Saturday, 28 July 2007

THE NEW YORK TIMES ON ILLEGAL ALIENS

Ken Berwitz

As promised in my previous blog, here is today's New York Times lead editorial, which provides the paper's wit and wisdom regarding illegal aliens.  Please sit down before you read it and don't sip any beverage, because you don't want your clothes and the computer screen to be hit with a spew of the stuff. 

As usual, the bold print is mine.

Humanity v. Hazleton

A federal judge has dealt what we can only hope is a decisive blow against a dangerous trend of freelance immigration policies by local governments. Judge James M. Munley of the central Pennsylvania district, struck down ordinances in the town of Hazleton that sought to harshly punish undocumented immigrants for trying to live and work there, and employers and landlords for providing them with homes and jobs.

The ruling was a well-earned embarrassment for Mayor Louis J. Barletta and his proclaimed goal of making Hazleton one of the toughest places in the United States for illegal immigrants. In doing so, Judge Munley laid down basic truths that every American should remember.

First, immigration is a federal responsibility. State and local governments have no right to usurp or upend a vast, carefully drawn federal statutory scheme that governs who enters the country and the conditions under which immigrants stay, study, work and naturalize. Congress may be botching the job, but it has not delegated it.

Second, the Constitutions guarantee of equal protection applies to all persons, not just citizens. The presumption that the 14th Amendment can be set aside while immigrants are hunted down and punished is widespread but false. The judge wrote: We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act.

It is not yet clear when or whether Hazletons vigilantism will finally be stifled. Mr. Barletta says he will appeal. He and others across the country can be expected to keep concocting ever-more-inventive strategies to deliver pain to immigrants.

But that is a legal and moral dead end. As long as people like Mr. Barletta persist in misusing the law to serve their prejudices, they will make the immigration system an ever more incoherent muddle. They will thwart reasonable efforts to grapple with the opportunities and problems borne in with the influx of newcomers. And they will continue to dehumanize not only their victims, but themselves.

Mayor Barletta says he is angry at the federal failure to control immigration. Good for him; he should join the club. But he should realize that it was his side his restrictionist soul mates in the United States Senate that last month took the most ambitious attempt in a generation to restore lawfulness and order to immigration, loaded it with unworkable cruelties, then pushed it into a ditch. They celebrated their victory, but their shortsighted insistence on border enforcement above all else will leave places like Hazleton to grapple with a failed immigration policy for years to come..

Got that?  The problem isn't illegal aliens, it is that there are people who want the law to be enforced - i.e. that illegal aliens ARE illegal, they have no business being in this country and they shouldn't be given rights they don't have.

And, according to the TImes, if neanderthals like Mayor Barletta of Hazelton, PA insist that the law be followed, THEY are the ones who are causing the problem, not the illegal aliens.

Un effing believable.

Did you ever see the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?  It is about people who are replaced by extra terrestrial life forms.  They look just the same, wear the same clothes and their voices sound the same, but instead of being real humans they are counterfeits who do nothing other than recite the drivel they were grown to recite.

Sometimes I think that was not a movie, it was a documentary.  And while most of the alien life forms didn't survive, a few of them hunkered down in the Times' news room and editorial office. 

That's the only way I can explain the idiotic, twisted drivel now emanating from this formerly credible newspaper.


ILLEGAL ALIENS AND NONEXISTENT LAW ENFORCEMENT

Ken Berwitz

I live in an area where there are a great many Mexican manual laborers who either do not speak English or struggle with a few words of it.  Everyone I know assumes they are predominantly illegal aliens.

But the area I live in is, for the most part, upper middle class.  So how can that be?  That's pretty mysterious, isn't it?

The Mexican laborers are everywhere during the day.  They mow lawns, do general gardening, work in restaurants as busboys and dishwashers, paint houses, etc. etc. etc.

But at night, they disappear.  They're gone.  Where do they go?  Where do they live?  What do they do there?  That's the mystery.

So how do they get work, these mysterious people who don't speak English and, except for dishwashers and busboys at restaurants, disappear when the sun goes down?

