An Anonymous Attorney writes

As Congress ponders the disastrous amnesty bill, we helpless toilers in the salt mines of Office America watch as evidence of the destructiveness of uncontrolled immigration presents itself.

• An attorney for a worker who speaks only Spanish demands a Spanish-speaking doctor or interpreter. Guess who’d pay for that interpreter’s services? Not the English-language refuseniks, but you and me, through bigger insurance bills, pricier consumer goods, and higher taxes.
• An attorney who wonders about the value of car accident case involving a Mexican defendant with an over-the-limit blood alcohol level who’s skipped back to Mexico before the start of his DUI trial.
• An African immigrant who skipped out on his credit card debt and left his employer with the administrative costs of a garnishment proceeding.

Do these anecdotes make their way through to our elected officials with the same frequency as the constant happy-talk about the warm joys of immigration from the MSM? Or are politicians like John McCain and Lindsey Graham so keen to look politically correct that they turn a deaf ear?

We’d ponder it some more, but the salt mines are calling

Katrina Vanden Heuvel recently blasted Lou Dobbs at The Nation and Common Dreams. At issue were some potential factual errors Dobbs may in overstating the number of recent leprosy infections-and their connection to immigration.

My own comment

The 7,000 cases figure appears likely to be a lower bound.

From Sharon Lerner at the New York Times:
“While there were some 900 recorded cases in the United States 40 years ago, today more than 7,000 people have leprosy, or Hansen’s disease, as it is now called. ”And those are the ones we know about,” said Dr. William Levis, attending physician at Bellevue Hospital’s Hansen’s Disease Clinic. ”There are probably many, many more.””

Further in that article:
“Most of those infected in this country are immigrants from global leprosy hot spots, like Brazil, India and the Caribbean.

But, in the past six years, Dr. Levis and his colleagues have proved that a handful of his patients — including a 73-year-old man from Queens who had never been out of the country and an elderly Jewish man from Westchester — have contracted leprosy here.”

Is Dobbs biased? Perhaps, but major media sources are strongly biased in the opposite direction-selectively forgiving the mistakes of those that accept their agenda.

Much of that bias is related to their dependency on advertising revenue from major corporations-that are run by wealthy interests that tend to favor immigration.

I doubt CNN put Dobbs on the air with his message until they didn’t think they could avoid doing so without loosing credibility. Is Dobbs’ overall journalistic credibility different than the comparable media? Sadly, US media is in very bad state.

Sadly, Katrina Vanden Heuvel’s essay is politically biased reporting using a dubious source.

The SPLC is little more a “Civil Rights Organization” than the the Bakker’s PTL was a legitimate religious organization. Both of these dubious organizations greatly over spent on fund raising and executive salaries/perks.

The issue of human migration and infectious diseases is an important, politically charged issue. Is it really possible for conventional academic institutions to really look at this accurately? If not what are the costs/risks involved?

Journalists should be to try to create an environment in which hard-nosed accuracy on these issues is fostered and encouraged, and the overall quality of journalism is increased. Vanden Heuvel must also take it upon herself to identify fringe sources she uses-particularly in dealing with an issue in which wealthy interests are so heavily involved as immigration. It is relatively easy to find “legitimate” sources that cheer lead for the wealthy-and those that do not may have issues from sheer lack of resources. We must learn look at what the truth would be like without this bias-in an environment in which hard facts are hard to come by.

Mickey Kaus has been on fire over the immigration bill, with no time for any other obsessions, so that if you want to know, for example, what Ron Burkle’s up to, you’ll have to read Newsweek:

Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Reid charged, “People are looking for excuses on the Republican side to kill this bill.” I’m not sure thats true–and Reid’s threat to pull the bill looks to be a negotiating ploy. But if it were true, it would be understandable Welfare reform faced similar legislative obstacles in 1996. The difference is that voters supported welfare reform by a 2-1 margin. Only a conspiracy of elites could prevent it. This is the inverse situation: only a conspiracy of elites can foist Sen. Kyl’s “grand bargain” off on the public. That may be harder to do these days with, you know, the Web n all. … 10:17 A.M.kfs “Killer Amendment” strategy. - By Mickey Kaus - Slate Magazine

BloggingHeads.tv [Video] Watch Mickey explain “the horror of it all” to Robert Wright.

