Elvira Arellano and Illegal Immigration
Everyone who is interested in the issue of illegal immigration has probably been following the saga of Mexican citizen, felon and illegal immigrant
Elvira Arellano. Last year, she garnered the sympathy of the pastor and parishioners of Chicago’s Adalberto United Methodist Church as they rationalized giving aid to a lawbreaker as a poor Mexican woman who deserved a chance at a better life. They decided to protect them, forever if necessary, to keep her from being deported.
"We immigrants need representation," Arellano complained. “The millions of Mexican immigrants who are living in the U.S. are being treated like criminals. I'm not a criminal. I'm a mother who worked to support my son in this country."
Actually, she is a criminal. She had snuck into the U.S. twice, the first time in 1997. After being deported in 1999, she illegally crossed the border again—a felony that if prosecuted, could get her 20 years behind bars. She obtained work using a stolen Social Security Number—another felony—and had been fraudulently working at the airport cleaning airplanes. In a post 9/11 world, this should cause the Homeland Security agents to swoon in fear. She had defied judicial orders to appear before a court concerning her illegal status and had instead spent a year hiding in the Chicago church thanks to Reverend Walter Coleman. Despite all this and the fact that sanctuary is not recognized in U.S. law, ICE let her be while she remained in her hidey-hole demanding rights for illegal immigrants.
And now she is bellyaching about how U.S. immigration laws have broken up her happy family. She and her ardent defenders argue that because her son is a U.S. citizen, the U.S. government should not split up her family by deporting her. If family unification were important to her, she should have stayed in Mexico with her family. No one forced her to leave her son behind, this was her choice yet she has used him as a human shield to avoid deportation.
The Left is also exploiting this boy claiming family solidarity. The Left's claim to care about families makes no sense given its propensity to kill off children via abortion and promote homosexuality at every turn. But I digress.
“God wants me to serve as an example of the hatred and hypocrisy of the current administration," she told the Chicago Tribune. But thanks to the compassionate fair-mindedness of the current administration, she is now free to bring her son to Mexico to live with her instead of visiting with him through a plate of Lexan and telephone handset.
Notwithstanding all this, some clergy still choose to defy American law in the name of religion, claiming they are serving the poor and providing asylum to the refugee. At best this is grossly misguided compassion but likely these men of the cloth are mixing their politics with the pulpit. These compassion fascists refuse to accept that immigration law is intended to protect American citizens and provide for an orderly absorption of those applying to come here. America has always been the first to take in refugees from some of the worst holes in the world—Cuba and Haiti come to mind—so to act in civil disobedience as if the government were hunting down good and decent contrarians to a ruthless regime is not only wrong, but stupid. In aiding a fugitive, Reverend Coleman broke the law. But again, thanks to the decency of this government—decency to a fault—he will not be arrested or bothered in any way. Would he have gotten the same treatment in, say, North Korea, or even Mexico?
Business and politicians claim that illegal immigrants do the work no one else will do. While many claim that illegals help our economy because they spend money here and pay taxes here, the fact is that much of that money is sent back to Mexico to help support family members that just can’t seem to get up here too. Meanwhile,
each illegal immigrant costs the taxpayer $22,000 a year. Despite efforts by the Bush administration to get the Mexican government to help keep its citizens at home, it really doesn’t have any incentive to do so. To wit: Mexico sends its poverty ridden and unwanted citizens to the stupid gringos in El Norte and gets foreign exchange in return. Hmmm. Low skilled high school dropouts or hard currency?
One might think these factors would be enough to get a consensus on the need to control our southern border. Instead, we see the power hungry political left willing to give away what America won fair and square in 1848 even as we watch, mouth agape, illegals protesting in the annual National March for Immigrant Rights and demanding rights and benefits and waving the Mexican flag as if the southwest was actually Mexican territory. Even while a few in Congress are working hard to create a real border between Mexico and the U.S., American business is in bed with many other politicians hoping to keep the border as porous as possible for that cheap labor.
While the bleeding hearts continue to bleat "unfair" in apparent hopes of getting into heaven and as our leaders turn a blind eye to all of this, one day an illegal border crossing much worse than Arellano’s will happen. Then what?
