Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Illegal Immigrant Advocates are their own Worst Nightmare

Don't you enjoy it when the other side actually makes the same argument that this side has been making since the inception of the debate. Let's look to Siskind's blog and a commenter of which is a Legal Immigrant, I give you Kamal Jain.
Legal immigrants should try to distance themselves from CIR and any talks of CIR. These are doomed to fail in the current economic climate. We should lobby for visa recapture and other measures, rather than hoping for the impossible (passing of CIR) and even more impossible (attaching provisions for legal immigration to CIR) to happen. As long as CIR is pushed for by ethnic organizations and lobbies, it will never be "comprehensive" in the sense that it will include both legal and illegal immigration provisions. The Hispanic caucus only cares about Hispanic immigration, and they have proven this time and again. We should just lobby for peace-meal immigration bills like visa recapture, exemption of family members from EB numbers, exemption of US graduates with Masters or PhDs, etc. We have nothing to do with law-breakers and other groups, which have very strong public opinion against them.
And his points about the Illegal Immigrant Advocates:
Let me get this straight, you guys are saying that people who are in legal status according to the immigration laws of the United States don't deserve any more immigration relief and benefits that people who crossed the border illegally and are constantly hiding from law enforcement? I don't think it makes sense to even argue with you. You appear to be either some kind of anarchist or a completely irrational person...

I just love how illegal immigration advocates like to insult and disparage legal and educated immigrants. Like we are all jerks for following all the laws, spending ridiculous amounts of money to deal with bureaucracies in order to maintain legal status, and then (gasp!) having the nerve to ask for something in return for our efforts. What outrage! But obviously it's not politically correct to expect society to repay someone's efforts and hard work, because "we might send a message to the lettuce pickers that they are not smart enough" (to loosely quote one congressman) if we decide to give easy green-cards to PhDs, scientists, and researchers.

And his final nail in the coffin:
What I was saying is: fine, go and do your own stuff, and lobby for CIR, or whatever you feel like doing, but stop messing with legal immigrants, and stop hijacking bills designed for doctors, nurses, and PhDs, and stop insisting that these issues are linked. There is absolutely no connection between doctors and engineers, and illiterate lettuce pickers, except for the vague idea that they're somehow all "immigrants" (even though the difference between "legal immigrants" and "illegal immigrants" is the same as between "shoppers" and "shoplifters" if we have to be technically precise).

I don't mind your pursuit of humanitarian goals (legalizing everybody, happiness and peace on the planet, etc), of providing sanctuaries, and upholding religious values. But please stop acting like as if you have any real argument or any moral high-ground in this debate. What you have is an unverified number (12 million: wow!) which you keep throwing around, extolling the economic benefits of legalizing these people (proof please?), and insisting that everyone else is less important (300 thousand suckers who played by the rules: big deal!..and who cares about innovation, the next big technology, or finding a cure for cance? Forget about this stuff -- the lettuce pickers, and taco stand workers will truly touch your life, and they may even find a cure for cancer in a few generations, just give them time!).

I'm not saying those people who do menial jobs are not important, but they have their own separate immigration categories, and their own problems. For better or for worse they decided not to put too much effort into becoming legal (just as they decided not to invest much effort into other things like education, careers, etc.) It's their own personal choices and their own business. I don't mind and I'm not doing anything to either help them or hurt them. It's people like you and your senators, however, who are causing problems by attacking legal immigrants, and actually doing real, tangible things to hurt their cause.

Why don't you just admit that you hate legal immigrants because they are the only thing that gives any credibility to the current immigration system, which you want to completely discredit and scrap in order to help the 12 million illegals, and let's leave it at that?

I think this says it all about the Illegal Immigrant advocates:
Why don't you just admit that you hate legal immigrants because they are the only thing that gives any credibility to the current immigration system, which you want to completely discredit and scrap in order to help the 12 million illegals.
Now, what about Kyledeb from Citizen Orange:
As such, the real battle will not be between nativists and migrant advocates, but among migrant advocates themselves.
This pretty much sums it up, they now realize that the problems they have are within their own advocacy groups and that the Legal Immigrants want nothing to do with the advocacy of Illegal Immigrants.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Media Matters, NCLR, and Liberal Bloggers Get it WRONG about Hannity

I find it rather peculiar how the left tends to point fingers and yell hate speech and attempt to label those who disagree with them, various names. But what happens if they blame the wrong person for a statement made by a Conservative when it was actually first published by an Independent? I give you Barbara F. Hollingsworth, former Reporter and Columnist for The Daily Illini (Independent Student News Source) and Topeka-Capital Journal (Liberal Paper owned by Morris Communications), and her opinion editorial from The Examiner, primarily an online format conservative e-paper. I give you Barbara's exact words,
Speaking of beneficiaries, the omnibus bill contains a $473,000 earmark for La Raza, which has called for Mexico to annex the southwestern states. Maybe it’s time to take them up on the offer and let the Mexican government bail out California for a change.
Now lets make note of the time of her publishing, 2/25/09 5:42 PM, and keep in mind this is on the East Coast.

