Archive for ‘immigration’

July 22, 2009

ObamaCare: Health Rationing for Americans, Not for Illegal Aliens

Michelle Malkin’s new column:

Big Nanny Democrats want to ration health care for everyone in America — except those who break our immigration laws. Last week, the House Ways and Means Committee defeated an amendment that would have prevented illegal aliens from using the so-called “public health insurance option.” Every Democrat on the panel voted against the measure. . . .
At a time when Democratic leaders are pushing rationed care in a world of limited resources, Americans might wonder where the call for shared sacrifice is from illegal immigrant patients like those in Los Angeles getting free liver and kidney transplants at UCLA Medical Center. “I’m just mad,” illegal alien Jose Lopez told the Los Angeles Times last year after receiving two taxpayer-subsidized liver transplants while impatiently awaiting approval for state health insurance.
Now, multiply that sense of entitlement by 12 million to 20 million illegal immigrants. Welcome to the open-borders Obamacare nightmare.

Read the whole thing. And let me remind you that Michelle Malkin is author of the new blockbuster Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies, also known as Best. Book. Evah! (With apologies to any of my friends who forgot to thank me for “invaluable writerly advice” in their books.)

May 21, 2009

Marco Rubio on Immigration:’We must secure our borders’

Beth Reinhard reports in the Miami Herald:

In response to a question about immigration, Rubio dropped his previous pleas against harsh attacks on illegal workers. He said he would not have voted in favor of the legislation — backed by Crist and Sen. Mel Martinez — that would have allowed illegal workers to earn legal status, which he called “blanket legalization.”
“Nothing is more disruptive to legal immigration than illegal immigration,” he said. “We must secure our borders.”

Read the rest. Meanwhile, a press release from “Not One Red Cent”:

[John] Hawkins says the NRSC made a strategic blunder by backing Crist over former Florida Speaker of the House Marco Rubio, a GOP conservative who is also seeking the Senate seat in 2010.
“The leadership of the Republican Party keeps saying we need to get back to our principles and talking about how important it is to attract more young voters and Hispanic Americans,” Hawkins said. “Then, we get a viable, young, conservative, Hispanic candidate running for Senate and they arrogantly try to shove him aside to make way for a better connected, moderate pol who’s more acceptable to the GOP establishment. This cuts to the core of what’s wrong with today’s Republican Party.”
After [Erick] Erickson reported that he was under pressure from Republicans “begging” him to shut down the anti-NRSC Facebook group, hundreds more conservatives joined the group.
“The NRSC endorsing Charlie Crist, the man Barack Obama calls his favorite Republican, sends a strong signal that the NRSC believes it can take the GOP base’s money, then tell them to shut up,” Erickson said. “It is an admission that the Senate Republicans, after two back to back disasters, have yet to properly diagnose their problems.”

Get the latest updates at Not One Red Cent.

(Cross-posted at Hot Air’s Green Room.)

UPDATE: Charlie Crist was for Keynesian bailouts before he was against them. (Via Memeorandum.)

UPDATE II: Club for Growth asks, “Will Crist Pull a Specter?”

“Charlie Crist has shown he’s willing to say one thing and do another,” said the Club’s resident, Chris Chocola. “Voters deserve to know just how far he’ll go for the sake of political expediency.”

Pundette has excerpts of Rubio’s interview with NRO.


April 26, 2009

Imported health problems

We’ve talked about imported poverty, now let’s talk imported disease:

Tests show that eight students at a Queens high school are likely to have contracted the human swine flu virus that has struck Mexico and a small number of other people in the United States, health officials in New York City said yesterday. . . .
Health officials reached their preliminary conclusion after conducting viral tests on nose or throat swabs from the eight students, which allowed them to eliminate other strains of flu. Officials were also suspicious since some St. Francis students recently had been to Mexico, where the outbreak is believed to have started.
The president in Mexico assumed emergency powers to deal with the crisis, which has killed at least 81 people and infected about 1,300 others. All public gatherings have been banned, including more than 500 concerts and sporting events and the popular bicycle rides on closed boulevards.

Jules Crittenden contemplates “disease-fueled xenophobia,” and links Michelle Malkin, who reminds you that concern about the threat of immigrant-born disease is “RAAAACIST.” (Michelle, remember to use spell-check next time; there are actually five A’s in “RAAAAACIST.”)

Allahpundit has more about the Mexican swine flu epidemic, as does Pundette, who links Troglopundit. BTW, last night, I was at a birthday party attended by Trog’s Wisconsinite (Wisconsinian?) friend Sean Hackbarth who tells me that Trog is the tallest blogger you’ll ever meet. He’s like 14 feet tall or something. But his knuckles still drag the ground.

