Ministry Of Propaganda Issues New York Times Attack On Arizona’s New Immigration Bill

Ministry Of Propaganda Issues New York Times Attack On Arizona’s New Immigration Bill

April 18th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.


New York Times:

The Arizona Legislature has just stepped off the deep end of the immigration debate, passing a harsh and mean-spirited bill that would do little to stop illegal immigration. What it would do is lead to more racial profiling, hobble local law enforcement, and open government agencies to frivolous, politically driven lawsuits.
Skip to next paragraph

The bill is a grab bag of measures to enlist law enforcement and government at every level to expose and expel the undocumented. Opponents say it verges on a police state, which sounds overblown until you read it.

It would make not having immigration documents a new state misdemeanor, and allow officers to arrest anyone who could not immediately prove they were here legally. That means if you are brown-skinned and leave home without a wallet, you are in trouble.

Police agencies that believe overly tough enforcement tactics are undercutting their ability to fight crime would have to crack down anyway. The bill would require police officers who have “reasonable suspicion” about someone’s immigration status to demand to see documents. And it would empower anyone to sue any state agency or official or any county, city or town that he or she believes is not fully enforcing immigration law.

The bill, passed by Arizona’s Republican-controlled House on a party-line vote, has already passed the state Senate and will soon be before Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican. She has not said whether she will sign it.

Immigrant advocates and civil-rights lawyers are appalled, and so are police chiefs and sheriffs who say the bill is an assault on public safety, since it would force newly criminalized immigrants to fear and shun the police. It would divert law enforcement resources away from chasing violent offenders, and toward an all-out assault on the mostly harmless undocumented, with the innocent as collateral damage.

It is now up to Governor Brewer to do what is best for her state: she should refuse to sign. If this dangerous experiment becomes law, Washington can still end it by refusing to cooperate, cutting off access to immigration records. Either way, it should cancel programs that enlist state and local law enforcement in the indiscriminate hunt for the undocumented.

The Arizona bill is another reminder why the administration needs to push for real immigration reform. The failure to address it nationally has left the field wide open for this

McCain’s Gauntlet Speech

McCain’s Gauntlet Speech

By Lee Cary

McCain’s recent speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council delivered many important messages.  Some were aimed at the upcoming general election campaign. Others were international messages directed toward friends, foes and those in the middle.

