Viva Villaraigosa? (Burt Prelutsky)

Recently, we elected a new mayor here in Los Angeles. James Hahn – a boring incumbent whose first term in office was tainted with a few charges of corruption – was routed by his challenger, Antonio Villaraigosa, a youthful-looking 52.

Mr. Villaraigosa was portrayed as a wonderful role model because he'd been a high-school dropout who'd cleaned up his act and gone to college. But inasmuch as he had the distinction of failing the bar exam four times before taking the easy way out and becoming a politician, I'm not sure I'd want him role modeling my kid.

As is often the case, I wound up voting for the losing candidate, the one we have all come to refer to as the lesser of two evils. But, I'm a regular Pollyanna, always on the lookout for silver linings. The best thing, then, about Mr. Villarigosa's victory is that it might serve as a wake-up call for all the gutless politicians of both parties, up to and including President Bush, who refuse to deal seriously with the problem of illegal immigration. Instead of squaring off with Vicente Fox, instead of cutting off all aid and assistance to illegal aliens, Democrats and Republicans alike pussyfoot around the issue, as they shamelessly go trolling for Hispanic votes.

The message that Villaraigosa's resounding victory should send to these guttersnipes is that they're nuts if they think they are ensuring their political futures by pandering so shamelessly. Just the opposite. Leaving the border ajar for scofflaws only means that down the road, and sooner rather than later, they'll find themselves running against a Villaraigosa or a Gomez or a Gonzalez of their very own, and then they can take their rightful place with Mr. Hahn at the unemployment office.

While on the subject of immigration, I recently erred when I wrote that children born in the United States were automatically American citizens even if the parents were here illegally. A few readers set me straight by pointing out that the 14th Amendment of the Constitution says no such thing. What it does say is, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." In short, it is not their mere physical presence that determines their status.

Like an infielder who first muffs a slow roller and then compounds matters by throwing the ball wildly to first base, I made two errors on the same play. My first was not to have read the Constitution before disseminating misinformation. My bigger mistake was in accepting leftwing propaganda as if it were gospel. For many years I'd heard liberals claim that any baby born in our country was a citizen and that it would therefore be cruel, even illegal, to deport its parents, and I had foolishly come to believe it.

Logic, alone, should have shown me the error of my ways. After all, scores of nations have thousands of diplomats and representatives in this country. Did I really believe that if, say, the French ambassador and his wife had a child born in Manhattan or Washington, D.C., the kid would be an American? Of course not! Because the parents are French citizens, America, in the words of the Constitution, would have no jurisdiction over the child. In similar fashion, no matter what liberals would have us believe, America has no jurisdiction over Mexican citizens who are in the U.S. illegally.

Mark Twain once observed that when he was 14, his father was an ignoramus. However, when he was 21, he couldn't help noticing how much smarter his old man had become in just seven short years. I think it's the same deal with this nation's forefathers, because the older I become, the smarter they seem to get.

I suppose I should be terribly embarrassed to have been caught presuming to claim what the Constitution said without first reading the document. And, frankly, I was at first. But then I decided if people like Supreme Court justices Anthony Kennedy and Ruth Bader Ginsburg aren't the least bit embarrassed, why the heck should I be?

I'm convinced there isn't any political desire whatsoever from Republican leaders for Hispanics to adopt conservative values. Why do I say this? California has the highest presence of hispanics in the nation. It also has the highest electoral vote in the nation. Nobody campaigned in California in the year 2000. I should acknowledge that Bush did show up in the state once for about six hours. I don't really consider that a serious appeal to the voters of the state, hispanic or otherwise. If anything it was an insult. In effect it was saying, "Screw you, I don't need you or your votes!"

We now have a mayor in Los Angeles that was at one time a serious leftist activist. He has made no bones about his separatist views off camera. He was a member of MechLa. He favors amnesty for illegal immigrants and sees that segment of the present U.S. populace as his strongest supporters.

Our leaders aren't as stupid as some would like us to believe. They know what's going on. Here's my take on why they allow it, in fact facilitate this.

Both parties are now globalist enclaves. Be it trade or political entanglements, they are in lock step with internationalist policies. They want open borders. They want trade pacts that set up a level of governance that is untouchable (read that unstopable) by the general populace.

U.S. Citizens wouldn't accept handing over their sovereignty in a straight forward effort. Thus, diluting the populace with tens of millions of immigrants over the period of twenty to forty years, dilutes the die hard citizen in many ways. Take a look at the push for diversity. You're considered a racist if you object to our nation being overrun. You're a racist if you don't want Spanish to replace English. You're a racist if you don't want to hand over our manufacturing to foreign nations. Perhaps more accurately on that last one, you're just dismissed as a person who knows nothing about economics.

That last take would be an easy sell if it weren't for the most basic of capitalist principles. Flood any market with any product and that product's value will plummet. There is no loophole on this principle. When the commodity is labor, the value drops when there's excess labor in a market.

U.S. citizens are under extreme pressure when it comes to labor. Their ability to maintain the status quo is harder and harder all the time. With illegal immigrants, outsourcing and moving manufacturing to foreign states, the U.S. citizen is the victim of the triple whammy. What does this achieve?

In my opinion, the U.S. populace is being diluted with regard to loyalty and support of the founding principles. The populace is being undercut economicly. The political power of loyalists is being diminished in relation to the total populace.

The goal is to set up a Free Trade Agreement of the Americas. The process will see two trade representatives from each nation that participates. When the goals are reached, every nation in North, Central and South America will be members. In this setting, the United States will have only two votes among 40 to 50. When this happens, the days of our self-determination, the actually sovereignty of our nation will be over.

At this point, our internal decisions will be subject to the whim of this multi-national organization. This is what our leaders want. It's why our immigration and trade policies are being designed and implemented that way they are..

Our present immigration policies have nothing to do with increased support for conservatives. It is a transparent effort to render conservatism completely ineffective.

the part i like is his flunking the bar exam 4 times, and then he went into education.

Antonio attended The Peoples College of Law. This is my shortened version of their FAQ:

The Peoples College of Law (PCL) is a nonprofit, public interest law school licensed by the State of California to grant juris doctor degrees to our graduates, who are eligible to sit for the California Bar Examination. The faculty staff and alumni are dedicated to helping working class people fight economic and social oppression.

Is the LSAT exam required of applicants to PCL? - No.

Is Peoples College of Law accredited by the ABA or State Bar of California? - No.

Basic goals of PCL - advocating to put people before property, for human rights, tenants' rights, consumer rights, workers' rights; fighting discrimination, abuse of power, economic and political oppression; and, enabling and empowering those historically denied legal resources and protections.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.