DOWNLOADS: (1474)

PLAYS: (1404)

Embed

Sarah Palin's very proud of her idiotic "cojones" jibe at President Obama last Sunday, and went on Sean Hannity to crow about it some more last night:

HANNITY: Yes, it's amazing to me. I wonder -- and tell me this is separate and apart. I think on national security issues and some other issues like immigration a willingness to really take on a controversial issue, do you think over time the narrative that the president is wimpy is going to take place?

PALIN: I think he's quite complacent and I think he's over -- in over his head and I think he has poor advisors surround him and I think he's really influx kind of when it comes to what his governing philosophy actually is. Some of this though is a result of he not having much experience and then a complicit media, and maybe some voters who chose not to allow him to be vetted very closely.

It's a combination of things that's resulting in a president who's not taking a strong stand on those things that are the will of the people. Obviously the will of the people is to enforce the laws that we have on the books.

HANNITY: Yes, but you know, Governor, I've tried to make this observation as many times as I can. It seems that -- you know, I know we are supposed to have government of, by, and for the people. That's what I -- that's what I always understood.

But this administration -- Democrats in particular -- right now seeing it's government by and of and for Obama. And by that I mean, you know, look at where the American people are on immigration. Look at where they are on health care.

Look at where they are on deficit spending. And then look at the Obama administration's positions. They seem at odds and a willingness to be at odds with the American people so often.

Is it ideology? Is it a lack of sophisticated political knowledge? What do you think it is?

PALIN: It's ideology and it's a commitment to what he had set out to do as a candidate. Barack Obama. And that was to fundamentally transform country.

So wait, which is it? Is Barack Obama a lousy president because he's a wishy-washy leader who doesn't really know which way to go? Or is it because he's a hardcore radical ideologue who refuses to budge or compromise or try to work with Republicans?

These nabobs seize on any straw in a windstorm to bash Obama. It's pretty pathetic, really -- except, of course, that one of them is about 90 percent likely to be a major Republican candidate for the presidency in 2012.

DOWNLOADS: (865)

PLAYS: (1629)

Embed

Those Dred Scott Republicans who want to do away with the 14th Amendment and birthright citizenship are sure being ever so helpful when it comes to reforming our immigration laws.

They won't approve any plan creating a path to citizenship for the 12 million or so immigrants who are here illegally because, according to Republicans, that's "amnesty." Of course, they also agree that we can't round up and deport 12 million people. But any plan with a citizenship path -- regardless of how many penalties you throw at the immigrants, including heavy fines -- means Republicans will denounce it as "amnesty."

And what do they propose to fix the problem? Why, amend the Constitution, of course. Why, what could be simpler?

And the best part is: Their proposal to amend the 14th Amendment to throw out birthright citizenship wouldn't even solve an identifiable problem -- except a fake "anchor baby" scare that exists only in the fevered imaginations of paranoid white nativists.

Sen. Harry Reid and the Democrats understand this. So do some conservatives. And so yesterday Reid replied to the senators like Lindsey Graham and Jon Kyl, who think "anchor babies" are a major threat facing the nation, by reading from an op-ed by onetime Reagan/Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson:

The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment guaranteed citizenship to all people "born or naturalized in the United States" for a reason. They wished to directly repudiate the Dred Scott decision, which said that citizenship could be granted or denied by political caprice.

They purposely chose an objective standard of citizenship -- birth -- that was not subject to politics. Reconstruction leaders established a firm, sound principle: To be an American citizen, you don't have to please a majority, you just have to be born here.

Reid then paraphrased Gerson by observing of his Republican colleagues, "They've either taken leave of their senses or their principles.

As you can see in the video above, even some Fox News anchors and reporters are not so certain it's such a sound idea.

But the best part of all this is, as we explained when Russell Pearce proposed such a law for Arizona, the entire enterprise is predicated on the notion that, as Pearce put it, we'll never solve the problem of illegal immigration if we don't cut off the great big incentive of having "anchor babies" here.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (1229)

PLAYS: (1033)

Embed

I’m sincerely grateful for President Obama’s national address last week on the need for comprehensive immigration reform. Like the president, I want to work with my colleagues in the House and Senate to finalize legislation that fixes our broken immigration system.

If the Republican Party doesn’t want to cooperate on a reform bill, Democrats should move forward regardless. The American people want action, and they want results. If all the opposition intends to do is chant “amnesty” over and over in an attempt to scare us out of passing a bill, they may as well just get out of the way. We’re ready to move on immigration reform, and I call on everyone who cares about border safety, the rule of law, and the economy to join us.

