pageok
pageok
pageok
Sandy Berger Leaves the Bar:

Former National Security Advisor Sandy Berger has agreed to forfeit his law license, according to this report. As I've noted before, we still do not know precisely what documents Berger burgled from the National Archives. It also appears Berger may have been eager to strike a deal over his bar license to avoid further scrutiny: "In giving up his license, Mr. Berger avoids being cross-examined by the Board on Bar Counsel, where he risked further disclosure of specific details of his theft." It also does not seem like that great a sacrifice for, as Berger commmented, he has not practiced law in 15 years. (LvIP)

Joe Bingham (mail):
"Burgled" is definitely one of the funniest verbs in the language.
5.18.2007 2:54pm
Keyes:
J:

Not to cut to fine a line here, but is it proper to say a person "burgled" a document, rather than a dwelling or building? I understood that "to burgle" means to enter into, typically, a building of some sort to commit a felony (usually theft) therein. [I know that a legislature could define burglary to mean anything it wanted. But I take it that you're using "burgle" as typically understood at common law.]

So I could see saying "We still do not know precisely what documents Berger took when he burgled the National Archives."
5.18.2007 2:56pm
Advantage?:
It is interesting that this law blog devotes as much space to tracking Sandy Berger (who undoubtedly did something wrong---and whose misdeed merits four postings!) and to noting the end of contingent fee arrangements for government lawyers (perhaps a good thing, but also a chance to spotlight Senator Clinton's brother's alleged corruption!) as to the DOJ fiasco, which is at least arguably a profound threat to the rule of law in the United States.
5.18.2007 3:01pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Advantage.

I'd be surprised if you actually believed yourself. Be advised, nobody else does, either.
5.18.2007 3:05pm
TJIT (mail):
Advantage,

Much of the interest in the Sandy Berger case is because of the fact that a politically connected individual got a slap on the wrist for actions that would have gotten anyone else a long prison term.

I would hope folks like you would be more concerned about the politically connected getting highly preferential treatment by the justice system.

That has a far bigger negative impact on the average citizen of the US then the firing of eight attornies at the DOJ ever will.
5.18.2007 3:22pm
Kazinski:
I agree with Advantage, I don't want the conspiritors spending their time on inconvienient stories like this one, I want them to post on the Bush administration's abuses of power exclusively. If they expect me to keep paying them... Whoops, nevermind.
5.18.2007 3:36pm
Duncan Frissell (mail):
'Sandy Burglar' is just for onomatopoeic fun. It was actually "The fraudulent appropriation to one's own use of the money or goods intrusted to one's care by another." Embezzlement

A malum in se crime rather than mere malum prohibitum so Sandy can burn in Hell for all enternity for same and could have lost his license.

I'm going up for admission myslf soon and must hope that my malum prohibitum offenses will be overlooked.
5.18.2007 3:42pm
ed o:
yes, let us ignore the theft of classified documents by this individual-after all, what chance is there of him having a high position in a future democratic administration, particularly given the way the democrats have turned on him for his disgusting actions. oh wait, they didn't do that.
5.18.2007 3:42pm
r78:
The executive branch of government needs flexibility to deal with the threats that are facing the country.

I see no reason why the powers of the unitary executive should stop just because a different administration takes office.

If Sandy Burger had reason to believe that his actions protected us, I don't see why we should question that.

We are at war, people.
5.18.2007 3:44pm
Richard Aubrey (mail):
Guys. Guys. Advantage knows better. Now he knows everybody else does, too. Let him absorb that.
5.18.2007 3:45pm
Keyes:
ed o said:


yes, let us ignore the theft of classified documents by this individual-after all, what chance is there of him having a high position in a future democratic administration, particularly given the way the democrats have turned on him for his disgusting actions. oh wait, they didn't do that.



I agree. It's outrageous that a Republican DOJ gave Berger a slap on the wrist -- and he might even serve in a future Democratic administration (when he should be sharing a jail cell with Scooter Libby).

After all, Elliott Abrams -- who pled guily to twice lying to Congress was charged only with misdemeanors and now is back serving this great Country for the Bush administration as a national security advisor.

Clearly, lying to Congress about national security-related matters pales to lying about a blow-job in a civil deposition.

Let's face it, how else can the Bush/Cheney folks judge someone's bona fides for government service except by looking at their rap sheet.

