Scott Douglas, Executive Director of Greater Birmingham Ministries, nailed it on the Colbert Report, Monday night not only in diction but also in tone, as he made his case against HB 56. Sometimes people try to go on Colbert and be funny, but it's hard to outfunny Colbert. It's better to just play it serious and let Colbert be the comedian, and Scott Douglas did that ">just as he said he would. More important, were his profound words which were almost always applauded by Colbert's audience.

Here are Colbert's questions and Douglas's responses which elicited applause from the audience:

STEPHEN COLBERT: We don't want the feds marching into Alabama. They did that 150 years ago. It didn't work out too well.

SCOTT DOUGLAS: The point is that Alabama should not be joining one of those states that has its own state immigrant law. We don't need 50 immigrant laws across the United States of America. We need one comprehensive law that's just and fair for everyone. (APPLAUSE)

[...]

COLBERT: But why as an African-American would you be fighting for the Latinos? Because they didn't fight for you guys.

DOUGLAS: This is Martin Luther King's birthday celebration and he famously says, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." And HB 56 is a threat to me and all Americans. (APPLAUSE)

[...]

COLBERT: Are things so good for black people in Alabama that you can turn your focus to Latinos?

DOUGLAS: African-Americans can never forget how hard we toiled to gain the rights we now have, and how far we've got to toil to gain even more. We know the path we had to trod and we're trying to be in solidarity with these people as they face this stage of this abuse. (APPLAUSE)

The Colbert Report (16 January 2012)

That last question was especially difficult to answer, much less in such a succinct fashion, and I hope folks in the pro-migrant movement will join me in thanking Douglas for his courage and eloquence. Douglas' interview builds nicely on my comments, on MLK day. As an African-American and the leader of a historic civil rights organization, in an area with a lot of civil rights history, he's one of the few that can make the connection between MLK and the civil rights movement and the pro-migrant movement. I would also recommend reading Alfredo Gutierrez, former state senator in Arizona, who eloquently describes the differences between civil disobedience during the civil rights era, and the current pro-migrant iterations of civil disobedience.

The only very small qualm I had with both Scott Douglas and Stephen Colbert is that they suggested that unauthorized migration is a crime, when the vast majority of unauthorized migration is prosecuted by the federal government as a civil violation. This is an important distinction to make because there are nativists who want to make unauthorized migration a crime, which would be a disaster for public safety. Furthermore calling unauthorized immigration a "crime" and unauthorized migrants "illegal immigrants" effectively denies unauthorized migrants commit crimes at lesser rates than the native population.

I pray my herman@s in Alabama keep up the good work and are ultimately successful in repealing HB 56. If you haven't signed the Presente.org petition against HB 56 please do so.

Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange.

[Please sign the petition, above, and ask Boston to stop allowing the federal government to turn our local police into border patrol agents.]

Boston has made one mistake too many in trying to enforce federal immigration law.

The city is currently enrolled in the federal program with the Orwellian name Secure Communities (S-Comm), which forces local police to check the immigration status of anyone they arrest. The Obama administration wants to force every local police force in the U.S. to enroll in this program by 2013, but states and localities across the nation are resisting. If migrant communities are afraid to go to their local police officers to report crimes, then all residents are less safe. Following the governors of Illinois and New York, the governor of Massachusetts, Deval Patrick, recently declined to participate in the program.

While the program is under review in Boston, the latest Boston Globe article from Maria Sacchetti makes clear that the time for Boston to terminate its S-Comm program is now. With DREAMer Lizandra DeMoura now in deportation proceedings, this program has manifestly done enough damage to our communities.

In 2006, one of the first official acts of Boston Police Commissioner Edward Davis was to refuse then Gov. Mitt Romney's request to use local police forces to enforce federal immigration law. What wouldn't be made public until four years later is that while Davis was publicly decrying the involvement of local police in enforcing federal immigration law, privately, the Boston Police Department was the pilot for a program that would check the immigration status of everyone they arrested, a program which would later come to be known as S-Comm.

It's easy to understand why the federal government approached Boston about doing this. As one of the most pro-migrant major cities in the U.S., involving Boston early would blunt criticism against S-Comm later. Immigration and Customs Enforcement also promised all participants in S-Comm that the purpose of the program would be to target the worst of the worst for deportation.

