…goes to Michael Chertoff who suggested that many who oppose the Senate’s concept of immigration reform would not be satisfied with anything less than “capital punishment” for illegal aliens. Read his exact comments here: Hotline After Dark — We’re Legally Here, May 18, 2007

Rector is the formidable analyst at the Heritage Foundation who, I’ve heard, built the intellectual foundation for 1996’s welfare reform, a rare public policy success.

Over the last couple of years, Rector has been crunching numbers for the financial burden imposed on the rest of us by the massive immigration of poorly-educated, low-skilled people, both immigrants and illegal aliens. For samples of prior VDARE items touching on Rector’s work, see here and here. You can go directly to Rector’s work on our subject — about half a dozen reports going back to May of last year — here.

Now you can hear Rector, too. Mark Levin interviewed him for about 15 minutes on 5/17/2006, and the interview is archived here as a “.wma” file (for how long, I don’t know — but you can save it to your own machine).

Unlike many talk-radio hosts, Levin lets his guest speak without interrupting after every two sentences, so the interview is a coherent and altogether worthwhile introduction to what Rector has been thinking and doing. Notably, Rector doesn’t mince words in stating his conclusions. Highly recommended. Two thumbs up!

Levin also interviewed Center for Immigration Studies executive director Mark Krikorian on his 5/17/06 show. Audio for this and other segments of that show are available here.

Hugh Hewitt has posted some snippets from an interview with White House spokesman Tony Snow:

HH: Are young men who entered this country illegally, or who overstayed their visas illegally, whose country of origin was either in Central Asia or an Arab country eligible for regularization under this bill?

TS: Well, they would be eligible for regularization only if they met a whole series of standards. If they have broken the law while they’re here, they’re not eligible. If they do not remain continuously employed, they’re not eligible for regularization. If they do not provide, do not present themselves for a tamper-proof ID that has biometric information, submit themselves to background checks, they are not eligible for regularization. If they do not master the English language and culture, they’re not eligible for regularization.

and

TS: Well again, let’s see, let’s walk through. No, because at least in one of those cases, you’d had, maybe in a couple of them, you’d had expired student visas, which are going to themselves be subject to far more scrutiny. And in terms of background checks, I’m going to have to go back and find out whether they kept their noses clean or not.

HH: Tony…

TS: But if you’re asking me, Hugh, if it’s going to be possible using immigration law to find out whether somebody has not previously broken the law, whether they are going to commit an act of terror, whether they are an American citizen or not? No, that’s not going to be what immigration law is about.

and

HH: But what I’m saying is if there are in fact hundreds or thousands of jihadists who have come here illegally, across the border or via visa overstays, that this law makes no provision for a special category of men, young men, originating from these countries. They’re going to be waived through. And so while immigration not may not…

TS: Well, wait a minute. What do you mean by waived through?

HH: They’re just getting in the same line with the decent, hard-working Mexicans.[ Tony Snow On The Immigration Bill Fiasco Posted by Hugh Hewitt | Friday, May 18, 2007 9:58 PM]

Of course, the bottom line is that in spite of 9/11, the War In Iraq, and various attempted and successful terrorist acts since then Administration is unwilling to discriminate in any way against Arabs. That applies in air travel, and it applies in immigration.

So the Senate Sellout applies to Arab illegals on exactly the same basis as it does to Mexican illegals, because of the Bush Administrations anti-profiling ideology.

That’s in spite of the fact that immigration policy is the policy area where common sense doesn’t have to be trumped by the ACLU and the Civil Rights act, since there is no right to immigrate.

Unfortunately, as is endemic with Vdare.com contributors, I had to give attention to my paying job yesterday and only lately turned to the Immigration debate.

Happily, the Senate Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration bill seems to be in deep trouble. When low-rent operatives like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh declare against something, one can be sure the grass-roots opposition must be immense.

A key MSM tactic has been to play up complaints by pro-immigrant forces. The way “Google News/ Immigration” works these heavily sponsored stories naturally rise to the top.

A much more significant question was posed in the thread to Immigration plan blasted on both sides By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer
North County Times May 18 2007

Reptile09 wrote on May 18, 2007 3:24 AM:

“If Bush and these Senators had gone to the border and signed a surrender treaty with Mexico, I can’t think how this so-called compromise could be any worse. If this is ever allowed to be signed into law, America as a sovereign nation is over. My only question to Jorge Dabaju Booch is this: Why do you hate Americans so much? Every thing you say and do is an insult to the citizens of this country and amounts to treason against the Constitution. What have we done to you, that you would force this travesty of government down our throats? You let thousands of innocent American die at the hands of criminal illegal aliens. You let them destroy our schools, hospitals and neighborhoods. You let them drive our wages down to third world levels and all the while smile and give that smirking chimp grin. Why do you hate us so much? “

Why do they hate us so much? VDARE has considered this question, notably here and here.

But speaking to the fact that they do hate us is this story: U.S. offer to Bhutan refugees fuels tension
Reuters India Thu May 17, 2007

Tens of thousands of ethnic Nepalis were expelled or fled from the Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan in 1991, and around 106,000 live in poverty and exile in crowded camps in eastern Nepal, roughly one-sixth of Bhutan’s population.
Last year, Washington offered to take 60,000 refugees from the camps in a move that has divided the exiled population

What possibly could be the motive to offer more than half a brown, Hindu, non-English speaking group of peasant farmers from a location half way round the world - with which America has never had an involvement, unlike the Hmong - access to America?

Other than to obliterate the historic American nation?