That's simple.  They get work by accepting pay so much lower than what legals would accept that it doesn't matter to an employer if they're illegal or if they don't speak the language.  It is strictly an economic decision. 

But do they "do the work no one else will do"?  That's the cliche you hear from their advocates on the left. 

The answer is no. If these people were not here, those jobs would be filled.  They'd be filled by legals who would have to be paid more. 

A little basic common sense goes a long way here.  Is a restaurant going to close its doors because the busboys get $3 more an hour? Are lawn services going to shut down because the guys who mow have to be paid a higher wage. 

Of course not.  They'll just pay the difference.

The idea that illegals "do the work that no one else will do" is a complete fake.  In reality they "do the work for wages that no one else will take, which is how they GET the work".

That means illegals are displacing the legals who are willing to work, by driving down the cost of labor so far that employers can't resist hiring them.  And it isn't only out of employer greed either.  It is also out of economic necessity. 

Illustratively, if lawn service A hires legals, and lawn service B hires illegals, lawn service A will have to charge a few dollars more per cut than lawn service B.  And customers, who don't see any difference between the the two in quality, will gravitate to lawn service B, because it is cheaper.  Suddenly lawn service A has to either hire illegals too, or it is priced out of the market. 

This all boils down to law enforcement, doesn't it?  If the laws were enforced and illegals could not readily displace legals for manual labor, both lawn service A and B would be competitive because they would be drawing from the same - legal - labor pool.  And there wouldn't be any "few dollars more per cut" because the cost, based on legal workers' wages, would be the going rate.

And the "they do the work no one else will do" fakery would be put where it belongs:  in the same file cabinet as "the earth is flat",  "toads give you warts", "the check is in the mail" and a few others I tried (unsuccessfully for the most part) when I was dating.

One other important point should be made here:  This is NOT - repeat, NOT - an attack on Mexican people.  It is an attack on illegals, most of whom apparently are Mexican.  I have worked with people in Mexico and people currently in the USA but who originated from Mexico, and have no issue whatsoever with them.  Most are good people, some are not -- just like any other group. 

I have no problem at all with Mexicans.  I have a problem with illegals.

And in this regard, one of the great failures of the Bush administration in my opinion, is that it has not dealt meaningfully with illegal immigration.  That, in turn, has forced state and local government to try, as best they can, to deal with it. 

In truth, most states have not done squat in this regard.  But a number of localities have.  Which, of course, makes them hideous racist profiling haters in the eyes of the entrenched left. 

Think I'm kidding?  Read the next blog, which has an editorial from today's New York Times.  See if it doesn't prove my point.


THE "47 MILLION UNINSURED AMERICANS" LIE

Ken Berwitz

You didn't REALLY take michael moore at his word, did you? 

Read this and see what I mean.  The bold print is mine:.

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.
 

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/18/2007 4:01:33 PM

Fact Sheet about Michael Moore

     Michael Moore was wrong about health insurance.

     So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), presidential candidates former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, People magazine and Time magazine, as well as CNN, CBS and ABC.

     Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who arent American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but havent signed up.

     Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

     Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million - a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

Breaking It Down: Who's Uninsured?

     The number of the uninsured who aren't citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million Americans without health insurance.

     Its really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families, said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.

    It was typical spin and easy to find. ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 Good MorningAmerica.

     Its bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years, said Johnson.

     In his propagandumentary SiCKO that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Michael Moore made the fantastic claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.

     SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance, quoted Moores Web site.

      However, the Census Bureau report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

     A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are not a citizen. Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.

     Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being an American matters to get health insurance.

     Thats the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. Thats it, said Moore in footage aired by ABCs Nightline on June 13.

     That isnt the only problem with the numbers currently being used.

Moores Trouble with the Facts

     Recently, CNNs Dr. Sanjay Gupta accused Michael Moore of fudging some numbers in his recent film SiCKO. This sparked a temper tantrum by Moore who threatened to become the networks worst nightmare if they didnt apologize and recant.

     CNN did correct and apologize for one transcription error, but stood by Guptas statement CNNs numbers and Moores numbers arent far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.

