Some people are taking a radical racist position on illegal immigration. Don’t take my word for it, go see them incriminate themselves. Via LGF.

A PHOTO SUMMARY OF THE GREAT MARCH
March 25, 2006
Los Angeles, California
Occupied Anahuac (Ah-nah-wahc)

THE PEOPLE OF ANAHUAC
AWAKENING TO THE TRUTH!

WE ARE NOT HISPANIC OR LATINO!

Not only are they overly concerned with their own race, they hurl Nazi slurs with abandon:

FINAL NOTE:
Racist Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R of California 4th district) of red-neck Orange County said that he didn’t care how long people had been in “this country” illegally, if they were here illegally for 5 or 50 years that they should be deported. Fine! Europeans have been here illegally since 1492, START THE DEPORTATIONS NOW! First one to go should be this Nazi Rohrabacher!

Sensenbrenner, Schwarzenegger, Rohrabacher, funny how they all have Germanic names! …..No, it’s not funny at all!

No, racist slurs aren’t funny. And if we’re going to ignore the difference between those who came here illegally themselves and the descendents illegal immigrants then why stop at 1492? The “indigenous” people of America are the descendents of invaders who walked illegally across the Bering land bridge. Not only are they the original stealers of the land, they hunted to extinction virtually every large mammal that lived here at the time. Learn your history indeed.

One of the more negative parts of the march was when American flags were passed out to make sure the marchers were looked on as part of “America”.

One of the more negative parts of the major media coverage is that they do their best to avoid revealing the extent of the poisonous extremist rhetoric amongst the demonstrators, but they don’t hesitate to report charges of xenophobia and racism against anyone expressing opposition to illegal immigration, a position reporters themselves casually label “extreme right”. As if anyone who isn’t an anarchist must be a Nazi. We have in our midst a leftist revolutionary movement as virulent as it has ever been but you never see them or their agenda mentioned in our media. They are “activists” who “care” about their “cause”. We do however hear all the time about the grave threat from the “extreme right”. You know, the people too concerned about their education or their job to do the right thing and go monkeywrench society with demonstrations.

The next time you have a pleasant discussion on this subject with someone who won’t call this an illegal immigration problem, who will only talk about “migrants” and “undocumented workers”, tell them this: we love your workers, they can all migrate here if they like, but their babies will not automatically be US citizens, and they can’t bring their dependents, and they must pay taxes, and their healthcare will not be free, and if they commit a crime they will be deported as soon as they get out of prison, and we’re going to build a wall to ensure that only people with the proper documents get into our country. That will be the end of the conversation, except maybe for a few choice slurs thrown your way.

UPDATE: Leftist butcher worshippers. And Aztlan.

Size of L.A. March Surprises Authorities
By PETER PRENGAMAN
Mar 26, 12:25 PM EST

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Thousands of immigration advocates marched through downtown Los Angeles in one of the largest demonstrations for any cause in recent U.S. history.

More than 500,000 protesters – demanding that Congress abandon attempts to make illegal immigration a felony and to build more walls along the border – surprised police who estimated the crowd size using aerial photographs and other techniques, police Cmdr. Louis Gray Jr. said.

Wearing white T-shirts to symbolize peace, the demonstrators chanted “Mexico!” “USA!” and “Si se puede,” an old Mexican-American civil rights shout that means “Yes, we can.”

Yes you can? Yes you can demonstrate. But what exactly is the message? That there are more than 11 million of you? That you can violate US immigration laws with impunity? That you can live off the generosity and under the protection of the stupid gringos while you wave Mexican flags in their faces?

“We construct your schools. We cook your food,” rapper Jorge Ruiz said after performing at a Dallas rally that drew 1,500. “We are the motor of this nation, but people don’t see us. Blacks and whites, they had their revolution. They had their Martin Luther King. Now it is time for us.”

You crowd our schools. You clog our emergency rooms. You are only one component of the motor of this nation, and you are quite visible, especially lately. WTF does MLK have to do with any of this? Is that some kind of lame attempt to play the race card?

“Enough is enough of the xenophobic movement,” said Norman Martinez, 63, who immigrated from Honduras as a child and marched in Los Angeles. “They are picking on the weakest link in society, which has built this country.”

Let’s get this straight. You leave your home, illegally enter another country, take credit for building it, and then call those who object xenophobes? Now that’s cajones. Mui grande huevos. I say enough is enough of the alien scofflaw movement.

These cries of xenophobia and racism are meant to intimidate people into silence. There is clearly rational justification for opposing illegal immigration. The fact for instance that it is illegal. In the US if you don’t like a law you can call your Congressman and convince him to change it. If you don’t like your Congressman vote for another. And no, criminals generally don’t get to vote, except in Vermont. The system is called constitutional democracy, and it’s generally acknowledged to work better than mob rule. Demonstrating in the street is how things get decided in less stable countries, like France.

If there’s an irrational position on this issue, one that literally taps into people’s emotions rather than their their reason, it’s the one that supports illegal immigration. It doesn’t matter whether the motive is compassion or self interest. The compassionate ones want to fling open the borders because they see human beings suffering and they want to help. And they want everybody else to be compelled to help too. And that’s where it goes over that little invisible line between harmless altruism and insidious collectivism.