Campaign Messages
McCain spent his first 300-plus words disclaiming an image that the MSM will eventually try to tag him with: an old, trigger-happy, fighter pilot.  Far from trigger-happy – he knows the horror of war.
Then he obliquely juxtaposed his self-descriptive label of realistic idealist with an implied one of naïve idealist to be applied later to whoever becomes his opponent. Why did he not apply the label to both Democrat candidates now? Because he’ll make the realistic versus naïve comparison directly if Obama is the nominee, and indirectly if it’s Clinton, for whom he has more respect. Premature to make it now.
Assume that Obama is the nominee, as is likely.  Merely labeling him a naïve idealist won’t be enough. McCain will have to do what President Bush has not done well.  He’ll need to make a more compelling case for not withdrawing from Iraq too soon. In this speech he took an articulate step in that direction by linking the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with “the transcendent challenge of our time: the threat of radical Islamic terrorism.”
“In the troubled and often dangerous region they occupy, these two nations can either be sources of extremism and instability or they can in time become pillars of stability, tolerance, and democracy…And whether they eventually become stable democracies themselves, or are allowed to sink back into chaos and extremism, will determine not only the fate of that critical part of the world, but our fate as well.”
In the context of linking the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan with radical Islamic terrorism, McCain set a cornerstone for how he’ll differentiate himself from either Democrat opponent.
“Any president who does not regard this threat as transcending all others does not deserve to sit in the White House, for he or she does not take seriously enough the first and most basic duty a president has – to protect the lives of the American people.”  (emphasis added)
When Obama criticizes McCain for supporting Bush’s war in Iraq, McCain can say:
Maybe you didn’t notice that I repeatedly called for the removal of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and a new strategy in Iraq.  A strategy we eventually adopted, by the way, and is yielding success.
When Obama calls for a rapid withdrawal from Iraq, McCain will play the Irresponsible Statesmanship Card mentioned in his speech:
“It would be an unconscionable act of betrayal, a stain on our national character as a great nation, if we were to walk away from the Iraqi people and consign them to the horrendous violence, ethnic cleansing, and possibly genocide that would follow a reckless, irresponsible, and premature withdrawal.”
Obama will remind us again and often that he was against the war from the beginning. In response, McCain can say:
That’s the past, Senator Obama. Today we’re talking about the future, and a hope that the Iraqis can believe in. Because when it comes to our success in Iraq — Yes We Can, and Yes We Will.
His Los Angeles speech laid the groundwork for all these retorts and others.
Either Democrat nominee will equate a McCain victory with a Bush Third Term.  Countering that in advance, McCain reminded us that he’s not been a Bush sycophant.  He’s noted how he’s been against torture, inhuman treatment of prisoners, and wants to close Guantanamo. In that run of issues he included words some conservative critics may have glossed over: “…work with our allies to forge a new international understanding on the disposition of dangerous detainees under our control.”  Message:  Our allies will be responsible for helping us deal with these “dangerous” people because criticism from a distance without helping to solve the problem is counterproductive.
As soon as the MSM begins to support the Bush Third Term theme, McCain can say,
Look my friends, a little straight talk here: As early as 1999, the New York Times was referring to me as a “maverick.” In fact, they ran a story about me in July that year entitled ‘The Mantle of the Maverick Suits McCain.’  They’ve continued to apply that label to me ever since.  Just last January, the Times ran an article entitled “McCain, Long a G.O.P. Maverick, Is Gaining Mainstream Support.” So, if I’ve been such a maverick for so long, how can I now be a reincarnation of President Bush?   
International Messages
Now, to briefly review some of the international messages aimed at friends, foes and those in the middle.
TO All Nations:  We’ll continue to lead, but with a style that will not project what some of you have perceived as arrogance.
This message angered some conservatives, but it was necessary for our friends to hear it, regardless of whether we’ve accepted or rejected their criticism.
TO Hugo Chavez and Fidel’s little brother:  You have a choice to make. Isolate yourself further or embrace this future:
“Ours can be the first completely democratic hemisphere, where trade is free across borders, where the rule of law and the power of the free markets advance the security and prosperity of all.”
TO Russia:  Consult your English dictionary as I note the danger you pose by being “revanchist.” I think Brazil and India have more business being in the G-8 that you do.  And, I plan to grow NATO right up to your front door.  You feel me, Putin?
I had to look it up:  Revanchist: One who follows a policy seeking to retaliate, especially to recover lost territory.
TO China:  To really become a true friend of ours, you’ll need to be a more responsible world citizen, make your military intentions clearer, and stop trying to elbow us out of Asia. 
TO Africa:  It’s time some of you become more responsible nations. And, it’s time we help you eradicate malaria on the African continent.
TO Iran & N. Korea:  Be advised that we’re closely watching your efforts to attain nuclear weapons, and that I plan to further involve our friends in that watching.  No threats at this time.
TO Islamic Terrorists:  Don’t expect a McCain administration to be any less aggressive against you than was Bush’s. And maybe more so.
TO Selected Middle East Countries:  You know who you are.  We’re done relying on your out-dated autocracies as the safest path to the future of the Middle East.
TO Other Democracies:  Let’s form a “new global compact” – a League of Democracies. 
This message is a shot across the bow of the U.N.  Among all his international messages, this one is most noteworthy.
“We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact – a League of Democracies – that can harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”
TO the United Nations:  I am prepared to engage your bias, corruption and incompetence. You’re on notice.
That last message alone should atone for any perception on the part of some conservatives that John McCain is another John Kerry.

Lee Cary is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.