Frankly, Berger's a perfect candidate to join Abrams on Cheney's Bush's national-security team.
5.18.2007 3:55pm
Keyes:
should read:

"After all, Elliott Abrams -- who pled guilty . . ."
5.18.2007 3:56pm
Steve:
I, for one, am quite curious to know the details of the Sandy Berger story, which I guess may never come to light. (Of course, many people have already convinced themselves that he succeeded in concealing something material about 9/11, or what have you.) But I'd just note that it's rather routine, in law as well as in other fields, to surrender a license you're not using rather than go through a protracted regulatory process. And at the end of the day, he likely would have lost his law license as a result of the conviction no matter what he said.
5.18.2007 4:05pm
ed o:
why not talk about Berger rather than worry about Abrams-the misdirection is too obvious. What did he take? Why did he take it? the explanations offered have been nonsense and he is still an adviser to top Democrats.
5.18.2007 4:12pm
PersonFromPorlock:
Advantage?:

Just out of curiousity, how would you feel if it turned out that one of the fired DOJ attorneys was trying to administer that famous lie detector test to Mr. Berger?
5.18.2007 5:21pm
dll111:

Much of the interest in the Sandy Berger case is because of the fact that a politically connected individual got a slap on the wrist for actions that would have gotten anyone else a long prison term.


To whom is he politically connected in this administration?
5.18.2007 5:21pm
ed o:
he's politically connected in Washington-or does that escape your comprehension?
5.18.2007 5:39pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"To whom is he politically connected in this administration?"

That's the big question, and I'm glad to see someone got around to asking it. What's in it for Bush to go soft on Berger? Why not use him to deflect criticism back to the Clinton people? For that matter why did Bush sabotage his own party in the 2006 election by not firing his Rumsfeld? Then fire him anyway two days after the election. Could it be that Bush wanted those pesky Republicans gone who might block his immigration bill? This brings up another question. Why are Bush and many Republicans so keen to flood America with Mexicans? They don't tend to vote for Republicans. Why are the Republicans so eager to put themselves out of business? The possible answers are terrifying.
5.18.2007 5:51pm
frankcross (mail):
Bush is a Democratic mole, I think.
5.18.2007 7:50pm
Brett Bellmore:

What's in it for Bush to go soft on Berger? Why not use him to deflect criticism back to the Clinton people?


Three words: Ellen Romstsch' strategy Until the generation of Republican leaders Clinton has blackmail files on retires, and lose their influence, anybody in a position to rat on the Clinton administration will be essentially untouchable, especially if they're caught while doing cleanup for that administration.
5.18.2007 9:24pm
RMCACE (mail):
Keyes,

You have it right. As I remember, at common law, to burgle is to break and enter into the dwelling of another at night with felonious intent. Sandy misses lots of elements. It was not a dwelling, he did not break and enter, and it may have been during the day.
5.18.2007 10:41pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Three words: Ellen Romstsch' strategy …"

Who in the Justice Department would get blackmailed? I guess I don't understand you.
5.18.2007 11:01pm
Truth Seeker:
It's like the whole JFK conspiracy by LBJ and Nixon. Everybody's in on it. Bush is probably setting up Hillary to win in 2008 so his brother Jeb can come clean up the mess. Then Chelsea and then Jenna.
5.19.2007 2:29am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Truth Seeker:

After about 2016 there won't be much of a Republican party left. Look at northern California—a one-party system. In Alameda County the Republicans often don't even run a candidate because it's pointless. California went from a Republican state to a toss-up state to a Democrat state as the Mexicans became an ever greater fraction of the population. Florida is transition. Even Texas will succumb. So you tell me, how are the Republicans ever going to capture the White House when TX and FL become solidly blue states? The inexorable arithmetic of the demography doom them to extinction.
5.19.2007 2:51am
Dave N (mail):
A. Zarkov:

I think that Republicans don't run in Alameda County because there aren't that many Republicans there. Just like you don't see that many Democrats running in say, Provo, Utah.

Your assumption is based on a sollogysm--all Latino immigrants will vote Democrat and thus Republicans can't win in the future.

If you actually look at voting studies, the Democrats historically get the bulk of lower class voters. However, as these groups join the middle class, they tend to become more Republican.

