D. A. King has an article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Those who study our national illegal immigration crisis watch with knowing sadness as millions of Americans outraged over our porous borders eventually get to the obvious question: Why has the president of the United States refused to secure American borders?

Perhaps it is part of a larger plan.

‘Flow freely’ will erase face of U.S. By D.A. KING,
Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 30, 06

You can write letters to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution here, and you may want to thank them for having the nerve to occasonally print the pro-American side of the immigration argument.

Kevin Carter writes:

Joe Guzzardi’s recent blogging on the Utah primary calls to mind an old Thomas Nast cartoon. Nast was commenting on the election of 1876, when massive voter fraud in four Carpetbagger-controlled Southern states (one of which was Florida) prevented the Democrats from winning in the Electoral College and threw everything into a frenzy. Eventually, both parties struck a backroom deal by which the Republican candidate, Rutherford or “Rutherfraud” as some called him at the time) B. Hayes, would become president but would have to remove the remaining federal soldiers still occupying the South. While technically a Republican victory, it so humiliated and weakened the GOP that, as the badly
wounded Republican elephant put it “another such victory, and I am undone.”

If you need more proof that the Mike Pence “compromise” Plan is a bad idea, here’s Exhibit G:

President Bush likes it!

(See also Exhibit A, Exhibit B, Exhibit C, Exhibit D, Exhibit E)

Earlier this week, Congressman Pence met with the Prez and shared his plan for immigration reform–in a press conference later that day, he made this observation:

“The president listened intently,” Pence told reporters. “He told me that he was intrigued with my proposal.”

[Immigration Deadlock Revisited; Fear of Voter Backlash Prompts GOP Senators to Consider House's Tougher Bill by Shailagh Murray and Charles Babington Washington Post 6/30/06]

No doubt the President is looking to Mike Pence for a pseudo-compromise bill that stands a chance in Hell of making it through the House.

While he managed to strong-arm Senators Specter and Frist into passing that rancid Senate amnesty proposal, he is having no such luck with Hastert, Tancredo & Co. House Leaders are determined to take the debate to the streets for public input before they draft or pass any new bill.

I love them…especially Congressman Tancredo. For that matter, I love Mike Pence–I just hate his bill.

By the way, I didn’t skip Exhibit F in my aforementioned list of evidence–that would be my column tonight!

Here in California, the big spin on the budget is that the thing is not weeks late getting passed, as we have come to expect. Plus, it is touted as being a responsible document for paying down some of the state’s gargantuan debt and reflective of less snarly legislating in Sacto of late [California Approves Multi-Billion Dollar Budget, KCBS, 6/28/06].

State lawmakers approved a $131 billion spending plan, the first on-time budget in six years.

The plan uses a tax windfall to fund one of the largest increases ever for California schools and also sets aside billions to pay down debt and build up reserves.

Democrats were happy that education was fully funded, at a stunning $55.1 billion. California took in more tax revenue than expected, so Dems wanted extras like $23 million to provide healthcare for illegal alien kiddies, but cooler heads (i.e. Republicans) prevailed.

(A FAIR report estimated in 2004 that illegal aliens cost California taxpayers over $10 billion annually, so $23 million is chump change, but still…)

However, you have to read the final paragraph in today’s LA Times article (Budget Dance Avoids Missteps of Past) to get the real skinny on California’s balance sheet…

But this budget still will spend $3.4 billion more than the state takes in. So it’s not really balanced, despite the dance spin.

So if not for the millions of high-maintenance illegal aliens, the state would not still be in the hole, but would have $7 billion free to start on some long-overdue infrastructure repairs — or whatever!

Allan Wall was on the What’s Up Talk Show in Houston, Texas, June 28, 2006, discussing the same issues he wrote about in his column, Amlo-Phobia. You can listen here. [MP3 Link] His previous appearance there[May 23, 2006]is also available. [MP3 link.]

It would seem that the concept of equal enforcement may be contagious.

Now comes the legislature of Colorado (controlled by Democrat people) - and the Governor ( a GOP person) of that state–seeking to make some campaign points by (wait for it) …enforcing existing law.

Republican Gov. Bill Owens announced today that he will convene a special legislative session next week to consider barring non-emergency state services from illegal immigrants.

Owens said the session will begin July 6 and - unless lawmakers craft a “substantive” proposal–he would like to see a measure sent to the voters in November.

The governor’s announcement came a few hours after he received a letter signed by 19 House Republicans asking him to give the public a chance to vote on any plan approved by lawmakers - in essence, a request to put something on the Nov. 7 ballot instead of settling for a change in state law.

Question to self: While most of us recognize that the organized crime of illegal immigration is a “non-partisan issue”- where were these guys last year?

Answer to self: Who cares, do the right thing now.

Please, somebody, anybody, send me a letter telling me that illegal immigration is only a federal concern! I love that one.

Here in Georgia we have written ( “we” is Georgia state senator Chip Rogers ), pushed for, begged for, threatened about and then finally passed - and had signed into state law–legislation that says that existing federal law should be….umm…enforced. Even for the state of Georgia as an employer.

How extreme.

We will examine all of the finer points of equal application at length another time, along with the trials and tribulations that confront anyone who dares to suggest that the concept applies to criminal private employers and (oh the climate of fear)… illegal aliens.

I know what you are thinking…even if they are from Mexico?

Si. Even if they are.

Colorado’s Supreme court has declined to allow the people to vote on an initiative that would prohibit illegals to access non-federally mandated taxpayer subsidized services and now the Governor ( again, a GOP type) - and the Democratic controlled legislature - is up in arms. Four months before the next election.

