Back in the Shadow again

Posted on December 28, 2010


This is my first post on the specific topic of Illegal Immigration, which is surprising to me, since it is one of the issues that I think represents the biggest threat to the continued existence of our Constitutional Republic that our forebears fought to defend.  Notice I never refer to Immigration as a stand alone topic.  This is an insidious tactic of the left and is a pervasive device of the media to conflate the general and reputable term, ‘Immigration’ with that of the act of breaking and entering into our country.

When some talking head on the news program says to the subject matter expert of the moment, “Let’s touch on the subject of immigration, Ed” – it’s clear that the agenda and status quo perspective of the reporter or journalist is that really immigration is immigration and anyone who objects to the supposed ‘undocumented’ variety of immigration is a pinhead and a rube.   Nope, I will not cede ground on the distinction between the two, because the difference is wider than the Lone Star State.  Or wider than Joy Behar’s stupid piehole.

In an Illegal Immigration update from a friend, there was a piece by an individual who apparently writes a column in a blog or some local leftist rag, by the name of  ‘Mr. Tobar’.  In it, he refers to the comments of another like minded pro-Illegal alien advocate named as Daniel Flaming, President of the ‘Economic Roundtable’, who said that failure to pass the Dream Act not only went against our “long term economic interests”, but was “self defeating in terms of basic fairness and the integrity of our social fabric”.

I found that statement intriguing, together with some other comments and thought it would be illuminating to look into the Economic Roundtable, and analyze the comments with an eye to determining whether they were fact based or simply yet another attempt to substitute misplaced compassion for practical public policy.

First, who and what is the ‘Economic Roundtable’ anyway?   I always like to establish the objectivity or lack thereof, of the particular organization which is the source of the ‘authoritative’ commentary the writer employs to bolster his argument.   As you would expect, Economic Roundtable has a website and on it we find this:

“From 1983 to 1991, the Economic Roundtable was a research group within the governmental structure of Los Angeles County, working with a Council of Economists from public and private organizations to plan economic development programs and analyze the regional economy.   The purpose of this work was to support the creation of new jobs and increase opportunities for economic self-sufficiency.   In 1991, the Board of Supervisors unanimously endorsed converting the Economic Roundtable into an independent research organization.”

Key here is how they euphemistically describe how the L.A. County Board of Supervisors cut this internal, politically oriented parasite out of the host organism.   A simpler and more accurate way of describing it would be that the Board voted to toss them out – probably because having such an entity in house was fostering the perception of bias on the part of government officials.   Another revealing aspect is the funding sources for this non profit.    I’ve selected a few examples in order to give you a flavor for the kind of orientation that exists here.

For example, there is the ‘Robert Group’, described as  a “certified woman and minority-owned public affairs firm with expertise in community outreach and legislative advocacy geared towards infrastructure development and environmental issues.  The firm has offices in Los Angeles and San Francisco.   TRG’s areas of expertise include work on Environmental, Transportation, Economic and Community Development, Energy and Utilities, and Public Health issues.  The firm offers professional services in Public Affairs, Community Outreach and Strategic Communications.”

So, basically a PR firm sucking public funds from  cities for the service of throwing pixie dust in the eyes of the tax paying public.  ‘Community Outreach’ – we’ve learned a lot about that since Obama became President, haven’t we?

Another one is the ‘Liberty Hill Foundation’.   This is a real easy one to wrap one’s mind around in terms of inclinations and objectives.   They sum it up in this manner,

“Liberty Hill is first to identify community leaders at the frontlines of change.  We invest in changemakers and equip them with the skills and relationships they need to build power and advance social justice.  After more than 30 years, Liberty Hill is uniquely positioned to bring together forces for change and forge a common agenda for equality and opportunity in Los Angeles”.

Looks like they have data mined ‘Rules for Radicals’ for keywords – ‘social justice’, ‘agenda for equality’, ‘forces for change’.   Another one is ‘Community Build’ – described as a “non-profit community development corporation established in 1992 in response to the conditions that led to the Los Angeles Civil Unrest of 1992.  Its youth outreach prioritizes comprehensive and wrap-around services for at-risk youth, out-of-school youth, foster youth, youth offenders, gang-involved youth, and first-generation college bound youth.  Community Build believes that youth, young adults and their families are a tremendous resource deserving investment and enabling their active participation as contributors to the local and global economies”.

Translate the above into yet another non-profit set up with the premise of community assistance, but in reality, as nearly all of them are – just another do-nothing catch drain for loose public funds and private foundation grants.    I’ll mention one more that will pretty much sum it up for you without even needing to elaborate further – the Rockefeller Foundation.   I have a notion to embark on a new research project designed to uncover the various interesting philanthropic activities of the Rockefeller Foundation with an eye towards how they use funding to shape public initiatives.    They used to be under a more intensive microscope, but it seems that the higher profile activities of George Soros, have sucked most of the oxygen out of the room.

