Six Years Later, Wide Open Borders

While watching MSNBC's replay of the 9/11/01 broadcast this morning, I heard something that I hadn't previously heard. The Today Show hosts were interviewing a security official moments after the second WTC tower was struck. They were still trying to figure out what caused the attacks. The official noted that we "live in an open society" and that we are not safe because of the fact that our borders are not secure. He noted that thousands of people cross illegally every year.

And here we are, six years later... Nothing has changed.

Los Democrats, en Espanol

In another sign that unrestricted immigration is destroying the process of assimilation while simultaneously balkanizing the United States, the 2008 Democratic presidential candidates conducted a debate in Spanish on Univision this evening.

The Executive Director of Univision explained that this debate is "designed specifically for the Hispanics in the United States." Of course, most Hispanics in the United States speak English; what he really means is that this debate is for unassimilated immigrants and illegal alien voters.

The debate was hosted by the University of Miami which is calling the event, "Destino 2008" which translates to "destiny 2008" as if the Dems are "destined" to take the White House. What drew the Dems to the University of Miami? Well, the university's president is none other than President Bill Clinton's Health and Human Services appointee, Ms. Donna Shalala.

Watching American presidential candidates being forced to answer questions that CNN would never ask would normally be a good thing; unfortunately watching American candidates being translated into a foreign language is disgusting and stomach-wrenching. It is a clear indicator that the United States is heading in the wrong direction.

Here are some of the highlights:

Hillary Clinton: "Absolutely" wants a "path to legalization" for 12 million illegal aliens. She says, "We have to educate the American people [that immigration] is as important today as when my family came across Ellis Island." In answering a question about "anti-Hispanic" sentiment, Clinton says that there are many people in politics and "frankly, in broadcast media who take aim at our immigration. There was a particularly egregious example in the House bill last year which tried to criminalize illegal immigrants." She was upset that the bill would have criminalized church staff that gives sanctuary to illegal aliens, saying, "It would have criminalized Jesus Christ!" Clinton says she supports a border fence, but largely a technological one, and that the whole debate on the fence is "being used to bash immigrants."

Barack Obama: Says he supports a secure border, "otherwise we'll have thousands of people coming across." (He apparently doesn't realize that there are already millions coming across.) Also says he has "already committed" to comprehensive immigration reform. He then compared illegal alien hunger strikes to Martin Luther King, Jr.'s quest for racial equality.

Bill Richardson: Promises to reform immigration in his first year in office and says that a "path to citizenship" is necessary. He claims that there is a bill that would create a "12-foot wall" along the border and says, "You know what's going to happen? A lot of 13-foot ladders." The Mexican moderators and the audience laughed out loud. Richardson also promises to end ICE raids on businesses illegally hiring illegal aliens. Also says, "Hispanics are the heart of the United States."

Mike Gravel: Would "immediately" make amnesty happen. Says he is "embarrassed at the thought of building a wall." He would "absolutely" suspend ICE raids. When asked whether he thinks Venezuela's Hugo Chavez is a dictator, Gravel responded, "No, not at all. In fact, I'd reach out to him." (In other words, if Gravel were elected president, he feels he could take control of the media and oil industry without being labeled a dictator.)

John Edwards: Speaking on illegal aliens he says, "We should be proud we have so many workers coming into this country who deserve a path to citizenship." He's committed to a path to citizenship for illegal aliens.

Christopher Dodd: Says that he supports universal health care and that illegal aliens should be allowed to take advantage of the program. (He apparently doesn't realize that "free" health care and open borders is not a sustainable strategy.)

Dennis Kucinich: Says, "Of course we need to give people a path to citizenship."


What is most saddening is that the vast majority of Americans will never hear the answers these candidates gave to some very pressing issues. The ENTIRE FIRST HOUR of the debate (and much of the second hour) was devoted to immigration. Will CNN-FOX-MSNBC follow suit and hold their own English version of an immigration debate? Probably not. Will CNN-FOX-MSNBC air the translated version of this debate? Probably not. The result is that only a small percentage of English-speaking Americans will ever hear what was said (and that's only if talk radio gets a copy before the Dems pass the "Fairness Doctrine"). The leftists controlling the media will do what they can to make sure that Americans don't hear the off-the-wall answers some of the Dems gave. In fact, the Associated Press piece that was just published has only a few quotes on immigration -- even though more than half the debate was on immigration.

Additionally, the Univision website provides a biography of each of the Democratic candidates. The highlights include:

Hillary Clinton: She is "la candidata de sexo femenino" (the candidate of the feminine sex) who wants to repair "los errores de Bush" (the errors of Bush).

Barack Obama: He is the "afroamericano" candidate with a relatively short political history. He opposes the Free Trade Agreement, but supports "la protección de los inmigrantes ilegales" (the protection of illegal immigrants).

