I have an interview with Silvio Canto, Jr., you can listen to it here. Topics include Christmas in Mexico, the Tabasco flood, the Mexican economy,  emigration, and Elvira Arellano.

Usually a head-on crash at highway speeds leads to fatality, as evidenced by the deaths of Jim and Margie Rook, four-year-old Tyler Evans, film director Bob Clark and his son Ariel, paramedic Ryan Ostendorf and nursing student Natalie Housand — Americans killed by illegal aliens who have been remembered on VDARE.com.

Even so, Bettie Coates suffered serious injuries that have severely altered her life. Watch the video included in the link below to get an idea of the pain and cost to one American family caused by Washington’s open borders policy.

Coates, who had recently moved back to North Carolina from Pittsburgh, was trapped inside her Ford Mustang, which was crushed in the collision.

“I just remember a lot of blood just running down my face,” she said.

The wreck shattered her thigh and ankle bones, and she underwent three surgeries during 29 days in WakeMed. She has moved in with her grandparents in Northampton County for the next few months while she recuperates.

Her lack of mobility makes it difficult to keep up with her 2-year-old son, Donovan, she said.

“He wants me to play with him. He doesn’t understand why Mommy can’t do certain things,” she said.

Coates said she has thought about writing a letter to Cruz to let him know how hard it is for her not to play with Donovan, not to go check on the construction of her house and not to return to work.

“He’s taken a lot from me,” she said. “For him to have sneaked into the country (and) then for him to just think he can do whatever he can do and get away with it is very frustrating.”
[Woman Injured in Wrong-Way Wreck Angry, Thankful, WRAL-TV November 27, 2007]

The accused, Eblin Fabiel Ocampo-Cruz, has a long rap sheet and should not have been in this country at all. Why wasn’t this dangerous man deported after his first conviction? His record shows that he is a poster boy for the need to incarcerate and deport.

At the time of the wreck, Cruz was on probation for several offenses, according to court records.

In February 2006, he was convicted in Durham of DWI. A month later, he was convicted of misdemeanor unauthorized use of a vehicle and misdemeanor breaking and entering. In May 2006, he pleaded pleaded guilty to reckless driving and passing an emergency vehicle. Last October, he was charged with resisting an officer, and he was charged with possession of stolen goods in December.
[Man Charged in Wrong-Way Wreck in U.S. Illegally, WRAL-TV October 31, 2007]

I didn’t watch it, so I’m just going through to transcript now. Rudy Giuliani is defending his sanctuary policies, partly by saying “the reality is that New York City was not a sanctuary city,” which is ridiculous. But there is one point where he had an excuse, and he doesn’t seem know about Plyler vs. Doe, a Supreme Court decision that guarantees the children of illegal immigrants K-12 schooling:

The reason for the confusion is, there were three areas in which New York City made an exception. New York City allowed the children of illegal immigrants to go to school. If we didn’t allow the children of illegal immigrants to go to school, we would have had 70,000 children on the streets at a time in which New York City was going through a massive crime wave, averaging 2,000 murders a year, 10,000 felonies a week.[Part I: CNN/YouTube Republican presidential debate transcript - CNN.com]

But as reported here on VDARE.com, [America Educating The World–At Taxpayer Expense, February 10, 2003 and Plyler vs. Doe: The Solution, February 13, 2003] the Supreme Court has forbidden any state or city from preventing illegal aliens being educated at taxpayer expense. They base this on the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is stupid. (For why it’s stupid, see Burger’s dissent.) So if Giuliani had refused to provide free education for children and “youths” illegally in the United States, and he had fought that all the way to the Supreme Court, as he fought for his sanctuary policies, he would have lost, because of this invented “right.” But he didn’t of course–it never occurred to him, and that’s why he didn’t know it was impossible.

Henry Hyde, once the Republican congressman from the 6th district of Illinois, has died. He was quite good on immigration, according to NumbersUSA, but I remember him for his noble service during the Clinton Impeachment, where he was attacked savagely by the press, and received many death threats from Clinton supporters.

Ann Coulter wrote recently that

Rep. Henry Hyde saw an affair he had in 1965 become front-page news because he wouldn’t waver from doing his job under the Constitution.

You can read a speech by Congressman Hyde here, from a speech delivered September 24, 1984, at the University of Notre Dame Law School.

Here the question of consistency comes clear. Had the Archbishop of New York quizzed a conservative Catholic President about his commitment to nuclear arms control, would there have been impassioned hand-wringing at the New York Times editorial board about “mixing politics and religion?” Yet this is precisely what happened when the Archbishop of New York questioned a liberal Democratic candidate for Vice President about her approach to the public policy of abortion. Why is it that Archbishop O’Connor threatens the separation of church and state when he tries to clarify Catholic teaching about abortion, and the Rev. Jesse Jackson doesn’t when he organizes a partisan political campaign through the agency of dozens of churches? These confusions are not merely a matter of anti-Catholic bias, although that is undoubtedly present; they reflect the chaotic condition of public understanding on the larger questions of religious values and the public policy debate.[Keeping God in the Closet]

I have an interview scheduled with Melanie Morgan and Lee Rodgers, on Thursday, November 29th at 6:35 a.m. Pacific Time, on KSFO 560 AM, San Francisco.
You can listen online here.

I wrote about this in tonight’s appeal, but that will go away, especially if you nice people donate enough money. National Review has just run an editorial in favor of sanctuary cities, [Sanctuary Sanctimony, November 28, 2007] calling the pro-illegal policy that Giuliani defended all the way to the Supreme Court “sensible “”humane” and “realistic.” This is why VDARE.com is important—we can count on the New York Times to be for Giuliani when he’s supporting illegal immigration, just as we can count on them to be against him when he puts actual criminals in jail.

But National Review was supposed to be different—on the issue of sanctuary for illegals, they should be standing athwart Giuliani yelling stop. They aren’t.

Here’s a hot flash for the Editors of National Review—Giuliani wasn’t for sanctuary because he’s “sensible “”humane” and “realistic.” He’s actually none of those things. He was for sanctuary because he likes illegal aliens. If Giuliani gets elected, the push for amnesty will be back on, and he’ll roll over for it. His famous tough-on-crimeness won’t be in evidence at the border, let alone in interior enforcement, because he doesn’t really think of illegal immigration as a crime. So if, thanks to NR, he gets elected it will be too late to do anything about it.