Continue reading »

By now, you've probably already heard of Jose Antonio Vargas, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist who came out as undocumented in the New York Times Magazine. Memeorandum and Mediagazer, sites which aggregate political and media news, are exploding with his story. Matthew Yglesias even dropped his academic pretensions for a bit to shed a tear or two for Vargas. I say that with love.

If you're as moved as Mathew Yglesias has been moved, and there's only one thing you do in reaction to Vargas' story call Barack Obama through Presente.org and ask him to stop deporting people like Vargas.

Media Matters has a good round-up of the nativist conservatives that are committing demographic suicide by going berserk over this story. I'll write more on the nativists, later, but Vargas' story has highlighted, yet again, for me, how far progressives and the mainstream media have to go before they can begin to cover these stories accurately and with a semblance of humanity. Let's start with Heather Horn staff writer at The Atlantic:

Whatever you think of the illegal immigration issue, it's hard to dispute that there's a fundamental injustice occurring if Vargas gets let off the hook, while hundreds of thousands of other illegals get deported. Even those who want to see productive illegal immigrants granted amnesty might admit that making exceptions purely based on prominence isn't right. What if there's someone as intelligent and productive as Vargas--but not as famous--out there right now?

Heather Horn - The Atlantic (22 June 2011)

Wow. I don't even know where to start. While I somehow doubt Horn's concern for the "hundreds of thousands" that are being deported I've already told people who are concerned to call Barack Obama and ask that his administration use discretion to stop deporting people like Vargas. Recognizing that, I'll start simple with Horn's use of the term "illegal". More people have referred to Vargas as an "illegal immigrant" at this point than I care to count. Not only is that phrase dehumanizing, it's legally innaccurate. No human being is illegal. The word illegal should be used to describe acts, not to define people. Horn, however, goes a step further than dehumanization and legal innaccuracy and gets into butchering grammar with her use of the word "illegals." Sorry Ms. Horn, the word "illegal" is not a noun. Maybe you and the nativists who dehumanize people with the term "illegals" should start taking English lessons from undocumented people like Vargas. If you haven't signed the pledge to Drop The I-Word, please do so.

To Horn's central point about fairness, I'll bring in Nick Baumann at Mother Jones:

I'm sympathetic to Matt Yglesias' view that we should empathize with all people who come to the United States in search of a better life, even if, unlike Vargas, they do so knowing that what they're doing is illegal. But I've also worked with foreign-born journalists who've paid thousands or tens of thousands of dollars and waded through miles of red tape and seemingly senseless regulations—including, sometimes, returning to their home countries for a period—in order to work in this country.* (This applies outside of journalism, too, of course.) I wonder how they're feeling about Jose Antonio Vargas this morning.

Nick Baumann - Mother Jones (22 June 2011)

It's difficult for me not to descend into sarcasm after reading this. Does Baumann really think that foreign journalists envy Vargas' position, right now, or for the last decade and a half, for that matter? Would Baumann care to get any of those foreign journalists on record so we know who those heartless bastards are? I thought the supposedly liberal Mother Jones magazine really took a step forward when reporter Tim Murphy stopped using the word "illegal," but Baumann just put the magazine another huge step backward in the anti-migrant direction with this post. Finally, I'll refer to Bryan Preston over at Pajamas Media whom I believe most succinctly provides the nativist view:

He took at least two jobs that otherwise would have gone to others who are here legally.

Continue reading »

At Netroots Nation, Felipe Matos of the Trail of Dreams caught White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer in two lies, yesterday: (1) Obama "hears from DREAM Act Students all the time," and (2) Obama "does not have the executive authority [to stop the deportations of DREAMers]."

The first lie is probably the greatest disrespect to the migrant youth movement. It is not widely known that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people himself. Undocumented youth have certainly confronted him at public events, but Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people to talk with them about an immigration system that is doing violence to them.

Felipe Matos would know that Obama refuses to meet with undocumented people because he himself walked 1,500 miles from Miami, FL, to Washington, D.C. only to be denied a meeting with Obama. Obama has met with currently documented former DREAMers, but not with undocumented youth themselves. Felipe himself makes this clear in the video, only to be dismissed by Pfeiffer:

Felipe Matos: He has spoken to people who are not DREAM Act-eligible, people who are not undocumented, because he has made it very clear that he doesn't want to talk to undocumented people.

