Some Mexican policemen in Tijuana, Mexico have been accused by a certain Victor Clark Alfaro, of some outfit called the Centro Binacional de Derechos Humanos (Binational Center of Human Rights), of mistreating deported illegal aliens when they wind up in Tijuana. According to an article in El Universal, Mexico’s paper of record, (Denuncian abusos de policías de Tijuana contra indocumentados, Julieta Martínez, June 21st,2008):

Elements of the local [Tijuana] police have become ‘true migrant-hunters’, with attitudes similar to those of xenophobic groups in the United States, charged the director of the Binational Center of Human Rights, Victor Clark Alfaro, in revealing the results of a study carried out with California universities in this city [Tijuana].

The California students who carried out the study were from the University of California at San Diego, and they

…interviewed 187 migrants who were detained during the two administrations [of both the current and previous mayor], and at least 4 of every 10 [of those interviewed]reported that they had been taken to jail in more than one occasion.

Who are these migrants? According to the article they are

…recently deported Mexicans who are detained by the [Tijuana police] agents under the argument that they don’t have identification documents.

Most likely, they are Mexicans who are not from Tijuana but from other parts of Mexico. And,

…upon getting out of jail, they [the police] even arrest them on various occasions with the same accusation.

According to Clark:

One of the biggest risks that the hundreds of migrants deported [from the U.S.]daily to Tijuana confront is the illegal detention by the [Tijuana] municipal police, who under the pretext that they [the deported] do not bear identification, are interrogated, mistreated, and even beaten and robbed, before being locked up.

Bad conduct by the Tijuana police is inexcusable. But let’s look at the big picture here. Mexicans from other regions of Mexico go to the border, cross illegally, and get deported to Tijuana, a city with plenty of problems already (such as the drug cartel wars) So Tijuana police get frustrated, mistreat these people, and take advantage of them. It’s a bad scene, any way you look at it. As I’ve pointed out in my article, Border States Feel Strain…in Mexico! this is a big problem for the northern Mexican border states, which are being used by the Mexican government as a human dumping ground.

So what the Tijuana government ought to do is demand that the Mexican government condemn illegal emigration to the U.S., which is illegal under Mexican law anyway! (See my article Mexican Illegals Breaking Mexican Law Too!) If the Mexican government doesn’t get the message, the Tijuana government could do this. They could bus all deported Mexicans straight to Mexico City, guiding them into the halls of the Mexican Congress, and the presidential residence at Los Pinos. That way Calderon and Mexican Senators and Representatives (who are loud defenders of illegal aliens in the U.S.) could directly care for these deported illegal aliens. Just an idea.

The great nations of the Anglosphere seem determined to merge themselves out of existence.

Mass immigration is making the U.S. a part of Latin America, while an emerging North American Union would combine Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.

Across the Pond, Britain surrenders her sovereignty to the European Union. Not to be outdone, Down Under, the Australian Prime Minister appears to want to merge Australia with Asia.

An article in the Herald Sun entitled Unified Currency Chance with Asian Union, Says Expert [Jane Metlikovec, June 05, 2008] reports that Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has “announced his plan to create a broad Asia-Pacific Community by 2020.”

A certain Prof. Tim Lindsey of Melbourne University thinks that’s a great idea:

“We are living in the “Asia century,” he said.”Australia is uniquely positioned as the only Western society in Asia and we have never capitalised on that, despite most of our commodities going to Asia.”

So what about Australia’s Western identity and Anglo-Celtic heritage? Apparently, that can be easily disregarded:

(Lindsey) said Australia was still suffering from a “colonial hangover” by setting ourselves apart from Asia. “This perception of ourselves as a European nation has to change,” he said.

PM Rudd has chosen a point man to advance the project:

“Mr Rudd has appointed former foreign affairs secretary and one-time ambassador to Indonesia Richard Woolcott as Australia’s envoy to sell the idea.”

There is some political opposition:

Opposition MPs are divided about Mr Rudd’s plan, which he put forward during a speech to the Asia Society Australasia Centre last night, just days before he heads off on a week-long visit to Japan and Indonesia.

Opposition’s foreign affairs spokesman Andrew Robb says the plan is presumptuous.”His (Kevin Rudd) first job is not to be making pronouncements about grand architecture for the region, telling China, Indonesia and Japan and India how they will be organised as a region by Australia in the next 20 years,” Mr Robb told ABC Radio.