     In his film and television appearances, Moore left out quite a bit of information about the uninsured.

     On his Web site, Moore claimed the Census Bureau had underreported the number of people without health insurance.

     But Cheryl Hill Lee, a co-author of the Census Bureau study Moore was citing, told the Business & Media Institute that the data showed the exact opposite of what Moore said.

     The Census underreported the number of people covered by health insurance meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

They Cant Afford Insurance

     Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot afford insurance.

     And when youve got 47 million people in this country with no health insurance, they dont go to the doctor because they cant afford it, Moore said on CNNs Larry King Live July 10.

    

     Katie Couric echoed those sentiment on the CBS Evening News May 23.

     The number of Americans with no health insurance is continuing to grow as more and more employers say they cant afford to offer group insurance People who try to buy insurance on their own often find the price beyond their reach, said Couric as she introduced a two-part investigation of the health insurance industry.

     But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. Thats roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to afford health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.

     On the July 13 Larry King Live, Gupta did make that point, providing more context than Moore and most journalists about the affordability of health insurance.

     Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left less than 7 percent of the population.

     Many Americans are uninsured by choice, wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. Gratzer cited a study of the nonpoor uninsured from the California Healthcare Foundation.

     Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health, explained Gratzer.

A Lie that Promotes Big Government

     Moore, Clinton and Obama have used the lie about 40-some million uninsured Americans to promote universal health insurance plans. Moore asserted in his film that providing health insurance to everyone is a moral and even religious obligation.

     The mainstream media have played along, championing ambitious universal coverage plans and referring to the U.S. system as deeply flawed.

     Californias ambitious plan to make health insurance available to almost everyone in the state is getting a lot of attention all over the country, and heres why. According to the latest figures, the number of uninsured Americans has grown to more than 46 million, said Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News January 9.

     Journalists failure to question that high figure has furthered the cause of nationalized care.    

     Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure -- without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks, Gratzer told BMI. Again, thats not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes.

     Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.

     Turner also pointed out that 45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office], because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.

     So what is the true extent of the uninsured crisis? The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

     Kaisers 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more.  It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office. .

 

Is there a grain of truth to moore's claim? 

 

Yes, a grain.  But his conclusions are grossly misleading and leave out key factors which dramatically reduce the number of uninsured. 

 

Should you take what moore says with a grain of salt?

 

How about a shaker of it.  A very full shaker.


ILLEGAL ALIENS AND NONEXISTENT LAW ENFORCEMENT

Ken Berwitz

I live in an area where there are a great many Mexican manual laborers who either do not speak English or struggle with a few words of it.  Everyone I know assumes they are predominantly illegal aliens.

But the area I live in is, for the most part, upper middle class.  So how can that be?  That's pretty mysterious, isn't it?

The Mexican laborers are everywhere during the day.  They mow lawns, do general gardening, work in restaurants as busboys and dishwashers, paint houses, etc. etc. etc.

But at night, they disappear.  They're gone.  Where do they go?  Where do they live?  What do they do there?  That's the mystery.

So how do they get work, these mysterious people who don't speak English and, except for dishwashers and busboys at restaurants, disappear when the sun goes down?

That's simple.  They get work by accepting pay so much lower than what legals would accept that it doesn't matter to an employer if they're illegal or if they don't speak the language.  It is strictly an economic decision. 

But do they "do the work no one else will do"?  That's the cliche you hear from their advocates on the left. 

The answer is no. If these people were not here, those jobs would be filled.  They'd be filled by legals who would have to be paid more. 

A little basic common sense goes a long way here.  Is a restaurant going to close its doors because the busboys get $3 more an hour? Are lawn services going to shut down because the guys who mow have to be paid a higher wage. 

Of course not.  They'll just pay the difference.

The idea that illegals "do the work that no one else will do" is a complete fake.  In reality they "do the work for wages that no one else will take, which is how they GET the work".

That means illegals are displacing the legals who are willing to work, by driving down the cost of labor so far that employers can't resist hiring them.  And it isn't only out of employer greed either.  It is also out of economic necessity. 

