video: Saying ‘illegal’ immigrants fits definition of a hate crime – Spokane Conservative | video: Saying ‘illegal’ immigrants fits definition of a hate crime – Spokane Conservative |

In yet another case of Orwellian political correctness run amok, a video posted at says calling illegal immigrants “illegal” fits the definition of a hate crime and calls for the word to be banned when used in the context of immigration.

The headline at the MoveOn page screams “One word we hear too often on Fox News,” as if only Fox News calls illegal immigrants “illegal.”

A web page at Colorlines goes even further, giving words they say are more acceptable.

“The epithet ‘illegals’ promotes a culture of intolerance and violence toward foreign nationals, undocumented immigrants, and people of color,” the site says, suggesting:

  • Undocumented immigrants
  • Unauthorized immigrants
  • NAFTA refuge

The “Drop the I-Word” campaign describes itself as a “public education campaign powered by immigrants and diverse communities across the country that value human dignity and are working to eradicate the dehumanizing slur ‘illegals’ from everyday use and public discourse.”

“The i-word opens the door to racial profiling and violence and prevents truthful, respectful debate on immigration,” the site adds.

The site goes so far as to call the word “racist,” claiming it “affects attitudes toward immigrants and non-immigrants alike, most often toward people of African, Asian, and Latin American descent.”

“Silly me, I always figured it was used to describe someone who is in America illegally,” notes a post at Weasel Zippers.

On Friday, attorney Jay Sekulow discussed the issue on Fox News’ Hannity, and called’s effort “the politics of hate,” in essence vilifying an entire group of people who recognize that people who are in the country illegally are “illegal aliens.”

One cannot help but think of George Orwell‘s classic 1984, in which he wrote of the destruction of words in an effort to eradicate “thoughtcrime.”

It seems the left, incapable of defending the indefensible, would rather win with the debate by banning words, basically making them illegal.

Alabama Tackled Illegal Immigration and Unemployment Started Dropping – Gina Loudon – Townhall Conservative Columnists

Alabama Tackled Illegal Immigration and Unemployment Started Dropping – Gina Loudon – Townhall Conservative Columnists.

Alabama politicians ran on the issue of reforming illegal immigration in the state, mostly in response to an outcry from citizens hurt or unemployed by the problem of Illegal Immigration. 

They kept their promise. 

Last session, the Alabama Legislature led by Senator Scott Beason (R-Gardendale) sponsored and passed House Bill 56 that essentially upheld the federal law already on the books.  Governor Bentley signed the bill.  The beast was loosed…

National social welfare advocates descended on Alabama like vultures on road kill and the stage was set for an ugly battle.  Self identified “religious groups” (whose faux religion is social liberalism) scared the “bejesus” out of unsuspecting (and under-informed) religious leaders who fell for the threats of arrest and worse if they were to comply with Alabama’s new law.  The main stream media, from NBC to Al-Jazeera, was more than happy to do the heavy lifting for the so-called religious groups opposing the bill.  Cries of racism, bigotry, and mayhem resonated with those who are generally susceptible to such rhetoric. 

Patriots rallied for the rule of law and held the politicians’ feet to the fire.  Speakers at the rally included mothers of Hispanic babies, victims of crimes of illegal immigration, and those exploited by the failed permissive policy on immigration.  Politicians, especially Alabama Senators, listened to the people, and stood firm on their promise to keep the law in place that upholds the rule of law.

The Department of Justice sued, but the bill was upheld in court.  

Immediately after the bill (HB 56) was passed, the unemployment rate began to drop.  Since the bill passed last legislative session, in some counties, unemployment has dropped dramatically. For example, unemployment has gone from 10%-6.9% in the former illegal immigrant hotbed of Marshall County, Alabama.

But social liberals don’t tire easily.  Fueled by the throngs of union-funded Occupiers, those opposed to the rule of law threatened that the crops would rot in the fields, because no legal workers would work under the conditions and for the pay that the illegal immigrants would.  

But they were wrong. 

In fact, Alabamians were starving for jobs and the supply was choked by a massive influx of illegals who swallowed up the jobs as they came available.  Legal Alabamians stood in line for blocks at job fairs hoping for their turn to work the job previously dominated by illegals. 

It worked.  Alabama went back to work.

Further, the same patriots who held the politicians’ feet to the fire with their rallies, local talk, and blogs, protected employees under the law, while the opposition supported the contention that people, any people, should sweat in the fields, with no protection from standard employment  law, or fair wages. In essense, we did the job that the unions wouldn’t do.   

Liberals had to face the irony and hypocrisy of their dichotomy that what they supported was a permanent underclass without the rights all men should enjoy. While conservatives championed the positive economic impact as the heavy social welfare burdens began to ease, the crowded emergency rooms thinned, and unemployment continued to drop. 

“In the last three months alone, we’ve seen an unprecedented drop of 1.7 percentage points,” said Alabama Republican Gov. Robert Bentley in a January 20 statement.