Nevertheless, Robb’s opposition seems more a question of practicality than a concern for Australia’s cultural identity:

“Once (Rudd) has demonstrated a capacity to build and maintain and grow strong bilateral relationships with all these countries (and) repair the damage he has already done with some of these countries, then we can… maybe influence the broader architecture that shapes the region.”

How about the argument that Australia’s cultural identity is non-Asian? Is that a legitimate argument nowadays?

Prince William County, Virginia enacted a law to deal with illegal immigration. Good for them.
Be warned though, Prince William County, that you’re about to have a visitor. According to a report by Jim Brown in One News Now, “U.N. to Investigate U.S. for Human Rights Violations”:

A United Nations official intends to visit a Northern Virginia county this week to investigate its tough crackdown on illegal immigration.

So who is this United Nations official ? It’s none other than Mexican Jorge Bustamante. Bustamante was influential in Mexico’s changing its nationality law, with the express purpose of meddling in U.S. immigration law. (More on Mexican nationality/citizenship here). More recently, Bustamante has called for a Republican defeat in the 2008 election.
In other words, Bustamante is a major Mexican meddler who would have already been tossed out of the country by a government that defended American sovereignty (as opposed, you know, to ours). And now Bustamante, with the authority of the United Nations, is going to inspect Prince William County like some kind of colonial governor.

The UN’s special investigator on migrants’ rights, Jorge Bustamante, plans to tour the cities of Manassas and Woodbridge to determine whether law enforcement measures in Prince William County violate the human rights of illegal aliens. Proponents of illegal immigration have been critical of the county’s law requiring police officers to check the residency status of all local crime suspects.

But the chairman of the county board of supervisors knows what’s really going on here:

Corey Stewart, chairman of the Prince William County Board of Supervisors, says Bustamante is seeking to embarrass the county and the U.S. “The United Nations has consistently turned a blind eye to regimes across the world that are not only engaged in human rights abuses but in genocide and actual killing of migrants and immigrants all across the globe,” Stewart explains. “But here, what they’ve decided to do is spend some of their time beating up on the United States and localities here – Prince William County, in particular – for simply enforcing the law. And, frankly, I find that repugnant,” he argues.

Stewart believes the UN is infuriated by the county’s crackdown on illegal immigration because it is one of the most stringent and successful in the country. He notes that the crime rate, along with the English as a Second Language student population at the schools, has dropped. Stewart also notes that the waiting lines in the hospital emergency rooms are shorter, and the crackdown has improved the county’s overall quality of life.

“And that’s due to our crackdown on illegal immigration. They don’t like that. They are hoping, of course, that other localities don’t follow suit and use Prince William County as an example because it has been successful,” Stewart contends.The success, Stewart believes, is because large numbers of illegal aliens are leaving.

Kudos to Stewart for sticking to his guns. And I hope he has a chance to personally say the same to arrogant Mexican meddler Jorge Bustamante when he comes calling.

On May 28th, my VDARE.COM article “Ruben Navarrette - Where’s He At?” was published.

Also on May 28th, Navarrette’s column entitled “Stirring Up Anti-Latino Sentiment” was published.

While Navarrette claims he wants “more honesty” in the immigration debate, after reading a number of his columns, you see that he doesn’t want honesty from people who don’t agree with him.

The first paragraph began thusly:

Some of those who rail against illegal immigration can dish it out, but they can’t take it. Since most illegal immigrants come from Mexico or other parts of Latin America, critics sometimes say the sort of crude things that give the debate its anti-Latino flavor. But let someone call them on it and do they ever get defensive.

Ruben is talking about people who “can dish it out but can’t take it”?

That takes a lot of gall.

Navarrette went on to quote Obama, who recently said that

“A certain segment has basically been feeding a kind of xenophobia. There’s a reason why hate crimes against Hispanic people doubled last year. If you have people like Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh ginning things up, it’s not surprising that would happen.”

Navarrette thinks it’s great that Obama said that:

It’s about time. That some cable hosts and radio talkers grow their ratings by pandering to the anti-immigrant crowd is no big secret.

This was followed by a couple of paragraphs about hate crimes.

Not that Navarrette provided any proof of Lou Dobbs and Rush Limbaugh causing hate crimes, but I guess just bringing the subject up was sufficient. Then he brought up the Klan:

In a world where the remnants of the Ku Klux Klan use immigration to recruit new members and where neo-Nazis have produced a repulsive computer game in which players shoot Mexicans crossing the border and watch them explode, it’s obvious that these are hard times for Hispanics.

