The United States First Amendment protections on freedom of speech are unique in the world. Canada, Australia, and Great Britain all have “Race Relations” laws criminalizing some forms of speech. (Something Enoch Powell warned about in his famous speech, which didn’t get him arrested.)

• In Great Britain, Dr. Frank Ellis has been suspended from his job as a lecturer, and is under investigation by the West Yorkshire Police for views that in the US can be printed in the Wall Street Journal.

• A Canadian conservative magazine, (possibly the Canadian conservative magazine) is facing a lawsuit in “human right court” for printing the Cartoons of Mohammed.

• And Andrew Fraser, who has been covered here at length, has been told by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, that his letter to the editor of a local paper was ” an unlawful breach of s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.”

I’ve reproduced Fraser’s press release below, with links. John Jay Ray, in one of his many blogs, has reproduced his detailed defense here.

Media Release
31 March 2006

Human Rights Commission Declares Associate Professor Andrew Fraser’s Letter to the Parramatta Sun Unlawful

In a stunning blow to freedom of expression in Australia, the President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Mr John von Doussa, QC, today declared that a letter to the editor written by Associate Professor Andrew Fraser and published in the Parramatta Sun on 6 July 2005 was an unlawful breach of s 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act.
(more…)

The immigration issue has risen in importance not because of real-world conditions but because of a relentless campaign to place it at the center of the national consciousness - a campaign waged primarily by intellectuals (many of them, ironically, immigrants themselves). WHY THE IMMIGRATION ANGST?,By John Podhoretz, New York Post, March 31, 25006]

Now, who exactly does he mean by that? I can guess. But here’s one example: John O’ Sullivan, who was born in England, who when hearing that the White House planned to “marginalize” critics of the guestworker plan, asked

“How do you marginalize 70 percent of the American people?”

And it’s not Peter Brimelow, John O’ Sullivan, George Borjas, or any other”immigrant himself” including the late Ernest van den Haag, writing before the 1965 act, who made that 70 percent of Americans skeptical of immigration.

In fact, it may be another set of immigrants who made them feel that way; the immigrant taking their job, the immigrant robbing a bank, the immigrant on welfare.

Just as the 70 percent of the of the American people who poll negative on immigration are far more numerous than the various immigration skeptics, with their personal experience of the immigration process, so are immigrant, (for example,) criminals more numerous than the Anglospheric contingent at Washington meetings of FAIR.

Diana West, in a powerful Washington Times column this morning (“Mexico North“, March 31 2006), sketches the utter and amazing transformation that has come over Los Angeles since she was a litle girl there, just in the 1960s. I am naturally disposed to approve of this column because of her kind reference to Alien Nation. But what really impresses me is that this reference is in the context of the decisive and disastrous role of the 1965 Immigration Act, the point at which the U.S. government began to abolish the American people and elect another. Needless to say, this insight is wholly absent from the typically disingenuous propaganda piece appearing in the allegedly anti-statist Wall Street Journal, also today.

The very real illegal immigration crisis is what has gotten the immigration debate moving again. But it’s good to remember that legal immigration policy is the ultimate problem.

Like many other readers, I was disappointed when Fjordman announced his retirement from the blogosphere last December. He provided a unique view on what was happening in Scandinavia as a result of Islamic immigration, such as reporting on the Muslim Rape Wave and the likelihood of civilization breaking down in Europe. Not the most cheerful reading, but important.

As it happens, the insightful Norwegian has not disappeared entirely from view. He showed up recently on the excellent Brussels Journal with an article titled Swedish Welfare State Collapses as Immigrants Wage War.

The immigration-as-warfare theme also showed up on a recent Fjordman posting at Little Green Footballs.

You are at war with Mexico. They are deliberately using massive immigration to conquer your territory, and your “leaders” are kneeling. It’s just as Muslims are doing in Europe, only without the terrorism. In future encyclopedias it will say: USA: “Nation that existed until the 21st century. Had the strongest armed forces in human history. Was conquered and colonized by unarmed Mexicans between 1980 and 2030.”

Read this:

The Second Mexican War, By Lawrence Auster

Meanwhile, the Senate forges ahead with preparing its humane-sounding surrender documents.

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) was a guest tonight on FOX News’ Hannity and Colmes.

Not surprisingly, illegal immigration and the current Senate debate was the topic at hand. Alan Colmes started the chat with a few softball questions and then…Sean Hannity took off the gloves.

