Naif
adj. & n.
Variants of naive HERE

Also: “Scoundrel”
scoun·drel (skoundrl)
n.
A villain; a rogue. HERE

and…profiteer
one who makes what is considered an unreasonable profit especially on the sale of essential goods during times of emergency. HERE

One more: resentful
1 : full of resentment : inclined to resent
2 : caused or marked by resentment
— re·sent·ful·ly \-fə-lē\ adverb
— re·sent·ful·ness noun Again, just for future reference.

“Clients”?!!!

“At first we were constantly catching clients,” Ms. Engh-Schappert said later, using the Border Patrol vernacular for illegal immigrants. “It’s gone from pretty busy to hardly anything in our sector.”

Here from Jerry and the NY Times

Lou Dobbs Tonight – June 10, 2008

Senator Charles Grassley (R) from Iowa has introduced legislation that would continue the mandatory use of the E-Verify system for contractors and subcontractors used for federal projects. The present legislation is due to expire this fall, and President Bush has signed an executive order requiring the same that is due to go into effect this fall after a 60 public comment period.

Senator Grassley reminds us that it only makes sense that contractors used by the federal government should be required to use the same system used to employ federal employees. This is especially important when considering that persons involved with terrorist organizations have been found working on US Army bases.

A hedge fund of $19 billion by the name of TCI, based in London, wants to place five directors on the CSX board. CSX is the largest Railroad east of the Mississippi. CSX connects 23 different states and connects 70 ports along with 13 military bases. CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim explains that TCI owns four percent of shares and 11 percent of economic interest in CSX. TCI wants to cut capital expenditures and increase rail rates. Most disturbing, is that TCI will not disclose its investors and is under no obligation to do so. Six senators who serve on the banking committee have written to the Treasury Department asking for a CFIUS review on national security grounds.

TCI claims that no one needs to worry about who the investors are (citing that only 1 percent of their assets are sovereign wealth funds).

Senator Evan Bayh (D) of Indiana believes TCI should be reviewed to be sure that this move would not raise national security concerns.

TCI insists this is political posturing and there are no national security concerns.

Lou Dobbs of CNN claims that President Bush and the treasury secretary Henry Paulson look foolish by “going around the world with their hats in hand trying to get foreign capital.” Dobbs believes it is obscene that hedge funds are not regulated in the US, let alone a foreign hedge fund. Dobbs points out that CSX is an important national security asset to this country and should be held to a higher standard accordingly.

Dobbs also points out that Japan raised the same concerns over TCI when they tried to raise their investment in J Power, an important utility and national security asset for the Japanese.

Congressmen Pete King and Walter Jones are insisting that the President and the Democratic leadership stop stalling and get moving on the Secure Fence Act. Over 260,000 signatures from grassfire.com have been presented in Washington DC in efforts to get the border secured. Congressman King (R) of NY points out that building this fence was mandated 2 years ago and claims language was added, literally in the middle of the night, to the appropriations bill last year that has slowed this down.

Lou Dobbs of CNN claims that attempts to contact Homeland Security Committee chairman, Benny Thompson’s office and Congresswoman Sanchez were made and both declined to comment.

King, a ranking member of the committee also commented that the Chairman of the committee has not only made it clear that there is no rush to get the job done, but is actually suing in order to keep the fence from being built.

Lou Dobbs stated “With this Congress, with fewer than ten weeks remaining to do the work of the people over the past 17 months the 110th Congress not a single bill addressing the issue of border security or illegal immigration has been passed by this Congress.”

King blames the non action on an “unholy alliance” between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. The Democrats are pandering to special interests and certain communities while the Republicans are pandering to businesses who like the cheap labor.

“As I flew back to Georgia I could not help thinking that El Paso was very different 25 years ago. I had an opportunity to compare then and now. I could see up close what happens to an American city with an open border and what the new posture of disregard and disrespect will spawn throughout our communities and schools.”

Trip home highlights changes brought by illegal immigration

Read it here.

Image: Washington Post Ad Media Kit.