Alabama House Majority Leader Rep. Micky Hammon (R-Decatur) said the law is replacing illegal immigrant labor with Alabamians.

“Despite how desperately illegal immigrant sympathizers have tried to portray this law as somehow harmful to our state’s economy, the truth is more Alabamians are working today thanks in part to our decision to crack down on illegal immigration.”

Alabama’s unemployment rate has shrunk and they have added 35,400 new jobs since January of 2011. 

Other states should take notice.

Bama Boosts Borders: The Immigration Controversy

Bama Boosts Borders: The Immigration Controversy.

By Quin Hillyer

Note: I host a weekly radio show on Thursday nights on WAVH-FM in Mobile, AL. Last week’s topic was Alabama’s controversial new law against illegal immigrants. Below is my opening monologue, slightly shortened and adapted into a news-column format.

It’s time to ask the question: What part of the word “IL-legal” do some people not understand?

IL-legal. Unlawful. Against the law. Not allowed. Verboten. Forbidden.

I hate to do this, but I’m extremely frustrated, as should we all be, with my former colleagues in the Alabama media. The newspapers, news and editorial sides alike, have turned into virtual campaign organs against Alabama’s new law dealing with illegal immigrants.

Day after day after day come the stories. The horrors for the poor illegals. The fear experienced even by perfectly legal Hispanic immigrants. Even the legal ones leaving their jobs or leaving schools. The produce rotting in the fields. Oh, the humanity!

Give …. Me …. A …. Break!

Instead of reporting about how scared the perfectly legal immigrants might be, why not actually do the job of reporting that the new law does not affect legal residents? Rather than report the fear, how about reporting the facts to dispel the fear. The simple fact is that not a single legal resident has personal reason to fear this law.

Oh, sure, the media thinks even the legal ones might suffer because they’ll be ethnically profiled. Really? The law explicitly disallows such profiling. What’s the deal: Does the establishment media think Alabama cops will break the law? Do they think Alabama cops are irredeemably racist?

Well… If the law leads to actual instances of improper profiling, then report on it. Until then, stop crusading. The climate of fear, if it exists at all, exists only because of misinformation. It exists in large part because the establishment media isn’t just reporting the fear but fanning the flames. It’s alarmism, pure and simple.

As for those IL-legal residents who now are fleeing: Good. That’s the point.

Now, let me be clear. Like Ronald Reagan, I actually would welcome more immigrants, not fewer. I think work visas should be easier to acquire through legitimate means. I think more visas for skilled specialists should be awarded. I think the whole immigration and naturalization system should be streamlined, modernized and humanized.

If people want to come here and work hard and abide by the rules, more power to them. Welcome to the United States. Come make us a better nation.

But don’t – don’t you dare, ever – make your first act in the country an act of lawbreaking. I don’t care why you do it: If you break our laws, you deserve no hospitality, at least not from our government or our employers.

There are good reasons for immigration laws. They aren’t about keeping out people who look different from us. They aren’t about keeping out those we consider alien. But this is about ensuring that those who come to this land of ordered liberty will understand and respect both sides of the equation, both the liberty and the order. It’s about making sure that our melting pot of cultures still maintains a common culture, while ensuring that people who come here understand our laws, understand our customs and at least make efforts, yes, to understand and speak our language.

Italians came and learned our language. So did Poles. So did Germans. So have people of all nationalities always done. A society is bound by common understandings and by a common tongue.  There’s no reason new immigrants can’t be expected to acculturate, or at least try. Sure, bring your culture. We’ll celebrate it as an addition to our own. But not as a replacement for our own.

Those have been among the historic reasons for having rules and standards for immigration rather than just having totally open borders. But now they aren’t the only reasons. In the modern world, and especially after 9/11, patrolling our borders and keeping tabs on who enters here is absolutely essential for public safety. Every year, statistics show, hundreds of illegal aliens from nations that harbor terrorists come across our southern border.

To protect our citizens, we need to know who is coming in and why. It’s a perfectly legitimate requirement. And to violate that requirement, to violate those perfectly sensible laws, is not excusable. If Alabama’s law makes an illegal alien feel unwelcome, then thank goodness for the Alabama law.

This doesn’t mean Alabama’s law is perfect. It doesn’t even necessarily mean it is constitutional. If it actually violates the Constitution, then to whatever extent it does violate the Constitution, Alabama’s statute is itself unlawful.

But, really, it is absurd to read the Constitution in such a way as to say that states can’t pass laws that merely implement existing federal law. Just because a current president doesn’t like a law and doesn’t want to implement it does not mean that it’s not the law. It may not be his policy, but it’s still the law. If a state wants to act in concert with the law as written, no matter how much it might contradict what the president personally wants, the state has a constitutional right to do so. It is federal law, not a president’s whim, which is supreme in matters of immigration. Alabama is wise to insist on that distinction.