Hannity : “This is amnesty at the end of the day…at the end of it you get the grand prize. You came illegally and at the end you get what you wanted.”

McCain: “I read in the dictionary that amnesty means forgiveness. We had an amnesty in 1986 and it didn’t work. What are our options, to let them stay in the shadows, to try and round up 11 milion people?”

Mc Cain didn’t actually answer Hannity’s question as far as I could tell but Hannity hit him with another:

Hannity: “What do you say to the people who respected our laws and waited in line for citizenship?”

McCain:“You are on the path and these people are going to the end of the line.”

They go to the end of the line but in the meantime they get to live in the United States, they get “free” health care and “free” public education for their children…an education that has been custom tailored to fit the needs of Hispanics who have unfairly overloaded the sytem for decades.

I liked this one:

Hannity: “Is Mexico really our friend?”

McCain: ” Yes.”

Hee hee…he actually said that Mexico is our friend! That’s a good one…

After a little more chat with Alan Colmes, McCain let loose with a very Presidential one-liner:

McCain: “The most wonderful experience of my life was the opportunity to run for President of the U.S.”

After McCain was done promoting treason, former Speaker Newt Gingrich simplified the problem…brilliantly.

I am paraphrasing…what he said was eliminate the draw to the United States and you eliminate illegal immigration. If there are no jobs for illegal aliens, if there is no access to public services and welfare for illegal aliens then the problem would end.

Now there’s a thought…too simple for Congress…but a thought!

Sorry I’ve been absent this afternoon, our blogging server thing was down but it appears James Fulford has taken care of it!

Here’s what you missed: My Immigrant Hardship Story Is Worse than Yours!

Senator #1: My parents immigrated from Lithuania in 1906 after swimming across the North Atlantic, fighting off sharks and killer whales with nothing but the shoelaces from their only pair of shoes and receiving the name “Smith” from officials at Ellis Island. Eventually landing in Mistletoe, Missouri, my father worked as dog washer at the greyhound track and my mother spent her days collecting scraps of food tossed out by the wealthy, white Americans on the other side of town–and we were grateful for every potato peeling! Today, their son is a U.S. Senator…

Senator#2: After centuries of torture at the hands of a hostile communist regime, my grandparents fled their native Canada for the free land of Montana. Life wasn’t easy…my grandfather worked as a buffalo castrater and my grandmother washed clothes for wealthy white American families on the other side of the prairie. Today, their grandson is a U.S. Senator…

Seriously pathetic…and these were the Republicans.

Tonight, Senator Mc Cain will make an appearance on Hannity and Colmes to argue the merits of his amnesty plan…I’ll watch and blog.

Yesterday, Lou Dobbs Tonight reported live from Cancun, where the latest version of the Three Amigos is convening to discuss trade and immigration (which apparently require shafting the American middle class). Naturally el Presidente Fox is pumped over the opportunity to subject Bushie to still more arm twisting about immigration, so the richie rich Mexican oligarchs can continue to “live like maharajas” in the low-maintenance remittance economy.

Lurking in the background is the transnational elites’ plan for “integrating” the North American continent. (See the Council for Foreign Relations document Building a North American Community for the general proposal, generally called the Security and Prosperity Partnership.)

A segment of Lou Dobbs Tonight pointedly discussed the globalist policy underpinning open borders and lax immigration enforcement, namely the planned shotgun marriage between the United States and Mexico (as well as Canada) through trade agreements [ Lou Dobbs Transcript, 3/29/06].

ROBERT PASTOR, “TOWARD A NORTH AMERICAN COMMUNITY”: It’s much more than a partnership. To think about a community is to think that if one of the members of the community is harmed, it harms the other two. And if they benefit, all three benefit.

SYLVESTER: Pastor wants the United States to invest in Mexico’s infrastructure and bring jobs to the country, raising the Mexican quality of life. But that is precisely what has critics worried about integrating economies.

The United States, a first-world country, having to absorb Mexico, a developing country, with U.S. taxpayers shouldering the social costs. Mexico and the United States are worlds apart when it comes to labor rules, environment regulations, even legal systems.

Far from the high-level activities in Cancun, the majority of Americans remain attached to the idea of one nation under sovereignty and within borders, where citizens are protected by the Bill of Rights. Most would agree with Czech President Vaclav Klaus’ statement: “You cannot have democratic accountability in anything bigger than a nation state.”

