Category Archives: IMMIGRATION

The Professional Drunk-Driver Immigration Visa

Crime, Criminal Injustice, IMMIGRATION, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Outsourcing, Reason

America’s much-coveted, Professional, Drunk-Driver Immigration Visa demands killer qualifications. But do not apply for it unless you are “a person of color,” undereducated and well-connected.

Ramon Hernandez, a recipient of this visa, is a four-time repeat offender, who (allegedly) killed little Dimitri Smith, in-utero. The deceased preemie was shown on CNN, being held by young mother Aileen Smith, before being laid to rest.

RIP, precious Dimitri.

“He should have been kept off the streets,” intoned CNN’s bimbo anchor, Brooke Baldwin.

Not one word was uttered—or allowed?—during today’s CNN segment about the fact that the man was not supposed to be in this country. It’s simple: Had Hernandez been THERE (in Mexico, presumably), chances are that Dimitri would have been HERE (with his parents).

Teletwits of amnesty such as Geraldo Rivera and Tamar Jacoby have argued again and again that the illegality of such perps—or, put more respectfully, holders of the Professional Drunk-Driver Immigration Visa—is irrelevant to the crime. “It’s not an illegal-alien story; it’s a drunk-driving story,” Geraldo once noodled on “The Factor.”

Geraldo was serious, although he should not be taken seriously. For their crushingly stupid claim to stick, Geraldo/Jacoby would have to demonstrate that, had this drunk, illegal alien been stopped at the border or been deported, his victims would have nevertheless suffered the same fate. Death, in Dimitri’s case.

As far as our CNN idiot was concerned, hers was a scoop, for she was able to seal the segment with that most penetrating of questions, pioneered by The Oprah-Anderson (as in Winfrey and Cooper) School of Journalism:

“Could you, Aileen Smith (mother of Dimitri), ever forgive Ramon Hernandez?”

Enoch Powell At 100

America, Britain, English, IMMIGRATION, Literature, Multiculturalism, Nationhood, Race

Enoch Powell’s famous, much-maligned “rivers of blood” speech has devolved over the years to suit Powell’s adversaries. Delivered in Birmingham, in April 1968, notes The Times Literary Supplement, the famous segment read as follows:

“As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’. . . . To see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.”

The TLS’s welcome, if marginal, mention of Powell is on the occasion of the publication of Tom Bower’s “balanced critique of Powell’s rhetoric”: Enoch at 100: A revaluation of the life, politics and philosophy.

Helped along by oodles of ignorance, the “foaming Tiber mutated over the years to ‘rivers of blood’, notionally streaming through British cities as the tide of immigration rose unchecked.” (TLS)

As Bower points out, “the official figure for immigrants at the time was relatively small”:

“only 7,000 males every year”, but “the government did not announce that annually a further 50,000 dependants of established immigrants were also entering Britain”.
Powell’s fear was less of immigrants as such (though his “Rivers of Blood” speech contains passages about “negroes” which might land him in [a British] court today) than of a breakdown in “social cohesion”.

“Repeatedly,” it is observed in this TLS editorial, Powell “pointed to rioting in American cities, then at a fearful pitch. Why was Britain inviting the ‘tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence’ of the country?”

Stupidly, the TLS editor joins in blaming Powell’s “oratory” for making “immigration a taboo subject by silencing even reasoned opponents of immigration and multiculturalism who feared being tarnished as racists.”

From the fact that “plain talk about the topic is rare, even dangerous,” the TLS concludes that Powell is at fault.

Oh my!

I do like what Saul Bellow said about the “intractable phenomenon” in the US: “we lack a language in which to talk about it.”

IT being unfettered immigration, also known as “The Suicide of the West.”

Still, I’m pleasantly surprised that the TLS (July 6, 2012) made even marginal mention of Enoch at 100. Surprised because the TLS, once so objective and rigorous, is tilting to tinny, lefty, obscurantist postmodernism. (To modify a Joan Rivers witticism, Why would you want to reproduce a rash?)

That’s one way to reduce circulation, and suck the joy out of English literature (“the English-speaking people” is a concept TLS reviewers now routinely mock or “deconstruct”).

UPDATED: Congress: A Repository Of Contempt

Conservatism, Constitution, Democrats, Ethics, Government, GUNS, Homeland Security, IMMIGRATION, Nationhood, Republicans

A contemptible Congress finds an equally contemptible cabinet minister in contempt of its proceedings.

How significant are these findings for the cause of freedom and justice? Not very.

Republican representatives, as they demonstrated under Bush—who, as I’ve often said, would have wrestled a crocodile for a criminal alien—don’t care about the rights of private property on the US Southern border any more than their Democratic partners-in-crime do.

Farmers, their families, and their best friends are imperiled daily on that border; have been long before Operation Fast and Furious commenced.

The Democratic brand of statism won out in the healthcare confrontation. Since what’s underway in the world’s greatest “deliberative” body is no more than brute politicking—Democrats should delight in their victory and downplay a slap in the face from opponents every bit as contemptible as themselves. That’s the logic of the game.

In the unlikely event that the Republicans win a significant political battle, they should do the same.

Unlikely because, Republicans have betrayed every single important principle that might have prolonged the survival of the republic. This is the nature of the Republican beast, House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa included.