I hope you’ll join us too. Please click here to sign my petition in support of comprehensive reform.

We need a bill that ensures safe borders, holds undocumented immigrants accountable, and creates a rigorous process for acquiring earned legal status, as HR 4321 currently does. I’m happy to hear the president talk so clearly about why we can’t kick this can any further down the road. We can’t leave millions of people in permanent limbo. A rigorous process for bringing them into the legal system, the employment system and the tax system will benefit not only these people individually but the nation as a whole.

We need a serious approach to this issue. Deporting 11 million people is unrealistic and would destroy the fabric of this country. Anyone who says otherwise is not living in the real world. Demagogues in the Republican Party, and their Democratic allies, will say this is about amnesty and open borders. No matter how many times they repeat it, it won’t be true. No one who understands the issue believes we can just dig trenches, point guns at the border and live in fear the rest of our lives. We need legal, social, economic and political reforms to truly make immigration work in this country, and we need them now.

Please sign my petition in support of comprehensive immigration reform. Let’s make our voices heard as Washington turns its attention to this crucial issue.

The president made clear in his speech last week that immigration reform is a matter of political courage. He’s absolutely right about that. As Congress and the White House craft a legislative proposal that sets up meaningful steps individuals need to take to get right with the law, in addition to addressing important border safety questions, it will become clear to the American people who’s trying to fix this problem and who’s obstructing progress for short-term political gain. We can’t let them win this one.

UPDATE :John Amato:

Blue America is supporting Rep. Grijalva in the upcoming election and you can find him on our special "One America" act blue page here. He's been very strong in his attempt to overturn SB1070 when so many others in Arizona have not.

DOWNLOADS: (783)

PLAYS: (1168)

Embed

I guess some people are noticing that we're seeing a spike in vigilante violence on the border, largely associated with white "Minuteman" patrols. Rep. Pete Stark fired back at one of the Minutemen at a public meeting last week, and it stirred Glenn Beck's ire:

REP. PETE STARK (D-CA): The Minutemen want to have something to say? Who are you going kill today?

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Who are we going to kill today?

STARK: Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I would just like to know — actually, American citizens are being killed right now. That's what's going on.

STARK: That's right.

This really set Beck off:

Let me just clear up a few of the stark raving lies here. Even though Stark has some sort of minutemen shoot everybody on sight smear campaign going on, the fact is there has never been a border shooting involving a Minuteman, not one! Zero! None!

No violent episodes from the Minutemen. I mean, this guy doesn't let a single fact get in his way.

We have a "single fact" or two for Glenn Beck, though, that might kind of get the way of his claim.

Indeed, we'd like Glenn Beck to meet someone.

Her name was Brisenia Flores. She was nine years old and lived near the border with her parents and sister outside the town of Arivaca, Arizona. On May 30 of last year, a woman named Shawna Forde, who led an offshoot unit of Minutemen who ran armed border patrols for patriotic "fun". Forde's gang had decided to go "operational," which meant they concocted a scheme to raid drug smugglers and take their money and drugs and use it to finance a border race war and "start a revolution against the government". They mistakenly chose the Flores home, which had neither money nor drugs; first they shot the father in the head and wounded the mother, and then, while she pleaded for her life, they shot Brisenia in cold blood. (Her sister, fortunately, was sleeping over at a friend's.)

You can listen to the wounded mother's 911 call here:

DOWNLOADS: 6453

PLAYS: 19115

Embed

It's not as if Shawna Forde was a renegade Minuteman, either, though she did run an offshoot (which is how the majority of Minutemen are organizing these days, the large national organizations having gone kaput). Indeed, Forde served as a spokesperson for FAIR and was closely involved with Minutemen leader Jim Gilchrist right up to the time of her arrest. (In fact, we're going to learn at her trial this fall just how close -- including whether or not Gilchrist tipped her off that federal authorities were looking for her).

That's just one incident. Others are beginning to manifest themselves even now.

Maybe if Glenn Beck were a little better informed about just what his pet Minutemen have been up to, he might avoid these kinds of mistakes. But we doubt it.

DOWNLOADS: (1229)

PLAYS: (1033)

Embed

President Obama's speech this morning on comprehensive immigration reform was a good start to getting the ball rolling with this effort. (The transcript is here.) But that's all it was. And like a lot of Obama speeches, it was strong on philosophical substance -- though typically, it equivocated in trying to split the middle between the "poles" of the debate -- and pretty short on practical details for getting it done. He didn't even forecast a deadline for legislation.