The LA Times, where he compares Bush’s immigration reform ideas and attitudes to his attitudes toward the Iraq War.

Immigration — Bush’s domestic Iraq | The rigid thinking leading us to failure in the Mideast spawned ‘comprehensive immigration reform.’ June 4, 2007

Here are the ten reasons he gives–he explains them in detail, read the whole thing, but these are the basics:

1. They’re both ideas Bush had when he came into office.
2. They both have an idealistic basis.
3. They both seek, in one swoop, to achieve a grand solution to a persistent, difficult problem.
4. Both envision a complicated, triple-bank-shot chain of events happening on cue.
5. Both depend crucially on pulling off difficult administrative feats.
6. In both cases, the solution has failed before.
7. In both cases, some Bush plan enthusiasts may not really mind a chaotic end result.
8. In both cases, less grand, less risky alternatives are available.
9. In both cases, Bush’s sales pitch excludes these middle alternatives.
10. In both cases the consequences of losing the grand Bush bet are severe.

Michelle Malkin: Video: Harry Reid said what?
“12 million undocumented Americans”
The concept of American citizenship is dead. Sen. Harry Reid drove the final nail in the coffin with his floor statement yesterday, in which he referred to the 12 million illegal aliens currently in the U.S. as “12 million undocumented Americans.” I’ve heard a lot of stupid euphemisms for illegal aliens, but that one takes the cake.

Watch the video, currently featured front and center on Reid’s website.

Previously I’ve mentioned the “undocumented” and Steve Sailer had column called The Ultimate Euphemism for “Illegal Alien, “ in which he found several people referring to illegals as “citizens.”

The most prominent of those was George Bush, who in the days before 9/11 was saying

“Remember, we’ve got hardworking citizens who are willing to walk 400 miles of desert in blistering heat to find work.” [BBC News | US and Mexico agree immigrant plan, August 10, 2001]

But even he didn’t say they were American citizens.

On this day in 1944, many thousands of American and Allied troops risked their lives on the beaches of Normandy to protect this country from fascism. (Listen to Ike’s stirring Great Crusade speech to the troops to get an idea of the resolve.)

On this day in 2007, the Senate of the United States is working to destroy the borders and sovereignty of our great nation.

Marc Ambinder in the Atlantic blog:

. The much-anticipated clash between McCain and Romney on immigration came 28 minutes in, although it was Giuliani, showing he was up to snuff on the details of the legislation, who came away with the applause lines.

You’d never know that Giuliani, as mayor of NYC, was adamant that he didn’t have to enforce immigration laws.

Matthew Yglesias also on the Atlantic’s website:

7:25 I can’t believe Rudy is trying to get away with evading the fact that as mayor of New York City he actually sued to defend his right to not enforce immigration laws.

Here’s how Heather Mac Donald described Giuliani’s immigration record it in 2004

Immigration politics have had the same deleterious effect in New York. Former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani sued all the way up to the Supreme Court to defend the city’s sanctuary policy against Congressional override. A 1996 federal law declared that cities could not prohibit their employees from cooperating with the INS. Oh yeah? said Giuliani; just watch me. He sued to declare the 1996 federal ban on sanctuary policies unconstitutional, and though he lost in court, he remained defiant to the end. On September 5, 2001, his hand-picked charter revision committee ruled that New York may still require that its employees keep immigration information confidential to preserve trust between immigrants and government. Six days later, several former visa-overstayers conducted the most devastating attack on the city and the country in history.
Center for Immigration Studies |Crime & the Illegal Alien |The Fallout from Crippled Immigration Enforcement, June 2004