A Green Card in Every Pot

A Green Card in Every Pot
By Ann Coulter | May 31, 2007

Americans – at least really stupid Americans like George Bush – believe the natural state of the world is to have individual self-determination, human rights, the rule of law and a robust democratic economy. On this view, most of the existing world and almost all of world history is a freakish aberration.

In fact, the natural state of the world is Darfur. The freakish aberration is America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world.

The British Empire once spread the culture of prosperity around the globe – Judeo-Christian values, tolerance, equality, private property and the rule of law. All recipients of the British Empire’s largesse benefited, but the empire’s most successful colony was the United States.

At the precise moment in history when the U.S. has abandoned any attempt to transmit Anglo-Saxon virtues to its own citizens, much less to immigrants, George Bush wants to grant citizenship to hordes of immigrants who are here precisely because they are fleeing cultures that are utterly dysfunctional and ruinous for the humans who live in them.

Yes, this country has absorbed huge migrations of illiterate peasants in the past – notably Italian immigrants at the turn of the last century. But also notably, half of them went back. We got the good ones. America was not yet a welfare state guaranteeing room and board to the luckless, the lazy and the incompetent from cradle to grave.

Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, immigrant and first Jewish member of the Supreme Court, said that Americanization required that the immigrant adopt “the clothes, the manners and the customs generally prevailing here” and that he adopt “the English language as the common medium of speech.”

But, Brandeis said, this is only part of it. “(W)e properly demand of the immigrant even more than this – he must be brought into complete harmony with our ideals and aspirations and cooperate with us for their attainment. Only when this has been done will he possess the national consciousness of an American.”

Or as George Bush would call it, “empty rhetoric.” And as Linda Chavez would call it, “racist.”

I wish our new immigrants had come to America back when the foundations of civic society and patriotism were still inculcated in all immigrants (and when half of them went home). But traitors who are citizens have destroyed all acculturating institutions. Traitors who are citizens have also destroyed all incentive for the poor to work or even keep their knees together before marriage.

Until the recipient culture is capable of doing an effective job of Americanizing immigrants, it’s preposterous to talk about a massive influx of Hispanic immigrants accomplishing anything other than turning America into yet another Latin American-style banana republic. And it is simply a fact that no one is trying to turn immigrants into Americans.

To the contrary, Democrats are trying to turn new immigrants into wards of the state – and with some success! – so they will be permanent Democratic voters. Rich Republicans and their handmaidens in Washington are trying to turn immigrants into a permanent servant class.

In an astonishing exchange on Fox News last weekend, Dan Henninger of the Wall Street Journal responded to Heather MacDonald’s point that Hispanics in this country have a 50 percent illegitimacy rate, the highest teen pregnancy rate of any group and the highest high school drop-out rate of any group, by asking: “Why don’t we feel we are under cultural assault in New York City? You have no sense of this at all here.”

You also have no sense of the existence of a middle class in New York City. The rich have hidden the evidence, transplanting all but the massively wealthy to the suburbs. Manhattan is white and getting whiter, while the boroughs are noticeably less white and more dysfunctional.

What evidence is there for the proposition that American culture will leap like a tenacious form of tuberculosis to today’s immigrants? Americans display no evident desire to defend their culture, much less transmit it, and immigrants show no evident desire to adopt it.

To the contrary, immigrants are replacing American culture with Latin American culture. Their apparent constant need to demonstrate is just one example.

As Mac Johnson wrote in Human Events last year, these immigrant protests represent “the colonization of America by the Latin style of politics.” He listed just some of the demonstrations drawing thousands – sometimes hundreds of thousands – of protesters over the last few years in Mexico alone. Among the targets of the protests were a new regional trade pact, plans to allow private investment in the state-owned electricity industry, energy and tax reforms, and support for the mayor of Mexico City.

In 1993 – long before 9-11, before the USS Cole bombing, before the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania – the eminent Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington predicted that the greatest threat to Western civilization would come from a clash of civilizations, noting with particular concern the “bloody borders” of the Muslim world.