On “pooling sovereignty”, blacklists and far-left open borders newspapers…

The Washington Post editors may want to consider “pooling” journalistic integrity in order to find a measurable amount – or how proud am I to be banned from the Washington Post editorial page?
————————————

*Update, January 18, 2021: I didn’t know it at the time, but CIS Director and National Review writer Mark Krikorian also took note of the original WaPo OPED described here and then posted a note about me being blacklisted and this post on NRO.

___________

“As you know, I liked the letter, but an editor here said that The Post will not print letters from your group.” – A June 6, 2008 e-mail response to a question from me to Tom Rowe, a copy editor in the letters to the editor department at the Washington Post.

My question was “did my letter get in pls sir”?

As someone who studies – and is active in trying to stop – the illegal immigration and illegal employment crisis created by the Bush administration’s refusal to secure American borders – war on terror be damned – I wish I could say that I am surprised that the Washington Post, one of the more aggressive proponents of open borders keeps a “no publish” blacklist for its letters to the editor.

My only surprise comes from the admission and confirmation from an editor inside the newspaper that the suspected censorship is reality.

I take it as a personal point of pride and endorsement to learn that I am on their blacklist.

My June 3, 2008 letter to the Washington Post editor was in response to a Sunday Op-Ed titled “The Orthodoxy of Hope” by Jim Hoagland, in which he outlines some of his ideas for a President Obama and what he describes as “new thinking” that “is desperately needed in U.S. foreign policy”.

Here is the part of Hoagland’s Op-Ed that caused this long time American to dash off a letter to the Washington Post:

“…Here’s one example of new thinking he should pursue: The United States should apply to relations with hemispheric neighbors many of the lessons of the European Union and its half-century of economic and political integration. A functioning American Union that pools sovereignty is a goal worth introducing now. But that quest cannot start by tearing down the North American Free Trade Agreement and other hemispheric trade accords. A President Obama has to be willing to sit down with the prime minister of Canada and the president of Mexico without preconditions, such as demands for treaty renegotiations….”

Because I study the motivation behind the refusal to secure American borders, I have heard the American Union, political and economic “integration”, free flow of people concept many times before. But the smarmy, spineless and dare I say it…Orwellian Newspeak involved in Hoagland’s term “pooling sovereignty” may have set the benchmark for cowardice in advocating – while not admitting – the open borders agenda shared by so many of the new American “elite”.

My letter below, one that Rowe told me in a phone call that he “liked” and would “try to get in” the Post’s Saturday’s “Free for All” page:

Dear editor,

In his June 1 column, Jim Hoagland writes about forming an “American Union that pools sovereignty”.

“Pooling sovereignty” is merely a transparent way of saying that we should sacrifice ours in order to form a more profitable market- place that happens to be located in the middle of North America and was once a proud, independent nation of laws with defended, defined borders and a common language.

The majority of Americans will oppose this long held nation busting agenda of the elite.

However “déclassé” of us.

Hoagland and the rest of the open borders crowd must be hoping that we will not realize that with the present convoluted interpretation of the 14th amendment to the US constitution (remember that?), we would make American citizens of much of the hemisphere in but one generation. We would soon all merely be “citizens of the continent” and no doubt pledge allegiance to the commerce for which it stands.

Ben Franklin’s challenge in his answer when asked what government was created by the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was ” a Republic …if you can keep it”.

He must have seen Hoagland & Co. coming.

Not on my watch Mr. Hoagland.

D.A. King
Marietta, Ga.

For those who haven’t sent a letter to the Post and had it catch the eye of an editor for publication, this is what is sent back from the Post in response:

The Post is considering publishing your letter on the June 7 Free For All
page. I need to know the following information:

* Did you write the letter yourself and under your own name?

* Did you send the letter to any other publications or post it on a blog?

* Do you have any connection to the subject matter, such as a political
connection or employment in goverment?

RSVP.

Tom Rowe
Editorial
202-334-****

My email reply was quick and clear, “YES”, “NO” and to the last question, I made it clear that I am president of the Dustin Inman Society, which is opposed to open borders – I even included a link to the “Who was Dustin Inman” page on our Website.

