In April, the Madison Wisconsin school board voted to name an elementary school after controversial Hmong warlord and political boss Vang Pao. Though worshipped as a god by the Hmong community exiled in America, General Pao was indicted recently with several others for plotting to overthrow the Laos government.

Didn’t General Pao know that it violates the Neutrality Act for “Americans” to work for the overthrow of a recognized state? Naturally the Hmong are miffed about what they consider a betrayal from the US government that the rule of law could be used against their special leader. In previous criminal cases, like that of mass murderer Chai Vang, Hmong have not indicated much respect for the idea of equal justice under the law.

Also, it’s news to me that Hmong consider themselves to be “exiles.” Why then are we spending millions of taxpayer dollars to resettle them as refugees? Oh, and they are apparently a “diaspora” too.

The photo shows Vang Pao at the Hmong war memorial in Fresno. Who knew?

Back to the school fracas…

The decision to name the school after Vang Pao was controversial from the beginning because of stories linking the leader to the CIA’s secret campaign in Laos, the heroin trade and summary executions.
[Whats in a name? Madison Hmong community wonders, hopes LaCrosse Tribune 6/10/07]

To clarify, the decision was controversial among Americans. No Hmong objected. They all want a school named after Vang Pao because “It would give a sense of pride to these young Hmong students,” according to ethnic consultant Peng Her.

It’s another nail in the coffin of assimilation of course to allow these tribal people to set up their own separate cultures within America on the taxpayers’ tab.

Furthermore, Vang Pao was up to his eyeballs in drug trafficking and other money-making schemes. A tireless extortionist, he scammed money from old Hmong women so he could continue his millionaire warlord lifestyle here in the United States.

Tony Poe, Vang Pao’s former CIA case handler in Laos, describes the situation in even starker terms, saying that Vang Pao personally profited from supplying opium to a high-level South Vietnamese heroin syndicate.

“Oh, he was making millions,” and he put the money in “U.S. bank accounts, Switzerland, wherever,” Poe said.
[Vang Pao, drugs and the CIA, Madison Isthmus 05/07/2007]

The Madison School Board is scheduled to meet on June 18 to debate the possible removal of Vang Pao name from the elementary school which continues to be under construction.

Wayne Weisser forwarded me this story from The Boston Channel:
….

The Nebraska State Patrol stopped a truck driver who only speaks Russian, and told him he can go no further until he learns the language, Omaha TV station KETV reported.

….

The trucker had all his documents in order and a valid commercial driver’s license, but he couldn’t communicate with state troopers. Under the law, troopers were forced to make the driver park his truck and take him out of service.

Federal regulations said that commercial drivers should be able to read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public. But 17 states and the District of Columbia offer the commercial driver’s license test in foreign languages.

The title in the Boston Channel article [Troopers Ban Non-English Speaking Trucker, June 6, 2007]was rather strange. It wasn’t the troopers banning the Russian-speaking driver–the troopers were just enforcing the law–something lots of public officials in the Boston area might be able to learn from.

Trucking has traditionally been an industry in which Americans could be productive without higher education or terribly long apprenticeships. If trucking companies need more drivers, I strongly suspect they could easily find them if they just improved working conditions and wages. Rather than lobbying for increased immigration, the trucking companies need to consider legislation to provide tax relief, better medical care and improved insurance access to their US drivers.

Mickey Kaus, who has been indispensable over the last few weeks, writes:

“Immigrant Bill Hurts Martinez at Poll”: Senate GOP Grand Bargaineer Mel Martinez’s approval ratings have “plunged” from 48 to 37 percent approval in his state, Florida–an all-time low for him, reports the Orlando Sentinel. … P.S.: Isn’t Florida, with its large Hispanic population, supposed to be one of the more comprehensive-friendly states? [More]

Florida’s 27 electoral votes went to the GOP by five points in 2004, but, of course, 2000 was rather close. (Most of the bigger states that were close in 2004 were either old-fashioned black and white industrial states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.) But I doubt that amnesty for largely Mexican illegal immigrants would be a strong vote-getter in Florida.

While Florida is above average in its percentage of Hispanic voters, it’s actually below the national average in its share of Hispanics of immigrant nationalities.

According to the Census Bureau’s 2004 survey of 50,000 households right after the election, Hispanics cast only 11.2% of the vote in that state. Further, Florida’s Hispanic electorate is led by Cubans and, increasingly, Puerto Ricans, neither of whom have a direct interest in immigration policy. New arrivals from Cuba are treated by current law as refugees, not immigrants, and Puerto Ricans are born U.S. citizens. In 2003, 68% of Hispanic citizens in Florida were Cuban or Puerto Rican, and probably at least 75% of Hispanic voters. Only 7% of Florida Hispanic citizens are Mexican.

In a Florida newspaper poll of 600 likely voters, Hispanics were just as hostile toward immigration as the general populace.

Watching yesterday morning’s Washington Journal on C-SPAN left me with a renewed respect for the opinion of average Americans. The topic for call-in discussion was the title of the Washington Times editorial, Where now on immigration?

Many callers said, “Enforce the laws we have on the books!” Some knowledgeably discussed variations of the attrition enforcement strategy. It made me think that the idea of choosing the Congress by drawing names out of a hat is not without its merits!

The unquestioned idea about immigration policy in Washington has been that legislators must meet in a theoretical bipartisan middle and compromise. But that model is plain wrong and inappropriate to what’s happening in the world away from the Beltway: the situation is that we have had 20 years of worsening immigration anarchy, and citizens want the lawlessness ended. We have a void of law enforcement, not a political or legislative problem.

There can be no middle ground between chaos and law. Such a thing does not exist.

The House passed good legislation in the last Congress that was all about better enforcement. That approach is the one needed now. Rewarding lawbreakers will simply bring millions more of same.