The heart of the speech was this part:

Our task then is to make our national laws actually work -– to shape a system that reflects our values as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And that means being honest about the problem, and getting past the false debates that divide the country rather than bring it together.

For example, there are those in the immigrants’ rights community who have argued passionately that we should simply provide those who are [here] illegally with legal status, or at least ignore the laws on the books and put an end to deportation until we have better laws. And often this argument is framed in moral terms: Why should we punish people who are just trying to earn a living?

I recognize the sense of compassion that drives this argument, but I believe such an indiscriminate approach would be both unwise and unfair. It would suggest to those thinking about coming here illegally that there will be no repercussions for such a decision. And this could lead to a surge in more illegal immigration. And it would also ignore the millions of people around the world who are waiting in line to come here legally.

Ultimately, our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders and set laws for residency and citizenship. And no matter how decent they are, no matter their reasons, the 11 million who broke these laws should be held accountable.

Now, if the majority of Americans are skeptical of a blanket amnesty, they are also skeptical that it is possible to round up and deport 11 million people. They know it’s not possible. Such an effort would be logistically impossible and wildly expensive. Moreover, it would tear at the very fabric of this nation -– because immigrants who are here illegally are now intricately woven into that fabric. Many have children who are American citizens. Some are children themselves, brought here by their parents at a very young age, growing up as American kids, only to discover their illegal status when they apply for college or a job. Migrant workers -– mostly here illegally -– have been the labor force of our farmers and agricultural producers for generations. So even if it was possible, a program of mass deportations would disrupt our economy and communities in ways that most Americans would find intolerable.

Now, once we get past the two poles of this debate, it becomes possible to shape a practical, common-sense approach that reflects our heritage and our values. Such an approach demands accountability from everybody -– from government, from businesses and from individuals.

Then, as you can see in the video above, Obama lays out his strategy for getting this done: Republicans have to come on board. Well, in the year of the Tea Parties, we wish him lots of luck on that. This is just a recipe for endless compromises in legislation the name of bringing aboard a Republican who in the end turns around and screws them when the time to vote arrives. We saw this in the health-care debate, in financial reform, and a dozen other legislative initiatives. It doesn't work with these guys.

Frank Sharry of America's Voice has some thoughts about all this:

Be sure and read Sharry's more detailed thoughts at HuffPo. He's one of our best thinkers on immigration, and the president would do well to hew more closely to Sharry's advice on this than Rahm's, ifyaknowaddimean.

The White House is hosting a live chat on the President's speech this morning on immigration reform. You can join it yourself and ask questions.

We're working on getting video of the speech to you. In the meantime, here's the transcript:

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.) Everyone please have a seat. Thank you very much. Let me thank Pastor Hybels from near my hometown in Chicago, who took time off his vacation to be here today. We are blessed to have him.
I want to thank President Neil Kerwin and our hosts here at American University; acknowledge my outstanding Secretary of Labor, Hilda Solis, and members of my administration; all the members of Congress -- Hilda deserves applause. (Applause.) To all the members of Congress, the elected officials, faith and law enforcement, labor, business leaders and immigration advocates who are here today -- thank you for your presence.

I want to thank American University for welcoming me to the campus once again. Some may recall that the last time I was here I was joined by a dear friend, and a giant of American politics, Senator Edward Kennedy. (Applause.) Teddy’s not here right now, but his legacy of civil rights and health care and worker protections is still with us.

I was a candidate for President that day, and some may recall I argued that our country had reached a tipping point; that after years in which we had deferred our most pressing problems, and too often yielded to the politics of the moment, we now faced a choice: We could squarely confront our challenges with honesty and determination, or we could consign ourselves and our children to a future less prosperous and less secure.

Continue reading »

If Bud Selig thought we were going to go away he was dead wrong. The good people of Boston showed up at a Red Sox game when the Diamondbacks showed up during an interleague game and voiced their outrage at the hate bill SB 1070.

Boston Globe:

The team has become mired in the vitriolic national debate over illegal immigration, a symbol of a state under fire for recently passing the most restrictive immigration law in the country. Protests have dogged them in Houston and Chicago, Los Angeles and Miami, and yesterday in Boston, where scores of demonstrators gathered behind the Green Monster before game time to rally against the law.

“It’s been happening everywhere we go,’’ said Miguel Montero, a 26-year-old catcher from Venezuela. “We don’t talk about it.’’

Yesterday’s demonstrators — about 200 people from labor unions, church groups, and immigrant advocates — crowded the sidewalk behind sausage stands to assail the law, which was passed in April and takes effect next month. The law makes it a state crime to be in the United States illegally and allows police to question those they suspect of being in the country without papers.

