The murder of a twelve-year old girl in Tacoma, apparently by a registered sex offender from a foreign country raises the question: can the Federal Government deport anybody?

It’s all right to talk about people in the shadows, and “We can’t deport them all,” but a registered sex offender is not in any shadows at all, and ought to be first in line for deportation. Michelle Malkin has details here, continually updated:[Bloody consequences of open borders: The kidnapping and murder of Zina Linnik July 13, 2007] Soundpolitics.com finds that the suspect, 42-year-old Terapon Dang Adhahn,, who

1990, he was charged with violently raping a 16-year-old relative, according to court records. He pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of first-degree incest in exchange for completing 60 months of sexual-deviancy counseling.

is not only a registered sex offender, he’s also registered to vote.

John Derbyshire has a good piece in the American Conservative about political correctness.[Better Dead Than Rude, July 2, 2007 ] Weak PC is multicultural manners, saying e.g. African-American if that’s the polite expression. Strong PC is generally a denial of reality, about IQ or crime rates or something.

One example:

Law enforcement. The fact, borne out by every statistical inquiry under the sun, that some racial groups are more inclined to criminality than others, is of course anathema to those who have internalized PC precepts. Any program of law enforcement that delivers disproportionate numbers of black or Hispanic perpetrators to the courts and prisons is ipso facto considered to be “racist.” Such programs are strongly discouraged.

In my own county of Suffolk (New York), the police launched a campaign against unlicensed drivers. Within three weeks they arrested 50 such, with Hispanics heavily over-represented. The police commissioner, on orders from the district attorney and a local judge, thereupon suspended the program on suspicion of “racial profiling.” A revised version of the program has since been permitted, but presumably, while the program was in suspense, some county residents—myself, perhaps—might have been killed or maimed in crashes with unlicensed drivers, another instance of the “better dead than rude” mentality that has long ruled our airport-security screening procedures.

Read the whole thing.

Here’s an update on my earlier post about cockfighting as a civil right–a North Carolina reader writes:

I inadvertently found myself at a Mexican cockfight in rural NC about 18 years ago. This event was held at a party one Sunday afternoon after a large group of Mexican families had just delivered a regiment of their children for their Catholic First Communion. Needless to say, the Priest was given a perfunctory goat meat taco and quickly sent on his way before the main attraction of the afternoon got underway.

Lots of betted money, lots of Budweiser and tequila, lots of jacked up men, lots of cursing, and lots of blood would be the only way to describe it. One cock belonged to a young man of clearly limited means, the other belonged to a guy who drove up in a brand new hoopty pick up truck. His cock was in a cage that was crafted by artisans. He opened a professional grade aluminum shell camera case that was modified on the inside to hold and display over 20 different spiky and sharp edged surgical steel slashing and cutting implements which were lashed on to the appendages of his rooster. His cock “won” after two rounds.

Between rounds the respective owners put lemon juice on the wounds and gave mouth to beak resuscitation to the birds.

A reader just sent me links to writings in The Oil Drum and the Sign on San Diego. It looks like the situation south of what border still exists is getting worse. What that means, it that immigration pressure is also going to increase.

I support increased border security and repatriation of the lion’s share of illegal immigrants-most of whom are from Mexico. I think if done right this might help improve the situation both in Mexico and here in the US. However this needs to be carefully. We ideally need a situation in which folks are going to Mexico because of changed economic incentives-not at gunpoint.

A reader writes:

I am open to any new and true evidence from science of previously unsuspected factors that help explain the movement of crime rates after the middle 1960s. But, so far, both Levitt’s and Nevin’s work (blaming lead) look to me like efforts to find something, anything, just the slim sliver of anything, that liberalism might have done, by getting the lead out or allowing abortions, that might, just might, have just slightly offset the obviously catastrophic damage that liberalism did by the Warren Court’s dismantling of the state criminal justice systems in the crucial middle 1960s, which dismantlement dramatically reduced the conviction rate for crime and was immediately followed by an explosion in, uh, crime.

I am certainly prepared to believe that other forces, probably mostly social, contributed to the increase in crime after the middle 1960s. Post-World War II society was becoming richer, easier and more tolerant of deviations from traditional norms in sex, child raising, work habits and responsible behavior, and thus was more vulnerable to extreme forms of misbehavior, such as crime. But the important thing is that, in the middle 1960s, we lost control of our most direct means of dealing with the potentially violent consequences of all these changes, the justice system.

