Category Archives: Propaganda

Fact Sheet On New Arizona Immigration Law

Crime, IMMIGRATION, Law, Propaganda

CENTER FOR IMMIGRATION STUDIES ON THE NEW ARIZONA IMMIGRATION LAW, SB1070

WASHINGTON (April 29, 2010) – The new law recently signed by the governor of Arizona, SB 1070, makes it a state crime to violate some federal immigration statutes. While the law is extremely popular in the state, with 70 percent of Arizona voters approving of it and just 23 percent opposed, it has raised controversy. Below is a brief summary of the relevant information on illegal immigration in Arizona, followed by a short analysis of SB 1070’s major provisions.

Illegal immigration in Arizona:
• The federal government estimated that Arizona had one of the fastest growing illegal immigrant populations in the country, increasing from 330,000 in 2000 to 560,000 by 2008.1
• Arizona has adopted other laws to deter the settlement of illegal immigrants in the state in recent years. The federal government estimates that the illegal immigrant population dropped by 18 percent in the state from 2008 to 2009, compared to a 7 percent drop for the nation as a whole.2 This may be evidence that the state enforcement efforts are having an impact.
• The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office has found that 22 percent of felonies in the county are committed by illegal immigrants.3 Illegal immigrants are estimated to be 10 percent of the county’s adult population.4
• Analysis of data from State Criminal Alien Assistance Program showed that illegal immigrants were 11 percent of the state’s prison population. Illegal immigrants were estimated to be 8 percent of state’s adult population at the time of the analysis.5
• Approximately 17 percent of those arrested by the Border Patrol in its Tucson Sector have criminal records in the United States.6
• The issue of illegal immigration and crime is very difficult to measure, and while in Arizona there is evidence that illegal immigrants are committing a disproportionate share of crime, it is not clear this is the case nationally.7
• In 2007, the Center for Immigration Studies estimated that 12 percent of workers in the Arizona are illegal immigrants.8
• In 2007, the Center estimated that illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) comprise one-fifth of those in the state living in poverty, one-third of those without health insurance, and one out of six students in the state’s schools.9
• In 2007, the Center estimated that one-third of households headed by illegal immigrants in Arizona used at least one major welfare program, primarily food-assistance programs or Medicaid. Benefits were typically received on behalf of U.S.-born children.10
• The new law (SB 1070) is extremely popular among Arizona voters. A Rasmussen poll found that 70 percent of voters approve of the new bill, and just 23 percent oppose it.11

Among the new law’s provisions:
• The new Arizona law mirrors federal law, which already requires aliens (non-citizens) to register and carry their documents with them (8 USC 1304(e) and 8 USC 1306(a)). The new Arizona law simply states that violating federal immigration law is now a state crime as well. Because illegal immigrants are by definition in violation of federal immigration laws, they can now be arrested by local law enforcement in Arizona.
• The law is designed to avoid the legal pitfall of “pre-emption,” which means a state can’t adopt laws that conflict with federal laws. By making what is a federal violation also a state violation, the Arizona law avoids this problem.
• The law only allows police to ask about immigration status in the normal course of “lawful contact” with a person, such as a traffic stop or if they have committed a crime.
• Estimates from the federal government indicate that more than 80 percent of illegal immigrants come from Latin America.12 Thus, there is concern that police may target only Hispanics for enforcement.
• Before asking a person about immigration status, law enforcement officials are required by the law to have “reasonable suspicion” that a person is an illegal immigrant. The concept of “reasonable suspicion” is well established by court rulings. Since Arizona does not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, having a valid license creates a presumption of legal status. Examples of reasonable suspicion include:
• A driver stopped for a traffic violation has no license, or record of a driver’s license or other form of federal or state identification.
• A police officer observes someone buying fraudulent identity documents or crossing the border illegally.
• A police officer recognizes a gang member back on the street who he knows has been previously deported by the federal government.

• The law specifically states that police, “may not solely consider race, color or national origin” when implementing SB 1070.
• When Arizona’s governor signed the new law, she also issued an executive order requiring the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board to provide local police with additional training on what does and what does not constitute “reasonable suspicion.”13

# # #

The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent non-partisan research institution that examines the impact of immigration on the United States. It is not involved in drafting legislation and has not formally endorsed or opposed SB 1070.

Endnotes

1 See Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

2 See ‘Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Table 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf See also Table 4 “Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2008,” http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2008.pdf.

3 The Maricopa County Attorney’s office report is at: http://www.mcaodocuments.com/press/20081002_a-whitepaper.pdf.

4 See Table 3 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

5 See Table 6 in “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

6 See “The Krentz Bonfire: Will the murder of a respected Cochise County rancher change anything on our border?” Tucson Weekly, April 29, 2010, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/tucson/the-krentz-bonfire/Content?oid=1945848.

