Yesterday I wrote a bit about Vanity Fair, and today I’ll excerpt from the June 2012 The New Yorker – more beach reading – another Liberal rag that offers a shooting gallery of targets for the sane among us.
The article of choice is called “Raging Arizona”, a profile by Kelefa Sanneh of Richard Carmona, Democratic Senate candidate, and it offers a large helping of Liberal distortion (long, highfalutin essays, you know) about illegal immigration.
Where to begin? At the end:
After dinner, he posed for a picture with a Navajo entrepreneur and her husband, who was black. “A black guy, a white guy, and a Native American, the husband said, smiling. Carmona smiled back. “I think it’s a black guy and two brown people,” he said. “Ain’t no white guys!” <pg. 37>
Nothing like some anti-White trash-talking by a Democrat, and here I thought the Democratic party considers itself to be the party of inclusiveness… I guess to a certain Democrat running for the United States Senate being considered Caucasian is now an insult.
What else do we learn about Carmona in the article? Well, let’s see…
Mary Rose Wilcox, a Democratic member of the Maricopa County board of supervisors, turned to him and said, “Do you have your briefing papers?” Carmona pointed to his head. “Aqui,” he said. <pg. 30>
Oh, I get it: he answered in Spanish, signaling once again that he’s for the illegal immigrant and against white, English-speaking America.
Anything else of note?
“If you want to communicate with the American public, the literature tells you you’ve got to be talking at about a sixth-grade, seventh-grade level.” <pg. 30>
Ah ha, yes, it is becoming clear to me now: Caucasian = BAD, Spanish = GOOD, American public = DUMB.
Mr. Carmona is shaping up to be quite a statesman and his fellow Democrats must be very proud indeed.
But the article is about more than just Carmona. It is an indictment of Arizona’s attempts to enforce border sovereignty, as well as a paeon to illegal immigrants.
For example, the word “illegal” just doesn’t suit the New Yorker (the truth can be so inconveniently judgmental), and so an alternative phrase must be found. We are therefore treated to innumerable incidences of the phrase “unauthorized” immigrants instead of illegal immigrants – so neighborly! I wonder if I got off a plane at LAX and ran past the border guards and into a waiting getaway car…would I be considered by law enforcement to be “unauthorized”, or something more accurate, such as “fugitive”?
As the article turns towards a lengthy discussion of SB 1070, Arizona’s tough sovereignty law, the Liberal fantasies pile up like so many shit piles in the back yards of American citizens along the border.
Get a load of this nonsense (where’s the challenge?):
The passage of 1070 hasn’t directly changed the lives of unauthorized immigrants in Arizona. There was added fear and uncertainty, but no mass exodus…<pg. 29>
What the article fails to make clear at this point is that such a result had nothing to do with the law itself, and everything to do with the fact that the Obama administration, which hates American sovereignty, sued Arizona before the law could be fully implemented.
And so the notion that SB 1070 has been ineffective and a waste of time is absurd because it has not been allowed to be implemented (who edits the New Yorker again?).
Seven pages later, the author drops this line in:
…because S.B. 1070 is still tied up in the courts, no one can say exactly what full implementation would look like. <pg 36>
Bravo for coughing this up all those pages later. But shame on you for failing to make a reasonable conjecture based on the following reporting at the time – that is, before mr. Obama intervened (emphasis added):
The Legal Arizona Workers Act, which took effect Jan. 1, 2008, gave the state authority to suspend or revoke the business license of any employer found to have knowingly or intentionally hired an illegal immigrant.
An estimated 100,000 illegal immigrants left the state as a result of the bill and some predict another 100,000 could leave as a result of SB 1070. <source>
That’s right, a predecessor law caused the self-deportation of 100,000 illegals (sounds like a mass exodus to me), and SB 1070 is considered at least as strong. So you see, Kelefa Sanneh, SB 1070 is not in itself impotent in the fight to protect American sovereignty, and your positioning of it as such is an act of sophistry.
As the article winds down, the author makes a last ditch attempt to terrorize those who love sovereignty, as follows:
Even if much of 1070 is rejected, its unintended consequences may linger. In 1994, California voters approved Proposition 187, which would have denied state services, including education and medical care, to unauthorized immigrants. The law was struck down, but it energized Latino voters, helping to turn California into one of the most reliably blue states in the country. <pg. 37>
…and helping to turn California into a massively bankrupt state, by the way.
Does the Liberal mind not see the parallel issue then and now, namely that legislatures desperately try, again and again, to stem the tide of illegals while the courts intervene and allow the hemorrhaging to continue? The author fails to differentiate between laws that were enacted and implemented and laws that were enacted but then enjoined by the courts. But this error is deliberate, because it provides a foundation for the explicit threat that follows it: keep on trying to enforce the border, and all you will get will be an ever-larger tidal wave of illegal immigrants crashing down around you.
But no, we do not accept this logic because its foundation is made of sand. Immigration laws are necessary and just and, when unrestrained by nonsense, quite effective.
Perhaps the Supreme Court will put an end to the charade and allow legislatures to protect American sovereignty. Then we will see the intent of Proposition 187, and SB 1070, take flight in action, and American states and cities can get back to doing what they are supposed to do: promote the general welfare of their citizens.