Bill Richardson: "Proud of his ancestry, Bill Richardson is the only candidate of Mexican origin." He supports amnesty and wants all troops out of Iraq before the end of 2007.

Mike Gravel: He strongly opposes the War in Iraq and will stop drug trafficking by "legalizar la marihuana" (legalizing the marijuana). He's also against registration for the purposes voting. (In other words, he wants illegal aliens to be able to vote.) He's also against the death penalty.

Christopher Dodd: He was described as the "voice of experience" and speaks fluid Spanish. He has assured his support for immigration and says "all are children of immigrants and that variety is the wealth and the power of the United States."

Dennis Kucinich: His parents are immigrants: a Croatian taxi driver and a European housewife.

John Edwards: His is the "most progressive" of the candidates.

This event was "sold out" ... just like the candidates.

Arellano Returnado?

The arrogance of deported illegal alien felon Elvira Arellano is shocking. If you thought that her deportation to Mexico was the last we would hear from her, you are wrong.

As noted in a previous post, Ms. Arellano is seeking to return to the United States as a "peace and justice" ambassador under some sort of diplomatic immunity. One would think that being a document fraudster felon might disqualify a person from the post "peace and justice" ambassador, but this is Mexico we're talking about.

The thinking of the Mexican lawyers and activist groups backing this plan is that Arellano would not be deportable under the laws of the United States. She would be free to traipse around the United States, thumb her nose at law enforcement, and laugh in the face of the American taxpayer.

However, President Bush can decide whether or not to officially recognize Arellano; the United States must grant a diplomatic visa. And that's where it gets interesting. How will Bush react to this plan? Will he say anything? Will the President of Mexico demand it?

According to the Associated Press, Ms. Arellano has already made her demands clear:

Arellano said she would not back down from her request and was angered that Mexico was seeking a U.S. visa, adding that the Mexican government should not have to ask permission to send her north of the border.

"I'm not asking for any visa," she said. "I want a diplomatic post as ambassador of peace and justice, and I won't accept anything less."

Arellano's arrogance is actually a good thing. She is unknowingly blowing open the simmering conflict between the United States and Mexico while forcing the two governments to take a position. The American public will begin to fully understand Mexico's true intentions, namely the erasure of the U.S.-Mexico border. And we will get a better idea of the White House's vision for the future. If Bush allows Mexico to get its way, then it will solidify the American public against the amnesty-open-border cabal. It will make the demand for border security even greater. And the movement against permissive interpretation of the 14th Amendment (which allows for anchor-babies) might be strengthened as well.

Keep yapping, Ms. Arellano.

"Your laws mean nothing to me."

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

Meddling Mexicans are once again trying to eradicate the rule of law in the United States, and this time the loudest statements come from Felipe Calderon, the President of Mexico.

In response to the United States possibly enforcing our immigration laws for the first time in two decades, Calderon screamed the following at his recent "state of the union" speech:

"I want to express again an energetic protest at the unilateral measures taken by the U.S. Congress and government which exacerbate the persecution and abusive treatment of undocumented Mexican workers."

One hardly knows where to begin.

The term "persecution" suggests that innocent people are being thrown into prison, perhaps for a political or religious belief. However, illegal aliens are actually "prosecuted" for breaking federal law. Perhaps Calderon simply confused the two terms...

The phrase "abusive treatment" apparently refers to the fact that illegal alien Mexicans are returned to Mexico in accordance with the law (deportation). As explained in my most recent post, being forced to live in Mexico is arguably abusive treatment.

Finally, the odd use of the phrase "unilateral measures" is what deserves most attention. In reality, it make no sense because a nation generally enforces its own laws the only way it can: unilaterally. Should we be asking Japan to help us enforce U.S. immigration laws? I think not. What Calderon is suggesting is that immigration law is something to be determined by international standards. He's suggesting that the United Nations should be involved and that the United States has no legitimate right to protect its sovereignty and to deport people who violate it. Recall that Mexico has ALREADY threatened to take the State of Arizona to the World Court over the passage of Proposition 200, an overwhelmingly-supported ballot initiative that discouraged illegal immigration. This posturing is something that will grow out of control very soon. Hopefully we will have a President in the White House who will vigorously defend the United States should we end up in the World Court.

The current White House is following this closely, but likely sees how quickly their plan for amnesty will spiral out of control. The Bush White House has incorrectly calculated that the anticipated cries and screams from the open-border crowd that come as a result of minimal enforcement will turn public sentiment in favor of amnesty. But the more they yell, the more resolved the public becomes in ensuring our laws and sovereignty are respected.

Before relations with Mexico sour beyond repair, it's important that we build the border fence. There has never been a more pressing need to realize the saying "good fences make good neighbors." We've certainly learned that the exact opposite is true.

Calderon: "We're sending a million more soon..."
Bush: "Just do it quietly, amigo..."