Elvira Elvira Elvira Elvira Arellano Arellano Arellano Arellano
immigration immigraton immigration immigration immigration
illegal illegal illegal illegal illegal
Left Left Left Left Left church church church church church
Credit Crunch, Credit Crisis or Just Desserts?
Monday saw a dastardly drop in the Dow average after a very volatile week as turmoil in the U.S. subprime-mortgage shook investor confidence. Tuesday’s market dropped another 200 plus points. Disappointing behavior, but the good news is that yesterday’s drop was due to a less than stellar earnings report from Wal-Mart and Home Depot rather than more panic in the credit market. And we know that Wal-Mart will recover.
The big problem is not so much that some subprime borrowers are delinquent in their payments and may lose their homes, but the uncertainty about who is exposed to these losses. It seems the big hedge funds and financial institutions that were holding a large number of subprime mortgage-backed securities are the ones who are suffering. Their panicky response to the subprime market is causing fears to spread. Last Thursday the French bank BNP Paribas SA stopped withdrawals to the tune of $2.2 billion in three investment funds holding subprime mortgage securities, saying there were so few buyers that they couldn’t determine what these securities were worth. This decision richocheted around the world causing investors to flee from stocks and equity investments.
The American dream is to own one’s own home, but somehow this dream has morphed into a guaranteed right in the minds of some. Hillary and other Democrats are demanding some $1 billion in federal bailouts for those at risk of foreclosure. No one wants to see somebody lose his home; but many of those most at risk bought their homes with little or no money down, and so have very little at stake economically. A government bailout would send the wrong message—that risky borrowing will be rewarded by the government. Those who were wise in their financial decisions are in turn punished by the transfer of their hard earned tax dollars. To the extent that bad loans were made, the market needs to adjust, not be propped up by federal-aid programs.
Greed in the mortgage business overcame the fear that typically guides lenders into common sense loans. Subprime borrowers are typically charged 2 to 3 percent higher rates on their mortgages. Many subprime loans were made to borrowers without proper credit or income checks. Borrowers were enticed with low “teaser” rates in adjustable rate mortgages. As the rates rose and as housing values dropped, these same folks found it hard, if not impossible to refinance. The same judgment on borrowers also applies to the lending institutions. They have to take their licks and that may involve restructuring the loans of delinquent borrowers. This beats the costs of foreclosure.
Amid the market turmoil over leveraged buyouts, margin calls, redemption demands and applications for mortgage loans, the fed has covered liquidity demand. Still, the big and few losers in the lending business are trying to force the government's hand by refusing to conclude deals, make their margin calls and lend money even at higher interest rates. Since debt is the engine for the American economy, these players are claiming a recession unless the fed covers their losses and cuts the short term interest rate. Although the fed can operate as a lender of last resort, its primary dictum is to maintain price stability. Loosening credit at a time when inflation is a real possibility is contrary to that mandate.
It seems that Alan Greenspan’s easy money policy from 2002 to 2005 may have contributed to the current credit creeps. Alan Greenspan’s loose monetary policy was primarily based on the stock market doldrums. The multitudinous rate cuts didn’t boost the stock market so much as created a boon in the housing market, particularly new construction. As demand for housing grew because of extremely favorable mortgage rates, housing values jumped, encouraging people to use their equity as ATM machines. This is profligate behavior that is always roundly punished in the marketplace.
For those who fear recession and for others who fear they will never own a home, it is key to remember that the subprime market is less than 20% of the total mortgage market—and that is a generous figure—and only about 7-8 percent of these are in delinquency. It is a small number. It is miniscule in the total debt market and simply will not dampen economic growth. That is not to say that there won't be pain for low quality borrowers and subprime lenders, but for the overarching economy, it is a pothole. After the shouting stops, people will find that most mortgages were not problematic -- that while some lenders and brokers got too aggressive, the vast majority of loans will be paid off as usual. And hard lessons will be learned so hopefully America won’t see another self-inflicted problem like this again.