The transnational elites’ vision is entirely different. They imagine that they know better how to run the planet, and believe democracy and sovereignty are tiresome inefficiencies on the global economy.

In case there was any doubt…

Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington) wants a guest worker plan that includes a clear path to citizenship. Her motives were fairly simple,

“We rely on immigrants to harvest the crops that put food on our tables and bring billions of dollars to our economy.” she said.

And we can’t forget the children…

“I hope we can all agree that the children of immigrants deserve a decent education.”

They do…the children of legal immigrants.

This was a good one:

“We should not expect our farmers to be experts on documentation.”

Experts on documentation? They don’t have to be experts on anything, just moderately literate and perhaps honest!

What a Drama Queen! Oh wait…here it is:

“We need to make sure they are not denied the opportunity to share in the American Dream.”

Once again, the American Dream is a creed, not a legal loophole…

Senate Judiciary Committee members Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold voted March 27 in a way that makes you wonder if they really mean what they say on their homepages about how they’re protecting the interests of their constituents.

Kohl’s homepage says he’s “fighting for families.” Whose? Mexico’s? And his new TV campaign ads tell us that the “people of Wisconsin are his ’special interests. ‘ ” (Sniff! Where’s the Kleenex?)

And (Sniff!) here’s what Feingold, who says the country is ready for its “first Cheesehead President,” boasts on his homepage:

“It is now more important than ever that Congress be proactive in taking care of the working men and women who are the heart and soul of our economy in Wisconsin and around the country. I am also working to ensure that American workers receive the benefits and protections they deserve.”

But look what he just said in defense of his throwing in with the cheap labor lobby and Vicente Fox:

March 28, 2006

“At the beginning of this debate, I said I would support meaningful, pragmatic, comprehensive immigration reform. I voted for the bill that the Senate Judiciary Committee approved today because it meets that test. It is not a perfect bill, but it recognizes that we will all be better off if Congress creates a realistic immigration system that allows foreign workers to come into the country legally to work when there is truly a need for their labor, and that ensures our government knows who is already here. We can and must improve our efforts to protect our borders, but we cannot focus exclusively on enforcement. My continued support for this legislation will depend on whether the improvements adopted today in the Judiciary Committee remain after the full Senate considers the bill.”

Kohl, as I write this, has yet to explain his vote on his homepage and I’m not holding my breath that he will. But it’s not surprising given his apparent lack of interest in the proceedings during the past few weeks. When he did show up, one observer noted that he “just sat there, staring into space.” (I wonder if that included the session where Kohl walked in, sat down, and “left 10 minutes later.”)

Watching these two “lawmakers” during these proceedings ( as well the majority of their Committee colleagues) has convinced me that the swearing in ceremony for new members of Congress should either be discontinued or at least require a new oath of office that better reflects today’s “political realities.” Let’s see, um, how about:

“I do solemnly swear to abandon all allegiance to this nation, its citizens and its laws, and I will, to the best of my ability, fulfill all obligations to Corporate America and all corrupt foreign governments unwilling to provide for their own people, so help me God.”

The Committee’s 12-6 vote not only dumped all over American workers but put its stamp of approval on President Bush’s idea of “American values” You know, the same values he “honors” each Veterans Day.

Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) plans to offer his bill (S.1815 ) as an amendment.

The Strengthening American Citizenship Act is:

“A bill to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to prescribe the binding oath or affirmation of renunciation and allegiance required to be naturalized as a citizen of the United States, to encourage and support the efforts of prospective citizens of the United States to become citizens, and for other purposes.”

The oath new citizens are supposed to take is as follows:

`I take this oath solemnly, freely, and without any mental reservation. I absolutely and entirely renounce all allegiance to any foreign state or power of which I have been a subject or citizen. My fidelity and allegiance from this day forward are to the United States of America. I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution and laws of the United States, and will support and defend them against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I will bear arms, or perform noncombatant military or civilian service, on behalf of the United States when required by law. This I do solemnly swear, so help me God.’

The Alexander bill has a few provisions for those who are uncomfortable with our oath as written.

They do not have to say “so help me God” (oh, there’s a shock) and if they do not like the part about “I will bear arms on behalf of the United States…” they can skip that part as well.

New citizens must also learn English and the Alexander bill provides a ton of funding to help them in that endeavor.

Yeah…I don’t like the Strengthening American Citizenship Act…it should be called the “Politically Correct, User-Friendly, We Sure Hope We Don’t Offend Anyone New Citizenship Act.”

And then it should be rejected.