The Government Can't Control The Borders. But It Can Control Guns
A while back in a column called Reconquista, Terrorism, and Gun Control, I said "I wrote earlier that it would be stupid to disarm the populace during an invasion. It's even dumber to do so during a war."
Well, now it's even dumber. A Hispanic website called quepasa.com has a couple of "inmigracion" stories about American citizens trying to protect the border, and their property, from the large groups of illegals who cross the border, usually crossing private land. The news: these illegals are now armed.
Story number one: Border Patrol: More undocumented immigrants arriving armed
In fewer than four months, Border Patrol agents in the Tucson district have reported 12 arrests of undocumented immigrants carrying knives or handguns - twice the number reported over the past two years.
Agents last week reported being fired upon while on patrol in the desert as well as the confiscation of three pistols from migrants, Border Patrol spokesman Frank Amarillas said.
Jen Allen, assistant director of the Border Action Network, an immigrant rights group, said the only ones to blame [JF: !!!] for the rising incidence of undocumented immigrants crossing the border with weapons are the civilian patrol groups, which - she claimed - operate freely in the region.
"Immigrants have heard about these paramilitary groups patrolling the border carrying weapons and rifles," said Allen. "They are afraid of being attacked."
[See also Trend rising for crossers to be armed, More crossers armed, says Border Patrol]
As usual, the authorities are unconcerned about the invaders, but eager to annoy any citizen who fought back. Chilton Williamson has reported on John Petrello's encounter with a group of illegals: after being arrested by Petrello, they tried to have him arrested in turn, and threatened to sue for violation of their civil rights.[See Do Illegal Immigrants Have More Rights Than Americans? The Case of John Petrello] Another story on Quepasa.com shows that the authorities are still doing this:
Arizona anti-immigrant activist cited for weapons violation
Douglas, U.S., January 28, 2003 (EFE) - National park rangers briefly detained for weapons possession the leader of a controversial vigilante group dedicated to the "citizens' arrest" of undocumented immigrants along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Chris Simcox, head of the Civil Homeland Defense, was released Sunday after being questioned for some three hours by rangers in Coronado National Memorial Park about the pistol he was carrying and what he was doing on park grounds.
The gun was confiscated, and Simcox will be fined, authorities said.
Thane Weigand, chief of the park rangers, said Simcox and a companion were searching for undocumented immigrants in the national park, which is located west of Naco, Arizona, near the Mexican border.
Weigand said the rangers confiscated all of Simcox's belongings, including a pistol, two radios, a police scanner, a cell phone and a digital camera.
He said the men appeared to be carrying out a vigilante border-patrol operation, an activity banned on federal lands.
Here we are in 2003, and while illegals are invading across the Mexican border, the US government is not only not stopping the invasions; it is actually preventing Americans from doing so.
It's not as if the National Park Service hadn't suffered from illegal immigration, and they don't have enough Rangers to protect the National Parks as it is. Why should they turn down volunteer help?
[Language note: "vigilante" is what their enemies call the Tombstone Militia, Ranch Rescue and similar groups. This is unfair. Vigilantes of the Old West used to hang people. Modern day citizen volunteers simply turn them over to the Border Patrol, where they're perfectly safe. "Citizen's arrest" is in scare quotes, as if it were some kind of legal fantasy. But it's perfectly legal for American citizens to arrest people committing a serious crime. And what do immigration enthusiasts call the people who are illegally entering the U.S? " Undocumented immigrants."]
I found this in the archives of Commentary Magazine and thought it was amusing. It is presented absolutely without comment.
Abraham Cahan, the "Forward," and Me
By Seth Lipsky
June, 1997
One early encounter occurred in July 1984, when I was wooing not only the Forward but also a colleague of mine at the Wall Street Journal, Amity Shlaes. She and I had become friends with Simon Weber, one of Cahan's successors as editor of the Yiddish-language Forward. We had gone to his apartment in Brighton Beach at the edge of Brooklyn for a little lunch in honor of the novelist I.B. Singer. As we settled in at a table of smoked fish and other delights, I mentioned an editorial the Wall Street Journal had run a few days earlier asserting that the ideal way to deal with immigration in America was to pass a constitutional amendment mandating open borders. "Oy," said Singer, looking up from his plate of vegetables. "All those Mexicans!"
I was appalled, and banged the table. "I can't believe my ears," I exclaimed. "Here I am, in the home of the editor of the newspaper that lit the way for the greatest wave of immigration in our history, having lunch with the greatest immigrant writer of the century, and when I tell you the Wall Street Journal is calling for open borders, you turn around and say 'Oy!'" Weber motioned me out onto his balcony, which offered a magnificent view in one direction of Coney Island beach and in the other of the bustling community of newly arrived Russian Jews. He shook his finger in my face. "I know you guys from the Wall Street Journal," he declared. "All you want is cheap labor."
This struck me at the time as a great irony. Aside from everything else the Wall Street Journal stood for, it had argued consistently that wage increases, in and of themselves, were noninflationary and a good thing. Nor could I recall a single editorial against the right of labor to organize.
What I am trying to say is that in pursuing the Forward, I saw at least a potential concord of views between it and the Journal on issues ranging from immigration to the containment of Communism to the defense of Israel to American race relations. But it is also true that, even as I moved deeper into the neoconservative camp, I still continued to cherish certain liberal ideals held by many of my family and friends in an earlier generation. I relished the chance to find a way to resolve the remaining contradictions, and editing an English-language Forward seemed to offer it.
Jim Boulet of English First was just on the Phil Donahue show; here's the transcript.[Worth reading]
Sample dialogue:
BOULET: If Hispanic people learn English, they won't be depending on his [El Diario/La Prensa Editor Gerson Borrero ] newspaper to tell them what to think.
BORRERO: Oh, please!
BOULET: They'll be able to go to the Internet and...
(CROSSTALK)
BORRERO: Wait a minute! MSNBC-NBC just bought Telemundo. They want us to speak Spanish!
BOULET: Yes, we heard that already.
(CROSSTALK)
BORRERO: ... but you didn't hear it. You know why? You know what he's afraid of? He's afraid of the fact that we're so talented, that we're able to speak two languages, that we'll take over your job!
And Borrero is right. If bilingualism is a requirement for American jobs, due to a large population of monoglot Spanish-speakers, then native-born Americans will indeed be squeezed out of those jobs, since they're less likely to be bilingual. Hispanic immigrants have at present much more need to learn English than Americans have to learn Spanish.
That's what's happened in Canada, where English and French are both official languages. French-Canadians have more or less taken over the federal civil service.
But it's not due to talent on the part of bilingual Hispanics. It's due to massive ignorance of the English language on the part of the immigrants - and the government's pandering to Hispanic radicals.