7 The Center for Immigration Studies has conducted a detailed review of the literature and data available on crime. Nationally it is very difficult to come to a clear conclusion about crime rates among immigrants. The report, “Immigration and Crime: Assessing a Conflicted Issue,” is at: http://www.cis.org/ImmigrantCrime.

8 See Tables 21 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

9 See Tables 23, 24, and 26 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

10 See Tables 25 in “Immigrants in the United States, 2007: A Profile of America’s Foreign-Born Population,” http://www.cis.org/immigrants_profile_2007.

11 Rasmussen poll released April 21, 2010, of likely voters in Arizona, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/arizona/70_of_arizona_voters_favor_new_state_measure_cracking_down_on_illegal_immigration.

12 See ‘Estimates of the Unauthorized Immigrant Population Residing in the United States: January 2009,” Figure 2, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/statistics/publications/ois_ill_pe_2009.pdf.

13 See http://www.azpost.state.az.us/bulletins/eo201009.pdf.

Updated: Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia

Federalism, Homeland Security, Liberty, Media, Propaganda, Reason, Terrorism, WMD

The excerpt is from “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia,” now on WND.COM:

“Rachel Maddow’s gayness (and goggles) is the most interesting thing about her. What I’m trying to say here is that the MSNBC TV host has a mundane mind, which, rest assured, will insert and assert itself during an upcoming special presentation, “The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist.” ….

A far more interesting choice for presenter of the forthcoming MSNBC feature on McVeigh would have been the brilliant belletrist Gore Vidal.

Like Maddow, Vidal (aged 83) is a gay leftist. Unlike Maddow, he manages to dazzle with his original insights. (Unfashionably, Vidal has also poked fun at assorted anal activists and at all manner of “vulgar fagism.”)

Vidal “became a supportive correspondent of Timothy McVeigh,” and considers McVeigh “a true patriot, a Constitution man.”

Gore Vidal is rare in recognizing the legitimate federal insults to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that motivated McVeigh to commit his crime. He is also unique, on the Left and Right, in acknowledging that McVeigh was not a rube, but a thoughtful man who had fought for his country and was familiar with its foundational principles and documents.

As the most able counsel for the defense (McVeigh’s), the iconoclastic octogenarian would have given his viewers something to mull over; mundane Maddow will not. …

The complete column is “Maddow, McVeigh And The Militia.” Read it on WND.COM.

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update (April 16): Inferring motivation, or psychologizing about the reason Vidal respected some of McVeigh’s arguments are species of ad hominem. I avoid them, for the most; I don’t take them seriously when others make them. In fact, that’s MSNBC’s stock-in-trade; impute motivation (“racism” always) to your foe and attack him based on assumptions about his inner workings, rather than deal with the facts and merits of his argument.

So, our (much-welcomed) commenter claims Vidal had a homoerotic fixation with McVeigh, and therefore everything he claimed to respect in McVeigh is not credible. That line of reasoning is illogical.

A quote from McVeigh:

I think it all has to do with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and the misconception that the government is obliged to provide those things or has the jurisdiction to deny them. We’ve gotten away from the principle that they were only created to secure those rights. And that’s where, I believe, much of the trouble has surfaced.

I agree with that. And if a “stormtrooper” agrees with the above statement, then consider that a stormtrooper, McVeigh and I agree about the statement. Other than to argue in circles, so what?!

Update VI: War On White South Africa (Beck Boer Bashing)

Africa, Crime, Glenn Beck, Media, Propaganda, Race, Racism, South-Africa, The West

The following is an excerpt from my new WND.COM column, “War On White South Africa”:

“Eugene Terre’Blanche, leader of the Afrikaner Resistance Movement (AWB) that seeks the establishment of a homeland for the Afrikaners of South Africa, was alone at his homestead over the Easter period, when two farmhands bludgeoned the sixty-nine-year-old separatist to a pulp with pangas and pipes. Based on hearsay—and their abiding sympathy for savages—news media across the West are insisting that the motive for the murder was a “labor dispute.” …

… The brutality of the racially motivated murders of white farmers in South Africa, and, increasingly, of whites in general, is one aspect of these crimes. Mr. Terre’Blanche was unrecognizable. Two weeks before he was slaughtered, seventeen-year-old Anika Smit was raped, her throat slashed sixteen times and her hands hacked off and removed from the scene.

Both acts of butchery were unremarkable in Mandela’s South Africa.

The dehumanization of the victim—Crimen injuria in South African law—is another feature of these feral acts. When they were finished with him, Terre’Blanche’s killers pulled down the old man’s pants, exposing his privates. Slain white farmers are often displayed like trophies by their black killers.

Mr. Terre’Blanche was a victim of a farm murder, plain and simple.” …

The complete column, now on WND.COM, is “War On White South Africa.”