African-Americans are the one group for which this has not been true. Latinos, particularly non-Mexican Latinos, seem to follow the historical trends I have noted. Indeed, in Florida, the Cuban middle class fled Castro--and it was both the "middle-class values" AND the pronounced anti-Communism that caused Cuban-American voters to vote overwhelmingly Republican.


RMCACE: You are right about the common law definition of burlgary (helpful when taking the MultiState but of little other good). Most states now no longer require the structure to be either a dwelling or for the breaking to occur at night. So if Sandy Burger entered the National Archives with the intent to steal, he committed the crime of burglary.
5.19.2007 3:45am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Your assumption is based on a sollogysm (sic)--all Latino immigrants will vote Democrat and thus Republicans can't win in the future."

I didn't say "all," but what you say is correct, as groups move up the income ladder they tend to switch their party affiliation with the exception of the Jews. But Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal don't have high incomes, and the middle class in the US is shrinking, not expanding. The Cubans in Florida do tend to vote Republican, but the non-Cuban Hispanic population of Florida is expanding, and the expanding Miami area looks more and more like a third-world country.

The new Senate amnesty bill provides for a "Z" class visa with the right to bring in parents, siblings and children to the US. That means the current base of illegals can bring in three generations of additional immigrants, an additional 50 to 100 million people, mostly the underclass of Mexico and Central America. How can the Republicans possibly survive this enormous change in demography? Do you really think they are going to move up the income ladder and start voting Republican? Ha.
5.19.2007 4:55am
David Maquera (mail) (www):
All Latino immigrants do not, and will not, vote for Democrats. One of my mother's greatest regrets was not being able to cast a vote for Barry Goldwater for President in 1964 (she immigrated legally to this country in 1960 and was not naturalized until 1968).

It is a mistake for anyone to assume that all Latinos/Hispanics will vote as a monolithic voting bloc for one party or the other. The differences within the Latino/Hispanic community are striking. One only has to to discuss politics (at your own peril) with first generation immigrants from Cuba, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Panama/Columbia, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, etc., to realize that there is tremendous diversity of opinions regarding social, fiscal, and foreign policy issues. Furthermore, race can be a dividing factor within the Latino/Hispanic community along indigenous, Black, and the white elites descended from the Spaniards.
5.19.2007 12:19pm
David Maquera (mail) (www):
BTW, it is a mistake to assume that just because the majority of Latino/Hispanic immigrants are poor, they will vote for one party versus the other. My parents were indigenous peasants from the Andes Mountains of Southern Peru who legally immigrated to this country virtually penniless in 1960. Nevertheless, my parents identified themselves with conservative Republicans such as Barry Goldwater from the outset.

In 1960, Che Guevarra and like minded individuals were attempting to spread communism throughout South America on the heels of their successes in Cuba. Consequently, numerous labor strikes swept the region and my parents had enough. When they immigrated to this country, they viewed the liberal Democrats as being soft on communism and to closely aligned with labor unions. On the other hand, they admired Barry Goldwaters' tough on communism stance and fiscal conservatism (sorely lacking in Latin American countries in 1960), and free market policies. Accordingly, my family is conservative Republican.

In addition, I feel compelled to respond to a prior poster who scoffingly (in my opinion) queried, "do you really think they are going to move up the income ladder and start voting Republican?" As stated above, my parents were poor indigenous peasants who immigrated to this country virtually penniless in 1960. My mother was born in mud brick home with a dirt floor no bigger than your kitchen (I visited the now abandoned dwelling 10 years ago and was quite moved). After moving to the United States in her early twenties, she worked for 39 cents an hours emptying bedpans in Wesley Memorial Hospital in Chicago. After moving to Michigan in her early thirties, she obtained an Associate Degree in Nursing and became an LPN. She pushed her children to take full advantage of the educational opportunities this nation has to offer. Consequently, all of her children are licensed professionals with advanced degrees in the fields of Medicine and Law. Furthermore, all of her children have married spouses who are colleged educated with at least bachelor degrees if not higher. Not surprisingly, my siblings and I enjoy minimum six figure household incomes and invest in real estate, collectibles, and the stock market thank you very much. Thus, my family, within a span of 35 years went from being among the poorest of families in Peru as of 1960 to being in the top 5% (if not the top 1%) in the United States in terms of household income. We vote Republican and always will, thank you very much.