Question for the President: Does this make these state elected officials vigilantes, Mr. President?

Come on in Colorado…the water is not as cold as you may have imagined.

The model for the new crime-fighting activists? The Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act. (Ga SB 529)

Here in Georgia, for those who haven’t been following our little corner of the world, we have the strongest and most ( I love typing this) most comprehensive law addressing hiring, or being, an illegal alien in the nation.

We have actually made the enabling employers a target! Including the state of Georgia…as an employer. ( Next: The bankers. )

We salute the brave campaigners in Colorado for their new-found courage and awareness. But we are curious: why address only part of the equation? The Colorado legislators have outlined legislation that seems pointed at only half of the problem. Illegal aliens. What about the money guys…guys?

We note that none of this would be necessary if the President of the United States was not in violation of his oath of office by not securing American borders and enforcing American laws.

Ahh…what freedom to not be a member of any political party.

Advice to Colorado: take our Georgia law and add to it….the feds have made their position clear. Protect Colorado soonest.

After all - Americans are America too.

At this moment, Don Feder is on C-SPAN3 explaining the facts of chain migration. Go here to watch:It’s My Party, Too: The GOP and the Future of America.

This, by the way, is the conference Kevin Carter talked about yesterday.

Patrick Cleburne writes that Chris Cannon’s primary defeat of challenger John Jacobs sends us “once more unto the breach”

That’s nothing new.

But as we go forward, keep these facts in mind to make your journey easier.

Cannon is 1) an incumbent and was 2) running against a political rookie and unknown 3) who received telephone support from George and Laura Bush in the 4) most Republican state in the union and (5) whose brother Joe is Utah Republican Party Chairman who (6) did not as he is legally required to remain neutral. And Cannon, as usual, (7) received substantial funding from pro-immigration groups during his campaign’s last week

Vote total for Cannon= 55 percent.

Given #1-7, that’s the best Cannon can do?

Pathetic, really.

More news from the nations’s capital from Kevin Carter:

Kevin Carter writes:

This morning, Don Feder, Phyllis Schlafly, Howard Phillips, Alan Keyes and Richard Viguerie held a press conference in order to highlight their Conservative Leadership Declaration Opposing Amnesty/“Guestworker.” John O’Sullivan, John Fonte, Bay Buchanan, Mark Krikorian, Chris Simcox and many other conservatives and immigration restrictionists also put their names on the document (though for some reason VDARE.COM’s Peter Brimelow was not asked to sign!) making up a grand total of thirty-six signatures.

According to the Declaration: “We dedicate ourselves to defeating any 2008 presidential candidate who supports the Senate bill, the Pence bill, or any other bill that provides legalization for illegal immigrants or substantially increases legal immigration.” [Text here]

(Apparently, the original draft also called for deporting illegal aliens, but some prominent restrictionists insisted that be dropped in favor of the “attrition” strategy.)

Don Feder summed up the statement’s message quite succinctly. “It’s very simple,” he said, “if you support amnesty in any form, we will not support you,” and emphasized that this would be the case, regardless of how much they might agree with a Republican on any other issue, because, as Feder so eloquently put it, “if we lose America, no other issue matters.”

Although it appears that at least some conservatives can see the obvious, with the exception of John Fonte, there wasn’t a single signatory from any major conservative think tank and no one from National Review.

Perhaps we can be thankful that Alan Keyes has at least pulled his head out of the sand. During the Q/A session, reporters asked how Cannon’s victory would impact the debate, and Keyes gave as good an answer as any, quipping that in order to get reelected, Cannon had to at least pretend to be tough on illegal immigration, claiming that he too was against amnesty. “And that,” said Keyes, “is a far cry from saying that ‘we don’t often make the distinction between legal and illegal’ immigrants.”

The tone of the debate seems to be shifting in our direction.

Yes, it was a disappointment. Chris Cannon’s 56/44 victory in Utah’s 3rd district Congressional primary brings back sad memories of electoral moments which which actually did turn around America : the Reagan ‘76 NC Primary for instance.

And it is annoying to endure the braying triumphalism of the other side: such as Grover Norquist’s.

But a soldier must consider the field: this was a battle the other side absolutely had to win. If Cannon had been defeated, would any Republican Congressman have been willing to associate with the Kennedy-Bush Amnesty/Immigration Acceleration Bill? And how many would want to finance fending off a Jacob-like challenge?

This was a last ditch stand for Amnesty proponents. Sadly, they won.

For the Patriots, it was a great opportunity. We lost. But other chances will arise

It was of course unfortunate that this battle had to be staged in an area of America extreme in its deference to authority, and loyalty to its leaders.

How strange it is that Mormonism, that most American of religions, might well be causative in the Nation’s fall.

MSM forces are now anxious to erase the concessions Cannon made to get elected. In the Internet era, that is just not possible:

Mr. Cannon now says he opposes the Senate immigration bill that would grant citizenship rights to millions of illegals. He does, however, support a “guest-worker” program that would allow illegals to remain in the country indefinitely.

“But they wouldn’t get citizenship,” he said.

If they give birth to children while in the U.S. as “guest workers,” do they then become citizens?

“Well, yes,” Mr. Cannon replied when asked by The Washington Times. “But I’m willing to address that problem.”

The Immigration Blog

See this.

Cannon originally won in 1996 by attacking his Democratic incumbent opponent on immigration. So his concessions recently are worthless.

Congressmen with districts more impacted by the recent 3rd world influx, and with less deferential constituents, would be unwise not to take note - unless they want to fight expensive primaries.

Once more, unto the breach, dear friends…