Steve blogged about this in May [
The Sailer-Sarkozy Immigrant Buyout Scheme] after proposing that Europe pay Muslims to go home in 2005,[A Buyout Option For Europe's Muslims] and here it is again in the news. France gets tough on illegal immigration, setting quotas for arrests, expulsions, [Associated Press, June 4, 2007]An excerpt:

“The French Republic will be extremely firm. It will ensure laws are applied,” Fillon said, adding: “Naturally, these laws must be applied with the greatest humanity.”
Many saw Sarkozy’s proposal as a nod to the electorate on the extreme right, which long has made fighting immigration one of its main causes.
“Generosity is not opening wide the borders without thought for how people will integrate, how they will live, how they will subsist,” Fillon said.
Hortefeux, in his meeting with security officials, also insisted on the need to develop a system of paying illegal immigrants to voluntarily return home, setting the number of paid departures at 2,500 for this year _ a 25 percent increase from 2006.
Those volunteering to leave, as part of a program started in late 2005, are given a fixed sum of money, normally $4,700 per couple, with $1,350 each for the first three children.

When I was a small child, I was really looking forward to The Future: flying cars, jumpsuits with diagonal zippers, the whole bit. I envied a friend’s little sister because she would grow up in a more futuristic world than I would. I was very excited when dumpy old 1965 turned into sleek new 1966 — which, you have to admit, featured a particularly futuristic looking set of numbers.

Funny, though, how the future keeps turning out like the past, only dumberer. For example, the LA Times illustrates the future of urban politics in America with a story about the LA suburb of Lynwood:

Racial shift plays out in Lynwood politics
As African Americans lose numbers and influence to Latinos, the friction can be felt at City Hall and beyond.
By John L. Mitchell, Times Staff Writer June 5, 2007

For years, the battle for control of the city of Lynwood has been shrouded in accusations of political corruption and cronyism.

A former mayor is serving a 16-year sentence in federal prison for embezzlement. Five current and former City Council members have been charged with padding their salaries with public funds. And an effort is underway to recall four of the five current City Council members.

But beyond the allegations of graft and corruption, a different war — rife with racial and ethnic stereotyping — is being waged in the working-class city south of Los Angeles.

Latinos, who make up more than 80% of the city’s 72,000 residents, are vying for power with African Americans, who, despite smaller numbers, maintain considerable influence by virtue of superior voter strength in a city where 40% of the residents are foreign-born.

A decade ago, when blacks controlled the city’s political landscape, Latinos complained that they were being denied city jobs and lucrative municipal contracts. Now Latinos dominate and African Americans complain of being frozen out.

The problem is emblematic of emerging tensions throughout Los Angeles County, where the Latino population has surged as African American numbers have dwindled.

The tensions are playing out in cities such as Carson, Compton and Inglewood, where traditional black political muscle — concentrated largely among older working- and middle-class homeowners — is showing signs of weakening as a generation of Latinos reaches voting age. Tensions are also playing out in the race to succeed Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, where the competition between two well-positioned African American candidates may result in their canceling each other out, paving the way for a Latina to capture a seat blacks have held for decades.

The black-Latino friction in a city such as Lynwood is exacerbated by a lack of resources and decent jobs and by poverty — all problems common to both groups, said Harry Pachon,[send him mail] a USC professor and head of the Tomas Rivera Policy Institute, which released a report in April titled “Beyond the Racial Divide: Perceptions of Minority Residents on Coalition Building in South Los Angeles.”

One conclusion, he said, was telling.

“Each group is buying off on the negative stereotypes held by the majority [white culture], rather than questioning them,” Pachon said. “Blacks say that Latinos don’t take care of their housing, and Latinos felt that blacks don’t value families as much.”

