The Seattle Times (online only) – 10/20

Hire our children instead

In extolling the economic benefits of illegal-alien agricultural labor, Seattle University law professor Richard Delgado, in effect, serves up the tiresomely familiar “lettuce argument”: If illegal aliens aren’t working the fields, lettuce will cost consumers $5 per head.

But UC Davis agricultural economist Philip Martin has shown that the field-labor cost included in a $1 head of lettuce is about $.06

Thus, we could triple wages for picking the crops — at which point Americans would do the jobs — and the cost of a head of lettuce would rise by 12 percent.

The numbers are similar for other crops.

So a family that spends $15 per week on produce would shell out about $100 more per year, a negligible tab for ending what’s virtually modern-day slave labor.

Citizens taking such jobs needn’t regard them as careers. Instead, these jobs are worthy introductions to the world of work for youngsters — and obviously preferable alternatives to our teenagers’ current regime of aimlessly cruising malls and getting fat.

I did similarly menial, but worthwhile, tasks when I was a kid.

Paul Nachman
Bozeman, Mont.

Marietta Daily Journal

Number of illegals ID’s in jail doubles

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency has picked up 2,746 inmates from Cobb County Jail between January and October of this year, Sheriff Neil Warren said. — Deputies and ICE have also placed immigration holds and started initial deportation proceedings for 2,922 who are incarcerated at the jail…

here

Richard Pellegrino/Letter to the Editor: Hopes Obama win paves way to citizenship for illegals

Published: 11/10/2008
Marietta Daily Journal

DEAR EDITOR: Thank you for your editorial of Thursday in which you noted the victory of President Obama and expressed hope for the future of our country under his leadership.

I, too, from both a personal and immigrant rights perspective, was given great hope by his election. I have confidence that his leadership will continue to motivate people of all races, backgrounds and ages to participate in this democracy and serve each other and especially those less fortunate than ourselves. I also have confidence that now, since that there is a progressive president and Congress, the federal government will enact truly comprehensive immigration reform legislation ( Note from D.A. – it is doubtful that Rich the Thinker has read this…but we don’t think Rich reads much) that includes a path to permanent residency or citizenship for our current undocumented neighbors who have earned the right to continue living in and building this great country – which will put to rest any local or state efforts to deny the same.

Regarding the election of the first African American president you wrote, “the fact that that event has now taken place is another testimony to the greatness of our country and its people, and how far we have come,” and I wholeheartedly agree.

But let us not forgot, especially here in Cobb and the South, that we still have a long way to go.

It is apparent that Cobb County and the Southern states in general voted mostly along racial lines, and while President Obama won overwhelming support from whites of all ages in the rest of the nation, that was largely not true in Cobb, Georgia, and the deep South. In our local countywide elections in which African American candidates ran against and lost to white candidates the margins of victory mirrored their percentages in the community, making the margins not “landslides” but “race-slides.”

As a community we need to have frank dialogues regarding this and not sweep it under the table pretending that somehow we participated in or supported the national “unity in diversity” results and or are representative of the rest of America in its progress. Our elected officials need to strongly consider appointing qualified minority representatives to management and leadership county positions in law enforcement, the schools, the courts, and other agencies, and to step up recruitment of the same. And we have to openly discuss the racial profiling and inequities in sentencing which does take place in Cobb.

This is how we can truly applaud and take part in the victory and opportunity presented by this historic election.

Richard Pellegrino

Director, Cobb Immigrant Alliance

Mableton

Comment on this Story HERE

Message To Conservatives: You Are Racists And Should Be Silenced
by Austin Hill
Townhall.com

For a while I thought it was just me. But in the final days leading up to the national election, I began to notice it on both local and national talk shows around the country.

And now that we are a few days past Mr. Obama’s election night victory, it seems quite clear: things have gotten more intense, not less.

I’m writing here about the attacks that are being telephoned-in to conservative talk radio hosts around the country. I’ve noticed a consistent increase of people that I’ll call “Obama enthusiasts” popping-up as callers on conservative talk shows, and no matter what the topic on the show may be, the assertions from the callers follow a predictable pattern.

The precise choice of words that the caller uses in their line of attack may vary, but the pattern essentially goes like this: A) The caller asserts to the host that “all you ever do is attack Barack Obama;” B) The caller then comes around to asserting to the host that “you are obviously a “racist” (or “you are a bigot,” or “you think Black people are inferior to White people,” or something of that sort); and then the caller concludes with C) “you should be removed from the ‘public airwaves’” (or some variation of the general sentiment that “you should just be silenced” or “you should shut-up”).

