election swept several supporters of a day-labor center for illegal immigrants out of office.

Herndon voters yesterday unseated the mayor and two Town Council members who supported a bitterly debated day-labor center for immigrant workers in a contest that emerged as a mini-referendum on the turbulent national issue of illegal immigration.

Residents replaced the incumbents with challengers who immediately called for significant changes at the center. Some want to bar public funds from being spent on the facility or restrict it to workers living in the country legally. Others want it moved to an industrial site away from the residential neighborhood where it is located.

The labor center forced the western Fairfax County town into the national spotlight last summer as the immigration debate grew deeply contentious. Even though fewer than 3,000 people voted yesterday, advocates on both sides of the issue looked at the Herndon election as a test of public sentiment. Outside groups such as the Minuteman Project, which opposes illegal immigration, intervened in the debate, and Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, is suing the town over the establishment of the center.

The council voted 5 to 2 last August to establish the center, but yesterday's vote created an apparent 6 to 1 majority in opposition. Steve J. DeBenedittis, 38, a health club operator and political newcomer, defeated Mayor Michael L. O'Reilly with 52 percent of the vote. Council members Carol A. Bruce and Steven D. Mitchell, who voted for the center, also were turned out of office. Jorge Rochac, a Salvadoran businessman who supported the center and was seeking to become the town's first Hispanic council member, also was defeated.

Elected to the council were challengers William B. Tirrell, Charlie D. Waddell, Connie Haines Hutchinson and David A. Kirby, all opponents of the facility, which was created to help immigrants connect with employers each day.

Two incumbents were reelected. Dennis D. Husch, who was one of the two council members to vote against the center, received more votes than any of the eight other council candidates. J. Harlon Reece was the lone supporter who was reelected. He received the fewest number of votes among the six winners.

I would urge national leaders to consider these results very carefully -- Americans don't want amnesty, we want border control, business sanctions, and the removal of law-breaking border-jumpers.

Posted by: Greg at 10:13 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 412 words, total size 3 kb.

Tom Tancredo offers a view of what one would really be like.

We are talking about illegal aliens, not mere “immigrants.” If legal immigrants stopped working for a day, we would miss the services of physicians, nurses, computer programmers, writers, actors, musicians, entrepreneurs of all stripes, and some airline pilots…as well as the CEO of Google. That would be more than an inconvenience, but it won’t happen because legal immigrants are not out marching angrily for rights that are already protected by our courts.

But if illegal aliens all took the day off and were truly invisible for one day, there would be some plusses along with the mild inconveniences.

Hospital emergency rooms across the southwest would have about 20-percent fewer patients, and there would be 183,000 fewer people in Colorado without health insurance.

OBGYN wards in Denver would have 24-percent fewer deliveries and Los AngelesÂ’s maternity-ward deliveries would drop by 40 percent and maternity billings to Medi-Cal would drop by 66 percent.

Youth gangs would see their membership drop by 50 percent in many states, and in Phoenix, child-molestation cases would drop by 34 percent and auto theft by 40 percent.

In Durango, Colorado, and the Four Corners area and the surrounding Indian reservations, the methamphetamine epidemic would slow for one day, as the 90 percent of that drug now being brought in from Mexico was held in Albuquerque and Farmington a few hours longer. According to the sheriff of La Plata County, Colorado, meth is now being brought in by ordinary illegal aliens as well as professional drug dealers.

You know – that sounds pretty good to me. Decreased crime, decreased drug use, and decreased stress on medical, educational and social services.

What’s not to like – if you love America?

Posted by: Greg at 12:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.