…the unconstitutional campaign finance-reform bill and “Sarbanes-Oxley Act” (a preemptive assault on CEOs and CFOs, prior to the fact of a crime); the various trade tariffs and barriers; the Clintonian triumph of triangulation on affirmative-action; the collusion with Kennedy on education; the welfare wantonness that began with a prescription-drug benefit that would add trillions to the Medicare shortfall, and culminated in the Kennedy-countenanced “New New Deal” for New Orleans, for which there is no constitutional authority; the gold-embossed invitation to illegals to invade, and the “camouflaged amnesty” (where illegals are born-again as “guest workers” and then placed on a fast track to permanent residence)—you name it,

Republicans have promoted it to the detriment of liberty.

REMEMBER: “The Democratic and Republican parties each operates as a necessary counterweight in a partnership designed to keep the pendulum of power swinging in perpetuity from the one set of colluding quislings to the other, and back.”

UPDATE (June 30): In reply to WCO: Have you read Into the Cannibal’s Pot, WCO? My book, the sub-chapter titled “Civil Wrongs,” in particular, should give you some answers to your question. Civil Rights legislation—property-sundering and sweeping—created a system of patronage and spoils. This is one reason Dixicrat concerns are no longer.

Kris Crossing The SCOTUS’ S.B. 1070 Decision

Constitution, IMMIGRATION, Law, States' Rights, The Courts

The fact that both sides in the immigration-enforcement debate are claiming victory in SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES attest to just how whishy-washy the split decision today out of the SCOTUS was.

The most informative by far is “Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who helped draft the Arizona statute, as well as similar laws in other states.”

PBS’s GWEN IFILL asked Kobach whether “this stop-and-check provision that was upheld was at the heart of the law.”

KRIS KOBACH, Kansas Secretary of State: “Yes, I think so. It is certainly part of the law that has the greatest scope, so when Arizona claims victory, I think that’s correct. It’s a qualified victory for the states, the part that has the greatest reach.

Put it this way. That provision will kick in, in thousands of law enforcement stops every day throughout the state of Arizona. So it has a great reach. The other provisions are less significant, for example, the part criminalizing the illegal seeking of work.

That’s only going to be relevant if a county launches an investigation of a particular employer, and then they discover certain unauthorized aliens who have broken that law. So, it’s much narrower. The big one was the one that was upheld today. And I think that’s going to give a green light to other states who — some states have already copied that provision of Arizona law.

And there are additional states that probably will try to do so in January in 2013, when the legislative sessions begin again.”

ABOUT the alleged racial profiling in the law, Kobach said this:

… the law in four different sections expressly prohibits application of the law differently to a person whether based on his skin color, his national origin or his ethnicity. The law forbids racial profiling.
The Department of Justice knew that that argument would get nowhere in a facial challenge. And if in the future you had a bad apple police officer who was trying to racially profile, he would be breaking SB-1070, he would be breaking the law. And so his actions wouldn’t in any way indict the law. The bottom line is…

GWEN IFILL: …What is it — how do you walk the line that the court laid out today, which is a law that can — that complements federal law, but doesn’t supersede it, as the court said so much of the Arizona statute did?

KRIS KOBACH: “Well, we now have some clear guidance from the court. We know that the arrest provisions of Section 2-B, the main provision we have been talking about here, those are perfectly fine. We have got a number of other states that have already implemented them and are in circuit courts right now.

There are a bunch of states waiting in the wings to do the same thing. Those can move ahead. If a state wanted to do the criminalization of seeking employment, the Supreme Court has said no.

And one other thing that is really important about this opinion, the court clarified what I have been arguing all along and I think most people who follow this specific area of preemption law know. And that is there have always been windows of opportunity where states can act as long as those actions are consistent with federal law.

And the court reiterated that today. They said, in our federal system, the courts can take certain steps to discourage illegal immigration and communicate and assist with the federal government, assist the federal government in enforcing our immigration laws. And the court reiterated that today. So, I think you’re going to see states continuing to take reasonable steps to try to rebuild the rule of law. …

…This law simply is about enforcing the rule of law and allowing state and local governments to provide a reasonable amount of help when they’re in the course of their normal duties. There is no disrespect for a person’s humanity by simply saying we have certain laws in this country and we simply want to inquire as to whether you’re here legally.

As far as diminishing states’ rights, there is one aspect that I would certainly concede in the majority opinion that says — what the court did is they looked at Congress acting in 1986 when Congress criminalized the employment of an unauthorized aliens, when you have a large number of unauthorized aliens or you have a pattern and practice.

And the court said, well, we’re going to read into what Congress did. We’re going to look at what Congress didn’t do. And we’re going to read into Congress’ decision not to criminalize the employment — the actions by the employee. And we’re going to say that inaction by Congress preempts the states as well.

I think that was a troubling part of the opinion because, you know, when you have inaction by Congress, 99 percent of the time they’re not passing something, and you start drawing conclusions from congressional inaction, then you potentially can displace the states in a way that the framers never intended. …

…certainly Congress can and should take certain actions.

I think Congress should, for example, follow Arizona’s 2007 law that was upheld by the Supreme Court last year requiring E-Verify for all employers in the state. We should have that nationally.

But on the other hand, I would say there are a lot of things we could do to improve our enforcement of the laws. People always say, the system is broken, the system is broken. Well, not exactly.

Some aspects are, but there are plenty parts of the system that work just fine, but we lack an executive branch right now that wants to enforce the law.”