Election note 1: English in Colorado: VDARE.COM is glacially impartial, not to say indifferent, about the elections. Occasionally, however, we see something that leaves us breathless with admiration. As usual, Ron Unz's anti-bilingual education initiative carried overwhelmingly in Massachusetts. But he suffered his first defeat in Colorado because of a last-minute infusion of $3 million to the bilingual side. This produced a huge No ad campaign that, in an astounding feat of political ju-jitsu, turned bilingual education from an anti-American idea into - an anti-immigration idea!!! Coloradoans were told that teaching Hispanic children English was going to cause "chaos in the classroom," as Mexican-American children were integrated with English-speaking children.
You have to hand it to them. They really are the Evil Party.
Voters given this unusual chance to vote against immigration did so - not realizing that they were voting against assimilation.
Of course, local initiatives cannot keep immigrants out of Colorado (a neglected federal responsibility) or even out of taxpayer-funded schools, (an alleged civil right). But the voters apparently felt that this was the only thing they could do.
Except for re-electing
Tancredo in a
The NYT, always in favor of moderation where Republicans are concerned, has a story (November 6) on what passes for the Republican Party in the Northeast:
"Like mainstream Republicans, they oppose most new taxes, but they are not nearly as hostile to government programs. Like most Democrats, they favor immigration, abortion rights and environmental regulation, but also want to shrink the welfare state."
So that's what "moderate" means!
Michelle Malkin Interview: John Hawkins at the
solid RightWingNews.com recently interviewed
Michelle Malkin on illegals, enforcement, ["Every
measly "No Entry" sign should immediately be replaced
with an armed National Guardsman—at least until 100,000
new Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents are
trained and ready to be deployed."] and what
websites she would recommend. We're flattered that
VDARE.COM made that very short list. Read the
Canadian Terrorism: The Washington Post reports (October 30) that the Canadian Government has warned Syrian-Canadians, Iranian-Canadians, Iraqi-Canadians, Libyan-Canadians and Sudanese-Canadians that their travel to the US may be delayed owing to the fact they come from terrorist countries.
The Post says that the Canadian Government
"suggests citizens born in Iraq, Syria and other countries targeted by U.S. anti-terrorism policies consider avoiding travel to the United States."
This is putting it backwards, as usual. It would be more accurate to say "other countries that have targeted the US with terrorism policies."
Canada, which has lax immigration and easy citizenship requirements, has seen several of its Muslim citizens arrested for terrorist activities. Ottawa's protest seems to be linked to the superstition that people become magically changed by taking the oath of citizenship, and all traces of former loyalty vanish, and anyone who thinks that they don't is insane.
Which suggests a solution to the Iraq crisis: pass a special bill granting Saddam Hussein U.S. citizenship.
That would make him behave!
Small Raid Down Under; Not Many arrested: The Australian Broadcasting Corporation reports (November 6) the arrest and detention of four people on a Queensland farm. Immigration dept swoops on Queensland farm
A similar story in the US has 135 arrested. But 110 were released on their own recognizance.
The Australians released none (0).
It's not just that the
ocean surrounding Australia is deeper than the Rio
Grande. It's that
Australians are fighting back.
Sincerity no justification: Last week Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit wrote:
JOHN COLE WONDERS what the Hell those Haitians were thinking by trying to immigrate to the United States.
Me, I figure anyone willing to make that trip because they want to become Americans ought to be allowed to stay.
This idea comes up a lot, and it's pitifully easy to refute. If someone is willing to risk his life and break the law to get something, shouldn't we give it to him?
Er, no. We shouldn't. If someone wants something that's not his so badly that he's willing to just take it, we should, in fact fight back.
That applies to the contents of your wallet, the
money in a bank vault, and a woman's virtue. There's no
reason why it shouldn't apply to citizenship.
November 06, 2002