Of course most religious leaders and certainly the majority of bleeding hearts and socialites have no socioeconomic agenda. They sure don’t think of themselves as “collectivists”. They just know it makes them feel good to feel bad for other people. But to paraphrase what they say in court, ignorance of history is no excuse. In evaluating his theories we have the advantage over Marx of more than a century of practical experience. Collectivism invariably requires centralization of control which invariably produces totalitarianism which invariably leads to widespread human suffering. Worse than the worst of the notorious Robber Baron excesses ever were. There is no better proof of the addictiveness and deranging effect of pure utopian thought than the fact that to this day so many “intellectuals” pine for just one more chance to get collectivism right. Fortunately they are in the minority, but unfortunately their audience is not. They prey on those who incorrectly reckon they have nothing to lose. Castro, for example, came to power as a champion of the people and has spent the decades since burning through the wealth he seized by pursing one idealistic collectivist scheme after another. Soft-headed sympathizers in the US swoon over Castro and his “paradise” even though there are shortages of just about everything and complaining or trying to get away will get you thrown in jail. The poor huddled masses of Central and South America are smarter than Marxist “intellectuals”. Smart enough to steer clear of Cuba.

Instead they flock to the US and create a situation which very clearly contradicts and should greatly embarrass the negativist natives (and more than a few legal immigrants) who take every opportunity to point out how terrible the US is. Illegal immigrants often work very hard for low wages, but they quickly discover they don’t have to. Health care and education are essentially free. An 800 square foot house is like a mansion – for all 10 occupants. The “taxes” they pay are mostly sales taxes. Which of course doesn’t come close to covering the burden they and their dependents put on the roads and schools, never mind the hospitals. Car accident? Baby? Oops, no insurance. Obviously they don’t want to give this up. The worst crime infested low rent neighborhood in the US is infinitely better than living in some shithole without running water and no TV outside Mexico City. Obviously. Because if it wasn’t they’d head home.

Which is where self interest comes in. You’d think from all the one-sided slinging of ad hominems like “xenophobe” and “racist” that the only people who could possibly be motivated by fear and greed are the rich white gringos who want to stop illegal immigration. As if the greedy desire to keep something good or the fear of living in a shithole isn’t universal. The US demonstrates the kind of wealth that can be created by the right combination of respect for freedom and rule of law. It is not immune to the effects of a breakdown in that balance.

Give us your tired and poor indeed, but please don’t flood us with hordes of ingrates waving Mexican flags.

I have to admit Clooney has a certain je ne sais quoi. He is a gifted actor and I enjoy most of his work. Three Kings for instance. A great film in which the chemical weapons Saddam never had play a significant role. Anyway my fixation on Clooney has at least a little to do with his poster boy qualities. He symbolizes America in a way that makes his anti-American politics especially perplexing. How can a man living the American dream have such distaste for his home? How can someone so priviledged whine and complain as if he’s oppressed? How dare he pose as a rebel?

I focus on Clooney so often not so much because I dislike him personally, but because he symbolizes to me that all too common Western elitist mentality, detached from ordinary concerns, that somehow enables the most blessed among us to act as if they are superior. Somehow in their jetting and partying around the world they know better how everything works. On the contrary their pampered lives render them the least qualified to make such judgements. These communist aristocrats who would sell everyone else out to keep themselves looking cool and sauve and chic. “I’m out of touch, and proud of it!” he crows. Well today we need every American on our side. The betrayal of our elites hurts. They should be setting the example that it’s cool and sauve and chic to love and be proud of a country that does so much to fight poverty and disease and injustice, not helping to tear it down.

Peggy Noonan has some insightful comments on Hollywood and the Oscars and more than a little to say about Clooney:

Which gets us to George Clooney, and his work. George Clooney is Hollywood now. He is charming and beautiful and cool, but he is not Orson Welles. I know that’s like saying of an artist that he’s no Rembrandt, but bear with me because I have a point that I think is worth making.

Orson Welles was an artist. George Clooney is a fellow who read an article and now wants to tell us the truth, if we can handle it.

More important, Orson Welles had a canny respect for the audience while maintaining a difficult relationship with studio executives, whom he approached as if they were his intellectual and artistic inferiors. George Clooney has a canny respect for the Hollywood establishment, for its executives and agents, and treats his audience as if it were composed of his intellectual and artistic inferiors. (He is not alone in this. He is only this year’s example.)

And because they are his inferiors, he must teach them. He must teach them about racial tolerance and speaking truth to power, etc. He must teach them to be brave. And so in his acceptance speech for best supporting actor the other night he instructed the audience about Hollywood’s courage in making movies about AIDS, and recognizing the work of Hattie McDaniel with an Oscar.

Was his speech wholly without merit? No. It was a response and not an attack, and it appears to have been impromptu. Mr. Clooney presumably didn’t know Jon Stewart would tease the audience for being out of touch, and he wanted to argue that out of touch isn’t all bad. Fair enough. It is hard to think on your feet in front of 38 million people, and most of his critics will never try it or have to. (This is a problem with modern media: Only the doer understands the degree of difficulty.)

But Mr. Clooney’s remarks were also part of the tinniness of the age, and of modern Hollywood. I don’t think he was being disingenuous in suggesting he was himself somewhat heroic. He doesn’t even know he’s not heroic. He thinks making a movie in 2005 that said McCarthyism was bad is heroic.

How could he think this? Maybe part of the answer is in this: The Clooney generation in Hollywood is not writing and directing movies about life as if they’ve experienced it, with all its mysteries and complexity and variety. In an odd way they haven’t experienced life; they’ve experienced media. Their films seem more an elaboration and meditation on media than an elaboration and meditation on life. This is how he could take such an unnuanced, unsophisticated, unknowing gloss on the 1950s and the McCarthy era. He just absorbed media about it. And that media itself came from certain assumptions and understandings, and myths.