Mexifornia, Quite Literally!

By Victor Davis Hanson

“I love this country, it has given me everything that I have, and I’m proud to be part of it,” said Victor Sanchez, a 37-year-old Monrovia resident wearing a Mexico jersey. “But yet, I didn’t have a choice to come here, I was born in Mexico, and that is where my heart will always be.”

That’s a quote from an LA Times story on the booing of the U.S. soccer team by an overwhelmingly Latino audience during a U.S.–Mexico match at the Rose Bowl. Examine the odd logic: Mr. Sanchez is booing the country that gave him “everything” while cheering the country that apparently gave him very little. “I didn’t have a choice to come here,” he says; one immediately thinks, “But you most certainly do have a choice to return to the nation where your ‘heart will always be.’” Can Mr. Sanchez not even offer symbolic thanks to the country that blessed him, perhaps a clap or two at the Rose Bowl when the United States is mentioned? And if the immigration service arrived at the Rose Bowl to bus spectators without legality back to Mexico, where his “heart will always be,” would he boo or cheer?

He reminds me of a former student who, during the anti–Prop 187 marches years ago, was marching with a group waving Mexican flags — that is, the flag of the country he did not wish to return to, as a Mexican national — but desecrating the flag of the United States, the country that he most certainly wished to remain in.

That schizophrenia is what confuses so many about illegal immigration — the simultaneous furor over even the suggestion of compliance with federal immigration law and the occasional symbolic expressions of dislike for the United States in public fora, whether booing at the Rose Bowl at mention of America, or walking out of a California high school en masse at the sight of an American-flag T-shirt on Cinco de Mayo.

When a foreign nation is treated as the home team, and when the home team is booed in the Rose Bowl, I think we can see why the entire open-borders, non-enforcement, ‘La Raza’ paradigm of tribal chauvinism based on ethnic solidarity has been proven an abject failure — summed up by one word, “hypocrisy.” Of course, if America asks nothing of the would-be immigrant — no legality upon entrance, no knowledge of the English language or American customs, no proof of autonomy and independence from government entitlement — then tens of thousands of American residents booing the very mention of America is logical and would, of course, continue until and unless fundamental ideas about illegal immigration, assimilation, and national identity change.

SOURCE






The joke of 'secure Britain

Britain's powerlessness to control who has the right to be in this country was glaringly exposed last night by two extraordinary cases. In the first, an anti-Semitic preacher of hate whom the Home Secretary had banned from entering Britain was able to stroll in through Heathrow.

Last night, Raed Salah was giving a lecture organised by Islamist radicals to a large crowd in Leicester, and today he was due to speak at Westminster at the invitation of Left-wing Labour MPs.

In the second, a bombshell ruling by European judges blocked the deportation of some 200 Somali criminals back to their homeland. The Strasbourg court said the men, including drug dealers and serial burglars, might be persecuted in war-torn Somalia, and that they must be allowed to stay to protect their human rights.

So, irrespective of how heinous their crimes or the danger they present to the public, Britain has no power to expel them.

The ruling by the European Court of Human Rights stemmed from appeals against deportation by two asylum seekers convicted of a string of serious offences including burglary, making threats to kill and drug dealing. But it will now also apply to 214 other similar cases which have been lodged with the court using Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment, is an 'absolute' right, meaning that it applies regardless of the offences committed.

The two men, who were both granted thousands in legal aid to fight their cases, will now be released from immigration detention centres and will be free to walk the streets. They were jointly awarded more than £20,000 for costs and expenses.

Critics accused the Government of rolling over to the demands of the court, and branded the Human Rights Act a 'criminals' charter'.

Backbench Tory MP Douglas Carswell said: 'The pathetic truth is that we do not have control over our borders, and these cases quite clearly show that we do not control not only who comes in to the country but who we choose to remove.

'My constituents do not want any more mealy-mouthed promises about getting a grip on this – they want to know what the Government is actually going to do. 'Successive governments have given all the promises on immigration you would expect of a second-hand car salesman. Ministers now need to start actually delivering on real promises and real control over our borders.'

UK Independence Party MEP Gerard Batten said: 'It is the absolute duty of the British Government to protect the lives and property of British citizens. 'If foreign nationals prey on people here they should be sent home to where they came from – no ifs, no buts.'

He added: 'For the European Court of Human Rights to give Britain orders is bad enough; knowing that the Government will roll over to their demands is worse. 'This decision confirms that the Human Rights Act is a criminals' charter.'

The case involves two Somalis whom ministers intended to return to the Somali capital, Mogadishu, because of their serial offending.

Abdisamad Adow Sufi, 24, entered the country illegally in 2003 using a fake passport. He claimed asylum on the grounds that he belonged to a minority clan persecuted by the Somali militia. His claim was rejected by officials and an appeal tribunal said his account was 'not credible'.

Since then he has amassed a string of convictions for offences including burglary, fraud, making threats to kill, indecent exposure and theft.

The second Somali, drug addict Abdiaziz Ibrahim Elmi, 42, was granted asylum in 1988. Since then he has committed crimes including handling stolen goods, fraud, robbery, carrying a replica gun, perverting the course of justice, theft and dealing heroin and cocaine.

Attempts to deport him began in 2006 and his appeal was rejected by an immigration judge. A deportation order was stayed in 2007 pending the outcome of his Strasbourg case, and since then he has been convicted of possessing Class A drugs and charged with drug dealing.

The panel of seven judges ruled that because the level of violence in Mogadishu was so high there was a real risk of the men coming to harm. In a unanimous judgment, the court also rejected the argument the men could leave the capital and return to safer parts of the country.

The judges said Sufi could not join his relatives because they lived in an area controlled by a strict Islamic group. If returned, he could face punishment according to their code – also a breach of his rights. He would also be particularly vulnerable if forced to live in a refugee camp because of his 'psychiatric illness', the court said.

Elmi claimed he would be at risk of persecution if he moved to an area controlled by the same group, because he wore an earring, which might lead to them thinking he was gay. If they found out he was a drug addict and thief he could face amputation, public flogging or execution, he said.

The court ruled he had no experience of living in a strict Islamic area because he has been in this country for so long and would therefore be at risk of harm. The ruling said: 'The court reiterated that the prohibition of torture and of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment was absolute, irrespective of the victims' conduct. 'Consequently, the applicants' behaviour, however undesirable or dangerous, could not be taken into account.'

The case will seriously hamper further attempts by ministers to deport foreign criminals, failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants back to Somalia. Last year just 35 were kicked out.

Around two thirds of the 214 other cases are thought to involve criminals. Others are failed asylum seekers and illegal immigrants.

A UK Border Agency spokesman said: 'We are very disappointed with the European Court's decision and are considering our legal position. 'This judgment does not stop us continuing to pursue the removal of foreign criminals who commit a serious crime, nor does it find that all Somalis are in need of international protection.'

SOURCE