My family's experience, background, and history is unique. So also is the experience, background, and history of each individual illegal immigrant unique. Many will identify themselves with liberal Democrats. Many others will identify themselves with conservative Republicans. Others will identify themselves with Libertarians, the Green Party, etc. Time will only tell.
5.19.2007 12:44pm
David Maquera (mail) (www):
...correct "colleged educated" to college educated" in my prior post. TY.
5.19.2007 12:45pm
AK (mail):
If you're going to make a demography argument, you have to make the whole demography argument, not just the part that supports your preferred outcome.

It's true that in the short run, more immigrants = more Democrats. The Democratic Party wouldn't be so open-borders if it were not so. It's also true that (blacks and Jews notwithstanding) in the long run, the accumulation of wealth leads to Republican voting. What's missing from this analysis is that the white Democrat is on the endangered species list, because they're reproducing below replacement. Add to this the geographical shift the country is experiencing, with northerners (mostly white Republican voters) moving to red states, giving them more electoral votes.

The new immigration bill is a wild card, and ironically one that may work out well for the GOP. If the bill really is amnesty, as its GOP detractors say it is, and it creates a guest-worker program or halfway-legal status for border-jumpers, it may disincentivize citizenship. Why bother becoming a citizen when you can work legally in the US? Just so you can do jury duty and vote? Please.
5.19.2007 1:17pm
AK (mail):
The labels "Democrat" and "Republican" aren't good long-term labels anyway. Who would be more at home in today's GOP, EPA-creating, wage-controlling, Vietnam-withdrawing Nixon or tax-cutting, Vietnam-invading Kennedy? Which party had a higher percentage of its senators voting for the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

What's going to happen to the Democratic party's position on gay rights and abortion when its base is primarly Latinos, who are Evangelical Protestants if they're not Catholics?
5.19.2007 1:27pm
Dave N (mail):
I agree with David Maquera and AK--who both make excellent points. And unlike A. Zarkov, I am not overly concerned with Tom Tancredo's talking points.
5.19.2007 1:42pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Now for the third time, I never said all Hispanics vote for Democrats. Of course exceptions occur, even for whole groups such as the Cuban refugees from Communist Cuba. But you don't win elections with the exceptions. The base of the Republican Party is drawn mainly from the white middle class. As this base shrinks from immigration and changes in the economy, they will garner less and less of the overall vote.

As to Hispanics and income, of course many are successful, but that still does not change the fact that massive immigration from Mexican and Central American consists mainly of uneducated, poor people. Mexico knows this, which is why they so vigorously protect their southern border. While Mexico is poorer than the US, it's the richest country in Latin American. Mexico also does everything it can to export its underclass. The Democrats of course welcome their future voters. Why do you think Kennedy et al are so pro amnesty? But only a few Republicans see the checkmate coming. It's base does, which is why they are so furious. Bush and McCain are screwing their own party.
5.19.2007 3:04pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
AK:

"What's missing from this analysis is that the white Democrat is on the endangered species list, because they're reproducing below replacement."

White Republicans also reproduce below replacement. Even if their fecundity is slightly greater than white Democrats, that won't matter much because blacks and Hispanics have a much higher birth rate.

"The new immigration bill is a wild card, and ironically one that may work out well for the GOP …"

Where are these GOP voters going to come from? If that's the case then why do almost all Democrats support amnesty?

"If the bill really is amnesty, as its GOP detractors say it is…"

Of course it's amnesty. Look at the new "Z" visa. The government does not have the resources or the will to enforce the provisions, which might mitigate cheating. It's similar to the "land for peace" deal that stiffed Israel.

All the working illegal aliens, must be either working off the books, or using some else's SS number. Tax evasion and identity theft are crimes. Obviously these crimes must be forgiven or else they would get deported. That's amnesty. There is also amnesty for having entered in the first place.

"Why bother becoming a citizen when you can work legally in the US?"

To get full access for more than 70 welfare programs for yourself and the relatives you bring in under the "Z" program.
5.19.2007 3:21pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"What's going to happen to the Democratic party's position on gay rights and abortion when its base is primarly (sic) Latinos, who are Evangelical Protestants if they're not Catholics?"