Tags: credit crisis credit crisis credit crisis mortgage mortgage mortgage
subprime subprime subprime subprime fed fed fed fed federal reserve
federal reserve hedge funds hedge funds hedge funds,
The Rose Ruckus
Remember the old sitcom gag, done so many times, about the horny guy who dated several women at the same time? He kept them all in the dark about each other as he artfully (or so he fancied) juggled them until some snafu brought his philandering to light, sometimes with mildly humorous results. Just when I thought this hackneyed scenario had run its course, life decided to imitate art.
Enter stage left: Leroy Greer. He sent a dozen red roses and love note to his girlfriend through 1-800-FLOWERS.com and asked the online florist not to send the receipt to his house. Several months later, 1-800-Flowers sent a “thanks for your business” note to his address where his wife found it. Knowing she didn't get the bouquet, she called 1-800-Flowers who faxed a copy of the receipt and purchase order to her at her request. The purchase order included her husband's betraying note: “Just wanted to say I love you and you mean the world to me—Leroy.”
He is now suing 1-800-FLOWERS.com for inadvertently revealing him as an adulterer. He is demanding $1 million in damages to cover his anticipated $6000/month in alimony payments likely to result from his impending divorce.
Isn’t that just typical? Don’t take responsibility for your premeditated choices—just make somebody else clean your spittoon. Whatever happened to being a man? His soon to be ex-wife asked the same question.
Scribbled on the fax copy of the purchase order were these sage words:
“Be a man! If you got caught red-handed then don’t still lie. Your tmobile still has her number so why still lie [sic]”
The bad news for Greer is that there are no guarantees of privacy on the internet. Flowers didn't promise not to send a thank you note to Greer's home address. As far as they were concerned the customer, as determined by the billing address freely given by Greer, phoned for receipt information and the company was probably obliged to give it to her. Besides, what could customer service say?
"Sorry Mrs. Greer but your husband told us not to send the receipt to your house."
Even if the wife didn't pick up on that bit of innuendo, the florist still had the purchase order that may not necessarily have been labeled top secret. Just to be clear, Flowers did not promise to keep mum about Greer’s affair. He has indicted himself for steppin' out and he needs to take his wife's admonition.
The good news is that his law suit is likely to be dismissed. Fox News interviewed Greer's lawyer about the flower flub filing and even she laughed.
Tags: 1-800-Flowers.com 1-800-Flowers.com 1-800-Flowers.com 1-800-Flowers.com
1-800-Flowers.com 1-800-Flowers.com 1-800-Flowers.com 1-800-Flowers.com
Greer Greer Greer Greer Greer Greer
sue sue sue sue suing suing suing
Wren Cross Restored?
As of
last weekend, the Millington Cross has been put back on display in the historic Wren Chapel of the College of William and Mary. Is this a victory for the Cross and its supporters? It depends on your point of view.
The “Committee on Religion at a Public University,” University president Gene Nichol’s bureaucratic escape from the red-hot furor he created, developed a compromise that they hoped would quell the dissenters and save face for Mr. Nichol. The cross now sits in a discreet corner of the Chapel entombed in a glass case with a headstone describing the chapel’s Anglican roots.
Now that the Cross has been reduced to an inoffensive museum piece safely sealed behind glass, no prospective student will ever need to flee in horror to enroll elsewhere. The Cross and its conscience-touching aura that had been a source of death rays to the perpetually offended, is now relegated as a symbol of the past. But at least the cross gets permanent exposure to the chapel’s air space and for some, this is victory.
For me, nothing short of a return to the original policy prior to October 2006 is a victory. It is now clear that the battle over the cross was not just about the accurate portrayal of the College’s history and our First Amendment rights, but also about the spiritual symbolism of the cross’ placement. The cross was unacceptably offensive while it sat on the altar of a historic Christian chapel, yet in its new case it is deemed inoffensive despite now being on constant display. Its new display is inoffensive precisely because it makes the Cross a museum relic; a display that symbolizes the secularist shunting aside of God and makes clear to us social Luddites that the College and the country have moved on. I am saddened by this policy, not for myself, Christianity or God but for the misguided few who thought this was the right solution.