Lots more swine-flu news at Memeorandum.

February 19, 2009

Missing: $900,000

Prepare to roll your eyes:

Montgomery County’s [Maryland] Department of Health and Human Services can’t account for more than $900,000 it paid to a child-care center for Latino immigrants founded by a local school board member, according to the county’s inspector general.
The county approved 70 invoices to Centro Familia in fiscal years 2007 and 2008 without verifying the “validity and appropriateness” of the payments, Inspector General Thomas Dagley wrote in a memo to the County Council on Wednesday. . . .
Centro Familia was founded in 1998 by Nancy Navarro, who is now a county school board member, and Pilar Torres with a goal of responding “to a dire but invisible crisis” concerning Latino immigrant children’s early education, according to the organization’s Web site.
Navarro, who no longer works at Centro Familia, is running for a vacant County Council seat.

Just show up with some invoices, collect $900,000 from the taxpayers. “It’s for the children.” Si se puede!

February 18, 2009

Salute to Chester A. Arthur!

Just in case you missed the big Chester A. Arthur celebration on President’s Day, a hero to bigoted nativist xenophobes everywhere:

The Arthur Administration enacted the first general Federal immigration law. Arthur approved a measure in 1882 excluding paupers, criminals, and lunatics. Congress suspended Chinese immigration for ten years, later making the restriction permanent.

Personally, I’m a Sinophile — they make great fireworks — but in a democratic polity, the majority rules. And who knows? Maybe if Hearst hadn’t ginned up fear of the Yellow Peril, we’d all be half-Chinese by now. (NTTAWWT.) Progressive tolerant types recoil in horror from restrictionist policies, but you liberals should think about this: If the Know-Nothings had had their way — excluding the Irish rabble and other such Papist scum — you’d have been spared Antonin Scalia, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly.

I’m just sayin’ . . .

February 11, 2009

Imported poverty

Immigration has consequences:

Utah’s Latina teens have an alarmingly high birth rate: They are nearly four times more likely than other 15- to 17-year-olds to have a baby.
The Utah Department of Health is releasing the report on Latino health disparities today as part of a series exploring the challenges facing Utah minorities.
It shows that while nearly 18 of every 1,000 girls ages 15 to 17 in the general Utah population had a baby in 2006-07, 66 of 1,000 Latinas had one.
The implications go beyond those teens’ immediate futures. National data show Latina teen moms are more likely to drop out of high school than other teen mothers, and teen mothers are more likely to be on welfare. Children of teen mothers are more likely to live in poverty and have educational and social problems and are more likely to become teen parents themselves.

I’ve written about this seldom-acknowledged consequence of our immigration problem, but our political system can’t address it, because any politician who opens his mouth about the demographics of teen pregnancy is immediately targeted as a racist xenophobic nativist bigot.

“Teen pregnancy,” per se, is not the problem. As Maggie Gallagher has pointed out, the real problem is unwed pregnancy. Yet as a society, we spend millions to discourage “teen pregnancy,” even while celebrating single motherhood (a subject that Ann Coulter addresses in her new book).

There is a cultural factor involved that nobody wants to talk about, even when you have 14-year-old brides being bartered for beer in California. And the fact that this story about Latina teen pregnancy rates is coming out of Utah highlights the unaddressed double standard. On the one hand, when the polygamous FLDS cult relocated to Texas, the Texas legislature actually raised their state’s age of consent from 14 to 16, in order to outlaw the cult’s known practice of marrying off young teenage girls. And yet Texas led the nation in teen pregnancy in 2004 — and it wasn’t because of fundamentalist Mormons, OK? Like I said, if Texas is going to stage a paramilitary raid every time a 15-year-old gets pregnant, they’re going to need to hire a lot more SWAT officers.

Given the seriousness of our nation’s demographic crisis, one could argue — and I actually have argued — that we probably need more teen pregnancy, and if it weren’t for Hispanic immigrants, the U.S. birth rate would still be below replacement level. Yet while liberals demand that we spend millions of taxpayer dollars on teen-pregnancy prevention, they simultaneously demand that we have open borders, so as to import more teen pregnacy. And if anybody tries to talk about this in a realistic way, they’re denounced by liberals as “hatemongers.”

Given these contradictory messages from liberals — unlimited immigration, good; teen pregnancy, bad; honest policy discussion, hate — one must question either their sanity, their intelligence or their bona fides.

February 2, 2009

‘It is easy to mock . . .’