In Lynwood, some of the strongest evidence of stereotyping can be found on Lynwood Watch ( lynwoodwatch.blogspot.com ), a website created by an anonymous blogger to keep watch on city officials. The blog encourages readers to voice their opinions, and they do. But many of the comments are laced with calls for Latino unity that include racist rants — in English and Spanish — directed at African Americans.

White people have such amazing voodoo powers! White people don’t even live in Lynwood, and yet they are still hexing minorities by remote control from over the horizon into not seeing each other as they really are — rocket scientists and philanthropists, every one of them. Instead, evil white people are hypnotizing the black and brown residents of Lynwood into believing their lying eyes about their neighbors instead of believing what they are supposed to believe.

A while back, I noted this contemptuous quote from McCain, in Vanity Fair:

Then he added, unable to help himself, “By the way, I think the fence is least effective. But I’ll build the goddamned fence if they want it.”[Prisoner of Conscience, February 2007]

This is McCain in the debate last night:”We Are Not Going To Build Fences And Barriers”

Vanity Fair’s reference to McCain as a “Prisoner Of Conscience” refers to his habit of making his own decisions without reference to such considerations as party loyalty, the wishes of his constituents, or the interests of the United States of America. It’s all about him and his conscience.

A chart in the NYT graphically illustrates the mediocrity of the human capital that recent Mexican immigrants (legal and whichever illegal ones the Census Bureau could find) bring. While over 40% of recent immigrants from India have an advanced degree, only about 1% of Mexican immigrants do. Over 60% of Mexican immigrants have less than a high school diploma. While about 20% of African immigrants work in “science, engineering, technology, or health,” only about 1% of Mexicans do. Almost three times the proportion of Filipino immigrants claim to speak English “very well” as do Mexican immigrants.

I’m often denounced for drawing attention to the salience of race and ethnicity to immigration policy. Under an ideal immigration system — limited numbers of legal immigrants chosen for their high human capital rather than for family connections — race and ethnicity would be much less relevant a question. India, for example, is not a high IQ region on the whole. If we imported millions of random Indians we would have trouble. But, because Indian immigrants tend to be selected for skills, assimilation into middle class America is less of a problem for them.

Highly skilled immigrants without extensive family connections already in the U.S. tend to blend in well to middle class suburban America. Moreover, the fat life in America can corrupt people — look at the horrible rates of obesity and diabetes seen in many long-established Mexican-American communities, such as in South Texas. Similarly, among Hispanics, the illegitimacy and crime rates go up in subsequent generations. (For Latinos, overall, illegitimacy is about twice the Anglo white rate, and the imprisonment rate is three times as high — and 13 times as high as the Asian-American rate.)

So, if we thought rationally about immigration, we would want to bring in people with the most human capital to start with so their descendants would be well set to withstand the morally degrading temptations of American life.

In contrast, the current system of massive illegal immigration and most legal immigration driven by “family reunification” makes race and ethnicity extremely useful predictive markers. Because we aren’t choosing Mexicans, they are choosing for us, we are getting run of the mill Mexicans. Although there is a lot of hopeful chatter about how the latest Mexican illegals are going to turn into Italians Real Soon Now, that kind of talk is a lot more persuasive to members of the media elite in DC and NYC, where Mexicans are new and exotic, than in parts of the country that have had huge Hispanic presences for many generations, such the Upper Rio Grande Valley of New Mexico, the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas, and Southern California. Recall Tim Russert’s recent humiliation of New Mexico governor Bill Richardson for New Mexico’s dismal rankings on most measures of human welfare — and that’s after 159 years of Hispanic assimilation into the U.S. Richardson didn’t suddenly make New Mexico an underachiever of a state — it’s always been that way due to the human capital of the inhabitants.

No wonder Barack Obama is leading the charge against reforming and rationalizing the current system of legal immigration along the Canadian point-system model. His whole early career was devoted to racially divisive politics, and immigration is a good way to add to the divisions with American society. It’s good for politicians, bad for Americans.