Illustratively, if lawn service A hires legals, and lawn service B hires illegals, lawn service A will have to charge a few dollars more per cut than lawn service B.  And customers, who don't see any difference between the the two in quality, will gravitate to lawn service B, because it is cheaper.  Suddenly lawn service A has to either hire illegals too, or it is priced out of the market. 

This all boils down to law enforcement, doesn't it?  If the laws were enforced and illegals could not readily displace legals for manual labor, both lawn service A and B would be competitive because they would be drawing from the same - legal - labor pool.  And there wouldn't be any "few dollars more per cut" because the cost, based on legal workers' wages, would be the going rate.

And the "they do the work no one else will do" fakery would be put where it belongs:  in the same file cabinet as "the earth is flat",  "toads give you warts", "the check is in the mail" and a few others I tried (unsuccessfully for the most part) when I was dating.

One other important point should be made here:  This is NOT - repeat, NOT - an attack on Mexican people.  It is an attack on illegals, most of whom apparently are Mexican.  I have worked with people in Mexico and people currently in the USA but who originated from Mexico, and have no issue whatsoever with them.  Most are good people, some are not -- just like any other group. 

I have no problem at all with Mexicans.  I have a problem with illegals.

And in this regard, one of the great failures of the Bush administration in my opinion, is that it has not dealt meaningfully with illegal immigration.  That, in turn, has forced state and local government to try, as best they can, to deal with it. 

In truth, most states have not done squat in this regard.  But a number of localities have.  Which, of course, makes them hideous racist profiling haters in the eyes of the entrenched left. 

Think I'm kidding?  Read the next blog, which has an editorial from today's New York Times.  See if it doesn't prove my point.


THE "47 MILLION UNINSURED AMERICANS" LIE

Ken Berwitz

You didn't REALLY take michael moore at his word, did you? 

Read this and see what I mean.  The bold print is mine:.

Health Care Lie: '47 Million Uninsured Americans'
Michael Moore, politicians and the media use inflated numbers of those without health insurance to promote universal coverage.
 

By Julia A. Seymour
Business & Media Institute
7/18/2007 4:01:33 PM

Fact Sheet about Michael Moore

     Michael Moore was wrong about health insurance.

     So were President Bush, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), presidential candidates former Sen. John Edwards and Gov. Mike Huckabee and The Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, People magazine and Time magazine, as well as CNN, CBS and ABC.

     Each of these people and media outlets incorrectly claimed the number of uninsured to be 40 to 50 million Americans. The actual total is open to debate. But there are millions of people who should be excluded from that tally, including: those who arent American citizens, people who can afford their own insurance, and people who already qualify for government coverage but havent signed up.

     Government statistics also show 45 percent of those without insurance will have insurance again within four months after job transitions.

     Accounting for all those factors, one prominent study places the total for the long-term uninsured as low as 8.2 million - a very different reality than the media and national health care advocates claim.

Breaking It Down: Who's Uninsured?

     The number of the uninsured who aren't citizens is nearly 10 million on its own, invalidating all the claims of 40+ million Americans without health insurance.

     Its really indefensible that we now have more than 45 million uninsured Americans, 9 million of whom are children, and the vast majority of whom are from working families, said Sen. Hillary Clinton in a May 31 speech.

    It was typical spin and easy to find. ABC medical expert Dr. Tim Johnson cited the incorrect data as he praised a "bold" and "politically brilliant" universal coverage plan on the April 26 Good MorningAmerica.

     Its bold because it does propose to cover all Americans, including the 47 million now who are uninsured, within five years, said Johnson.

     In his propagandumentary SiCKO that favored the socialist health care systems of Canada, Britain, France and Cuba, Michael Moore made the fantastic claim that almost 50 million Americans are uninsured.

     SiCKO: There are nearly 50 million Americans without health insurance, quoted Moores Web site.

      However, the Census Bureau report Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2005, puts the initial number of uninsured people living in the country at 46.577 million.