So it ought to be of some interest that Huntington is now predicting, in his book Who Are We? The Challenges to America’s National Identity, that America cannot survive the cultural onslaught from Latin America.

American Hispanics responded to Huntington’s book with a flurry of scholarly papers and academic debates to counter his thesis that Mexicans were not assimilating.

Just kidding! They called for national protests against Huntington, his publisher and Harvard University.

Click Here to support

GOP Sellout — A senseless giveaway on immigration.

GOP Sellout
A senseless giveaway on immigration.

By Brian Darling

“Sellout.” It may be harsh, but it’s the most accurate and succinct way to sum up how conservatives feel right now about President Bush and Senate Republicans, who have cut a deal that would grant amnesty to the estimated 12 million illegal aliens living in the U.S. — not to mention the parents, spouses, and children of these illegals.

Title VI of a draft copy of the bill breaks down amnesty visas into three categories:

 Z-1 — Illegal aliens present and working in the United States up to Jan. 1, 2007.
 Z-2 — Parents and spouses of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.
 Z-3 — Children of illegal aliens qualifying under the Z-1 category.

These “Z Visa” holders can stay in the “Z” status indefinitely, which means they never have to pursue “a pathway to citizenship.” They also would be able to get Social Security numbers and benefit from some welfare programs. Shockingly, there is no cap on the numbers of amnesty recipients in the draft language. The only thing the Z Visa holder can’t do is vote — until, that is, a liberal judge declares this limitation unconstitutional or until a liberal president can railroad through a “technical corrections” bill.

Notwithstanding all you are going to hear to the contrary from President Bush, Sen. John McCain, and their new ideological partner, Sen. Ted Kennedy, Title VI of this bill is amnesty, plain and simple. According to an op-ed by former attorney general Ed Meese that appeared last year in the New York Times discussing the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, “the difference is that President Reagan called this what it was: amnesty. Indeed, look up the term ‘amnesty’ in Black’s Law Dictionary, and you’ll find it says, ‘the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act provided amnesty for undocumented aliens already in the country.’” It was amnesty then, and it’s amnesty now.

Why would Republicans negotiate with Ted Kennedy, a senator with impeccable credentials with the far Left of the immigration movement? And why would John McCain imperil his wobbly campaign for the presidency by allying himself with a Kennedy-drafted immigration bill? It simply defies common sense.

Some of these Republicans, I believe, have convinced themselves that they can convince the American people that “triggers,” “tough border enforcement,” and the Y Visa “temporary guest worker program” were concessions from the Left that balance out the amnesty part of the bill. Unfortunately, they’re wrong. And Senator McCain’s prospects to woo conservatives will suffer dearly.

The prospect of amnesty for illegal immigrants and their families outweighs any tough border initiative that may be in the bill, or the get-tough employment-enforcement provisions. All that will matter, if the bill passes, is that President Bush and presidential wannabe John McCain enabled and are responsible for a historic giveaway — for a program that grants amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are being rewarded for breaking the law.

In the name of bipartisanship, they have given away the farm to Ted Kennedy and the left wing of the Democrat party in the Senate. I can’t imagine any self-respecting conservative in America who would not hold this against McCain, Bush, and any other politician who supports this terrible idea.

Brian Darling is director of U.S. Senate Relations at the Heritage Foundation.