“. . . white-supremacist views as pathetic and to assume that nativism in the age of Obama is on the way out. But racism has a nasty habit of never going away, no matter how much we may want it to, and thus the perpetual need for vigilance. And it takes only a cursory look at a worsening economic climate and grim national mood to realize that history is always threatening to repeat itself.”
New York Times editorial

What the Times is huffing about is a press conference with Bay Buchanan, Jim Pinkerton, Peter Brimelow and Marcus Epstein which I covered last week. The report prepared by Epstein is available online, and any reader can assess the extent to which the slurs “white supremacist,” “nativism” and “racism” are applicable. (I only skimmed the report, but it certainly didn’t look like something Willis Carto or J.B. Stoner would publish.) The Times is to be congratulated for their effort, which I’m told got Bay Buchanan booked tonight on “The O’Reilly Factor.”

Based on a superficial familiarity with the Epstein report, and with the discussion at the (lightly attended) press conference, I am left to wonder if there is any person, organization, publication or event aimed at discussing immigration as policy and politics from a border-enforcement perspective, that would not be denounced by the Times. in more or less the same manner as they’ve denounced Buchanan, et al.

Ah, but it seems like only yesterday that “dissent” was patriotic and we could not criticize Code Pink, CAIR, Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan or International ANSWER without being accused of totalitarian impulses. Some animals are more equal than others.

Perhaps we’ll soon have a directive telling us exactly which forms of dissent, and on which issues, are still considered patriotic. Obama should order Secretary Dodd and the Department of Unicorns and Rainbows to look into this.

UPDATE: Behold, the face of white supremacy! (What would Lothrop Stoddard say?)

January 29, 2009

Immigration and the GOP future

(BUMPED; UPDATES BELOW) Today I went to the National Press Club for the release of a new American Cause report, “Immigration and the 2008 Republican Defeat”: which was the subject of a press conference and panel discussion:

The study is a detailed analysis of every single Republican seat lost in the 2008 House Race, and shows in virtually every race the Republican supported amnesty or the Democrat supported tough border security.

What’s interesting — and Bay Buchanan touched on this — is how effectively open-borders politicians in both parties are able to hide their positions when challenged in elections. Candidates with miserably pro-amnesty records suddenly learn to talk tough about border security the minute an opponent raises the issue. The media willingly cooperate in this blurring of the issue, so that voters are seldom presented a clear choice.

Jim Pinkerton said that working-class “Reagan Democrats” still constitute the vital swing constituency, but observed these voters tend to “win the politics, but lose the policy” — that is to say, these voters (whom I’ve called “Ordinary Americans”) are the decisive factor in elections, yet their interests are routinely ignored by the policy-making elite, who naturally favor policies that advance elite interests.
I’ll try to update later this evening.
UPDATE: Oddly enough, while I’m unable to find any conservative coverage of the National Press Club event, liberals seem to be all over it, including “America’s Voice,” a group whose Web site proclaims their mission as “MOBILIZING IMMIGRANT VOTERS.” Gee, ya think?
UPDATE II: And why would they want to “mobilize”? To get a piece of that “stimulus” pie, perhaps?

The $800 billion-plus economic stimulus measure making its way through Congress could steer government checks to illegal immigrants, a top Republican congressional official asserted Thursday.
The legislation, which would send tax credits of $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple, expressly disqualifies nonresident aliens, but it would allow people who don’t have Social Security numbers to be eligible for the checks.
Undocumented immigrants who are not eligible for a Social Security number can file tax returns with an alternative number. A House-passed version of the economic recovery bill and one making its way through the Senate would allow anyone with such a number, called an individual taxpayer identification number, to qualify for the tax credits.

Carol Platt Liebau at

This has nothing to do with stimulating the economy, and everything to do with paying off Democrat constituencies.

Gee, ya think?

January 27, 2009

‘Tolerance fascists’

John Hawkins at

The whole point of allowing people to immigrate to this country is to benefit the people who are already here. Yet, if you try to have any sort of substantive conversation about how many people we are allowing into the country each year, where they should be coming from, or how we should choose them, the screaming starts again. “Why do you hate immigrants?”

Man, I could write 5,000 words about this. Liberals have taught Americans to view immigration as a form of charity — indeed as an entitlement theoretically owed to all 6 billion people on the planet — and even many “conservatives” now embrace this idiotic notion. But if I get started on it, I’ll have to write 5,000 words, so I won’t start.

UPDATE: Where would we be without our liberal commenter friend, Young4Eyes?

“The whole point of allowing people to immigrate to this country is to benefit the people who are already here.”
What does he mean by ‘benefit people here’?
I mean, is that an admission that immigrants are desirable for the cheap labor they provide? In that case who do they help, the business owner or the American worker losing out to the immigrant?