     A closer look at that report reveals the Census data include 9.487 million people who are not a citizen. Subtracting the 10 million non-Americans, the number of uninsured Americans falls to roughly 37 million.

     Moore should have paid attention to that fact, since he agrees that being an American matters to get health insurance.

     Thats the only preexisting condition that should exist. I am an American. Thats it, said Moore in footage aired by ABCs Nightline on June 13.

     That isnt the only problem with the numbers currently being used.

Moores Trouble with the Facts

     Recently, CNNs Dr. Sanjay Gupta accused Michael Moore of fudging some numbers in his recent film SiCKO. This sparked a temper tantrum by Moore who threatened to become the networks worst nightmare if they didnt apologize and recant.

     CNN did correct and apologize for one transcription error, but stood by Guptas statement CNNs numbers and Moores numbers arent far off, but we believe ours are a fairer comparison.

     In his film and television appearances, Moore left out quite a bit of information about the uninsured.

     On his Web site, Moore claimed the Census Bureau had underreported the number of people without health insurance.

     But Cheryl Hill Lee, a co-author of the Census Bureau study Moore was citing, told the Business & Media Institute that the data showed the exact opposite of what Moore said.

     The Census underreported the number of people covered by health insurance meaning that more people have insurance than the report suggests. The Census also underreported the number of people covered by Medicare and Medicaid.

They Cant Afford Insurance

     Many of the same people pushing the incorrect numbers of uninsured Americans also claim that these people cannot afford insurance.

     And when youve got 47 million people in this country with no health insurance, they dont go to the doctor because they cant afford it, Moore said on CNNs Larry King Live July 10.

    

     Katie Couric echoed those sentiment on the CBS Evening News May 23.

     The number of Americans with no health insurance is continuing to grow as more and more employers say they cant afford to offer group insurance People who try to buy insurance on their own often find the price beyond their reach, said Couric as she introduced a two-part investigation of the health insurance industry.

     But according to the same Census report, there are 8.3 million uninsured people who make between $50,000 and $74,999 per year and 8.74 million who make more than $75,000 a year. Thats roughly 17 million people who ought to be able to afford health insurance because they make substantially more than the median household income of $46,326.

     On the July 13 Larry King Live, Gupta did make that point, providing more context than Moore and most journalists about the affordability of health insurance.

     Subtracting non-citizens and those who can afford their own insurance but choose not to purchase it, about 20 million people are left less than 7 percent of the population.

     Many Americans are uninsured by choice, wrote Dr. David Gratzer in his book The Cure: How Capitalism Can Save American Health Care. Gratzer cited a study of the nonpoor uninsured from the California Healthcare Foundation.

     Why the lack of insurance [among people who own homes and computers]? One clue is that 60 percent reported being in excellent health or very good health, explained Gratzer.

A Lie that Promotes Big Government

     Moore, Clinton and Obama have used the lie about 40-some million uninsured Americans to promote universal health insurance plans. Moore asserted in his film that providing health insurance to everyone is a moral and even religious obligation.

     The mainstream media have played along, championing ambitious universal coverage plans and referring to the U.S. system as deeply flawed.

     Californias ambitious plan to make health insurance available to almost everyone in the state is getting a lot of attention all over the country, and heres why. According to the latest figures, the number of uninsured Americans has grown to more than 46 million, said Katie Couric on the CBS Evening News January 9.

     Journalists failure to question that high figure has furthered the cause of nationalized care.    

     Proponents of universal health care often use the 46-million figure -- without context or qualification. It creates the false impression that a huge percentage of the population has fallen through the cracks, Gratzer told BMI. Again, thats not to suggest that there is no problem, but it's very different than the universal-care crowd describes.

     Dr. Grace-Marie Turner, a BMI adviser and president of the Galen Institute, agreed that the number [on uninsured] is inflated and affects the debate.

     Turner also pointed out that 45 percent of the uninsured are going to have insurance within four months [according to the Congressional Budget Office], because many are transitioning between jobs and most people get health insurance through their employers.