Now let me be clear: I’m not complaining about this, not at all. In fact, I welcome it on my talk show at 630 WMAL radio in Washington, D.C. It’s no secret that talk radio thrives in controversy, and conversely, a talk show can become boring if everyone is “in agreement” with the host.

But entertaining talk show content is one thing. And the broader implications of people’s words outside of a talk show can be something different (I’m reminded here of the many times over the years that I’ve heard Rush say “words mean things”). And the implications, the “meaning,” of the pattern that I’ve identified above, seems to be this: If you so much as question the President-elect, you are necessarily a “racist,” and your voice should, therefore, be removed from the public square.

I must also add that, while the hostility I’m hearing on conservative talk radio is mostly directed at white, male hosts, it’s not necessarily a “black against white” phenomena. For example, on my show last Friday while I was discussing Mr. Obama’s remarks about the economy at his recent press conference, I received a call from “Roberto,” a man with a Hispanic sounding accent in Arlington, VA. Roberto’s opening salvo was to say that I was being “patronizing” by pronouncing his name with the traditional, Spanish “rolling R” sound.

Now, I grew up in Southern California surrounded by Spanish speakers, and I was taught by my “white Mom” that, as a matter of respect, I should speak Spanish as it was intended to be spoken, and NOT like a “gringo.”

But never mind that “respect” thing. As far as Roberto was concerned, I was simply offensive. And then, of course, the pattern kicked-in – – I was questioning the President-elect’s remarks because I’m a racist, and therefore I should be silenced.

I’ve heard this rhetoric enough times, and on so many different talk shows in addition to my own, that I believe there is some organizational effort behind it. I’m not insinuating that the finger prints of our President-elect are on this, and the participants in this might be quite loosely organized, at best.

But there is a certain mindset, a certain philosophy that underlies this rhetoric, and it is becoming more widespread. It is the belief if you are not in lock-step with the President-elect’s agenda, or if you merely dare to question it, you are obviously motivated by your hatred of ethnic minorities, and you have no place in the broad national debate. And it is an anathema to our freedoms under the First Amendment.

Conservative Americans in particular need to understand that in this new era, the rules have changed. And to understand this change, conservatives need to begin by reading “Rules For Radicals,” a book published in 1971 by noted “community organizer” (and a man who is said to have influenced Mr. Obama) Saul Alinsky.

Column space is limited here, so you’ll have to get a copy of the book for yourself. But consider this notion from Alinksy’s rule #5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”

And consider this language from rule #11, wherein Alinsky suggests that the main job of a “community organizer” is to bait his opponent into reacting in a certain way: “The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.”

Welcome to the new era.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

The California Appellate Court, Third Division
Judges Sims, Raye and Hull, said in a decision:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/c054124.pdf

“Defendants prefer the term “undocumented immigrants.” However,defendants do not cite any authoritative definition of the term and do not support their assertion that the terms “undocumented immigrant” and “illegal alien” are interchangeable. We consider the term “illegal alien” less ambiguous. Thus, under federal law, an “alien” is “any person not a citizen or national of theUnited States.” (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(3).) A “national of the United States” means a U.S. citizen or a noncitizen who owes permanent allegiance to the United States. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(22).) Under federal law, “immigrant” means every alien except those classified by federal law as nonimmigrant aliens. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15).) “Nonimmigrant aliens” are, in general, temporary visitors to the United States, such as diplomats and students who have no intention of abandoning their residence in a foreign country. (8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F), (G); Elkins v. Moreno (1978) 435 U.S. 647, 664-665 [55 L.Ed.2d
614, 627-628] [under pre-1996 law, held the question whether nonimmigrant aliens could become domiciliaries of Maryland for purposes of in-state college tuition was a matter of state law].) The federal statutes at issue in this appeal refer to“alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present in the United States.” (8 U.S.C. §§ 1621(d), 1623.) In place of the cumbersome phrase“alien[s] who [are] not lawfully present,” we shall use the term “illegal aliens.” “

Also see here

Judge Bans Use Of “Illegal” and “Aliens”
Thu, 11/06/2008 – 17:10 — Judicial Watch Blog

Arizona’s Supreme Court Justice has agreed to enforce the Hispanic Bar Association’s demands of banning the terms “illegal” and “aliens” in all of the state’s courtrooms.

Claiming that the terms are inflammatory, the president of Arizona’s Hispanic Bar Association, (known as Los Abogados) has asked state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ruth McGregor to stop using them at trials or hearings because they create perceptions of judicial bias.