The protesters also spoke out against a proposed crackdown in Massachusetts, where lawmakers are debating budget amendments that would restrict illegal immigrants’ access to government services.

They said they fear that the Arizona law creates a climate for racial profiling, and they urged politicians to instead create a path to legal residency for the millions of immigrants in the United States illegally. They chanted and carried signs saying “We are all Arizona,’’ saying they were protesting the legislation, not the players.

“We’re not going to let a law like Arizona’s happen in Massachusetts,’’ said Yessenia Alfaro, director of organizing for the Chelsea Collaborative and a US citizen originally from El Salvador. “I believe in the American dream. This is my country and my children’s country. We came here for a better life.’’

I don't expect many Latino players to speak out like Adrian Gonzalez or Jorge Cantu did because they must be terrified what might happen to them so it's up to us to be their voice for them. Great job Boston. Our Big Coalition have made plans for our next phase in trying to get the 2011 All Star game moved out of Arizona and I'll let you know soon enough.

TIME magazine has a piece up about Russell Pearce's new brainchild, trying to outlaw children born in America.

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.

Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall that would deny birth certificates to children born in Arizona - and thus American citizens according to the U.S. Constitution - to parents who are not legal U.S. citizens. The law largely is the brainchild of state Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican whose suburban district, Mesa, is considered the conservative bastion of the Phoenix political scene. He is a leading architect of the Arizona law that sparked outrage throughout the country: Senate Bill 1070, which allows law enforcement officers to ask about someone's immigration status during a traffic stop, detainment or arrest if reasonable suspicion exists - things like poor English skills, acting nervous or avoiding eye contact during a traffic stop. (See the battle for Arizona: will a border crackdown work?) But the likely new bill is for the kids. While SB 1070 essentially requires of-age migrants to have the proper citizenship paperwork, the potential "anchor baby" bill blocks the next generation from ever being able to obtain it. The idea is to make the citizenship process so difficult that illegal immigrants pull up the "anchor" and leave.

Back on May 25th, David N. posted on this when Pearce went on Bill O'Reilly and admitted this is what he had in store as his next volley as he continues his attacks on the non-whites of America.

O'Reilly, of course, is not much help: He counters Pearce by observing that this is "federal law" -- though that is hardly the half of it, since this particular principle, of birthright citizenship, is embedded in the Constitution and is indeed a proud part of America's heritage as a nation of immigrants.

Pearce wants to claim that this only refers to people with "legal domicile" in the U.S. -- even though the words appear nowhere in the Constitution.

He complains that the concept of "illegal immigration" hadn't been conceived when the 14th Amendment was written -- which is true enough, but irrelevant to whether it remains in force. Indeed, a much stronger argument can be made that the nakedly racist/eugenicist/Nativist Immigration Act of 1924 -- which first created "illegal immigration" -- was grossly unconstitutional because it clearly violated the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, it's irrelevant because the law has always been interpreted to mean that, when a newborn is accorded automatic birthright citizenship based on birth on American soil, its status is generally unaffected by the legal status or citizenship of that individual's mother or father. This was true both before and after 1924...read on

I think Pearce knows that this will be struck down in the Supreme Court even with the right wing fringe running the place because it's firmly embedded in our Constitution and Scalia and his clones are supposed to be Originalists, right? You must understand something about movement conservatives. They pick fights not because they know they can win it in the end, losing is just as acceptable when it comes to immigration and the culture wars because *"backlash politics" is all about playing the victim. They get to stir the pot, create some outrage, make tons of cash and get themselves elected over issues that they never can win at. Remember creationism vs evolution? They knew that it would never pass with the scientific community, but as Thomas Frank puts it, they don't care. They can hold their noses high and attack the "elites" over and over again making the case that those snobby, latte sipping Frenchmen think they know better than all of the red blooded-red state Americans because they believe they are smarter than us.

Backlash Politics:

The backlash narrative is more powerful than mere facts, and according to this central mythology conservatives are always hardworking patriots who love their country and are persecuted for it, while liberals, who are either high-born weaklings or eggheads hypnotized by some fancy idea, are always ready to sell their nation out at a moment’s notice.7

DOWNLOADS: (916)

PLAYS: (1160)

Embed

When reality catches up to Arizonans for their passage of their misbegotten police-state immigration law, it's going to be ugly and unpleasant. If other states really are considering passing similar laws, they will want to watch what happens to Arizona -- and they will inevitably wind up thinking twice.

