There’s some notably pithy analysis at the blog of Los Angeles lawyer (and former and current mayoral candidate) Walter Moore that deserves wider circulation:

“[W]e are in a new kind war that most of us don’t even know is underway. It is the most innovative and successful war ever waged in history. And we’re losing it, badly.

“I’m not talking about the war with Islamic terrorists.

“I’m talking about the war with Mexico.

“On September 3, 2007, Mexico’s President stated, ‘I have said that Mexico does not stop at its border, that wherever there is a Mexican, there is Mexico.’

“Mexico’s strategy is brilliant. Mexico is effectively taking control of our territory simply by having its citizens walk across our undefended border. Their only ‘weapon’ is shoes. You still think the Maginot Line was dumb? At least the French tried to keep out foreign invaders, and at least the Germans had to go around it.”

Of course, this sort of blunt analysis has appeared previously in writings by Mexican intellectuals, journalists, and diplomats. For example, years ago Jorge Castaneda, later to be Mexico’s Foreign Minister, described illegal immigration from Mexico as a fait accompli that Americans should simply get used to if they didn’t want to deal with something worse. Writing in The Atlantic (”Ferocious Differences,” July, 1995; may require subscription), Castaneda said:

“Some Americans — undoubtedly more than before — dislike immigration, but there is very little they can do about it, and the consequences of trying to stop immigration would also certainly be more pernicious than any conceivable advantage. The United States should count its blessings: it has dodged instability on its borders since the Mexican Revolution, now nearly a century ago. The warnings from Mexico are loud and clear; this time it might be a good idea to heed them.”

But frank recognition by Americans that Mexico is maliciously cuckholding us hasn’t been so prominent.

More Moore:

“Heck, the ancient Romans at least had to post armies in conquered lands to force locals to render unto Caesar. By contrast, Americans are taxing themselves to pay for education, health care and other services for a huge portion of Mexico’s population — those who have simply walked into our cities, most notably Los Angeles, the ‘ground zero’ of Mexico’s attack. For example:

•Forty-one percent of the children in the Los Angeles School District are ‘English Learners,’ which basically amounts to a euphemism for ‘Mexican children.’ The LAUSD’s budget, by the way, is $6.2 billion per year.

•In 2003, Los Angeles County estimated that it spent $350 million per year providing health care to illegal aliens. [Related breaking news here.]

•Rather than insisting that Mexicans in this country learn English, or even pay for their own interpreters, Los Angeles County uses taxpayers’ money to pay hundreds of interpreters for court proceedings. The interpreters are now on strike because the County ‘only’ offered them $73,000 a year in salary.”

You can hear Moore in what I’ll call “pre-campaign” commercials on Terry Anderson’s rousing one-hour radio show Sunday nights, 9 p.m. Pacific Time (midnight Eastern Time). Go here to listen via the Internet; at that page, click on “Windows Media” in the upper right corner. We hear from Moore at the start of the show and then at the half-hour.

Theorem: Where illegal immigration is concerned, the mainstream media everywhere is into sob stories.

My theorem is at least consistent with how this Associated Press article (”France Races to Oust Illegal Immigrants,” San Francisco Chronicle, 9/22/2007) begins:

“A Russian boy suffers head injuries after falling from a window while trying to elude police. A North African man slips from a window ledge and fractures his leg while fleeing officers. A Chinese woman lies in a coma after plunging from a window during a police check.

“As France races to deport 25,000 illegal immigrants by the end of the year — a quota set by President Nicolas Sarkozy — tensions are mounting and the crackdown is taking a toll.”

Nevertheless, Sarkozy is quotable enough that he evidently forced reporter Elaine Ganley’s hand:

“‘I want numbers,’ Sarkozy reportedly told Brice Hortefeux, head of the Ministry of Immigration, Integration, National Identity and Co-Development, which Sarkozy set up after taking office in May. ‘This is a campaign commitment. The French expect (action) on this.’”

Suddenly, in France, “campaign commitment” apparently means “campaign commitment.” Contrast that with last fall’s hullaballoo here over the fence bill — whooped through Congress but almost forgotten now, and not because we actually have a fence in place.

I’ve saved the best for last:

“The president, who cultivated a tough-on-crime image while serving as Interior Minister, says France needs a new kind of immigrant — one who is ’selected, not endured.’”

Selected, not endured. Imagine that! You could build a rational immigration policy, starting with just those three words.

But Sarkozy fleshed it out a bit, too:

“In a nationally televized interview Thursday, Sarkozy went further, saying he wants France to adopt immigration quotas by regions of the world and by occupation.

“‘I want us to be able to establish each year, after a debate in parliament, a quota with a ceiling for the number of foreigners we accept on our territory,’ he said. [Emphasis added]“

Of course, reporter Ganley couldn’t avoid a bit of stern editorializing, probably reflexive and unconscious (I’m serious!):

“European countries to the south, like Italy or Spain, face a greater challenge from illegal immigration than France — but neither has set themselves targets for throwing aliens out.”