Navarrette complained that Limbaugh has made his share of “sophomoric remarks about Hispanics and immigration”, and continued :

Still, there is a difference between sophomoric and sinister, and Dobbs is more accurately described as the latter. In fact, Fox News’ Geraldo Rivera recently referred to Dobbs as a “hatemonger” for his treatment of the immigration issue.

Oh yes, Geraldo Rivera, there’s a reliable source.

And here’s something that really bothers Navarrette:

Dobbs also blurs the line between legal and illegal immigration. He uses guests from restrictionist groups that favor limiting legal immigration as well – the Federation for American Immigration Reform, Numbers USA, the Center for Immigration Studies, etc. – without pointing out their agendas. And the show mixes segments on border security (which deal explicitly with illegal immigration) and the Spanish language, the Mexican flag, and multiculturalism (which could just as easily be tied to legal immigration).

As Brenda Walker has pointed out , though Lou Dobbs is great on illegal immigration, he is far from reliable on legal immigration (which he wouldn’t mind increasing). Nevertheless, he does invite members of FAIR, Numbers USA and CIS to speak on his program, though National Council of the Race leader Janet Murguia would prefer they not be allowed to speak out on the show. (What Lou Dobbs should do is invite a VDARE.COM writer to appear on his show).

Navarrette concluded the screed with this:

So did Barack Obama go too far in criticizing media talkers who are poisoning the public mood against Latinos? Are you kidding? He only scratched the surface.

I’d you’d like to write to Ruben Navarrette, his email is ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com.

After all, he shouldn’t object to our readers adding to the honest debate he says he wants on immigration, should he ?

If you have a Mexican consulate in your state or city, you can expect plenty of meddling and encouragement of illegal activity.

So it’s heartening that some Idahoans are resisting the establishment of a new Mexican consulate in Boise. They are right to do so.

According to a report in “One News Now” (a website operated by the American Family News Network), opposition to the proposed consulate includes a U.S. congressman:

In March, Congressman Bill Sali (R-Idaho) sent a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to hold off on approving the consulate until the government can assure Idahoans that a consulate will not foster the continued presence of illegal immigrants in the state. Sali, who earlier this month was recognized by the American Conservative Union as one of the “best and brightest” in the U.S. House, said the prospect of a Mexican consulate in the state’s capital has “provoked concern” among his constituents that it could be “exploited” by individuals to gain “illicit ‘legal’ standing” in Idaho.

Well, Representative Sali and his constituents are exactly right about what a Mexican consulate would do in Idaho. Besides, there are already plenty of Mexican consulates nationwide, we don’t need any more, that’s for sure.

Another Idahoan who understands what goes on at Mexican consulates is Bryan Fischer, who directs the Idaho Values Alliance.

Bryan Fischer…agrees with Sali’s concerns that a consulate would be used to facilitate illegal immigration in the state and to issue identification cards known as “Matrícula Consular.” He contends the pro-family community in Idaho agrees as well. “Illegal immigrants can take these Mexican ID cards and use them to open bank accounts here in Idaho and kind of establish a presence here in the state, even though they have no legal right to be in the country,” he states.

Right on, Mr. Fischer, and it’s great to see values activists getting involved in the fight against the illegal invasion, because protecting our country is a big value. Fischer also said that

“There is at least some level of risk to our national security through these Mexican consulates,” says the Idaho activist. “[W]e just want to make sure that the workforce that we have here has the legal right to be in the country — and the presence of a Mexican consulate right here in Boise is going to make it much harder to control that.”

However,

Fischer is disappointed that the State Department has yet to respond to Sali’s concerns, perhaps indicating the government is prepared to move ahead with approval of the consulate.

Sad, but probably true. What activists need to do is oppose the establishment of any more Mexican consulates, there are more than enough in the U.S.A., we don’t need any more meddling.

Mix diversity and the failure of a school to enforce discipline and you have the situation in Minnesota which was recently reported by World Net Daily:

A Muslim high school student’s intolerance for a service dog needed by a student teacher with a disability has reportedly prompted the student teacher to abandon the last 10 hours of his scheduled assignment at Technical High School in St. Cloud, Minn.

