Source

Have you read Charles Schumer and Lindsey Graham's "bi-partisan" framework for Comprehensive Immigration Reform? Here's a taste:

Last week we met with President Obama to discuss our draft framework for action on immigration. We expressed our belief that America's security and economic well-being [1] depend on enacting sensible immigration policies.

The answer is simple: Americans overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration [2] and support legal immigration. Throughout our history, immigrants have contributed to making this country more vibrant and economically dynamic. Once it is clear that in 20 years our nation will not again confront the specter of another 11 million people coming here illegally [3], Americans will embrace more welcoming immigration policies.

Our plan has four pillars [4]: requiring biometric Social Security cards [5] to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs; fulfilling and strengthening our commitments on border security and interior enforcement [6]; creating a process for admitting temporary workers [7]; and implementing a tough but fair path to legalization for those already here [8].

Mindboggling is the only word that comes to mind. I have no words for what Frank Sharry, the Executive Director of America's Voice is lauding as a a positive step forward. Really Sharry? Having every single American hand over control of their identity and who they are "data-wise" to the government and some employer in the name of immigration reform is a step forward?

Let me breakdown that paragraph so you'll understand my outrage:
 more this way»

Earlier today I had a knee-jerk reaction to this tweet from America's Voice:

americasvoice: Napolitano doesn't answer directly question about Sheriff Joe Arpaio, says "secure communities" programs should be available nationwide (about 2 hours ago from web)

Napolitano was speaking at a Center For American Progress conference on Immigration and was answering a question by the audience. I couldn't believe what I was reading and so twittered back:

 more this way»

This is amazing. The UK has declared quite a number of US extremists, including Eric Gliebe of the Skinheads, the Phelps from hate-filled Westboro Baptist Church and Michael Savage threats to their national security and for that matter not fit to enter the country. And not only have they've banned them but have equated them with Middle Eastern extremists as well.

Home Office name hate promoters excluded from the UK :: Home Office:

It follows the Home Secretary’s introduction of new measures against such individuals last year, including creating a presumption in favour of exclusion in respect of all those who have engaged in spreading hate.

Eric Gliebe
Has made web-radio broadcasts in which he vilifies certain ethnic groups and encourages the download and distribution of provocative racist leaflets and posters. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by justifying terrorist violence, provoking others to commit serious crime and fostering racial hatred.

Stephen Donald Black
Set up Stormfront, a racist website. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by promoting serious criminal activity and fostering hatred, which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom.

Mike Guzovsky
Leader of a violent group and actively involved with military training camps. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence in furtherance of particular beliefs and to provoke others to terrorist acts.

Fred Waldron Phelps Snr and Shirley Phelps-Roper
Pastor and leading spokesperson of Westboro Baptist Church. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence in the United Kingdom.

Michael Alan Weiner (also known as Michael Savage)
Controversial daily radio host. Considered to be engaging in unacceptable behaviour by seeking to provoke others to serious criminal acts and fostering hatred which might lead to inter-community violence.

Now compare this to the fact that the United States banned the most important novelist of Latin America from entering the country due to his work in Cuba and relationship with Fidel Castro.

Nevermind that Gabriel Garcia Marquez has written novels and articles against domestic terrorists everywhere, the most famous being Notas de un secuestro. The fact that the Nobel Laureate and author of One Hundred Years of Solitude was considered a threat to our national security while Lou Dobbs, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and Michael Savage have carte blanche to broadcast their hatred and desires of violence against women, people of color, gays and immigrants tells you how bigotry has become a markatable product in this country and a tool of political power.
 more this way»

When was the last time you saw the MSM sobbing about the stories of Mexican, Ecuadorian, Ghanan, Dominican, Kenyan or even Filipino families being torn apart by Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, the way the Japanese are doing with this Filipino family?

From Schoolgirl told to choose: Country or parents - CNN.com:

The scene was the emotional climax to a story a decade and a half in the making -- one that has tugged at heartstrings in Japan, but ultimately failed to sway to an unyielding bureaucracy that activists say violates human rights.

We should have daily reports of the millions of US born children being deprived of their parents thanks to the human rights abuses labeled immigration "enforcement". As if being an undocumented resident were a crime equal to robbing a bank or raping your neighbor.
 more this way»

Today an appeals court in California handed a bunch of NASA scientists a victory that is a victory for the civil liberties of all Federal employees and contractors. At stake was the privacy of all NASA scientists and contractors and potentially all Federal employees and contractors. It all stems from a reasonable attempt by Homeland Security to standardize the procedure for obtaining ID cards that allow access to Federal facilities (Homeland Security Presidential Directive #12). The method of implementation required even low-risk employees and contractors (including my wife, a grad student studying climate) to sign a blanket waiver giving the Federal government permission to investigate all aspects of a person's private life, including finiancial and medical records, or risk losing the right to enter their place of employment with the government.

One of the first places where this was aggressively implemented was NASA. Just as my wife, working in a NASA facility where no sensitive research is done, was informed she will have to sign away her rights to get an ID, NASA scientists at the Jet Propulsion Lab filed a lawsuit to block implementation of the directive. Today that lawsuit bore fruit. Please read on.

Some of you may have been following the long story of a threat to my wife's civil liberties thanks to Homeland Security. The original diaries (which got LOTS of attention, being picked up by the Huffington Post and boosting the morale of some NASA scientists involved) can be found here:
 more this way»

George Bush has always been far more willing to give money to Halliburton and Exxon/Mobil than he has to give it to fund our fire departments, police departments and healthcare system.

Well, here he goes again. In the good old Republican tradition of hurting Americans which we saw so blatantly in New Orleans after Katrina, Bush is proposing to cut federal funding to fire departments, police, etc. by half. From Salon.com:

The Bush administration intends to slash counterterrorism funding for police, firefighters and rescue departments across the country by more than half next year, according to budget documents obtained by The Associated Press...

The department [of Homeland Security] wanted to provide $3.2 billion to help states and cities protect against terrorist attacks in 2009, but the White House said it would ask Congress for less than half — $1.4 billion, according to a Nov. 26 document. The plan calls outright elimination of programs for port security, transit security, and local emergency management operations in the next budget year. This is President Bush's last budget, and the new administration would have to live with the funding decisions between Jan. 20 and Sept. 30, 2009.

What? Elimination of funding for port security? Well, I guess he doesn't like port security since Democrats prevented him from turning our port security to his buddies in Dubai. More from Salon:
 more this way»