March 08, 2005

Report From Not Quite Occupied America: Cynthia Tucker vs. Georgia Patriots

By  D.A. King

Here in Georgiafornia, as in many states, the success last year of the Prop. 200 initiative in Arizona did not go unnoticed.

Stopping the importation into Georgia of Mexico’s poverty, and Islam’s terror, is now an open goal for many state legislators.

A large group of them are working hard to make Georgia considerably less attractive to the horde sent here by Osama Bin Laden, Vicente Fox and George W. Bush each day.

No legislator has worked harder than State Senator Chip Rogers, who is Chairman of the Georgia Senate Immigration Reform Caucus.

(Thank you, Tom Tancredo! If your state legislature does not have an Immigration Caucus, now is the day to make a call and demand that one be organized!)

After serving two terms in the Georgia House, in his freshman year as a State Senator Rogers has introduced four separate bills that if passed, will have the welcome effect of requiring that existing federal laws actually be enforced. (Last night, March 7, Rogers’ efforts were featured on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight.)

From here in Marietta, I will keep the VDARE.COM reader updated on the progress of the bills that we hope will begin to take the "’fornia" out of Georgia.

The general attitude of the taxpaying citizens here is one of gratitude…But not so that of the media elite. (Nor those in business and industry who have been profiting for so long from being allowed to ignore the laws.)

To absolutely nobody’s surprise, the cries of "racism" and "profiling" have already begun.

As has the nervous name-calling from Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal Constitution. [OUR OPINION: We don't truly oppose illegals, Cynthia Tucker, February 20, 2005]

"Anti-immigration zealots", "fair play,” "hypocrisy,” "xenophobes" (three times)…oh my!

The AJC declined to run or even acknowledge my guest column submission in response to Tucker’s column.

But three cheers for the internet! Her column is worth examining as an example of how the Establishment applies pressure at immigration Ground Zero.

Tucker begins with the usual attempt to present those of us who demand secure borders and oppose illegal immigration (about 80% of America, according to repeated polls) as being "anti-immigration."

Yawn.

Never mind that the federal government defines "immigrant" as someone who enters our country lawfully.

Never mind that a large number of us are real, legal immigrants.

It is sadly amusing that Tucker worries that the latest terrorism warning about border security may be new "ammunition" in the struggle to enforce the law and secure our borders.

This concept, apparently, strikes Tucker, as extreme.

This, from the editorial page editor of the same fair and balanced newspaper that “chaired” the May 2004 MALDEF fundraiser dinner here in Atlanta—for a far-left un-American "civil-rights" organization that sued to overturn the Prop 200 legislation in Arizona.

Requiring proof of legal status before voting and receiving public benefits being racist and anti civil-rights, you see.

Having been to the Arizona/Mexico border twice in the last year, I can report to Ms. Tucker (as could Senator John McCain, if he cared to) that ten thousand people a day enter our nation illegally. Finding prayer rugs and diaries written in Arabic around the barbwire is not an unusual, or new, occurrence.

But I don’t think she wants to hear it.

Michael Nicley, Chief of the Border Patrol’s Tucson Sector will tell you they are able to apprehend about one out of seven illegal crossers.

A human rights violation, Cynthia?

For the politically-incorrect crime of demanding that the U.S. secure its borders and enforce our employment and immigration laws for everyone—people like myself are routinely labeled "xenophobe" (and worse). [Merriam-Webster: Xenophobe—one unduly fearful of what is foreign and especially of people of foreign origin.]

Big deal. Because I must "press one for English" in Georgia and because radical Islamic crazies in the Middle East regularly announce their intention to kill Americans and destroy America, I guess I will learn to live with Ms. Tucker’s erroneous label.

Tucker the liberal does not seem bothered by the total lack of diversity connected to illegal immigration. (Reportedly, as much as 90% of all illegal aliens come from Latin America, 70% from Mexico alone.)

Or its chilling effects on American citizens who trust their government to defend them.

Tucker is, however, quick to declare that any attempt to pass legislation merely requiring that existing laws be enforced is "turning up the heat on Latinos…"

It is a remarkable testament to the normally Bush-bashing left’s dedication to uncontrolled mass immigration—lawful or a not—that the president’s clear and ongoing violation of his oath of office goes unmentioned.

Hypocrisy indeed.

While the leftist media elite is ever ready to attack Bush on virtually any other issue, his open refusal to secure American borders, even after the horror of 9/11, suits their agenda  just fine.

Who’s kidding who here?

While dead on as to Bush’s motivation (follow the money), instead of outrage or indignation at Bush’s dereliction of duty, Tucker remarks that it is "too bad" that his plan to "legalize" the 20 million illegal aliens already here is meeting resistance.

No mention from Tucker the journalist of the abject failure of the "one-time" 1986 amnesty.

Neither does she note that the current amnesty proposal would serve to "legalize" the organized crime activities of the profiteering employers ("fair play"?)…and would do absolutely nothing to prevent Mexico’s overflow—or followers of Osama himself—from continuing to cross the wire illegally and demanding "a better life" in the United States…"because they are here".

More Georgia State Senator Chip Rogers [send him email] and fewer Cynthia Tuckers, por favor.

Rogers and other aware Georgians realize that absent a serious effort on the part of the President to defend us from further invasion, colonization…or terrorism, we must come "out of the shadows" and protect ourselves.

Or does that make us "anti-immigration zealots"?

I would welcome the opportunity to publicly debate Ms. Tucker on the crisis—at her convenience. [Suggest it to her—be polite!]