Here’s some background :

The St. Cloud Times online said the situation developed with student teacher Tyler Hurd, 23, of Mahtomedi, who hopes to teach special education. He’s a student at St. Cloud State University, and was assigned to Technical High School in the St. Cloud district for his 50 hours of student teaching, and took with him his service dog, Emmitt.The newspaper said Hurd needs a service dog because of a childhood injury that leaves him with seizures, sometimes happening as often as weekly. The black lab is trained to protect Hurd when he has a seizure.

Here’s what happened :

Hurd, however, reported a student threatened to kill his dog. He said the threat came from a Somali student who is Muslim. Minnesota has a large Somali population, mostly Muslim, and they have been involved in issues over their religion in the past.

Apparently, at a previous assignment though, Somali students had been a little more tolerant of the dog:

Hurd earlier spent some time student teaching at Talahi Community School, where he said his experience was good. He told the newspaper Somali students there even petted his dog, although they used paper to keep their hands from actually making physical contact.

But not at Tech, where

Hurd reported, students taunted his dog, and he left when he was told a student threatened the animal.

The school, however, was playing it down:

The school district told the newspaper it wasn’t really a threat.

Here’s the part that indicates the attitude that is the read problem :

“I think it was a misunderstanding where we didn’t really prepare either side for possible implications,” Julia Espe, curriculum director for the public schools, said.

“Prepare either side for possible implications” ? What a cop-out ! Why couldn’t the school have just told the Somali students to leave the dog alone?

On the same day (May 24th, 2008), Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were campaigning on the Caribbean isle of Puerto Rico, where a Democratic primary (with 55 delegates up for grabs) is scheduled for June 1st.

Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory, not a state, and its residents are American citizens. Though Puerto Rico doesn’t elect members of the electoral college, it does participate in party politics so it does have a say in choosing the nominee.

According to the CNN.COM article Clinton, Obama Court Puerto Rican Voters both candidates were campaigning in different cities on the 24th. Barack Obama was in Bayamon:

… Obama marched along a street in Bayamon, shaking hands with supporters as he walked in front of a banner that said “Puerto Rico Con Obama.” This event was referred to as a “caminata,” a traditional parade for a candidate. Obama remarked to the crowd, “I will never forget the support and the friendship that I’ve seen here in Puerto Rico. … I am absolutely confident that if that we keep on working hard, there’s no reason why we can’t win here in Puerto Rico, and if we win Puerto Rico, we will win the nomination.”

Hillary, meanwhile, campaigning in Aguadilla, brought up the issue of potential statehood for Puerto Rico:

The former first lady may not have understood the language during her first campaign stop in Puerto Rico, but she certainly understood the politics. Before a crowd of a few hundred Puerto Ricans in a muggy high school gym, Clinton pledged to make it a “personal priority” to resolve the statehood issue before the end of her first term. She also vowed to clean up the former Navy testing ranges on Vieques, fund the famous Arecibo radio telescope, use federal dollars to put more cops on the streets and extend tax breaks to Puerto Rican companies. Clinton made each of those promises in English, abandoning a translator early on, despite the growing din among distracted audience members who couldn’t understand the full content of her stump speech. Still, enthusiastic supporters hoisted signs like “Puertorriquenos con Hillary” and “Hillary Presidenta” while chants of “Hillary! Hillary!” filled the room.

The next day Hillary was in Penuelas, and according to
a blog entry on her campaign website:

Hillary clearly understands the needs of the people of Puerto Rico and has amazing proposals to better the island — it is evident that Sen. Clinton really cares. After meeting with many Puerto Rican mayors and discussing the interests of Puerto Rico in Penuelas on Sunday, Senator Clinton stood in front of the audience and openly accepted a debate against Senator Obama on Puerto Rican issues, on Puerto Rican soil. Her exact words were I accept the debate anytime, anywhere.

So are “Puerto Rican issues” the same as American issues, or are they different? Could somebody please spell that out for us?

At the Mexican university in which I work, I’ve recently been applying and grading TOEFL tests. The TOEFL (Test of English as a Foreign Language) is a standardized English exam. In fact, it’s the world’s most widely recognized such exam. The TOEFL is used in many countries. In U.S. universities it’s used as an entrance exam. Here in Mexico it’s used in some institutions as an English placement exam.

So why don’t we apply some sort of standardized English test to prospective legal immigrants to the U.S.A.? Since so many people want to emigrate to the U.S., why not be more selective? We could apply it to all prospective legal adult immigrants, or at least to all heads of families.

Of course, some would immediately cry “discrimination”. But “discrimination” means “to make a distinction”. So every immigration system discriminates. The current “family unification” system discriminates upon the basis of nepotism. So how about discriminating to select immigrants who already speak English?