And that loss of control is perhaps one reason why social scientists continue to play with alternative explanations for crime rates. We can endlessly fiddle with and adjust laws on pollutants, such as lead, and attempt to nudge sexual behavior this way or that by lectures, if not laws. But the post-Warren Court criminal justice system was put in a pseudo-Constitutional lock-box. We cannot get at the thing, to change or improve it. We can only lengthen sentences, hire more cops and build more prisons. No change in the rules governing how police attempt to arrest criminals or how the courts try them is within the control of elected officials. So we do not even discuss such changes any longer or attempt to estimate their possible effects.

What is it about today’s education mindset that makes it unable to say NO to the most objectionable activities as long as they appear to fall into the Diversity category? In San Diego, the local Muslims have managed to open their own little madrassa on the taxpayer’s tab, behind closed doors in a public school.

Say, could we have a little separation of church, er, mosque and state here?

For now, about 100 students in the Arabic language program at Carver Elementary School are finishing their first year under a daily schedule that gives them a 15-minute recess period in the afternoon, about an hour after lunch. Many of the students are Muslim and transferred from an Arabic-language charter school that folded. Carver Elementary revised its schedule so the students would have the option to pray at the specific times ordained by their religion, says attorney Brent North, who represents the school district. A teacher is present to watch the praying children but cannot lead or take part in the observance.
[Public schools grapple with Muslim prayer Christian Science Monitor 7/12/07]

Former San Diego Mayor and current radio host Roger Hedgecock appeared on the O’Reilly Factor recently to blow the whistle on the Muslim infiltration scheme. Roger had interviewed a substitute teacher who reported on the situation. For one thing, the school schedule listed “pray for one hour” – the teacher mistakenly thought it should have read “play.” Furthermore, the class was segregated by gender and religion–it was for Islamic girls only–illegal according to court rulings.

Bill O’Reilly also brought up the Muslim foot-washing sinks installed by the University of Michigan using taxpayer funds as an example that the San Diego case is not unique at all.

Having been distracted this week by the need to earn a living – a requirement which constantly restricts the range and content of VDARE.com’s output – I have only just found these two excellent posts by our old friend A Certain Slant Of Light:

“Health Windows” — A Window To The World Of Taxpayer-Subsidized Healthcare For Illegals discusses the spectacle of what ACSL correctly calls “Mexico’s fast-growing network of Consulates” blatantly inciting US-resident Mexican citizens to steal health care from the American taxpayer. Several valuable articles are cited, including a Los Angeles Times article quoting FAIR’s Ira Mehlman:

“Clearly it is a policy of the Mexican government … to get all the institutions in the U.S. to provide services to their citizens who are living here illegally.”

Mehlman said Los Angeles County, especially, should not be partnering with the consulate to provide health services. “The county is broke, they are cutting back on services, they are closing emergency rooms, yet they are dreaming up new ways to provide benefits to illegal aliens,” he said. “It’s lunacy.”

Also a lucid discussion of the issue from the Corruption Chronicles blog:

Mexico’s government operates programs in about a dozen American cities that refers its nationals–living in the U.S. illegally–to publicly funded health centers where they can get free medical care without being turned over to immigration authorities.

The program is called Ventanillas de Salud (Health Windows) in Spanish and its mission is to help illegal immigrants find U.S. hospitals, clinics and other government programs where they can get free services without being deported for violating federal immigration laws.

VDARE.com has long been interested in health care costs and the way they are shunted – among other consequences it is probably the heaviest burden mass immigration places on the Middle Class via the radical reduction in the practical extent of insurance coverage available to them, a fact of which most members are generally ignorant.

Ted Kennedy’s Shadow-Dwellers Not Shy About Freebies

pivots off a human interest story in The Philadelphia Inquirer to demonstrate the massive cost of this country’s strange policy of paying foreign women to have citizenship-entitled babies here:

Undocumented women constitute 60 to 65 percent of about 3,000 prenatal patients treated at city health clinics yearly, said Kate Maus, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health’s director of maternal, child and family health. Eight years ago, she said, “all of them were insured.”

ACSL goes on to present a number of articles explicating the Anchor Baby problem.

A wonderful service to his country by ACSL’s proprietor, which I would guess from experience took most of a weekend. Carlos Sanchez is right to be impressed.