The vast majority of Hispanics are Catholics. But the answer is simple; the Democrats will modify their positions as necessary to appeal to their base. When their base becomes primarily Hispanic, they will start giving speeches in Spanish. They can easily drop gay rights as they are a mere 3% of the population (4% male homosexual + 2% lesbian). The US branch Catholic Church will also modify their positions as necessary to increase business.
5.19.2007 3:35pm
Kazinski:
The idea that Republicans can't compete for the Hispanic vote isn't based on reality. Here is the Latino vote from 2004, sure Kerry won it, but Bush was certainly competitive:

Latino (8%) Bush - 44% - Kerry - 53%

Republican candidates have never written off the Hispanic vote in any state with large hispanic populations like Florida, Texas, California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. All of which (with the recent exception of California) are at least competitive if not predominate.
5.19.2007 4:32pm
Daniel950:
"The US branch Catholic Church will also modify their positions as necessary to increase business."

Don't bet on it. While there are a few bishops who are more sensitive to illegal immigration, they are widely recognized as cranks (like Cardinal Mahoney).
5.19.2007 8:22pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Latino (8%) Bush - 44% - Kerry - 53%"

Those numbers come from the flawed the 2004 exit poll conducted by National Election Pool. Remember those are the guys that predicted a Kerry victory. In the 2000 election, exit polls said Bush won only 35% of the Hispanic vote. I attended a lecture at George Mason University in 2005 given by a expert in survey theory who went into detail about the flawed methodology used in those 2004 exit pools. Use those numbers at your own risk.
5.19.2007 8:23pm
Some Guy:
"The vast majority of Hispanics are Catholics. But the answer is simple; the Democrats will modify their positions as necessary to appeal to their base."

And you don't the the GOP will? Give me a break. Both parties will adapt and both will survive. You seem to be contending that Hispanic immigration will be happening in a vacuum, not considering the effect that an influx of new workers and, eventually, citizens will have on other voting blocks. Catholicism is going to tear the Democrats on abortion, labor groups might be unhappy (maybe not the bosses, but the current workers), etc. You've over stated your case here, admit it and move on.
5.19.2007 9:58pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"And you don't the the GOP will? Give me a break."

Give me a break. California is now 35% Hispanic and 44% white. Have the Republicans "adapted?" It's now a solidly "blue" state. What happens to the Republicans when the US becomes 40% or 50% Hispanic? If the GOP exists at all it will be unrecognizable.
5.20.2007 12:03am
Don Meaker (mail):
Rather important to note why Sandy did it.

Many have pointed out it was probably notes written in the margin of one or more of the perloined documents.

Who that may have made the marginal notes is still involved in politics? None of the Clinton era cabinet members. Not Clinton or Gore.

Only Hillary. And if elected, she can pardon anyone who has offended justice in the past.
5.20.2007 2:02am
Dave N (mail):
Umm-Dan MEaker, Bill RIchardson was up to his neck in the Clinton Administration (UN Ambassador and Energy Secretary). He is now GOvernor of New Mexico and running for President.
5.20.2007 11:45am
David Maquera (mail) (www):
A. Zarkov seems obsessed with the fear that the GOP will be changed beyond recognition if legalization of the illegal immigrants is facilitated by Congress. I respectfully disagree.

Conservative principles are timeless: free markets, respect for human life, individual autonomy, strong defense, and limited government. The foregoing principles attract adherents from all races or different ethnic backgrounds, including Latinos/Hispanics. In fact, many Latinos/Hispanics flee (or have fled) from Latin American countries because the ruling elites have disenfanchised the poorer indigenous peoples of Latin America.

I know firsthand that my extended family and familial ancestors suffered greatly for the last five hundred years from the ruling white elites descended from the Spaniards. Consequently, there is a great distrust of banks, the courts, and government bureaucrats dominated by such ruling elites. Latinos/Hispanics like my family immigrated to the United States in the belief that regardless of a person's race, color, or ethnic origin, such a person can avail him or herself of the opportunities this great nation has to offer and better him or herself and provide a brighter future for his or her descendents. Latinos/Hispanics are not unique in having these hopes. Such hopes are what spurred the Irish, Italians, and others to immigrate in mass waves to the United States in the mid-19th century. A 150 years ago, people like A. Zarkov made the same arguments against such mass immigration. In fact, there was a great fear that these Catholic Immigrants would be the death knell of this country. To the contrary, although there was a social cost in absorbing the poor immigrants from Ireland, Italy, and southern Europe, our nation today is far richer and better off than the nations from whence these immigrants fled.

