You are here: Home / Archives for Ira Mehlman

Mass Immigration May End the Careers of Two Mass Immigration Politicians

May 15, 2012 By Ira Mehlman 11 Comments

“The revolution, like Saturn, devours its own children,” observed Georges-Jacques Danton, a leading figure of the French revolution. Danton had good reason to feel that way, as the executioner’s guillotine was about to separate him from his head for the “crime” of being too moderate as the revolution turned increasingly bloody.

Howard Berman and Charles Rangel may soon have a better insight into what Danton was feeling in 1794. Both of these long-time members of the House of Representatives are in danger of falling victim to the mass immigration revolution they led or abetted. Berman is engaged in a political life-and-death struggle with fellow incumbent Brad Sherman in Los Angeles’s shrinking middle class suburbs of the San Fernando Valley. California’s redistricting commission carved up Berman’s old district to reflect the demographic realities created by years of sustained high levels of immigration.

Across the country, Rangel, who has represented Harlem for more than 40 years, is facing a tough primary battle in a newly drawn district where Latinos outnumber blacks. Age, poor health, and ethics issues also dog Rangel, but it is likely he would have coasted to a 22nd term in Congress if not for the immigration-driven demographic transformation of his constituency.

The irony of Berman’s circumstance is that he has done more than just about any other member of Congress to create the very situation which may end his political career. Since first being elected to Congress in 1982, Berman has fought tirelessly for mass immigration and mass amnesty. And, if he manages to hang on to his seat, it will come at the expense of Sherman who has been a loyal foot soldier, supporting every effort to maximize immigration since he arrived in Washington in 1997.

Rangel, too, has been a dependable supporter of mass immigration and amnesty. From his powerful position on the House Ways and Means Committee (before much of his power was stripped from him because of ethics violations) he has had a bird’s eye view of the toll mass immigration has taken on American taxpayers and public resources. In his newly redrawn district, where Latinos comprise 55 percent of voters, he is facing the most serious electoral challenge of his political career from State Senator Adriano Espaillat.

Other Democrats, who are leading or cheering the drive for mass immigration and amnesty, may want to take note. As Danton reputedly said to Maximilien Robespierre, his co-revolutionary turned nemesis, “If we cannot get together to slow this down it will kill us both.”

Filed Under: Jobs, Law, Local, National, Politics, Population, Society

Move Over California, Oregon is Now Goofier than You

May 3, 2012 By Ira Mehlman 22 Comments

If you thought that no one could top California when it comes to pandering to illegal aliens, you are wrong. That honor now belongs to Oregon.

In a letter to May Day demonstrators (you know, those nice folks who dress in black and smash shop windows), Gov. John Kitzhaber announced that Oregon law enforcement officers will soon accept the Mexican Matricula Consular card as proof of identity during traffic stops. In other words, people who don’t have driver’s licenses, or, in just two words, illegal aliens.

Illegal aliens will still not be eligible for Oregon driver’s licenses, but as long as they have their Matricula cards there won’t be any actual penalty for driving without a license. They will be issued citations and released. It is unlikely that the state will be able to collect any fines from them because, unlike people who have driver’s licenses, Oregon has no authority to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a Matricula card. So, under the new policy, Oregon doesn’t really care if you know what you’re doing while driving on their roads, they just want to know who you are.

Of course, Gov. Kitzhaber has a really good reason for the new policy. “Right now, too many Oregonians are travelling from home to work, or school, or church, in risk of violating the law,” Kitzhaber stated in his letter. Hence, the torch is passed from California to Oregon. The Governor of Oregon is doing his part to make sure that people who are in violation of laws against being in the country illegally, working here illegally, and driving illegally, are in no “risk of violating the law.” Top that one Jerry Brown!

Filed Under: Crime, Jobs, Law, Local, Politics, Population, Society

Are Republicans Alienating Voters They Must Win in Pursuit of Voters They Can’t Win?

April 20, 2012 By Ira Mehlman 15 Comments

Is this deja vu all over again? In 2008, John McCain flip-flopped from being a champion of amnesty for illegal aliens to a staunch opponent of amnesty as he sought the Republican presidential nomination, and then flip-flopped again once he had the nomination sewn up.

Fast forward to 2012. Mitt Romney campaigned for the GOP presidential nomination as a resolute no-amnesty-for-illegal-aliens candidate. He went so far as to state unequivocally that, as president, he would veto the DREAM Act.

Now that he has the nomination wrapped up, his, and the Republicans’, resolve appears to be weakening in the apparent belief that pandering on immigration will bring Latino voters flocking to the Republican cause. Romney has brought on former RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie whose stance on immigration policy has been McCain-esque. Other prominent Republicans, including Florida Senator Marco Rubio, are floating plans for a watered down version of the DREAM Act amnesty in the hope that it will win them favor among Latino voters.

Good politics? Well, for starters, Romney might want to take note of the fact that McCain still goes by the title Senator, not President. All of McCain’s efforts, over many years, to gain amnesty for illegal aliens didn’t make him competitive among Latino voters.

Second, voters tend not to be impressed by “me-too” politics. Why would Romney and the Republicans believe that a hard core group of voters for whom amnesty is a make or break issue will be impressed by their offer of half a loaf, when the other guys are offering the whole loaf and promising them an ice cream sundae for dessert?