Well, it’s no big surprise, but John McCain is already making “immigration reform”, which in his mind must include amnesty, a priority of his administration, should he win.
In a piece on the New York Times Politics Blog, “McCain Says Immigration Reform Should be Top Priority” (May 22nd, 2008), Michael Luo reports that

In yet another sign of his pivoting toward the general election, Senator John McCain said at a roundtable with business leaders here today that comprehensive immigration reform should be a top priority for the next president.

McCain said it “at a business roundtable held at a Silicon Valley technology firm” where business leaders were complaining about the reputed difficulty of obtaining H1B visas for foreigners.
Quoth John McCain : “…we must enact comprehensive immigration reform. We must make it a top agenda item if we don’t do it before, and we probably won’t, a little straight talk, as of January 2009.”
McCain’s final sentence is a little garbled, but it sounds clear to me that Candidate McCain is pledging himself to start working on “comprehensive immigration reform”, which for him includes amnesty, on Day One of his presidency.
Also in attendance was Governor Schwarzenegger, who also supports “immigration reform” and says it can’t be achieved piecemeal. The Terminator even exhorted his fellow roundtablers to work towards that goal:“I think all of us have to keep that pressure on Congress.”
At another juncture during the same roundtable, McCain discussed illegal aliens :

Later, Mr. McCain took up the topic again, saying the problem of what to do with illegal immigrants already here needs to be solved, saying “they are also God’s children, and we have to do it in a human and compassionate fashion,” which drew applause from his audience.

So is McCain saying that those who are currently illegal aliens in the U.S. can’t be God’s children if they return to Mexico ?

The British have been known as beef-eaters for centuries, and the fact that roast beef is an important part of the traditional American meal is another example of our nation’s British heritage.
British Airways, on the other hand, has taken beef off the menu for economy passengers. According to this recent article :

For decades the national dish has been a staple meal on the national carrier.But now British Airways has taken beef off the menu for economy passengers amid concerns about its “religious restrictions”.
The airline has instead switched to a fish pie or chicken dish option for the so-called “cattle class” passengers.

BA says it’s not because of cost:

In the past three months world beef prices have risen from about £2,500 a tonne to more than £4,000 a tonne, largely because of the weakening dollar and rising feed costs. BA also said that cost is not a reason for the decision to stop serving beef.

Here’s why:

BA’s second-biggest long-haul market is to India, where the majority Hindu population do not eat beef because of their beliefs.

The British beef industry doesn’t like the change, of course:

The decision to scrap the nation’s favourite fare was described as a “great shame” by the English Beef and Lamb Executive, formerly part of the Meat and Livestock Commission.
A spokesman said: “It is regrettable that Britain’s flag carrier is not proposing to serve Britain’s national dish.It is a meal we are rightly proud of. Roast beef and beefeaters are symbols or Britain used to promote tourism.Our beef is also much in demand overseas. It is predominately grass fed and highly praised for its flavour. It is obviously up to British Airways to decide what they serve on flights, but beef is an ideal meat for making into airline meals.”

Beef is not the only meat to get cut from the menu:

A BA spokesman said the it stopped serving beef to economy class passengers last month. He added: “We can only serve two options and beef and pork obviously have religious restrictions.
We have to try to use two meals which appeal to as many customers as possible. This summer season we are offering customers in World Traveller on most longhaul flights a choice of chicken and tarragon or fish pie. We also look at trends from major supermarkets to see what types of meals are popular and fish pie style meals are selling well at the moment. These two meals proved popular in tasting tests and are also proving popular on board.”

But don’t get the wrong idea, says BA :

“It has nothing to do with the fear of causing offence - we always offer alternative meals for people with special dietary requirements if they order in advance.”

You can still get beef if you’re not in economy class though :

“We are still serving beef based meals on certain menus in First Class and Club World and are currently deciding on whether or not to use beef on the menus for World Traveller customers for the winter season.”

Here’s the response of the Hindu Council UK

The Hindu Council UK said: “The Hindu community will welcome this decision and the news it has been made partly because Hindus don’t eat beef. Hindus have a great deal of respect for British culture and are well integrated into the British way of life, so it’s good to see evidence of how they are literally flying the British flag by choosing British Airways.That said, Hindus are tolerant of the beliefs of others and do not expect everyone to stop eating a food because they do not eat it.”