OK, two separate issues:

1. It has been my contention for some time that, indeed, many open-borders enthusiasts view immigrants as commodities, like slaves. You hear this every time the immigration debate boils down to economics and some useful idiot (let’s not name names) says illegal aliens are “doing jobs Americans won’t do.” Immigrants are human beings, and all human beings are culture-bearers. Immigrants thus bring with them to some degree their cultures, which inevitably brings you into consideration of Pat Buchanan’s infamous “million zulus” hypothetical. To argue immigration on the basis of a simple economic calculus is thus to dehumanize the immigrants, but as Hawkins points out, the whole issue is so surrounded by taboos that opponents of open borders are forbidden even to discuss the cultural issue, no matter how flagrantly it erupts.
2. The purpose of government is to secure peace and prosperity to its citizens. That governments ought to act on behalf of the interests of its citizens is such a self-evident truth that no thinking person would challenge it directly. The government of the United States has an infinitely greater obligation to the citizen of Kansas than to any resident of Scotland, Switzerland or Swaziland. Quod erat demonstrandum. In regard to immigration, then, if the resident of Glasgow, Scotland, propses to resettle in Russell, Kansas, then the interests of the Kansan are infinitely more to be considered than the interests of the Glaswegian. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Now, it may well be that the good folks of Russell, Kansas, will be only too happy to have this fellow from Glasgow come live amongst them. On the other hand, it may be that the Kansans think otherwise. Perhaps they didn’t mind it when at first a few families of Scots arrived, but the trickle became a flood and now their elementary schools have become overcrowded with little Presbyterian lads with their brogues and burrs and bad teeth.

There have lately been several ugly eruptions of anti-Glaswegian prejudice (a sentiment unknown in Russell but a few short years ago) and so the Scottish toughs formed street gangs to battle their tormenters. Boys being boys (and Scots being Scots) they soon got into all manner of mischief so that now the town is terrorized by MacGregors and Stewarts and Campbells, who strut around in their gang colors (tartans, of course), blasting bagpipe music from their boomboxes, and wreaking havoc amongst the townfolk.

The situation deteriorates, as one rundown part of town becomes known as “Little Glasgow,” the maternity wards overflow with knocked-up teenage Scottish girls (boys being boys, and Scots being Scots), and immigrant activists demand that Gaelic be taught in the local schools. Even though most Scottish adults are here legally and work for a living, residents can’t help but notice every time they’re in the checkout line at the grocery store and find themselves waiting behind a woman with a Glaswegian accent paying with food stamps.

“Enough is enough!” say the folks in Russell, at long last. “We’re tired of being overrun with these damned haggis-gobbling foreigners!”

Now, under these circumstances, is the obligation of the government to respond to the grievances of the Kansans, or to protect the interests of the Scots? In such a conflict, I say, the grievances of the Kansans are quite nearly everything, and the interests of the Scots are quite nearly nothing. And don’t sing me any sad songs about the poverty and misery of the Glasgow ghettos, as such misfortunes are exclusively the concern of the Scottish government (and their English overlords) and the folks of Russell cannot be compelled to accept the refugees as a matter of “rights.” Besides, what’s the good of bringing over Scots if they’re only going to recreate here the same rotten conditions that made Glasgow such a pesthole, as they inevitably will if they keep pouring into Russell in such overwhelming numbers?

I am enough of a small-“d” democrat to believe that if 51% of American voters wanted zero immigration, the government would be obliged to institute such a policy — and the Scots be damned! As it is, I think a solid majority of my fellow citizens would be satisfied if only their government would mount a serious effort to enforce our existing immigration laws and would be exceedingly pleased if the total inflow of legal immigrants could be limited somewhere at or below 500,000 a year.

Such a policy would be neither inhumane nor unworkable, and the major obstacle to its enactment is that politicians are terrified of being labeled “anti-immigrant” — an accusation made by those who routinely imply that foreigners have some “right” to settle here, a “right” which be infringed by enforcement of sound policy.

To hell with such nonsense, and to hell with any politician who refuses to save us from The Plaid Menace!

UPDATE: Welcome, Conservative Grapevine readers!

January 26, 2009

Immigration and the GOP

A panel discussion is planned Thursday in D.C.:

Bay Buchanan, Jim Pinkerton, Peter Brimelow, and Marcus Epstein discuss how immigration control is vital to future Republican Success. . . .
“Immigration and the 2008 Republican Defeat,” will be released by The American Cause on January 29 at 12:30 p.m. at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The study is a detailed analysis of every single Republican seat lost in the 2008 House Race, that shows in virtually every race the Republican supported amnesty or the Democrat supported tough border security.

I plan to go check it out.