As James Fulford says below, Heather Mac Donald’s Mexico’s Undiplomatic Diplomats certainly deserves recognition as the definitive and exhaustive (5,800 words!) statement on the outrage of Mexican Consular behaviour in this country. Having it appear in as conventional a venue as the City Journal will be useful in getting the subject into the media food chain.

Mac Donald particularly deserves credit for placing the blame where it belongs:

The Mexican government will push to control as much U.S. immigration policy as it can get away with. It’s up to American officials to stop such interference, but the Bush administration simply winks at foreign attacks on immigration laws that it itself refuses to enforce. President Bush should worry less about upsetting his friends at [the Mexican Presidential palace] and more about listening to the American people: illegal immigration, they believe, is an affront to the rule of law and a threat to American security. It can and must be stopped.

[Experienced readers of Heather Mac Donald, though, are reeling in shock. She actually acknowledges a source!!! In this case, former U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Jeffrey Davidow and his interesting book about his experience there, The Bear and The Porcupine. She must consider Davidow to be on the same social plane.]

But more interesting is the jarring anomaly arising from the fact that City Journal is the magazine project of the Establishment Neo Conservative stronghold the Manhattan Institute, lair of notorious pro immigration flack Tamar Jacoby. In fact this outfit featured here only last month, when James Fulford amplified on a devastating attack on a dubious pro immigration poll commissioned and publicised by the Manhattan Institute [MI: Turning Corporate Cash Into Influence - Craig Nelsen]

Civil War amongst the NeoCons? On my left, Tamar Jacoby. On my right, Heather MacDonald. May the best man win!

Heather Mac Donald has an excellent article in City Journal about Mexico’s undiplomatic diplomats, well worth reading, although much of the ground covered will already be familiar to VDARE.com readers, (see links)

The audacity of Mexico’s interference in U.S. immigration policy stands in sharp contrast to Mexico’s own jealous sense of sovereignty. It is difficult to imagine a country touchier about interference in its domestic affairs or less tolerant of immigrants. In 2002, for example, Mexico deported a dozen American college students (all in the country legally) who had joined a protest in Mexico City against a planned airport. Such participation, said Mexico, constituted illegal domestic interference. (It would be interesting to know how many Mexican students–legal and illegal– have participated with impunity in demonstrations in the U.S. against American immigration and educational policies.) During his confirmation hearings, U.S. ambassador Jeffrey Davidow said innocuously that the U.S. would encourage high participation in Mexico’s 2000 presidential election. A magazine editor rebuked him for “intromission in Mexico’s internal affairs.” Davidow didn’t even dare visit the troubled state of Chiapas early in his tenure, knowing that the press would condemn it as illegal meddling.

Imagine if U.S. diplomats yowled constantly about Mexico’s unfair policies toward illegal Americans. Mexico would expel them instantly. This summer, U.S. ambassador to Mexico Tony Garza closed the U.S. consulate in Nuevo Laredo after a particularly bloody period of drug violence that included the assassination of the town’s police chief. Garza admitted to a reporter that he shut the consulate “in part” to punish Mexico for its failure to control the mayhem. Such measured language, in response to a public threat, provoked a sharp correction from Mexico’s deputy foreign secretary, Geronimo Gutierrez. Garza’s words, fumed Gutierrez, do “not correspond to the role of an ambassador.” City Journal Autumn 2005 | Mexico’s Undiplomatic Diplomats by Heather Mac Donald

Since Steve Sailer’s correspondent encourages VDARE.COM readers to ask the FBI why it counts Hispanic crime as “white”, we need to supply a contact: try this.

A reader writes:

As you know the FBI has no “Hispanic” category in the Uniform Crime Reports and so nearly all Hispanics end up counted as “white”. What you may not know is how the FBI gets away with this. Office of Management and Budget Directive 15 actually requires all federal statistical data to have a “Hispanic” category.

Agencies can either use the “combined race/ethnic format” in which “Hispanic” is treated just like race or they can ask a separate question to see if someone is “Hispanic” and have the race question without a Hispanic category. Either way, the Hispanic total must be published. I called the FBI’s toll free number for crime statistics analysis 1-888-UCR-NIBR to find out how the FBI can produce statistics without a Hispanic category and found out that the FBI was granted a “variance” which allows them to not have a Hispanic category.

The explanation that I got from the top person involved in producing the Uniform Crime Reports was that there would be too much cost associated with 17,000 local police departments adding a “Hispanic” category. This makes no sense. First of all many local police departments already have a “Hispanic” category. Second of all, why would it be expensive to add one extra line item to a form? Third, there are plenty of federal agencies that collect from local governments and all others have a Hispanic category.

I actually called the House Judiciary Committee (since they have oversight over the FBI) to see if they knew how the FBI got this “variance”. The person I talked to said he would have the oversight counsel look it into it and possibly get back to me but I don’t think that I am going to get anywhere as one person. Steve, I hope you can give greater publicity to this “variance” because I don’t think the FBI could get away with it if more people understood it.

It is a cold grey day here in the Connecticut Berkshires and my brother is out in his woods paintballing with our sons and a number of their friends. (Some will be happy to hear that his enterprising effort to lead a flanking attack resulted in him being hit with yellow paintballs seven times in a few seconds: he looks like an heroic frying pan.)

It is pretty cold and grey on the political front too. Those with memories long enough must be thinking of the 1974 Post-Watergate election catastrophe - dubious economy, foreign policy disasters, ethical outrage.