Illegal immigration poses more dangers for women than for men, in particular when foreigners from misogynous cultures (that would be most of them) see independent American women as easy marks. Such an attitude may have been behind the midnight attack on a young Gilbert, Arizona, woman as she walked home alone from work.

However, the Mexican attacker got a bad surprise if he was expecting a compliant victim. Tracy Mann, 21, became suspicious when she saw a truck with the door open and no one around. She opened up the pocketknife she always carries (”because you just never know”) and was ready when a man accosted her and tried to steal her purse.

Mann fought back with the knife. “He was just tugging me and the purse, and I just started slashing at him,” she said.

She said she didn’t stop slashing until the man let her go and ran away. Mann followed him up an embankment of rocks to a waiting truck so she could write down the license plate number.

Mesa police found the truck a short time later in Mesa and arrested Filemon Del Hoyo, 18, Abel Lorenzo Reyes, 18, and Isidro Mendoza, 22, all of Mesa.
[Woman with knife fends off attacker, Arizona Daily Star 9/22/07]

The man who tried to snatch Tracy’s purse had been recently arrested for burglary and deported, but he returned to this country to resume his criminal ways. What’s up with that–is burglary no longer considered a serious crime? The attacker, Filemon Del Hoyo, should have been kept in jail for trial instead of being released to Mexico.

This story could have had a tragic ending rather than a happy one because of a foreign criminal being freed from jail. Tracy Mann said she “felt like he was after more than my purse,” and hopes that attempted kidnapping will be added to Del Hoyo’s list of crimes. If she had not fought back against her Mexican attacker, she might have become another statistic among the Americans injured or killed by illegal aliens.

‘I tell you, what’s happened in the I.N.S. is enough to drive a man to drink.”[A NATION CHALLENGED: THE DRAGNET; Pakistani Plotted to Bomb Florida Power Plants, Officials Say, By Judith Miller, New York Times, March 26, 2002]

Joe won the first prize at this year’s California State Fair for his chocolate banana bread recipe. This proves once again Joe’s long-held theory that chocolate in combination with just about anything will be a winner. [Lodi Gold By Lauren Nelson Lodi News-Sentinel ,September 21, 2007 ]

“What Did We Expect?” asked Sam Francis five years ago, contemplating the ghastly fate of Rhodesia in its black-ruled form of Zimbabwe. Since then things have got much worse. Now comes news of remarkable admissions by Judith Todd, the prominent white liberal who in her youth was a kind of pin up girl for enemies of Ian Smith’s attempt to win independence for the country with white rule.

Mugabe was rotten from the start RW Johnson The Sunday Times September 23 2007

reports that Todd has written a new book which

…blows sky-high the usual picture of Zimbabwe as having been run more or less reasonably by Mugabe, until his defeat in the constitutional referendum of 2000 caused him to pull down the pillars of the temple. As becomes all too clear, the worm was in the apple from the start, with the new regime adopting a totali-tarian and often violent attitude towards opposition.

Torture, corruption and disregard for the rule of law were the norm right away – indeed, the real question is how on earth Lord Soames, Britain’s proconsul in charge of the transition to majority rule, could have permitted the 1980 election.

Todd notes that Mugabe is not unique:

many of the politicians Judith helped free from Smith’s clutches or, later, from Mugabe’s jails, soon joined the government and became little Mugabes themselves

.
This leads to an historic concession:

But hasn’t what happened fully justified Ian Smith and the white racists who predicted that black rule would mean dictatorship, corruption and chaos? “You have to say they called it right…Smith did love the country which was why he gave way rather than see it destroyed. Mugabe is destroying it rather than give way.”

This reversal would have been unlikely to mollify Sam Francis, who as I noted earlier this year was one of the very few who tried to get Smith’s Rhodesia a hearing in Washington in the early ‘70s. and continued his interest in the country for the rest of his life. He would no doubt have pointed out that this mistake has brought misery to millions of people. He was right, conventional opinion was disasterously wrong – and, like Judith Todd apparently, very likely still does not understand the magnitude of the problem.
.

You know what would be a really useful thing to know in this story of interracial violence at a Lancaster, California school? The races of the students involved. Since this story is about nothing but race, it seems to be the first thing you’d ask. According to Greatschools.net, the school is 47% Hispanic or Latino, 29% African American, not Hispanic and 19% White, not Hispanic.

LA Daily News - Lancaster school hikes security after racially-charged fight
BY KAREN MAESHIRO, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 09/22/2007 01:00:54 AM PDT

LANCASTER - Security has been beefed up at Cole Middle School after a racially motivated fight that injured two teachers who tried to break it up, officials said Friday.

Three students were arrested, one on suspicion of assault and battery on a school official and the two others for fighting on campus, following the Thursday morning dust-up. They also were suspended from school, pending expulsion hearings.

A handful of other students who watched the fight and egged on the participants received five-day suspensions, officials said.

The incident started as an argument between between two eighth-grade boys and escalated into violence when one of them uttered a racial slur, said Roberto Villa, superintendent of the Eastside Union School District. The third boy got involved to back up his friend.

A female teacher who tried to stop the fight was pushed down and kicked, Villa said. A second teacher was punched when he came to help.