The J. Wellington Wimpy immigration plan: Amnesty now, enforcement later

A Chance to Put Up or Shut Up on Illegal Immigration

A Chance to Put Up or Shut Up on Illegal Immigration
By Alan Nathan | May 18, 2007

How might the problems surrounding non-documented aliens be handled if they were bartered by two hard-nosed horse-traders, one favoring comprehensive immigration reform and the other wanting to enforce existing laws? Imagine the law-enforcement-guy becoming especially daring and saying to his counterpart, “Your team can have the pathways to citizenship and guest worker programs, providing we first get the sealed border.” I’m afraid immigration-reform-guy would still reject the deal because lost to his crowd would be their most treasured possession – the ongoing, ill-monitored and ill-protected border that feeds the avarice of corporate rightists wanting cheap labor, and socialist leftists wanting votes.  In virtually all polls, Americans comprised of both Republicans and Democrats demand that we tightly protect our boundaries. And they want this whether it’s through fences, walls, barriers and or virtual shields – whatever works. Astonishingly enough, the party leaders purposely turn away from their respective rank-and-file voters in deference to dollar-rich interest groups wielding greater sway despite representing smaller numbers. In short, the well-moneyed minority, from each side of the aisle, is successfully overpowering the majority from both. Think of it as Republican-on-Republican and Democrat-on-Democrat crime.  However, the problem for them is that protecting the border from invasion is a constitutional requirement of our government as directed by Article 4, Section 4, and can never be overridden by legislative law.  To whatever degree that still non-existing “comprehensive immigration law” proves to be in conflict with Article IV, would be the same extent to which even the Supreme Court would have to rule it as constitutionally non-compliant.  The quest for this reform is disingenuously characterized as having parity with protecting the borders and consequently gives our leaders an excuse to say they can’t do the latter until the former is achieved. This justification for inaction has no standing because it has no relevance. It’s like saying I can’t have steak today, because my brother-in-law had pizza last week.  Our government is not permitted to disobey or procrastinate implementing constitutional mandates simply because of would-be lesser laws that are still in development.  To prove which strategy factually, and functionally, has the most relevance, let us look at what happens when one approach is done in the absence of the other. If you allow for pathways to citizenship without a counterweighing sealed border to offset then more incentivised people wanting to cross illegally, we’ll have a repeat of the 80’s in which those crossings were dramatically increased following the Reagan era Amnesty. If you seal the border first without accompanying it with pathways to citizenship, what happens to those already here? Nothing! As a matter of fact, because we’ve cauterized the hemorrhaging at the southern border, the existing non-documented aliens become a more manageable population because they’re no longer growing at a rate of 400,000 each year.  How infinitesimal must be the aggregate IQ of the bipartisan Senate and our concurring myopic White House? How can both branches continue assuming our people haven’t yet figured out that the pursuit for comprehensive immigration reform in no way precludes the government from carrying out their constitutional commitments?  I am genuinely bemused and astonished over how these inbreds on Capitol Hill and 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have failed to come to terms with this otherwise self-evident fact. It is my sincerest hope that David Horowitz, the always erudite publisher of Front Page Magazine, will permit me to say that these guys are incredibly f—ing thick! (Let me guess; they edited one word in the previous sentence. Had to try.) Fred Barnes, the popular Fox News pundit of Special Report with Britt Hume, and a repeated guest on my show, is one of the more informed thinkers in Washington. But he, too, has been known to incorrectly prioritize primary facts behind the secondary and tertiary ones, as he did last year in a piece entitled, “How to Lose the House.”  The public expects action from the people who run Washington–that’s Bush and Republicans. But action is not what they will get if the enforcement-only House refuses to compromise. What they will get in that case is an impasse. And that means the crisis endures. (Weekly Standard, May 29, 2006.) Well, he was ultimately right about the crisis enduring, but he’s categorically wrong about it being attributable to an “impasse.” An “impasse” can only exist when there are no existing laws that would otherwise allow us to move forward – but this is not the case. Our nation’s foundational document facilitates the way forward through Article IV.  Saying there’s an “impasse,” because two sides can’t get together on legislation subordinate to an already existing constitutional article is to mischaracterize an inferior authority as trumping a superior one. Can’t be done – but this artificial argument continues to be propagated despite its already proven academic irrelevancy.  