Illegal!

As excited as the mainstream media seem to be about this "day without immigrants" boycott today, it should be surprising that a few things aren't being covered. It should be, but it isn't.

• The people who would be affected by any new border-security rule are illegal immigrants. They are here without permission. The word is conspicuously absent from the stories in several major news sources.
• Illegal immigrants have no right to go to a job in this country in the first place, so walking off the job is rather meaningless.. Some of their children have the right to attend school, however, having citizenship by being born here.
• Many of the illegal immigrants are not "undocumented", as the politically correct term would suggest. Of the illegal immigrants who enter the country each year, about 140,000 are documented felons.
• The involvement of the Communist Party of the USA in building these demonstrations. Commies? Yup. I have seen multiple reports of eyewitnesses to various "immigration" rallies, who said they saw "a sea of orange banners" by the CPUSA, but were shocked when they didn't appear at all on the evening news. Note well that CPUSA has two big articles on their front page about immigrant rights.
• Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average is approaching record territory, an event which had the media almost wetting their pants with excitement when it happened during the Clinton presidency.

I don't get it. What is it that makes these people think that gathering all in one place and waving banners is going to change anything? FYI, folks, if you aren't a citizen, and you aren't here legally (work visa, passport, etc.) then you aren't protected by the first amendment or the rest of the U.S. Constitution. I love the way Scrappleface said it a few days ago.

(2006-04-28) — As May 1st draws near and America prepares for the hardship and suffering of “A Day without Illegal Immigrants”, the Justice Department announced today plans to mark the protest movement with its own act of civil disobedience.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said he’ll encourage federal, state and local law enforcement on Monday to respond to illegal immigration rallies by observing “A Day without Miranda Rights” followed by “A Month without Habeas Corpus” and “A Year without Bail.”

Really, wouldn't it be nice if the INS could just encircle a few of these rallies and check the IDs of some attendees? They've self-identified as being either an illegal immigrant or a sympathizer, and it should be pretty easy to let the legal folks go. But then it would be a "government shakedown", and we'd hear comparisons to Tianamen Square and Nazi Germany.

On the other hand, how about the businesses who are closing down for the day, either out of necessity or to show support? If Perdue Chicken can't afford to keep more than a third of their plants open because so much of their workforce is attending a boycott somewhere, what does that say about their hiring practices? Is this really a company you'd like to keep supporting?

The other possible positive outcome, and the more likely (darnit!) is that the boycott will have less effect than they hope. Lets see, they're not buying and they're not selling as part of the boycott. Assuming that at least some of the buying and selling is to and from others taking part, won't they cancel each other out? If a tree falls in the forest and nobody's around, does it make a sound?

Furthermore, if they're not buying or selling, does that include things like healthcare? Welfare checks? So that the illegal immigrants might perhaps be less of a burden on the legal, tax paying citizens of this country? Where exactly is the downside of this?

P.S. Politicians: Illegal immigrants probably don't pay taxes, since they don't have a Social Security number, and they can't legally vote, either. So why exactly are you so worried about their opinion?

P.P.S. Watch out for the term "undocumented citizen" being used in some of the mass media. If you aren't here legally, you are not a citizen. Period.

Can anyone here pronounce sovereignty? I sure hope so.

[via ]