OK, so in any event, it is pretty clear at this point that the ‘Economic Roundtable’ has little to no objectivity, but does have a leftist agenda, which is the filter through which all of their policy pronouncements flow.  It’s not surprising then, that Mr. Flaming should make the following statements,

“For decades, Californians welcomed the cheap, industrious labor of undocumented workers”, Flaming said. “Those immigrants and their progeny have kept L.A.’s population and workforce from shrinking since the collapse of the aerospace industry in the 1980s – and they’ve “created wealth for the region.”  “Today, undocumented workers make up an estimated 16% of the L.A. County workforce.  They have planted roots here, raised families.  Thanks to their labor, we get cheaper fish tacos, cheaper childcare and cheaper car washes”, Flaming said.

A few things just jumped out at me from his comments. He says that failing to pass the Dream Act was self – defeating in terms of basic fairness and the integrity of our social fabric“. I understand the term fairness, but I fail to see how such a term can be applied to the notion of granting citizenship to illegals, when there are thousands waiting in the cue to be granted permission to enter our society legally.   He has a rather warped perspective of ‘fairness’.  How is it fair to provide incentives that will entice more of them to climb, sneak or hop over the border while those with neither the opportunity or the moral inclination to do so, continue to follow the legal application process?

If we say we don’t have unlimited resources to accommodate a social support infrastructure for the economic refugees of a broken and corrupt region of the world, is that unfair?   If expecting the equal application of the rule of law is unfair, then pretty much any law that we’ve set up to provide order, security and safety in our society must be considered ‘unfair’ to someone who might put forth an argument as to why he or she should be permitted to violate it.

The ultimate conclusion of such logic, is that we should have a general ‘amnesty’ for everyone incarcerated in our correctional institutions.   Why limit it just to illegal aliens?  After all, there actually are now a fair number among progressive academia, who advocate the decriminalization of sex between adults and children.  Perhaps we’re being narrow minded about pedophiles as well?

There is so much to be said and discussed on the topic of ‘fairness’ when it deals with the topic of Illegal immigration, that I could devote an entire post to it – and I may at some future point, but for now we’ll set that aside and deal with the next murky statement of Mr. Flaming.

I’m not sure what the expression ‘integrity of our social fabric’ means.   I could speculate that what they mean by it is that the ‘social fabric’ includes illegals and that enforcing the law tears the sacred ‘social fabric’.   By extension then, immigration laws and borders are a breach of the ‘social fabric’.

This stuff is good isn’t it?  He says we’ve invited ‘undocumented workers’.  Yeah, I’ve heard that before, but I still say, Huh?  Who has? – employers who want to line their pockets with profits derived by disenfranchising American citizens?  Employers who want to undercut their honest competitors by paying cash and operating off the legal payroll system?  Whoever that ‘we’ is, don’t hang that sign on me, brother – take it down.  I didn’t invite them here and since Labor department and census estimates put the number of illegal workers at 5 percent of the nation’s workforce, evidently 95 percent of employers didn’t invite them here either.  Lying comes as natural to leftists as breathing.

Then Mr. Flaming further asserts that, not only have illegals “created wealth for the region, but that illegals who make up an estimated 16% of the L.A. County workforce have planted roots here, raised families and thanks to their labor, we get cheaper fish tacos, cheaper childcare and cheaper car washes”.  When I read that, I had to pause for a moment and ask myself the question, “he’s putting me on – right?”  This is a goof, right?  Do these people ever simply try on these statements first, say them out loud to maybe see if they sound completely idiotic? I’ve got to assume the answer is no.  And these (according, at least to the people who use them as attributions to support their arguments) are smart people.    Sweet Mother of Guadalupe, save us from the nerds.

Oh well, since the imbecile cards have been laid on the table, let’s take a quick look at them, shall we?  Cheaper Fish Tacos?  Hallelujah! Well, I’ve got religion now.  If I have to pay more for a fish taco made by a legal worker, why then the hell with it – I’m with you, Mr. Flaming, keep those illegal workers coming, baby!   But there’s more.   Cheaper childcare.  Cheaper than what – putting Fido in charge of the kids while you’re out of the house?  Think about this – you’re going to put someone whom you really have NO idea who they are, where they came from, what their real name is and what their background in their native ‘casa’ or ‘crib’ as they like to say in South L.A. – is?   Really?    That sounds like a worthwhile reason to keep illegals in place.

Number three reason for supporting the underground economy with our tax dollars – cheap car washes.   How can I say this in a polite and civilized manner?  You lazy, damn, slob – wash your own damn car or run it through the auto wash deal at the Albertson’s gas station!  Our schools are failing, Americans are out of work, we’ve got a government – state, local and national that is spending money our grandchildren don’t have and Mr. Flaming is losing sleep about the prospect of more expensive fish tacos and car washes!

I’m going to have to take a couple of baby aspirin tonight, like Dr. Oz recommended to keep from having a heart attack.  Whether these people are joking or serious, they (leftists) give me elevated blood pressure.

Mr. Tobar goes on to say, among other things, that “It violates basic American notions of fairness to simply kick them out now that the economy’s gone south.”   I’d like to see the guidebook he’s quoting from with regards to ‘basic American notions of fairness’.   Seventy percent of people in America want the government to enforce the laws and protect the borders and they support the initiatives in Arizona.  If facts and the truth had ‘mug shots’, you could show them to a liberal and he still wouldn’t recognize any of them.