I mentioned earlier how much more American press coverage the Bhutto murder in far-off Pakistan has gotten compared to the assassination of Colosio (who?) in nearby Tijuana in 1994, even though the events were fairly comparable.

One legitimate reason for this could be that we really do meddle more in Pakistan than in Mexico due to Mexico’s tradition of anti-Americanism that goes back at least as far as the 1846-48 war.

Personally, I like not being responsible for Mexico.

And it’s not as if Mexico would be a better place if we had been allowed to meddle more. The most prominent example of American activism in Mexico in the 20th Century, Ambassador Henry Lane Wilson’s conspiring in 1913 to oust the democratically elected president, mild-mannered Francisco Madero, helped set off the bloodiest portion of the Mexican Revolution. This suggests that we would have just made things even worse.

Sometimes you have to wonder what the suits in government are smoking. Just what did the bright bulbs in big offices think would happen when they opened Great Britain up to hundreds of thousands of Poles and others willing to work cheap and be exploited? Honestly!

Half a million fewer Britons are in work following the unprecedented influx of migrants from Eastern Europe, it was disclosed last night.

MPs said the figure demolishes the Government’s claim to be providing ‘British jobs for British workers’. [...]

Earlier this month, the Statistics Commission said 1.4million workers born abroad had taken jobs in Britain since 1997 – up to 81 per cent of the 1.7million new jobs for people of working age.
[500,000 fewer Britons in work following influx of Eastern Europeans, Daily Mail, Dec 28, 2007]

The government is pleading jaw-drop stupidity:

[Labour Minister Frank Field] said: “We could have stopped Polish and other Eastern European workers coming when their countries joined the European Union.

“But we didn’t because the Home Office said there would be only 5,000 to 13,000 a year. This is clearly damaging the British labour market and British unemployed people are not moving into work.’

The other possible reason for implementing this very hurtful policy is the globalist desire to provide business with slave-cheap labor. But either way, the average British citizen is screwed when looking for honest work.

How familiar is that?

An article in The Canadian Press by Gregory Bonnell announces that one in five Canadians are immigrants, that most immigrants are Asians, and that Canada is “grappling” with racism:

One-in-five people in Canada is foreign-born according to census numbers… an immigration surge unprecedented in a quarter-of-a-century and one that comes as the country grapples with acts of overt racism that fly in the face of Canada’s reputation for tolerance.[One in five people foreign-born stats reveal as Canada struggles with overt racism, December 4, 2007]

According to the latest Canadian census reports,

… 19.8 per cent of the population in 2006 was foreign born, the highest proportion since 1931 and up 13.6 per cent from five years earlier. By contrast, the entire Canadian population grew only 3.3 per cent in the same period.

Also, immigrants are highly concentrated:

Almost two-thirds of the nation’s foreign-born population resided in Canada’s three biggest cities: Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.

In contrast to traditional immigration, which was from the British Isles and Europe,

The highest percentage of newcomers to Canada were from China (14 per cent), followed by India (11.6), the Philippines (7) and Pakistan (5.2). For the first time, the proportion of foreign-born immigrants from Asian and Middle Eastern countries (41 per cent) outstripped those of European heritage (37).

The article reports that

Among Western nations, only Australia had a higher percentage of foreign-born residents (22.2 per cent) than Canada in 2006. The United States had 12.5 per cent foreign-born.

Yet ugly things have happened in Canada lately, such as attacks on Asian fishermen in Ontario, Quebeckers making Muslims feel unwelcome, and violence between “Indo-Canadian” gangs.

So the article includes various quotations from the Canadian chattering class: from the government, academic world and ethnic activism, who are concerned about the problem.

Nobody in the article, however, actually asks the question “Does Canada really need all these immigrants?”

This is from the Arms and The Law blog, and it’s good news:

Senators request Interior to allow carrying in Parks

Posted by David Hardy · 27 December 2007 11:43 AM

47 Senators have requested that Interior Department modify its regulations to allow carrying in National Parks. Since National Parks are often large, thinly populated with LEOs, and frequently contain wildlife that may think that humans taste very good, it seems like a plan to me.

Also worthy of note–National Parks on the southern border are also the scene of drug smuggling across the border–National Park Service Ranger Kris Eggle was murdered in Organ Pipe National Park by a drug smuggler, so it’s not just animals that you need to be able to defend yourself against.(On the other hand, if you are in bear country, one of these would be very nice.)