     So what is the true extent of the uninsured crisis? The Kaiser Family Foundation, a liberal non-profit frequently quoted by the media, puts the number of uninsured Americans who do not qualify for current government programs and make less than $50,000 a year between 13.9 million and 8.2 million. That is a much smaller figure than the media report.

     Kaisers 8.2 million figure for the chronically uninsured only includes those uninsured for two years or more.  It is also worth noting, that, 45 percent of uninsured people will be uninsured for less than four months according to the Congressional Budget Office. .

 

Is there a grain of truth to moore's claim? 

 

Yes, a grain.  But his conclusions are grossly misleading and leave out key factors which dramatically reduce the number of uninsured. 

 

Should you take what moore says with a grain of salt?

 

How about a shaker of it.  A very full shaker.


THE NEW YORK TIMES ON ILLEGAL ALIENS

Ken Berwitz

As promised in my previous blog, here is today's New York Times lead editorial, which provides the paper's wit and wisdom regarding illegal aliens.  Please sit down before you read it and don't sip any beverage, because you don't want your clothes and the computer screen to be hit with a spew of the stuff. 

As usual, the bold print is mine.

Humanity v. Hazleton

A federal judge has dealt what we can only hope is a decisive blow against a dangerous trend of freelance immigration policies by local governments. Judge James M. Munley of the central Pennsylvania district, struck down ordinances in the town of Hazleton that sought to harshly punish undocumented immigrants for trying to live and work there, and employers and landlords for providing them with homes and jobs.

The ruling was a well-earned embarrassment for Mayor Louis J. Barletta and his proclaimed goal of making Hazleton one of the toughest places in the United States for illegal immigrants. In doing so, Judge Munley laid down basic truths that every American should remember.

First, immigration is a federal responsibility. State and local governments have no right to usurp or upend a vast, carefully drawn federal statutory scheme that governs who enters the country and the conditions under which immigrants stay, study, work and naturalize. Congress may be botching the job, but it has not delegated it.

Second, the Constitutions guarantee of equal protection applies to all persons, not just citizens. The presumption that the 14th Amendment can be set aside while immigrants are hunted down and punished is widespread but false. The judge wrote: We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act.

It is not yet clear when or whether Hazletons vigilantism will finally be stifled. Mr. Barletta says he will appeal. He and others across the country can be expected to keep concocting ever-more-inventive strategies to deliver pain to immigrants.

But that is a legal and moral dead end. As long as people like Mr. Barletta persist in misusing the law to serve their prejudices, they will make the immigration system an ever more incoherent muddle. They will thwart reasonable efforts to grapple with the opportunities and problems borne in with the influx of newcomers. And they will continue to dehumanize not only their victims, but themselves.

Mayor Barletta says he is angry at the federal failure to control immigration. Good for him; he should join the club. But he should realize that it was his side his restrictionist soul mates in the United States Senate that last month took the most ambitious attempt in a generation to restore lawfulness and order to immigration, loaded it with unworkable cruelties, then pushed it into a ditch. They celebrated their victory, but their shortsighted insistence on border enforcement above all else will leave places like Hazleton to grapple with a failed immigration policy for years to come..

Got that?  The problem isn't illegal aliens, it is that there are people who want the law to be enforced - i.e. that illegal aliens ARE illegal, they have no business being in this country and they shouldn't be given rights they don't have.

And, according to the TImes, if neanderthals like Mayor Barletta of Hazelton, PA insist that the law be followed, THEY are the ones who are causing the problem, not the illegal aliens.

Un effing believable.

Did you ever see the movie "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"?  It is about people who are replaced by extra terrestrial life forms.  They look just the same, wear the same clothes and their voices sound the same, but instead of being real humans they are counterfeits who do nothing other than recite the drivel they were grown to recite.

Sometimes I think that was not a movie, it was a documentary.  And while most of the alien life forms didn't survive, a few of them hunkered down in the Times' news room and editorial office. 

That's the only way I can explain the idiotic, twisted drivel now emanating from this formerly credible newspaper.


Buy Our Book Here!


Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan

hopelesslypartisan.com, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.


About Us



Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.


At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!