Read my libertarian manifesto, Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Society.

The Second Edition features bonus material and reviews. Get your copy (or copies) now!

Update I (April 9): The malpracticing media I discuss in “War On White South Africa” is discovering (painfully slowly) what the prototypical Black Strongman is all about. Read the Guardian’s “ANC’s Julius Malema lashes out at ‘misbehaving’ BBC journalist.”

Malama “threw a BBC journalist out of a press conference, accusing him of ‘white tendency’ and calling him a ‘bastard,’ ‘bloody agent’ and ‘small boy.'”

The BBC, chief obfuscator on matters South African, is made to eat dirt by a Frankenstein that is of its own creation. The West pushed for raw democracy in South Africa, and is now recoiling in horror at its former proteges and at what they’re, predictably, doing to the place.

Update I (April 10): The Funeral.

To our reader in the Comments Section: I did not see the Nazi salute in the footage I watched of Eugene Terre’Blanche’s funeral. However, I have never claimed the AWB was a savory organization. What I said is that as volatile as Terre’Blanche was, he and his cause (self-determination for whites) had come to appear civilized—civilized and prophetic—as compared to the people of whom he had warned, now running the country.

In the interviews I’ve watched, I saw gleeful black folks in Ventersdorp; and dignified resigned Afrikaners. That’s all I saw.

Now, is the AWB multicultural and non-racial; no. They believed that were South Africa—a country built by Boer and British—to fall into the hands of a black majority, it would go the way of the rest of Africa. That’s why they were separatists. Theirs was not a racial war but a war of self-preservation and survival.

Americans who’ve long since forgotten what it is to fight for their national life—and life—think that such South Africans were having fun fooling around with Nazi-looking insignia. Yes, there is unsavory stuff about the AWB. I did not understand nor sympathize with them back in the day. But I recognize now that the drive behind such an organization was a desperate attempt to forestall black majority rule, as it was believed that should that come to pass, the country they loved would be lost.

Were they right? You tell me.

Update III: I have very little patience for the South African Institute for Race Relations in all its sanctimony. I’ve been drawing on some of their factual work for my own book, but overall, they have been deniers of the racial aspect of Boer murders. That is criminal negligence. Unjust. And worse.

As you can image, the farm murder of a man known to—and hated by—blacks countrywide put them in an awkward position, scrambling to catch up. This is how I see the press release, “South African Institute of Race Relations on the ramifications of the killing of Eugène Terre’Blanche – 6th April 2010,” in which the Institute finally admits that it is quite possible that not “all murders in the country are a function of simple criminal banditry.”

Nevertheless, the SAIRR teases apart some of the dynamics behind the uptick in the ANC’s racial incitement against whites (using barbarian front man, Malema):

the party is acutely aware that its support base of poor black South Africans has begun to turn against it. Violent protest action against the ruling party is now commonplace around the country.
In order to shore up support in the black community the ANC increasingly appears to be seeking to shift the blame for its delivery failures onto the small white ethnic minority, which today comprises well under 10% of the total population of South Africa. Here parallels may be read to the behaviour of Zanu-PF in Zimbabwe when that party realised that its political future was in peril. The ANC Youth League’s recent visit to Zanu-PF which saw it endorse that party’s ruinous polices are pertinent here.

Note: You can incite racial violence all you want in my neck of the woods, or among most white South Africans; murder will not be resorted to. Boer are being killed en masse because there are a lot of blacks who want to kill them.

From hereon in the much-anticipated press release descends into the same liberal clichés and solecisms.

“… a resurgent right wing will be numerous. It is most unlikely that this right wing will take the form of camouflage clad henchmen on horses in shows of force.”

OMIGOD. Would that such a resurgence took such a form; why would putting the fear of God into men with murder on their minds be so bad? How is a show of force from an attacked minority a bad thing when the alternative is to put your faith in a fat, functionally illiterate, corrupt constabulary that roots for Malema?

These people (SAIRR) make me sick.

More useful facts:

• the ANC depends greatly on the tax income paid by white South Africans to balance South Africa’s books.
• it depends entirely on the food produced by a small number of white farmers to feed the country.
• white South Africans still dominate the skills base of the country.
• and most importantly, much white opinion since the early 1990s has been moderate. White South Africa has been willing and often eager to cooperate with the Government in building an open, non-racial, and prosperous South Africa

Update IV (April 11): The British Daily Mail has decided that the raised arms at Terre’Blanche’s funeral are Nazi salutes. Is it so, or is it the interpretation of media that have not bothered to inquire what the raised arm means? I myself do not know. The flag emblem, as explained on the AWB website, isn’t intended as Nazi insignia.