We've pointed out previously -- as have the nation's police chiefs -- that the law is almost certain to in fact increase violent crime and dilute law enforcement's capacity to deal with it in Arizona.

And that will only be the first consequence (and a decidedly ironic one, since this law was sold as being a means to crack down on violent crime). The longest-lasting and most significant, however, will be the economic one: When the Latino workforce flees Arizona, their economy will suffer a dramatic downturn unlike any they've seen in decades.

It's already starting to happen:

Arizona’s hard-hitting immigration law is driving Hispanics out of the state weeks before the controversial law goes into effect.

Although concrete figures are not available, anecdotal evidence suggests Hispanics, both legal residents and illegal immigrants, are starting to flee.

Schools in Hispanic neighborhoods are reporting abnormal enrollment drops, and businesses that serve Hispanics also report that business is down, according to a USA Today report published Wednesday.

The report suggests that the immigration law is compounding demographic trends that have already significantly curtailed illegal immigration during the past two years. The bad economy has been the primary deterrent to many Hispanic immigrants seeking to enter Arizona, says Jeffrey Passel, a demographer at the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

“If you have a bad economy and a hostile environment, then that’s likely to cause people to think twice about coming, and possibly even to leave,” Mr. Passel says.

... Any loss, however, will be a loss for the Arizona economy, [David Gutierrez, a professor of immigration history, at the University of California San Diego] suggests.

“Latinos...are a highly flexible, highly exploitable work force, a buffer to economic downturns,” he says. “Many of the industries here – agriculture, service industries, low-end manufacturing, construction – are massively dependent on undocumented workers.

“If I were able to conduct an experiment and pay all of Arizona’s undocumented workers to not work for two weeks, the economy would come to a screeching, crashing halt instantaneously.”

This brought to mind a video forwarded to me from my friend Jimmy at McCranium, an Eastern Washington blog, of a Pasco immigration attorney named Tom Roach giving an informational talk to group of local citizens in Kennewick on May 29.

The talk is excellent, and I recommend watching the whole thing if you're interested. Because Roach effectively drills down to the heart of our dilemma with immigration -- namely, our current laws are so screwed up they have no chance of meeting the nation's economic needs or effectively dealing with natural immigration pressures that are driven by not just the economy, but the American Dream itself:

Continue reading »

Checking the box score, in the Major League Props: Hall & Oates hit a grand slam as they joined in on the "Sound Strike," tour, errr, I mean 'cancel tour' of musicians standing in solidarity and vocalizing their feelings against Kris Kobach's Arizona hate bill.

The Arizona Diamondbacks announced that Daryl Hall and John Oates have canceled their post-game concert at Chase Field that had been scheduled to follow a game against the Dodgers on July 2.

Hall and Oates issued the following statement:

"In addition to our personal convictions, we are standing in solidarity with the music community in our boycott of performing in Arizona at this time. We would like to emphasize that this has nothing to do with the management of the Arizona Diamondbacks, who have been professional and cooperative throughout our dealings with them. This is our response to a very specific action of the state."

Since both of us have backgrounds in the music industry, Howie Klein and I have been trying to persuade artists not to perform in Arizona since SB1070 was passed. Zack de la Rocha is really a hero here.

Howie has much more:

Other artists who have joined suit include Cypress Hill, Pitbull, Rage Against the Machine, Kanye West, Sonic Youth, Carlos Santana, Willie Nelson, Joe Satriani, Tenacious D, Shakira, Massive Attack and Hall & Oates (who were supposed to play at a July 2nd Diamondbacks game). Rage's Zack de la Rocha was organized an Arizona sound strike.

“Fans of our music, our stories, our films and our words can be pulled over and harassed every day because they are brown or black, or for the way they speak, or for the music they listen to,” de la Rocha said. “People who are poor like some of us used to be could be forced to live in a constant state of fear while just doing what they can to find work and survive. This law opens the door for them to be shaked down, or even worse, detained and deported while just trying to travel home from school, from home to work, or when they just roll out with their friends.”

The law-- SB 1070-- takes “racial profiling... to a whole new low,” the singer went on. “When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, they arrested her. As a result, people got together and said we are not going to ride the bus until they change the law... What if we got together, signed a collective letter saying, ‘We're not going to ride the bus,’ saying we are not going to comply. We are not going to play in Arizona.”

I'm not pushing for a strike against the Diamondbacks players, but Jerry Colangelo and their ownership has been complicit in helping pass SB 1070 and have been big-time Republican shills.