I later called Mr. Rowe and had a 4-5 minute conversation again making it clear that I in no way work for any branch of any government and that I do have an education on and interest in border security and the crime of illegal immigration. Rowe began a conversation about Dustin Inman’s chances of being killed by “anyone” and we talked about how many cases I have knowledge of concerning Americans losing their lives to illegal immigration.

I told him that because many reporters shield their readers from the immigration status of perpetrators in news stories, it was difficult to illustrate or verify my educated estimate that since the horror of 9/11, more Americans have been killed by people with no legal right to be in the U.S. than were killed on 9/11.

I could hear the doubt in his voice, but we had a polite, honest, business-like conversation which ended with him telling me that, while he could not promise publication, if my letter was going in, the next day he would send me the final letter for Saturday publication – I assumed he meant with a typo correction I had sent after the original letter.

When I didn’t hear from Rowe I sent my e-mail asking about its status.

Let me write it again: The Washington Post has an agenda of open borders and amnesty-again and has a blacklist that is aimed at keeping silent educated voices who do not share their far-left doctrine.

I wonder when the last time those folks read this?

Eugene Meyer’s Principles for The Washington Post

Eugene Meyer had a vision of what makes a newspaper truly great, and that vision included serving the public according to seven principles. He offered them in a speech on March 5, 1935 and published them on his newspaper’s front page.

The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth can be ascertained.

The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world.

As a disseminator of news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman.

What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as the old.

The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of its owners.
In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such a course be necessary for the public good.

The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men.

Memo to the editors at the Washington Post: Yuck.

( I also wonder if MALDEF and La Raza are on the Post’s blacklist?) Just kidding. Of course they aren’t.

DIS Mission Statement HERE

Source for info and quotes above: CNN – Lou Dobbs Tonight – June 9, 2008 HERE

President Bush signed an executive order Friday designed to crack down on government contractors employing illegal aliens. The order requires federal government contractors and subcontractors to use the E-Verify system. E-Verify checks social security numbers of newly hired employees against government databases and is now a vountary program..

Michael Chertoff admits that it is embarrassing to find out that tax payer money is being used to pay illegal aliens working on government projects, such as airports and even military bases such as Fort Bragg. Department of Homeland security claims that E-Verify has been a huge success and Chertoff estimates hundreds of thousands or even millions of employees would be impacted by this order. More than 69,000 employers have already registered for E- Verify voluntarily. Arizona presently requires the use of E-Verify.

(Georgia has been requiring state contractors to use E-Verify since July 2007.)

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claims this order will disqualify legal residents from being able to work. Their examples sited are those who change names due to marriage or divorce, and clerical errors. E Verify was recently upgraded to better insure the accuracy of reporting on naturalized citizens.

DHS reports that 99.5% of those entered into the system are instantly cleared, and the other .5% have 2 days to clear up any problems. But E-Verify has its critics and is scheduled to expire this November. Business groups and the American Civil Liberties Union say the program will disqualify legal residents and citizens from working.

According to the Department of Homeland Security, 99.5 percent of legal workers whose names are run through the system are confirmed instantaneously and that the other .5 percent are able to resolve their issues within two days.

The ACLU claims to be checking into the legality of the President’s powers to make a voluntary program mandatory without going through Congress. CNN’s Lou Dobbs says “the ACLU is simply — they’re no longer a civil rights watchdog group or activist group. I mean, they basically are involved in advocacy. They are pro illegal immigration, pro open borders, and they are fighting at every quarter to stop enforcement of U.S. immigration law. It’s really a remarkable situation, isn’t it?”.

Starting June 9th, there is a 60 day public comment period before the final ruling will take effect this fall, unless there are legal challenges. Lou Dobbs points out that since comprehensive immigration reform has failed in congress, that now, seven and half years into this presidency, they are finally deciding to enforce immigration laws.