Dan Pfeiffer: I don't think that's accurate.

Felipe Matos: I mean I was in meetings with Valerie Jarrett when she told me that so I know it's accurate.

Netroots Nation (17 June 2011)

While the first lie is disrespectful to the migrant youth movement, it is probably the second lie that does the most violence to migrant communities. Obama does have the power to grant administrative relief to migrant communities. The Immigration Policy Center has made that very clear.

As a former teacher of constitutional law, and as the signatory of nearly 80 Executive Orders, President Obama understands that the role of the Executive branch of the U.S. government has never been limited to blindly enforcing laws passed by the Legislative branch. In fact, the effective implementation of any law (criminal law, tax law, environmental law, securities law, etc.), requires the Executive branch to interpret that law and develop strategies to implement it. Every new administration brings its own set of values and priorities to this task. That is why federal regulations, policies, and procedures change from administration to administration.

This fundamental fact has been repeatedly recognized by the Obama Administration outside of the immigration context. Speaking in 2008, President Obama’s transition chief, John Podesta, noted: “There’s a lot that the President can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that.” Speaking in 2010, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer observed: “The challenges we had to address in 2009 ensured that the center of action would be in Congress. In 2010, executive actions will also play a key role in advancing the agenda.”

Dan Pfeiffer lied to Felipe Matos, pure and simple, just as Obama has been lying to Latino voters across the country.

I'm struggling a little bit with categorizing these as lies so blatantly right now, primarily because I feel an unproductive narrative of liberal anger at Obama is emerging from Netroots Nation. Were I to craft my own productive narrative of why Obama needs to provide administrative relief to migrant communities, it would go something like this:

We're not asking Obama to ignore the laws that are already on the books, as broken, unjust, and violent as we feel those laws are. What we are saying is that the Obama administration has limited resources to enforce the law, and that his administration should use those resources wisely. At a time when the federal government is struggling with a growing deficit, it makes no sense to spend thousands upon thousands of dollars detaining and deporting young people who know no other country as their home, or any undocumented people with strong and productive ties to their communities in the U.S. for that matter. Even with the Obama administration deporting over 400,000 people a year, now, the undocumented population continues to hover at around 11 million people. There's even research to suggest (pdf) that heavy enforcement actually increases the undocumented population in the U.S., not because more people are coming in, but because less people want or are able to leave.

If Obama continues to force pro-migrant voters to choose between helping to elect him, and stopping the deportations of our family members, friends, and peers, guess where we're going to put our energy? Dreamers have regularly shown the ability to mobilize tens of thousands of people to stop their deportations one-by-one. Wouldn't Obama prefer that they direct their energy at convincing or electing lawmakers who can change the laws, rather than have us continue to direct our energy at his administration?

As it gets closer and closer to election time, pressure is going to increase on the pro-migrant movement to shut our mouths lest we help elect a nativist Republican to the presidency. It's difficult to say where different pro-migrant groups will fall as that pressure increases but I can say that I certainly won't help elect someone that continues to decimate my community. With Obama deporting more people that George W. Bush ever did, and now implementing a program, [In]Secure Communities, which would turn every local police officer into a border patrol agent by 2013, there might even be situations where a Republican president would be better for the pro-migrant community.

In other words, does Obama want to continue wasting limited resources and grassroots energy by continuing to deport folks who don't need to be deported, or does he want to save money and direct that energy towards lawmakers who should be taking responsibility for fixing this unjust immigration system? I hope the answer is clear and that Obama grants migrant communities administrative relief.

Kyle de Beausset is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange.

I'm almost in denial about having to ask people to do this: sign this petition at change.org to help stop the deportation of Prerna Lal. It's difficult to think of a more stupid move for the Obama administration to make than to initiate removal proceedings against Prerna. Prerna is arguably the most visible undocumented person, or Dreamer (after the DREAM Act), in the U.S.

As her website will tell you, she helped found dreamactivist.org, one of the most powerful online hubs for migrant youth, she's a blogger at change.org, and she's a board member of Immigration Equality. She also earned her Master's degree in International Relations and is currently studying to get her law degree at George Washington University.