Third, while they chase after voters who are never going to be interested in them, they risk alienating voters who might be interested in a meaningful relationship with them – or who at least think they are the lesser of two evils. A new Quinnipiac poll finds that Romney already enjoys a 43 percent to 39 percent advantage over President Obama when it comes to immigration policy. But when it comes to independent voters, that advantage is even more pronounced. The poll found that independents favor Romney’s positions by a 48 percent to 33 percent over the president’s. Those are the voters who decided the last election and they are the ones who will decide this one too.

None of this means that both parties shouldn’t be looking for ways to appeal to Latino voters. Ironically, Rubio himself conceded that pandering on immigration isn’t going to work. In an interview with Juan Williams on Fox News, Rubio asserted that the key to winning over Latino voters is to offer them policies geared toward “economic empowerment” and other bread and butter issues.

Whichever party can do that is likely to impress not only Latino voters, but a lot of other voters as well.

Filed Under: National, Politics, Population, Society

Some Object Lessons from Toulouse

March 30, 2012 By Ira Mehlman 1 Comment

After any horrific crime, society invariably seeks to explain what seems to be inexplicable. Such a search is now occurring in France, as people in that country try to make some kind of sense of the killing spree perpetrated by Mohammed Merah, which culminated last week in the cold-blooded murders of schoolchildren and a rabbi in Toulouse.

Merah’s full motivation will never be known because he did not survive a stand-off with French police. But some of the explanations that are being offered by those who share many of Merah’s experiences are disturbing and provide important lessons that cannot be ignored, even on the other side of the Atlantic. “Childhood friends said… they could easily relate to his visceral rage, common among many second- and third-generation immigrants whose unemployment and alienation once again loom as a threat,” states a report in The New York Times.

“Like many youths of North African descent, Mr. Merah identified more with Islam than with France, said a 23-year-old former friend from school,” who gave his name only as Faoud. “Our passports may say that we are French, but we don’t feel French because we are never accepted here,” said Faoud, standing at a corner store in Les Izards, Mr. Merah’s dilapidated neighborhood. “No one can excuse what he did, but he is a product of French society, of the feeling that he had no hope, and nothing to lose.”

To be absolutely clear, one cannot draw exact parallels between different societies, with different histories and different cultures. France is not the United States and the United States is not France. But nor can anyone deny that there are disturbing similarities. Like France, America is faced with the uncomfortable reality that we have a growing number of second and third generation immigrants “whose unemployment and alienation…loom as a threat.” We can argue about whose fault it is, but there are pockets in this country where many people who were born in this country might say, as Faoud does, “Our passports may say we are American, but we don’t feel American.”

The take-away lesson from last week’s tragic events is this: Admitting immigrants is easy. Assimilating immigrants into the social, economic and cultural mainstream of your country is difficult. It always has been and, in the highly mobile, interconnected, skills-intensive, world of the 21st century, it is only getting more difficult. We should be paying attention.

Filed Under: Law, Politics, Population, Society

California Asks Supreme Court to Overturn Arizona’s SB 1070 BECAUSE IT WORKS!

March 29, 2012 By Ira Mehlman 53 Comments

The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments next month in the case of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law, SB 1070. Just about everyone with an interest in immigration policy, including FAIR and the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI,) is submitting amicus briefs in support or opposition to SB 1070.

But leave it to California to come up with the most novel argument as it tries to convince the Court to overturn the Arizona law. A document submitted by California Attorney General Kamala Harris asks the Court to overturn SB 1070 because it is likely to result in illegal aliens in Arizona moving to other states – like California. In other words, as a far as California is concerned, the problem with SB 1070 is that it works.

But wait a minute! I thought California wants illegal aliens. California needs illegal aliens. The California economy would collapse without illegal aliens. California offers every benefit imaginable to attract illegal aliens. You would think California would want the Supreme Court to uphold SB 1070 just so California could attract more illegal aliens to come and live there.

If California doesn’t want all the illegal aliens in Arizona to relocate to California, that’s another reason to ask the Court to uphold SB 1070. As soon as the Supreme Court declares SB 1070 to be constitutional, California could pass its own version of SB 1070 because, by the state’s own admission, it works.

Filed Under: Border, Crime, Jobs, Law, National, Politics, Population, Society

You Don’t Need to Know

March 5, 2012 By Ira Mehlman 2 Comments

Full disclosure: FAIR filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request last summer seeking information about how the Obama administration plans to carry out its backdoor amnesty plan and evidence to back up the contention that they cannot enforce vast sections of our immigration law and other matters pertinent to their handling of U.S. immigration policy.

It took them about four months to get back to us. And when they finally did, it came in the form of a nicely worded letter that said, “We’re not telling.”

An article in Monday’s edition of Politico, “Obama’s muddy transparency record,” is both comforting and troubling. It’s comforting to know that we’re not alone. The Obama administration is in no hurry to provide information to anyone who disagrees with their policies. And, it’s troubling to know that we’re not alone. It doesn’t particularly matter what the issue is. If you disagree with their policies and want information the answer is the same for everyone: We’re not telling.

As Katherine Meyer, a Washington attorney who has been filing FOIA requests since 1978, puts it this way: “Obama is the sixth administration that’s been in office since I’ve been doing Freedom of Information Act work… It’s kind of shocking to me to say this, but of the six, this administration is the worst on FOIA issues. The worst. There’s just no question about it. This administration is raising one barrier after another. … It’s gotten to the point where I’m stunned — I’m really stunned.”

What is stunning is that they seem to be getting away with telling the American public, You don’t need to know.

Filed Under: Law, National, Politics
« Older Posts