On Monday this story about Bush loyalists being appointed immigration judges appeared in the Washington Post. Aside from the questionable practice of appointing loyalists to what is not supposed to be a political appointment, anyone who is on the George W. team isn’t going to be deporting many people.

Immigration Judges Often Picked Based On GOP Ties
Law Forbids Practice; Courts Being Reshaped

By Amy Goldstein and Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, June 11, 2007; A01

Another politically connected lawyer, Garry D. Malphrus, was appointed to Arlington’s immigration court in 2005. He had been associate director of the White House Domestic Policy Council and, before that, a Republican aide on two Senate Judiciary Committee subcommittees.

Astute VDARE.com readers will remember the same story appeared in VDARE.com, written by immigration insider Juan Mann, one year and ten months ago: Bush Loyalists Hand-Picked As EOIR Immigration Judges, August 08, 2005.

Advantage: Juan Mann!

There was another semi-major workplace raid Tuesday, June 12, this time in Portland, OR, presumably part of the campaign to temporarily ballyhoo enforcement so comprehensive capitulation to Mexico (aka S.1348) can be sold on Capitol Hill.

The usual clucking immediately ensued. (”Immigration raid pushes Oregon into thick of fight,” The Oregonian, June 13, 2007. For a covey of related articles, see the links here.)

“[Portland Mayor Tom] Potter expressed anger that families were swept up in the arrests, saying the raid stemmed from a failure of Bush and Congress to craft reforms that are fair and workable for employees and business.

“‘I certainly understand why federal officials executed criminal warrants against three individuals who stole and sold Social Security numbers,’ Potter said in a statement. ‘But to go after local workers who are here to support their families while filling the demands of local businesses for their labor is bad policy.’”

Like so many of our benighted public officials, Mayor Potter doesn’t seem to grasp that tackling illegal immigration when it’s still relatively small forestalls really big problems later. Or maybe he just figures he can get by with a kumbaya approach and leave the unpleasant duties for a successor.

You can ask him about it by email (mayorpotter@ci.portland.or.us), or phone him at 503-823-4120, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., Pacific Time. If you just want to express an opinion using his 24-hour opinion line, try 503-823-4127 (rings about four times; messages can be up to two minutes long).

Jean Pierre Le Pen is a far right candidate who has gotten a lot of voter support from the average Frenchman, because none of the major parties in France were willing to address immigration. In a recent election he lost heavily, and this is causing a certain amount of snark from Reason Magazine, and Mainstream Media headlines like French voters turn their backs on Le Pen, [By Henry Samuel, London Telegraph, June 13, 2007]

But here’s what we’ve been saying for years–if major parties don’t like the “far right” they need to stop censoring normal attitudes toward immigration. See, for example, How PC Boosts Le Pen, By Theodore Dalrymple, City Journal, April 25 2002, The subhead is “The French demagogue won by addressing reasonable concerns about Arab immigration and French identity that other politicians ducked.” And if any major party will do something about immigration, as Sarkozy has promised to do, then they’ll get a lot of support.

Le Pen has always been something of a fringe character, but for immigration skeptics he was the only game in town. To the extent that Sarkozy took away his votes, he did so by adopting Le Pen style policies.

This may not have been widely reported, given the necessary attention to the Senate Sell-Out, but the Bush Administration just gave amnesty to over a quarter of a million Central American illegal aliens .

A UPI article
reports a Washington Post article in reporting that

“the Bush administration is granting temporary protection for 312,000 Central Americans. “

It’s actually an extension to a previous amnesty, as the UPI points out:

” Temporary amnesty has been granted for the last decade to illegal immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua and El Salvador because of devastating earthquakes and hurricanes there…”

And why was the amnesty extended?

“…the Department of Homeland Security said it would extend the amnesty because conditions in those countries have not improved enough for the immigrants to return home. Collapsed bridges have been rebuilt and flattened crops replanted, but the economies of the three largely impoverished countries rely heavily on the nearly $10 billion sent from relatives working in the United States…That loss of income combined with the return of several hundred thousand jobless and homeless immigrants would further devastate the countries, their diplomats told the Post. “

Hmm, so when do you think these countries will ever be ready to receive their people back? When earthquakes and hurricanes stop occurring? When their diplomats tell us they’re finally ready?

The title of the UPI article, by the way is “Central Americans get ‘temporary’ amnesty”
so I think UPI gets it.