The Mexican government says more than 450 law enforcement officers have been killed in the past 18 months by drug cartels who are operating on both sides of the border. The Mexican government is concerned with the flow of weapons smuggling from the US into Mexico.

Asst Secretary of ICE, Julie Meyers claims that illegal arms smuggling has swelled from a drip to a tidal wave at our southern border with Mexico. The level of gun related violence on both sides of the border is at a record level.

The weapons -fifty-caliber sniper rifles capable of piercing armor from a mile away, machine guns, and hand grenades- are being purchased with profits made from sales to illegal drug users in the United States.

Senator Charles Grassley (R) of Iowa claims that we owe it to our neighbors to help cut down on the arms smuggling from our country into Mexico.

Rep Henry Cueller (D) of Texas states that there are Mexican drug cartels here in the US, naming places like Laredo, San Antonio, and Houston.

Mexico has announced that they will be stepping up their inspections of vehicles traveling into Mexico. Both the US and Mexico plan to share intelligence and Mexico plans to form a specially trained and vetted group of law enforcement agents. There are also plans to create a weapons tracking database, and to educate weapons dealers.

The Bush administration, Congress, and the Mexican government are working on the Merida Initiative, in which the US tax payer would give $1.4 billion in military aid to the Mexican government, in hopes that the money would be used to fight these drug cartels.

The US government claims that the rise in violence at the border is a direct result of success in beefing up the border.

South Carolina is cracking down on illegal aliens with the passage of a new law requiring all employers to verify the legal status of their workers. Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina states that the reason illegal immigration is not being dealt with is due to the amount of people who profit from the system the way it is now. Sanford also explains that we are a nation of laws not men, and the laws can not be “wink and nod laws,” and what we have now is a “wink and nod system.”

Michael Chertoff says that “Only by promoting the legal workforce can we reduce the incentives for people to come in illegally in order to do work in this country.”

Source: CNN HERE

I met Dwight Graves once – he seemed a little angry, but otherwise a nice enough guy.

Dwight Graves should understand who he is working for and what the agenda really is.

Try reading this Rev. Graves. Jerry Gonzalez has.

REASON MAGAZINE
Open the Borders
Forget guest workers—why should citizens of NAFTA countries need visas at all?
Tim Cavanaugh | April 16, 2006

If there’s one thing about NAFTA/WTO-style free trade that has always driven labor activists nuts, it’s that modern trade agreements allow “free flow of capital” but not “free flow of people.” So you’d expect organized labor to support any move that will give workers more flexibility and power, right?

Wrong.

While American labor has come a long way since the 1980s (when the AFL-CIO supported the most punitive “employer sanction” aspects of that era’s immigration-reform efforts), the country’s major unions do not speak with one voice on this topic. And the complicated labor arguments over immigration indicate more than just divergent motivations among unions. They hint at why even the best “guest worker” legislation will be the kind of half-measure that principled supporters of open immigration should treat with skepticism.

“We remain deeply troubled by the expansion of guest worker programs—for workers not already in this country—contemplated by the bill voted out of the Senate Judiciary Committee,” AFL-CIO President John Sweeney announced recently. “Guest workers programs are a bad idea and harm all workers.”

Whatever party politics Sweeney may have played in souring the Senate’s efforts at a compromise immigration reform bill, he was invoking classical zero-sum labor politics: Freer entry by new workers from south of the border means more competition, and more downward wage pressure, for Sweeney’s constituents. Interestingly, however, his is not a unanimous labor position. The Service Employees International Union took the opposite tack, backing the Judiciary Committee bill, and for reasons that mirror Sweeney’s reasons for opposing it. SEIU spokesperson Avril Smith says the organization’s decision was based on a number of factors, including an expansive guest worker program and the bill’s guarantee of 325,000 new work visas per year. “Any legislation we support will have to include visa programs,” she says.

If you want to see the kind of philosophical differences that drove SEIU’s spectacular divorce from the AFL-CIO last year, this is a pretty good example. The major unions share the view that existing undocumented workers—the 12 million or so reputed to be in the United States today—should be regularized (and made easier to organize). The difference of opinion arises from the proverbial campesino who is still in Mexico but may come north in the future. Is that person a potential ally or a competitor for scarce wages?

