From: Linda Cromwell (e-mail her
Re: Patrick Cleburne's Blog: Fairness At The Washington Post!!! WSJ Next?
I agree that it is certainly a good thing that the Washington Post published Center for Immigration Studies Steven Camarota's op-ed piece How Many Americans?
But don't take it as a harbinger of things to come.
The print media's policy—not written anywhere but clearly in evidence—is to throw those who oppose unlimited immigration the occasional bone in the form of an op-ed or a critical letter to the editor.
That way, you can't go to the publishers and say: "You never print our side of the story."
They, in turn, would reply to you: "You're wrong. We published that op-ed three months ago and a letter last Tuesday."
In the meantime, though, they've also published three dozen biased stories, a couple of scathing editorials and several op-ed pieces from immigration lawyers.Joe Guzzardi comments: Hmmm…"a prominent California daily newspaper that VDARE.COM has properly beaten up on for its shoddy immigration reporting." Would that be the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Sacramento Bee, or the San Diego Union-Tribune?
From: Don Reynolds: (e-mail him)
Re: Marcus Epstein's Column: Marcus In Minnesota—St. Paul, Ron Paul, Palin And Police Horses
IIf only politics worked as Epstein would like.
One does not join Paul's movement and then hope to convince him to change his Libertarian immigration views. That sounds like a woman who marries a man because she hopes to redo him after the wedding.
It would be better to find a more suitable groom since change, as we all know, is hard. I voted for Paul during the primary. Now the Republican Party can burn to the ground as far as I am concerned.
Paul is not going to get serious about illegal immigration. It is not in his personal philosophy a and never has been. Defending the borders and deporting illegal aliens is not about liberty and freedom, it is about national defense, cultural integrity, and survival.
Don't look for Paul to get on our bandwagon—now or in the future—any more than I will get on his.
If Epstein wants to press somebody to change his views on illegal aliens, he should start with John McCain or repeat over and over these words: "President Barack Obama".
That's the choice we're left with this election year. Given that, I'd rather let the GOP go to hell t than vote for a traitor like Paul.
[Peter Brimelow comments: I don't agree with this. In our mid-2007 interview, Paul clearly staked out a paleolibertarian position on national sovereignty which would have satisfied immigration reform patriots. Unfortunately, paleolibertarianism has institutional problems and Paul's advisors seem to have been dogmatic left-libertarians. So Paul blew it.
From: Jack B. Quick (e-mail him)
Re: Today's Letter: An Oregon Reader Says ICE Is Arresting The Wrong People
Regarding the raid at Howard Industries in Mississippi, one reason we need to require secure biometric ID, including Social Security cards, is that it will take the plausible deniability for employers out of the equation.
As it is now, the way to get a job if you are an illegal alien is to get fake documentation and use it to fraudulently in the application process.
Employers who hire illegal aliens can get off the hook unless it can be shown that they knew of the fraud or helped aliens obtain their false identification.
The illegals are generally desperate for work and will take whatever risks there are especially since they know that if they get caught they will be no worse off than they were before.
A much better system would be to offer safe harbor to employers from possible prosecution should they inadvertently have an illegal alien on their payroll— assuming they accepted secure verifiable biometric IDs from employees and process those employees through the E-Verify program.
This would allow the honest employers to not have to keep looking over their shoulders and it could be used as evidence against the crooked ones who do not follow that procedure but instead try to undercut their competitors by hiring illegal labor.
From: Jeremy Dunn (e-mail him)
While I agree with Oregon letter writer Terry Baker that the CEOs of companies that employ illegal aliens need to be handcuffed and carted off to jail, I disagree with him that that alone will be effective.
The whole point of arresting illegal aliens at the job site is to deport them, not merely making it possible for them scuttle to another factory where they can return to work.
There are millions of working aliens everywhere. We would have to have nearly five Mississippi raids every day just to get rid of one million of them.
How can we accomplish this task without drawing attention to the crime of aliens in the workplace without arresting them? We need to hold our ground and not give an inch if the immigration reform movement is to mean anything.
Washington is currently gathering signatures for the I-409 initiative Respect for Law that forces federal immigration law to be obeyed. I for one am out there doing all I can to make Washington another brick in the brick wall of fed-up states that are unifying against illegal immigration's onslaught.
Dunn, a Washington native, is a technical illustrator who lives in a Seattle suburb with his wife and their cat.
Re: James Fulford's blog A Harvard Graduate Explains Obama's Qualifications For Harvard Law: "Liberal Bona Fides"
From: Pete Redner: (e-mail him)
And what were G.W. Bush's "qualifications" for admission to the Harvard Business School? The man was rejected by the U of Texas Law School. May we not conclude that Texas U is more selective than Harvard? I'd worry less about this diversionary nonsense and more about what these candidates stand for today. I'll assume that you're familiar with the provisions of McCain-Kennedy, like the Dream Act and a new category of work visas for foreigners. A more bipartisan shafting of the American people would be hard to imagine.
If McCain-Palin have changed their views, how about letting us know?
From: A Canadian Ph.D, (anonymous for protection from that country's "hate" laws)
Great blog. I also bet [Wayne Allyn] Root is right. And I am sure there are people beside Obama who know the answer, for example professors and fellow university students who took some of the same classes. Also, his high school record should provide some insight into his IQ, which, of course, is a major determining factor. All we need is from someone to track down and interview these people.
As someone who grew up on a poor farm in New Brunswick , I can understand why Root is bitter about institutional racism in America…not against blacks but against whites. Who are the real victims here?
The same is true in Canada,, where we have state-sponsored discrimination in hiring on the basis of race, language and gender. Sure makes one feel glad that we have a Charter that protects Canadians against discrimination. [VDARE.com note: This is a bitter joke—Canada's "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" was adopted in 1982, and specifically includes a provision legalizing affirmative action.]
From: George Weinbaum (e-mail him)
Let's remember Obama started out at Occidental College in LA, not Columbia. Suppose he had decent SAT scores in high school, he could have gone to any Ivy League college he chose. Guessing he was near the middle of Occidental's class, I'd estimate Obama's high school SATs were about 1250 on the new scale, or would have been 1150 on the old, pre-recentered SAT.