I can say with some pride that my family did little, if any, to burden the taxpayers of the United States when my parents immigrated to this country. My parents worked hard and were meticulous with their savings. They shared their burdens with other family members who also immigrated to this country. That my parents had no vices made their hard earned dollars stretched that much further (my parents were staunch Protestants who never touched alcohol, cigarettes, etc.).

However, I do acknowledge that there will be a high cost in absorbing these illegal immigrants into today's society. Nevertheless, I look down the road and see challenges such as a shortage of manpower in our armed forces as we fight the Jihadists, a growing rivalry with China which has a population three times larger than ours, etc. I submit that if this nation is willing to pay the price to absorb these illegal immigrants, they will work hard to better themselves and the futures of their children, which can only enhance the future of this nation. I know that a century from now, perhaps sooner, this nation will come to appreciate its good fortune in having the descendents of these illegal immigrants enhancing the American Dream and Destiny -- despite the misgivings of people like A. Zarkov. Furthermore, whatever is good for this great nation, can only be good for the GOP.
5.20.2007 2:42pm
David Maquera (mail) (www):
Correct "stretched" to "stretch" in my prior post. TY.
5.20.2007 2:43pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
David Maquera:

Nice speech, but largely irrelevant to my remarks on how a large migration of Hispanics will affect the future prospects of the GOP. For one thing you are conflating illegal and legal immigration. You also don't seem to appreciate the numbers involved. The current migration to the US both legal and illegal is unprecedented in its size in US history. Now when you say

Conservative principles are timeless: free markets, respect for human life, individual autonomy, strong defense, and limited government. The foregoing principles attract adherents from all races or different ethnic backgrounds, including Latinos/Hispanics."
you're assuming that all races are ethnic groups are attracted to these principles with equal propensity. If that's the case why are these principles not universal in the world? Do these principles apply to China? Do they apply to Mexico, which had one-party rule for 70 years? How about the rampant criminality and corruption in Mexico? Do you think just crossing the border changes people? If that's the case then why is there such a high Hispanic crime rate in the US? Why are 27% of US prison inmates illegal aliens? Why is the Hispanic murder rate so high?

Finally if your "extended family and familial ancestors suffered greatly for the last five hundred years from the ruling white elites," why come to a white country?
5.20.2007 5:22pm
libertarian soldier (mail):
A. Zarkov:
"Give me a break. California is now 35% Hispanic and 44% white. Have the Republicans "adapted?"
And the current--and recently reelected governor is from which party? Oh, the GOP. I guess the answer to your question is "yes".
5.21.2007 12:42am
David Maquera (mail) (www):
A. Zarkov,

The reason why conservative principles are not embraced by many other nations around the world is because they are run by non-democratic governments. Ever hear of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics??? Ever hear of the People's Republic of China???

In this country, our Founding Fathers had the foresight to create federalism and an extensive check and balance system in our government so that no one faction could easily dominate the government and/or this nation. Such checks and balances were sorely lacking throught Latin America after Simon Bolivar, Francisco Miranda, and their fellow revolutionaries threw off the yoke of the Spanish Empire. Thankfully, conservative principles may be embraced by those endeared to such principles because of the existing checks and balances throughout this nation's government(s),

Regarding your charge that I am conflating legal and illegal immigrants to this country, you are quite observant. However, I submit that even if the legal/illegal status of the Latino/Hispanic immigrants was not an issue, you would still be wailing and gnashing your teeth that such immigrants would portend the doom of this nation -- just as the Know Nothings in the mid-19th century wrongfully predicted that the massive influx of Irish and Italian Catholics would bring about the demise of American Democracy. In fact, your accusations regarding the purported unlawful nature of the Latino/Hispanic immigrants are reminiscent of the same charges hurled against the "Fightin' Irish" and the Italians who were all viewed as being members of the Mafia.

As for why my family immigrated to "a white country," it was because unlike Peru, the United States is a land of opportunity -- for all races and all immigrants. My parents' belief in this country as a land of opportunity for us was punctuated when my mother (father is long deceased) attended the ceremony in which I was first sworn in as a local official of a Township in Michigan of which Latinos/Hispanics comprise no more than one (1) percent of the population. Winning elective office was an opportunity foreclosed in Peru for half a millenium to my fellow peasants in the Andes Mountains of southern Peru, and yet, achieved by my family within 30 years after immigrating to this country.
5.21.2007 10:16am