SEIU’s answer depends partly on the organization’s demographic, which is high in immigrant laborers. (Some unions in the “Change to Win” coalition that joined SEIU in splitting from from AFL-CIO have not taken a position on the current round of immigration reform.) But even United Farm Workers of America, which has a largely though not wholly immigrant workforce (despite popular images of the migrant worker as the icon of illegal immigration, only about one million of the reputed 12 million undocumented workers in the United States work in agriculture), is careful to separate its own guest worker efforts from plans that would open up new visa opportunities to people who are not already in the country. UFW’s “Ag Jobs” initiative, explains spokesman Marc Grossman, “is not retroactive. You can’t come into the country and then take advantage of it… But if they’ve been brought into this country, we want to protect them.”

So where does that leave a Mexican citizen who hopes to make it to the United States someday? “Out of luck,” Grossman says.

Considering how much the SEIU and UFW contributed to last week’s impressive pro-immigrant demonstrations, it may seem paradoxical to argue that the interests of the unions conflict with the interests of freer immigration. “Most labor unions see that their ranks will be swollen by these people,” says Hector Flores, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens. “So you’d be shooting yourself in the foot to say ‘I oppose these people.'” But the modest goal of a more functional guest worker program raises problems for a principled supporter of free immigration.

First, as Jesse James DeConto demonstrated in Reason’s February issue, even a fully functioning guest worker program creates cruelties for the people who are actually participating in it. More important, there’s something paradoxical in allotting visas or guest worker provisions only to people who are tied to employee situations in the United States. Immigrants have always been among the most entrepreneurial classes in American life. You could make the case that small business startups have been the single greatest national benefit of immigration. It’s an idiocy worthy of, well, the United States government to make the promise of immigration dependant upon your ability to find a clock-punching job at an already-existing company.

The solution to the immigration crisis, if there is such a crisis, does not rest in guest worker programs or higher visa quotas, but in the one possibility nobody is mentioning: eliminating visas altogether within the NAFTA countries, and allowing Canadians, Americans, and Mexicans with legitimate passports to travel freely among our three countries for any reason or for no reason. This was the early vision of Ronald Reagan, and it was certainly an implied outcome of the North American Free Trade Agreement. “NAFTA had an effect on the Mexican economy, in terms of encouraging campesinos to leave the farm and seek better opportunities,” says Fred Tsao, policy director of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant Rights, “but we’ve shut off the legal opportunities for people to do that.”

The pathetic aspect of this debate is that visaless NAFTA borders would not even be a novel step. They would be a partial return to the way things were in the golden age, when the Tancredos, the Sensenbrenners, and the Cavanaughs first fouled these shores. Anti-illegal-immigrant types who never tire of pointing out that their ancestors came here legally are making a hollow argument: Until fairly recently in American history, there was no motive for illegal immigration; all a prospective American had to do was show up. It’s a sign of a timid and tired nation that, in a period of economic expansion, we’re not even willing to allow such an open system for our immediate neighbors and closest trading partners. “Guest worker provisions are an attempt to recapture some of the circularity that happened in the past, when people moved more freely between countries,” says Tsao. “Whether that’s going to work, I don’t know.”

When asked about visaless borders, every person I interviewed for this article gave two replies: that we need to be realistic about our options, and that the guest-worker compromise will be more fair than what we have now. The first of these answers is half-right: In the current political climate, the idea of eliminating visa requirements with Canada and Mexico seems as heretical as the notion of pasteurization or a sun-centered solar system. Beyond that, the arguments of realism and fairness are entirely wrong. The guest worker compromise is unrealistic because it has nothing to do with economic reality on this continent. Nor is it especially fair: At best it will grandfather in some portion of the existing undocumented workforce (and probably not a very large portion). For anybody who dreams of coming to the United States for a better job, or to start his or her own taqueria or a retail toque outlet, the various current Senate proposals will not increase, and may even reduce, the legal opportunities to pursue the American dream.