Here’s what we know which belies the stupid, malevolent fixation of a hostile, ignorant media: This tiny minority is being systematically killed off; this tiny minority doesn’t wish to exterminate, a la Nazis, the 38 million blacks surrounding it; all the AWB wants is a place they can call their own, in the country they founded, away from those who want to kill them.

Have I distilled the facts without the fanciful? I think so.

Update V: To geniqu4u, thanks for writing:

• I hope you get my book when it’s out. I compare the number of deaths in detention under 40 years of apartheid with the number of murders in the New South Africa. More people die in ten weeks under Mandela’s SA than died in detention over 40 years of white rule. Ordinary blacks are missing the old SA. That’s how bad it is.
• Africa was immeasurably improved under colonialism; before that it was a morass of tribal internecine warfare of unimaginable cruelty; there were no roads, no infrastructure, education, health care, security. As I’ve written in “Blaming Colonialism Invalid, Even In Academe,” “Colonialism, dependency and racism—all highly politicized constructs—are beginning to be seen as humbugs, untrue and unhelpful, in explaining—and hence, helping—the Third World. What was once ‘conventional wisdom that brooked no dissent,’ in the words of Lawrence E. Harrison, is rarely mentioned today in intellectually respectable quarters. South Africa’s black population’s longevity, education, and numbers were markedly increased under white minority rule. Naturally, to describe reality is not to condone apartheid.”
• I don’t know where you get your data on African farming methods, but not one point you make is factual. South African blacks were never anything but subsistence farmers who had often done untold damage to the land, stripping it via indiscriminate grazing. The Afrikaner has been, in general, a good custodian of the land and the natural environment. There is no commercial, large-scale farmer in the world like the Afrikaners, who’ve turned an arid, impossible-to-farm land into oases with technology, innovation, dedication, and hard work. There isn’t a farmer who loves his live stock more than the Afrikaner. Most of the white-farmed land being seized under the land distribution policies of the ANC and given over to blacks has gone to seed. Beautiful, high tech installations taken from their owners (who feed the country, nay, the continent) and given to blacks have been reduced to rubble. The cruelty to the live stock is beyond belief; cattle dying of thirst, hunger and disease. I tell it in my book.

Dr. Philip Du Toit: “In scenes reminiscent of the 1960s Mau Mau in Kenya, cattle on farms in Kwa Zulu Natal are mutilated and killed for no other purpose than attempting to drive the farmers off their land.” [A selection of pictures from the farm of Mr. Serfie Serfontein, Newcastle, KwaZulu/Natal.]

TimesOnLine: “South Africa’s white-dominated farming unions have greeted the threat of nationalisation with alarm. Since the end of apartheid in 1994, when multi-racial elections were held, 15m acres of farmland have been transferred to black ownership. Much of it is now lying idle, creating no economic benefit for the nation nor its new owners. Last year South Africa became a net importer of food for the first time in its history.

Update VI (April 12): Glenn Beck joined the ignoramus media by referring dramatically to the rise of extremism in South Africa, gleaned at a glance from the so-called Nazi-like salute at the funeral of Eugene Terreblanche. Thus, in order to conclude that the non-violent gathering of people at the funeral was the party deserving of condemnation—Glenn required nothing more than a symbolic gesture from them. Ignorance is bliss.

The insularity of American headline makers is alarming.

Updated: Allowed History From Below ONLY

Federalism, History, Just War, Propaganda, Pseudo-history, Race, Racism, States' Rights

Confederate History Month: Declared anew by Gov. Robert F. McDonnell, with the intent of honoring the Commonwealth of Virginia’s shared history. Read the April 2010 proclamation declaring it Confederate History Month. Reasonable stuff.

If you’re going to do something as controversial as honor the South’s sacrifice, be prepared to stick to your guns. Otherwise, don’t bother to put on the show. The specter of yellow-bellied pols capitulating to the pieties of political correctness is sickening.

The history of the US is what the Legislative Black Caucus, the NAACP, and so-called civil-rights activists say it is; it’s history from below; a litany of complaints and contrivances from self-styled victims’ groups on behalf of minor historical figures.

Update (April 8): I contacted my good friend the valiant Tom DiLorenzo, author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, for a comment about the fracas. Here it is:

“What would the race hustlers and the pompously politically correct do without Confederate History Month? How could the former frighten little old black ladies into sharing their social security checks with them if they couldn’t use it to scare them into thinking there are people out there who want to bring back slavery? As for the PC crowd, which includes the usual leftist suspects as well as such outfits as the ‘libertarian’ Cato Institute and the neocon Claremont Institute, Southerners must forever be demonized for the sin of slavery– but not New Yorkers and New Englanders, who also owned slaves and ran the transcontinental slave trade for centuries. No, only Southerners must be demonized because they were the only group in American history to seriously challenge the notion that the politicians in D.C. are ‘sovereign’ over everyone and everything.