The Obama administration is telling us that they're focusing their resources on the worst of the worst while folks on the ground know that they're going after people like Prerna all the time. If you don't want to read on, please sign this petition to stop Prerna's deportation.

The political consequences of this for the Obama administration going into the 2012 elections are enormous. While the mainstream media is ignoring it, pro-migrant voters certainly aren't going to vote for anyone who is deporting away more of our family members, neighbors, peers, and friends than any other President, Democrat or Republican, in history.

While pro-migrant voters shouldn't be equated with Latino voters, Latinos are easily the largest, most visible, and most organized segment of the pro-migrant electorate. According to a new report from the Pew Hispanic Center a record 14.7 million Latinos stayed home during the midterm elections in 2010. It gets worse. Obama's approval ratings among Latinos has decreased from 73 to 54 percent. Obama is not going to be able to win Florida and the Southwest with numbers like that.

The Obama administration's strategy up to this point has been to try and talk about this out of both sides of it's mouth. The Obama administration tries to brag about it's skyrocketing enforcement numbers to independents while blaming Republicans for the mess. Pro-migrant voters aren't stupid. Even 7-year-old Daisy Cuevas understands that it is Obama who is responsible for forcing her to live in terror.

Meanwhile we're left to try and stop the deportation of our friends, like Prerna Lal, one-by-one.  The Obama administration deported almost 400,000 people in 2010 and only granted deferred action to 542 people. Obama deports more people in a day than we're able to save in a year.

Instead of expending our energy trying to help elect Obama we're expending that energy trying to stop deportations. As the 22 Democrat Senators who signed a letter (pdf) asking Obama to halt the deportation of all Dreamers point out, not only is this inhumane, but it's a waste of the Department of Homeland Security's resources. People like Prerna are going through the entire system only to have their deportations halted at the last minute.

Sign the petition to stop the deportation of Prerna Lal, and shout from the rooftops that it's time for Obama to stop this madness.

[Kyle de Beausset (@kyledeb) is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange]

[Kyle de Beausset (@kyledeb) is a pro-migrant blogger at Citizen Orange.]

If Obama wants any chance of a pro-migrant voter advantage going into 2012, he better start taking lessons from folks like Mass. State Rep. Michael Moran (D-Brighton).

As if to illustrate just how sickening nativists can be Moran was flooded with hate mail after he was rear ended by 27-year-old unauthorized migrant Isaias Naranjo. The responsibility for the focusing this hate on Moran lies primarily with the nativist denizens of the Boston Herald opinion page, like Michael Graham and Joe Battenfeld, who singled Moran out for his courageous pro-migrant stances. Car crashes, huzzah!

I'm almost reluctant write about this and throw more gasoline on the nativists' fire because they will inevitably blow the actions of unauthorized migrants like Naranjo out of proportion.  Before I continue, I'm obliged to dispel one of the most common myths about unauthorized migrants, which is that they are criminals.

Immigration law is civil law, not criminal law, and almost half of unauthorized migrants have broken no provable crime by their presence in the U.S. because they arrive by overstaying their visas, not by entering without inspection. Despite the sensational media stories of individuals that the nativist movement likes to pick out, unauthorized migrants commit crimes at a much lesser rate then the native population does. There is no migrant crime wave.  I repeat, there is no migrant crime wave.

Even by nativist standards, though, the misinformation around Naranjo, as I understand it, is laughable. According to the police, after Naranjo rear-ended Rep. Moran, he said "Nothing is going to happen to me, man, [because I'm] going back to Mexico." Shock jock Michael Graham uses that quote to go after Gov. Deval Patrick's policy of keeping state police out of the business of enforcing federal immigration law (I'm not going to go into Secure Communities here).  

In actuality, Naranjo's quote is an indictment of the policies of nativists like Michael Graham. Naranjo understands that he won't have to suffer any consequences because nativists, enabled by the Obama administration, are so deportation happy that they think they can deport away all their problems.  The reality is much more complex, and the proliferation of transnational criminal youth gangs like Mara Salvatrucha and Mara 18 shows that deportation can actually make crime problems worse. But,trying to fit complexity into a nativist mind is like trying to fit a camel through the eye of a needle.