Since all parties to this debate draw a line between legal and illegal immigration, we should note that visaless borders would greatly increase the former and virtually eliminate the latter. Is that a problem? I don’t think so, and people who oppose the idea need to explain why they think it would be.

READ IT ALL HERE

——————————————————————————–

Rev. Dwight GravesLetter to the Editor: Immigration activist would have us remove Statue of Liberty

Marietta Daily Journal Published: 06/10/2008

DEAR EDITOR:

Re: D.A. King column, “Coalition just another leftist open-borders group,” MDJ May 29

I understand that border control is important, but is Mr. King suggesting that we should remove the Statue of Liberty and what it stands for, since many immigrants helped make this country great? I agree with the late Rev. Dr. Martin King, who said, “I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.” I believe that God will hold us accountable for what ever we do and say, and that our motives better be pure.

The opinion of Mr. King, the founder of the Marietta based Dustin Inman Society, is not surprising since according to some he is known for derogatory, problematic rhetoric.

Be assured that the SCLC will not be a part of anything that is unlawful and unfair, and that does not support our divine moral imperative of promoting peaceful non-violent social change for the betterment of humanity. The SCLC will continue to be a voice pleading the cause for the least, lost and left out in our society. We will not be bought off by pats on the back/head, high-profile press coverage or money. The Coalition is doing a great work in making sure that any type of unfairness will not go unnoticed. The SCLC will continue to promote love and reconciliation for humankind, and will work with the Coalition because it has a similar objective.

Unfortunately, today we have a resurgence of the late J.B. Stoner-like rhetoric rearing its ugly head in America, fueled by talk show and TV news outlets with the motive of supporting a particular political agenda of selfishness. Calling people “aliens” is just another example of how people are desensitized towards other human beings and thus promotes ill will. History reflects that just about anything negative has and will be done to people considered less than human.

Dr. King had his critics during his quest for justice and equality for all. In his letter from the Birmingham Jail, addressing the clergy who thought that he should be concentrating on just preaching the Gospel, he pointed out that, “Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will,” and in the same letter wrote “We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”

I agree with D.A. King that terrorism warrants concern. While growing up in West Virginia, I got a good dose of internal terrorism and it was not a good thing. Unfortunately, terrorist acts were committed in the United States against fellow Americans long before 9/11.

Thanks and love to people like D.A. King because they will keep an informative and hopefully constructive dialogue about hot button issues and these issues will no longer be one sided. Perhaps a more candid, inclusive discussion before the war in Iraq started could have prevented what many consider excessive loss of life and lessened economic stability.

The Rev. Dwight Graves

Southern Christian

Leadership Conference

Marietta

Maria LitlandLetter to the Editor: Advocate for illegals accused of ‘thoughtless insult’

MARIETTA DAILY JOURNAL Published: 06/10/2008 DEAR EDITOR:

Re: Rich Pellegrino letter, “T-shirt coalition marks new day for Cobb,” Thursday’s MDJ

Several months ago Rich Pellegrino said illegal aliens are not illegal aliens, but undocumented immigrants. In his latest fascinating and revealing (and somewhat humorous) letter, he writes that these criminals are “so-called undocumented immigrants.”

I am curious what they will be next. Victims? As a legal immigrant, with the documentation to prove it, I am grateful to the MDJ for allowing us to see the real man here. I am deeply hurt and offended by Mr. Pellegrino’s disrespectful and rather bizarre attitude. I, for one, did not invite illegal aliens here and most of us want them to leave! I also see that for Mr. Pellegrino, illegal employers are not mentioned.

His thoughtless insult is clear. My coming to the United States legally was a waste of my time, respect for the laws and my honor. I speak, read and understand English and do not miss his real meaning. I understand why he always brings up race and color.

It is his meal ticket. It is Pellegrino who is dividing Cobb County. But he gets his wish. Media coverage. I hope he is happy to insult me and all law-abiding people.

Maria Litland

Marietta