Our leaders’ disconnect from the Framers’ law on this issue seems impenetrable: “The later you wait the harder it gets,” Dodd said. “You’ve got a window here … and the fear is if you wait much longer, then it won’t happen before 2008 and with a new administration it probably wouldn’t be one of the first items you bring up.” Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT), Associated Press in Boston Globe, May 3, 2007.  Article IV, Sec 4 is already written – what’s the delay?“Our immigration laws prevent thousands of young people from pursuing their dreams and fully contributing to our nation’s future. These young people have lived in this country for most of their lives. It is the only home they know. They are American in every sense except their technical legal status,” said Durbin. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL),, May 25, 2006. Since when do parents get to use their children as a tool for whining about consequences of their own making? Yes, sons and daughters should not be blamed for their parents’ lawbreaking. However, the offspring of illegals are no more entitled to citizen-benefits than are the children of bank-robbers entitled to inherit the loot. Those on the far-Right who continue that enforcement-only, anti-immigrant drumbeat may think its good politics. But their pandering threatens real progress toward effective immigration reform that protects our security and reflects our values as a nation of immigrants. We have tried it their way by simply beefing up the border. We’ve spent more than $20 billion on it over the past decade – and it has not worked. Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA), tedkennedy .com, July 5, 2006. This is classic masturbated political correctness. The phrase, “anti-immigrant drumbeat” is the re-labeling of a thing into something it is not because Kennedy is incapable of arguing the issue on point – a common debate tactic employed by those who are intellectually weak. A second grader knows the difference between “anti-immigrant” and “anti-illegal immigrant,” and so should he. Apparently, the road to honesty is another one he seems unable to navigate. More specifically, he knows that the $20 billion for “beefing up the border” had little to do with the actual fences and walls he opposes. He’s equally aware of the fact that Israel’s wall at the West Bank has been directly responsible for reducing suicide bombing by 95 percent. If erected barriers can preempt terrorists, it would seem self-apparent that they’d be at least equally effective against comparatively less threatening migrant workers. The system is failed – the system isn’t working – we’ve got to toughen the borders and we need to do that – and we’ve got to somehow work together to see a work visa program that will allow people too get into a legal system – not an illegal system – I mean, that’s what people really get irritated about – it’s not that people come in the country legally – it’s that they come in illegally. Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS), GOP South Carolina Primary Debates, Fox News Channel, time-code 01:33, May 15, 2007.  This idiot is worse than Kennedy! He’s arguing that our mandates must work around the aliens instead of the reverse. Senator, you get legal by accommodating the law, not by demanding that the law accommodate you.  “But there is an overwhelming majority of Americans, including Republicans, who feel that we need to have a comprehensive approach and realize you can’t simply deport 12 million people.” Senator John McCain (R-AZ), The DeMoines Register, March 16, 2007.  McCain couldn’t be more lost on this issue if he hired a scout to oblivion. Firstly, you don’t have to deport a single person in order to seal up the border. Secondly, after you thoroughly secure that border, the non-documented residents become a more manageable number by default because you will have stopped the hemorrhaging from Mexico. It is at that point you would find all of America more open to pathways and guest-workers. “…I’m optimistic that we can get comprehensive immigration reform, one, that enforces our borders; two, holds employers to account; three, recognizes we’ve got workers here who are doing jobs Americans aren’t doing, and they ought to have a — there ought to be a temporary worker permit to do so; four, to make sure that we treat people who are here already with respect and dignity, without amnesty, without animosity; and, five, to continue the assimilation program so necessary to make sure our country continues to move forward in an optimistic way.” President George W. Bush, White, May 16, 2007. Mr. President, “respect and dignity” is a reciprocal code of conduct and was violated by the illegal newcomers upon arrival. Why should we honor a bargain already broken by them? Consistent polls reflect that 65-70 percent of American citizens want sealed borders as a pre-cursor to any program allowing illegal immigrants to transition to citizenship. Despite this generic bipartisanship, born out of the common bonds of a shared homeland, too many leaders in the Senate have become more answerable to their financial constituents than they have to their voting constituents – regardless of party affiliation. It’s time they feel more than heat – they need to get burned!

Click Here to support