Now, lets look at the time of the statement made by Sean Hannity, since the Hannity show is live on the East Coast at 9:00 PM, his statement was therefor made after 9:00 PM on 2/25/2009, that's approximately 4 hours after it was first stated by Barbara F. Hollingsworth. But do you think Media Matters cares? Not really, it's easier to point the finger at the "other". What about Dee and her Blog, do you think she would be intelligent enough to do some research prior to her blather and spouting, "Sean Hannity is a Big Fat Liar Desperate for Ratings!" Just like Media Matters, Dee is incapable of actual research and objectivity. There are numerous blogs that have linked to her and copied her ignorance, do you think any of them will redact their links?

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Texas Stolen and We didn't Cross the Border, The Border Crossed Us

It seems that those who claim that Mexico has some sort of right to the Southwest of the United States, really don't know what they are talking about. They believe Mexican Nationals have the "right" to cross International Land Boundaries without the need of authorization. They claim that all Peoples living North of the Rio Grand River in the Territories Mexico gained when it won its Independence from Spain were Colonized by Spanish and Mexican Nationals, but what they fail to recognize is that it was only the border area that was scantily populated. In Texas, there were less than 3,000 Mexicans living North of the Rio Grand, approximately 6,000 Californios living in mostly Southern California or a few missions along the coast. The rest of the territories of Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, Idaho had less than 9,000 living mostly along the New Mexico and Arizona river region of the Rio Grand.

Will they also admit that many Mexican Nationals abandoned the land grants they were granted by either Spain or Mexico at the time due to Indian raids on their lands?? At this point in time, abandoned land grants were auctioned off by the Government of Mexico and sold for mere pennies on the dollar.
By 1840 most of the grants had been abandoned. The most blatant land grab occurred in 1844. Far to the south, in the port of the Guaymas, the Mexican government declared that the mission lands of Tumacacori had been abandoned and auctioned them off for five hundred pesos to Francisco Alejandro Aguilar.
This is where Aminta Zárate comes in, please read the entire article linked here.
She is 86, a widow of prodigious memory and unswerving will. Over the past 27 years, she has gone to court, spoken with senators, met with ambassadors, petitioned presidents. And now the former elementary school cafeteria manager has joined forces with a San Diego law professor, demanding more than $2 billion from Mexico on behalf of her group, the Asociación de Reclamantes, or Association of Land Claimants.

"It's more than money," Zárate said on a recent Saturday morning, seated inside a small office attached to her beige brick house in this quiet town of 45,000 residents. "I want justice for what they've done to our ancestors, that's what I want."

The story is an odd historical footnote, overlooked in textbooks and unspoken in the classrooms of south Texas. But it has been passed down, like a burning torch, from generation to generation among the descendants of the original European settlers of this harsh, flat region on the U.S.-Mexico border – land that belonged to Spain, then Mexico, then the United States. The Cárdenas and the Cantus and the Ballis, the Longorias and the Cavazos and the Zárates, families whose ancestors never crossed the border. Rather, they like to say, the border crossed them, in 1848, after the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.(emphasis is mine)

Their petition boils down to this: In 1941, Mexico signed a treaty with the United States, agreeing to compensate 433 south Texas families for the loss of 12 million acres between the Rio Grande and Nueces rivers. The land once belonged to their ancestors and was part of Mexico, then became U.S. territory when the 1848 treaty was signed. But Mexico never did pay – and it shows no signs it will.
But wait, there's more:
In 1923, the United States and Mexico established a General Claims Commission to settle outstanding claims between the two countries rising from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Mexican government officials reached out in south Texas among the population of Mexican origin, soliciting claims for loss of property and other injuries, and presented them as Mexican claims to the commission. It was a tactic, some say, to offset U.S. claims.

The United States presented 2,781 claims against Mexico, worth $513 million, on behalf of its citizens, many of whom had lost oil wells in Mexico. Mexico presented 836 claims against the United States, for $245 million; of those, 433 were in south Texas, representing 12 million acres valued $193.6 million. San Juan Carricitos, Zárate's ancestral land, was among the claims.

For the next 16 years, nothing was done. Then, in 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, anxious to prevent Mexico from joining the Axis powers, proposed an arrangement: The two countries would swap claims, and each would treat the claims as a domestic issue.

It was a good deal for Mexico, given the difference in sums. The United States asked for an additional $40 million from Mexico, but agreed to pay all the outstanding claims lodged by U.S. citizens against Mexico.

Mexico, in turn, agreed to pay the claims that had originally been aimed at the United States, including the Texas land grant claims.

By 1948, the United States had paid off its claims. Mexican President Manuel Ávila Camacho had signed a decree in 1941 calling for legislation to provide compensation for its claimants. But the law was never passed.

"The decree was enacted, and nothing happened after that," said Vargas, of the University of San Diego. "That is certainly a constitutional violation."
It seems Mexico owes some money and those who insist that this land was 'Stolen' had better re-evaluate their argument to reflect the Government in which they should be arguing.