Category Archives: IMMIGRATION

Updated: GOP, RIP

Conservatism, Elections 2008, IMMIGRATION, Iraq, Republicans

MCCAIN: He was the wrong man; a progressive, as opposed to a conservative. He followed an equally wrong, wretched administration (Iraq), from which he deviated only slightly—and then to the left (global warming).

The GOP: It is no longer conservative, but neoconservative. “Strategists” hostile to principles, the Karl Rovians, have sought to “attract” intractably hostile minorities to the party by relinquishing philosophical coherence. While trying hard to appeal to minorities, who seldom vote Republican, GOPers worked overtime to marginalize the Republican base—issues most important to conservatives were mocked out of meaning and never mentioned. Immigration, for one. (Watch the chilling testimony of an architect of the central plan to overthrow America.)

As minorities move into a majority position, thanks in no part to Republican immigration policies, the GOP will become redundant.

Update: WHO’S RACIST? Here are the exist polls by race (and sex).

Related: “Why Weep For Joy?”

Happy Birthday, Pat Buchanan

America, Conservatism, Foreign Policy, Founding Fathers, History, IMMIGRATION

Tom Piatak writes a great column about a great American (with whom I’ve disagreed, a fact that has nothing to do with the man’s prescience and patriotism): “Pat Buchanan At 70: ‘He Told You So, You F****ing Fools!’” Read it on VDARE.COM, naturally:

“Both Bush and McCain swallowed the neoconservative line whole. Both see the mission of the United States as using its blood and treasure to spread’ ‘global democratic capitalism.’ Both welcome the mass immigration that is radically transforming the United States. … neither views America as a real country at all, but as the embodiment of an abstract political creed—the ‘first universal nation.’

Buchanan long ago warned that allowing neoconservatives to set the agenda would be calamitous for conservatives. His warning was unmistakably vindicated when the Republicans lost Congress in 2006. And if the American electorate rejects Bush and McCain next Tuesday, it will be rejecting neoconservatism, pure and simple.

Of course, Buchanan opposed the Iraq War that has cast its shadow over Bush’s presidency. He foresaw that removing Saddam Hussein would greatly strengthen Tehran and that an occupation of Iraq would be both costly and deadly.

More generally, Buchanan recognized that the end of the Cold War meant that America must begin reexamining its global commitments and pursuing a foreign policy in line with the one recommended by the Founders—and that failure to do so would be costly.”

The complete column on VDARE.COM.

Hazelton Fights Federal Frankenstein

Federalism, IMMIGRATION

Heroic Hazelton goes up against the ACLU and Federal occupiers. I gave you my take on the town’s plight in “Aliens in the Own Hometown.” Read it for background. I’ll quote one paragraph:

“Reasonable people can debate the constitutionality of [Mayor Louis] Barletta’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act and other Ordinances; only sophists would depict these as a usurpation of federal authority. What next? Banning the neighborhood watch for busying itself with crime? Doesn’t that overlap with state police activities?”

Here’s an update on the case. Transcripts are courtesy of CNN’s Lou Dobbs:

Hazleton, Pennsylvania, is one town that knows firsthand the impact of illegal immigration and what’s required to fight back. The city’s Illegal Immigration Reform Act was struck down by a federal judge more than a year ago. The case is now before an appellate court. At issue? Hazleton’s right to hold employers and landlords responsible for doing business with illegal aliens. Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Just 200 yards from the birthplace of Liberty, Independence Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, lawyers came and judges convened to hear arguments over a town’s limits on governing itself. The courtroom was packed.

The city of Hazleton arguing that its ordinances punishing employers who knowingly hire illegal aliens and landlords who rent to illegal aliens are proper and necessary. Lawyers for the ACLU and other groups contend the local ordinances are unconstitutional.

The city appealed to a federal appeals panel after losing its case in the lower district court. But much has changed since those initial arguments. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of the state of Arizona, which has similar statutes and a federal district court ruled that Valley Park, Missouri’s local ordinances modeled after Hazleton’s, are legal.

KRIS KOBACH, ATTORNEY FOR HAZLETON: We urge the 3rd Circuit to remain consistent with what the 9th Circuit did out in California and uphold the abilities of cities and states to take limited steps to encourage the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

TUCKER: The ACLU argued the original court order should be allowed to stand. Otherwise, they argued, there will be a patchwork of immigration laws.

WITOLD WALCZAK, ATTORNEY, ACLU: If the court allows laws like Hazleton to go forward, what you’re going to have is immigrant- friendly and immigrant-hostile enclaves in this country.

TUCKER: He rejects the argument that all Hazleton is trying to do is draft laws that are in compliance with federal law. And he argues that the notion of determining a person’s legal status is more complicated than just knowing if they’re unlawfully present in the country. The mayor of Hazleton stands by his law, which has never been enforced.

MAYOR LOU BARLETTA, HAZLETON, PA: I’ll fight this all the way to the Supreme Court. I believe what we’re doing is right and that we have the right to do this.

TUCKER: He may get that chance.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now just when that day might be, Lou, we don’t know. According to the lawyers, it could take anywhere from four months to a year before the court issues its ruling. Lou?

Updated: Who’s Stupid? Not Sarah

Conservatism, Elections 2008, Federalism, IMMIGRATION, Intelligence, Israel, John McCain, Just War, Media, Republicans, Sarah Palin, War

The following is an excerpt from my new WND column, “Who’s Stupid? Not Sarah.” It is the first in a series of three (unless the news cycle changes the plan):

“Governor Sarah Palin’s alleged lack of cerebral alacrity is probably less in doubt after the first Vice-Presidential Debate. Prior to that, a bipartisan consensus had been developing among the ideologically converging political class and their parrot pundits that she was indeed an idiot.

The biggest hitter was conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, who demanded that Governor Palin bow out of the race. “Only Palin can save McCain, the Party, and the country she loves. Do it for your country, please,” pleaded Parker histrionically.

How like a woman to implicate causes not in evidence for the country’s undoing.

Where was Sarah Palin when the Bush/Bernanke bulldozer was running up debts and deficits financed by promiscuous printing and borrowing? Whodunit? Who so debased the country’s coin? …

Sarah Palin … has an alibi. When these characters were gassing-up the economy with hot air, she was in Alaska getting her house in order. This does nothing to excuse Sarah’s subsequent sell-out, but it doesn’t put her at the original crime scene.

Elementary, my dear Ms. Parker: Palin quitting will not save your Party or the country.

…. At the very least, the developing consensus as to Palin’s aptitude, I venture, is premature. …”

Read the complete column, “Who’s Stupid? Not Sarah.”

Update: A reader sent this YouTube clip along with the comment, “Explain this about your precious Sara! [sic].”

He apparently had not understood my column, wherein I condemned Palin for turning her back on a laudable cause she and Tod once supported: peaceful secession, which is as American as apple pie. I’ll repeat what I wrote:

Palin slammed a cause she had, at one time, saluted: that of the Alaskan Independence Party. It advocates what was once a fundament of the American founding: peaceful secession. As leading economic historian Tom DiLorenzo has documented in rich detail, the Union was a voluntary one. If the states had believed it was a “one-way Venus flytrap,” they would never have ratified the Constitution.

“Sarah Palin: Palling Around With Secessionists” convinces me that by joining McCain, Palin has forfeited a previously held, laudable libertarian principle.

I urge the reader to read “Quebec May be the Guard of Our Ultimate Freedom” and “Raise a Toast to Western Separatism and Canada’s Good Health.” Since Sarah seemed to have once supported peaceful secession, I am all the more convinced that she was a patriot, and has sold her soul by adopting McMussolini’s creed.