Rather than waste time on the nativists at the Boston Herald drop a note to Rep. Moran thanking him for his courage in the face of adversity. We're not as mean and loud as the nativists, Rep. Moran, but there are definitely more of us and we're only growing. Just one last thing, Rep. Moran, could you do us a huge favor and Drop The I-Word?

The fate of almost a million lives could be decided in the next six hours.  As a voter, as a millenial, as a migrant, as a Guatemalan, I'm writing to say that I will be watching along with the vast majority of those who will determine the future of the United States of America. 

If you already haven't heard already, Harry Reid is going to offer the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors (DREAM) Act up as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.  The Senate is scheduled to vote on taking up the Act tomorrow at 2:15 p.m.  If you haven't called you're Senator yet in the support of the DREAM Act please do so now by calling:

888-254-5087

It is imperative that you focus on these Senators.  If you've called already, call again.  If you've called again, ask five friends to do the same.  If you've done all that, here are some more actions you can take.

If you haven't heard about the DREAM Act yet I wouldn't be surprised.  The media has largely been focused on the train wreck that is Christine O'Donnell's campaign.  But the mainstream media is missing out on one of the most suspenseful political dramas I've ever witnessed.  No one knows if we have the votes to beat the filibuster in the Senate, today.  If we don't beat it, the National Defense Authorization Act will likely have to wait until after the elections.  At that point, all bets are off. 

One of the most compelling elements of this political drama has been the interaction between The LGBT movement and the migrant youth movement.  What to an outsider might be perceived as two unrelated constituencies, perhaps even hostile to each other, have been working long before this moment to build unity and solidarity.  It is one thing to believe in the truth that we are all woven into a "single garment of destiny."  It is another to live that truth and act on it.  The migrant youth movement and the LGBT movement having been living and acting on that truth, as we all should.  My freedom is tied up with the freedom of everyone else in the universe, and tomorrow we have a chance to set close to a million people free. 

Again, the media hasn't been watching but everyone who matters everyone who will decide the future of this country is watching.  The DREAM Act has been front-page news on major Spanish language newspapers all week, and featured heavily on Spanish language television.  The U.S.'s largest and fastest growing minority, Latinos, is watching, today.  Educators and students from around the country have organized for and come out in support of the DREAM Act.  The next generation is watching, today.  Facebook and twitter have blown up with mentions of the DREAM Act, and traffic on the sites covering the DREAM Act is through the roof.  Business leaders, religious leaders, and military leaders have all come out strong in support of the DREAM Act.  If the Senate fails to move the DREAM Act forward today, we will all be watching and we won't just remember this November, but for the rest of our lives. 

The next generation isn't just watching whether the DREAM act will move forward, but whether the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT) will move forward.  Lady Gaga has galvanized youth for the repeal of DADT with her extensive twitter and facebook following in a way that probably hasn't been seen seen Barack Obama was elected.

According to a poll commissioned by First Focus, 70% of the U.S. public supports the DREAM Act.  Multiple polls show that a majority of the U.S. public supports the repeal of DADT.  Republicans, for the most part, are floating arguments about procedure.  They are saying that Democrats are playing politics with the National Defense Authorization Act.  Republicans are playing politics, too, and have used the procedure of the filibuster to grind the Senate to a halt for two years.  Playing politics is what politicians do.  The public doesn't care about politicians playing politics or what procedures are used as long as Congress does their job and gets things done.  It's time for Congress to get two things done that the majority of Americans support. 

Republicans, especially, face an important choice, today.  They can please their increasingly regional extremist base and relegate themselves to irrelevancy for a generation, or they can do the right thing and be competitive with the next generation of voters.

If we win, today, we will face an even steeper uphill battle, but we will all be watching.  Failure has not entered into my mind.  We will pass the DREAM Act and DADT will be repealed.  It is no longer a question of if, but a question of when.  The time is now and whomever stands in the way will regret it for a long time. 

[Originally posted at Citizen Orange.]

Since I wrote my last post for Crooks and Liars, it looks like the nativist noise machine is at it again.  This time it's the foul-mouthed Megyn Kelly spouting half-truths and dehumanizing rhetoric.  It looks like I'll have to add Kelly to the list of folks I'm issuing the Gaby Pacheco challenge to. 