Dow Blog (whose threatened demise was worrying me recently) has put up a succinct summary of the wasted opportunities arising from the electoral gyrations of the past few years. Sometimes it is useful to read a refresher on this fairly complex business:

On the other side were imperious neoconservatives, conflating Israeli and American interests, driven to create a Pax Americana at the point of a bayonet. The neocons were aligned with business interests, those who believe in the myth of homo economicus, who sought mass immigration as a means of keeping wages low, and who see tax policy and tort reform as more important than the murder of unborn children.

I continue to believe that when citizen volunteers, with family concerns pressing, invest the time to write 1,500 word essays, all cannot be lost. I commend his post earlier this week too, particularly the later portion:

Where were the men who possess the character of William Jennings Bryan, willing to resign rather than go along for the ride?

Colorado Gov. “MIA” Bill Owens (R) — who endorsed a Spanish-language Guide instructing illegal aliens how to evade detection and exploit public services in Colorado (Bill Owens’ Guide For Illegal Aliens: Cash In On Colorado ) yesterday said he supports a high tech fence at the Mexican-US border. The Governor was confused about the length of that border, guessing it was 900-miles when it’s actually 2000 miles.

(Owens backs fence to close off U.S. border By Fernando Quintero, Rocky Mountain News, October 28, 2005 ).

Owens is feeling the squeeze as two Referenda (C & D) he supports, which create blank checks for the State government when Owens refuses to answer questions regarding the costs of illegal aliens and anchor babies to Citizen-taxpayers.

Citing ignorance, Owens claims that costs are all “Federal mandates”, and nothing he can do will change that, ignoring 2003’s Colorado Title 24-72-1 (Secure and Verifiable Identity Documents), pushed by Owens and cronies which codifies provisions of the full range of services for illegal aliens claiming they have children five years or younger.

In the meantime, we await the Governor’s response to a petition some of us delivered to Owens’ office (http://www.freespeechforum.org,) demanding he declare a State of Emergency, reverse sanctuary policies (such as above: Colorado Revised Statutes, Title 24-72-1-106), designate overflow holding areas for illegals awaiting deportation (ending current catch-and-release policies) and enforcing the State Constitution’s Official English Act. Three weeks later, the Governor hasn’t bothered to respond to request for a meeting to discuss this point.

The National Republican Senatorial Committee wants to know what we think about illegal immigration. According to the NRSC website,

“Illegal immigration is putting a major strain on local, state and federal government.”

(Yeah, I looked for a comment section where I could send them a “duh” note but there doesn’t seem to be one.)

The website provides a link to their immigration survey. It looks like you have to provide your name and address (which will undoubtedly end up on a zillion fundraising mail lists) in order to fill out the survey, but it might be worth your time.

Generally, a call from an MSM writer leaves me contemplating two alternatives:

1) What a waste of time, of course there was no intention of quoting me, or
2) How will this be spun to demonize me?

So it was a pleasant surprise to find in Second language a part of building community - by Todd Mason, The Philadelphia Inquirer, October 18 2005 [Access requires free registration] a straightforward and accurate statement of my reservations about the trend for Americans to feel they have to learn Spanish:

“Immigration critics find fault with this “creeping institutional bilingualism,” as Peter Brimelow described it.

A second language adds costs for businesses and governments and raises economic barriers for the majority who can’t speak it, said Brimelow, editor of Vdare.com, an anti-immigration Web site.

Even naming VDARE.COM!

The rest of the article was a standard account of Spanish’s colonization of America, noting that

The problem is more acute in suburban and rural areas, where immigration is new. Latinos come for construction and service jobs in the suburbs and agriculture jobs in the countryside

(”The problem” is people speaking only America’s historic tongue)

implicitly conceding that institutional biligualism advantages the immigrant:

Mihaela Fulga, a legal secretary, spoke to the advantage of being bilingual before class began at La Comunidad Hispana. “If you are bilingual, you get more money

passing over the traditional method of dealing with non-English speaking arrivals:

Latinos in exurban areas work harder to fit in, said Isidoro Gonzalez Jr., La Comunidad’s executive director. “There is a lot more to pick up faster,” he said. “It forces people to assimilate.”

But letting an opponent state the contra case,and identifying him is a great addition to the standard story, and I salute Todd Mason.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) says it’s important for more young blacks and Hispanics to get involved in the political process, and to that end he has created a new school to train tomorrow’s campaign workers who will be part of the New America.

The new training program will be called “Yes, we can.” ( Si, Se Puede! for those who prefer to get their news in Spanish.) Remember when such a program might instead have been called “We Shall Overcome?” But this is the New America, and it’s good to see that Mr. Obama has come to “know his place.“

One of our Canadian correspondents, Michael Monastyrskyj, has just started a blog called Dispatches from the Hogtown Front, Hogtown being a nickname for the multicultural city of Toronto. Sample post: The immigration (non-) debate is a test of Canadian democracy

On those few occasions when an intrepid Canadian ventures to suggest immigration policy should be changed, he almost always begins nervously with a demeaning ritual statement to the effect that, of course, his opinions have nothing to do with race. Having sacrificed his dignity to the insatiably ravenous gods of diversity and pseudo-tolerance, he then proceeds to ever so gingerly suggest tightening up the system in one way or another. After which, he is still called a racist.

We’ve added it to the blogroll, and suggest you give it a look.