In a strongly worded letter to the chief justice, Los Abogados’ president says attaching an illegal status to a person establishes a brand of contemptibility, creates the appearance of anti-immigrant prejudice and tarnishes the image of courts as a place where disputes may be fairly resolved.

It further points out that no human being is illegal and that a national Hispanic journalism association has roundly criticized the reference for dehumanizing a segment of the population. The letter goes on to criticize the state’s High Court for using the term “illegals” in at least two opinions and the term “illegal aliens” in dozens of others.

It concludes with a list of acceptable and unacceptable terms relating to illegal immigration. Among those the group wants banned are; immigration crisis, immigration epidemic, open borders advocates, anchor babies and invaders. Among the acceptable terms are foreign nationals, unauthorized workers and human rights advocates. Click here to see the entire list as well as Chief Justice McGregor’s promise to enforce the requests.

HERE

Tom Tancredo — Human Events
Republican lessons at the end of the Bush-McCain era

Barack Obama has won the presidential election by making it a referendum on the Bush presidency and by successfully making John McCain look like a Bush clone. Voters decided they wanted more “change” than McCain could be expected to deliver…

HERE

Group gets grant to help Stewart County detainees
Associated Press
Friday, October 03, 2008

Catholic Charities of Atlanta has received a $175,000 contract to provide legal help to Latin American citizens held at a detention center in Stewart County.

The Vera Institute of Justice and the Executive Office for Immigration Review approved the contract for a legal orientation program at the privately run Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center.

Atlanta and Fulton County news The center houses 1,800 Latin American immigrants. Some of the detainees have criminal records while others were picked up in employment raids around the country.

The new contract will allow Catholic Charities to put a full-time attorney, a part-time law student and a part-time clerk at the facility to provide legal help and referrals for detainees. HERE

Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Deportation up 63 percent in Georgia, Carolinas

There was a 63 percent increase in illegal immigrants deported from Georgia and the Carolinas in the 12 months ending in October, and thousands of criminals were tagged for removal from the country upon their release from prison, federal officials said Thursday The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Atlanta Field Office of Detention and Removal carried out a record 17,955 deportation orders, compared with 11,006 the previous year, officials said.

They were among more than 40,000 people the field office processed in the three states during the 2008 fiscal year. They included Nai Yin Xue, a New Zealand man wanted in his homeland for the killing of his wife. He was arrested in suburban Atlanta in late February and escorted back to New Zealand in March. Also deported was Afshin Rezaei, an Iranian living in Atlanta who pleaded guilty to exporting laptop computers to Iran through the United Arab Emirates in violation of export laws. With help from state and local authorities, ICE said it identified 9,182 criminal aliens who were incarcerated. Georgia led the way with more than 4,700.

MORE

…

Quin Hillyer — American Spectator

Saul Alinsky takes the White House

Conservatives may not realize just how difficult it might be to recover from this week’s elections. — The day after the big defeat, the conservative chatter everywhere was about how the “movement” and the Republican Party (two different things) could finally unshackle themselves from the bad old habits that brought them down…

HERE
I am reading Alinsky’s 1971 book ” Rules for Radicals” for the first time…it is clear to me that the open bordewrs whackos read it a long time ago.

“Too many conservatives think we’ve seen all this before — in 1964 and 1974 and 1992 — and that we know how to handle it. Fly, meet ointment: We’re not dealing with the same sorts of opponents. These New Alinskyites who are taking over the White House, combined with the most leftist congressional leadership in memory, will not let us play by the same rules under which conservatives recovered from those earlier debacles. They will try to drastically tilt the playing field, seed our side of the field with land mines and, in short, rig the process to make it next to impossible for the political right, or Republicans, to recover. And they are likely to succeed in at least some of these designs.

It will begin with their efforts to secure a filibuster-proof majority of 60 senators (including the two independents). Right now the libs (and yes, all the Democratic senators, with the possible exception of Nebraska’s Ben Nelson, are libs) have 56, with three Republican moderates and one conservative leading their races but awaiting recounts or runoffs. Watch for the Alinskyites to try stealing all four, and to succeed in at least two. We’ve seen this game before. They did it in Indiana’s “Bloody Eighth” congressional district in 1984. They almost succeeded in 2000 in Florida. They did succeed, outrageously so, in the Washington State governor’s race in 2004. Those are just the most obvious of many similar examples. And now they are even more ruthless, more lawyered-up, and in a more powerful position to pull it off than they were in any of those instances.