Briefly, for those who don't want to read my previous post, the Gaby Pacheco challenge invokes the revolutionary idea that the people you defame on the air, in this case Megyn Kelly's "illegals", should get a chance to speak for themselves. 

Gaby Pacheco is an undocumented student leader from Florida who wants to be a special needs teacher.  After she spoke out publicly about her immigration status, her family was detained.  She walked 1,500 miles for the DREAM Act on what was dubbed the Trail of DREAMs.  Despite the fact the the only country she knows as her home refuses to recognize her existence, Gaby is not bitter or hateful.  In fact, upon meeting the notorious nativist Sheriff Joe Arpaio, she hugged him.  Gaby loves this country more than I ever will. 

I issued the Gaby Pacheco challenge to Michelle Malkin in my last post.  The fact that all I've received is silence shows, I think, the cowardliness and meaninglessness of the nativist noise machine.  Why can't Michelle Malkin have the decency to sit down and have a conversation with the people and communities she defames on the air and in print? 

I'm now issuing the same challenge to Kelly.  Kelly invited Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) onto her FOX News show, America Live.  She regularly interrupts Gutierrez and exhumes a festering potpourri of half-truths posed as questions.  But there was nothing more grating to my ear than Kelly's use of the word "illegals."

I think even people who are really really against illegal immigration have more empathy for kids who were brought here through no choice of their own by there parents, who are illegals because their parents made a decision that the kids had nothing to do with.

Megyn Kelly - FOX News (19 September 2010) 

I believe very strongly that no human being is illegal, and that the the phrase embodies the essence of the global pro-migrant movement.  That is why, rather than use the adjective "illegal" to define someone's very existence, I prefer to use the terms undocumented or unauthorized.  If people absolutely must use the word "illegal" to describe what's happening than use it to describe the action, not to define the person.  In other words say, people who migrated here illegally, rather than "illegal immigrants."  The media has accepted this dehumanizing phrase "illegal immigrants" as the "objective" way to describe people and I'm sad to say that even I have become desensitized to it. 

Continue reading »

[Editor's note: Please welcome kyledeb, one of our favorite Latino bloggers from the great Citizen Orange, to the C&L team. kyle will be posting irregularly on immigration and Latino matters for us. -- DN]

The nativist noise machine is gearing up for a vote on the DREAM Act after Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-NV) announced he would introduce it as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act as early as next week.

Right now, the nativist growls are just grumbles. The media is too focused on the Republican implosion in Delaware to provide much of an echo chamber. That will change, though, as the DREAM Act comes closer to a vote. (For more on the DREAM Act and the implications of this vote, read this).

As soon as Reid announced that he would introduce the DREAM Act, Sen. David Vittor (R-LA) took to the Senate floor to denounce Reid's ploy "to use our hard-earned money to pay for in-state college tuition for illegal aliens." This, of course, is a false characterization of the DREAM Act.

Rep. Brian Bilbray (R-CA) took to FOX News to try and tie talented undocumented youth to the tragic massacre of 72 migrants in Mexico. Bilbray of course, is the board member of a hate group, as identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

But at this point, no one has seized on this opportunity to spread nativist ugliness like Michelle Malkin, who has spread her false and dehumanizing rhetoric through multiple blog posts and an appearance on FOX News. There's not much I can say about Michelle Malkin that hasn't been said already. The truth is I debated even discussing nativists like her. For the purposes of the DREAM Act, they have no real political power.

As much as nativists like to cite misleading polls, the public doesn't want demagoguery or sound bites on immigration, they want solutions. The DREAM Act, specifically, is supported by 70% of the U.S. public. That's not to diminish the real human cost of nativists' hateful rhetoric. It is no doubt related to rising hate crimes against migrants and Latinos, and I can attest to the fact that it shrouds migrant communities in terror. But for the purposes of the passing the DREAM Act, they mean nothing.

As read about Michelle Malkin making false statements about the DREAM Act on Fox & Friends, only to elaborate on those statements on a white supremacist website, an idea came to me. Here's my idea: after this post I will not devote a single iota of thought to nativists like Michelle Malkin unless they are willing to sit down and have a conversation with Gaby Pacheco.

Continue reading »