The Washington Times - July 2, 2010, 12:52AM

Rep. Pete Stark, California Democrat, appears to think security on our borders is not an important issue. The Golden Gate Minutemen posted video of an exchange during a recent town hall meeting on June 26 in Fremont, where the congressman asked a border security advocate in attendance, “Who are you going to kill today?” Mr. Stark continued to heckle and mock the town hall attendees who reacted in disbelief as the congressman disrespected his own constituents.  (all emphasis is mine)


Mr. Stark made such outrageous statements like:

 “If you knew anything about our border, you would know that’s not the case. Our borders are quite secure, thank you.”

What a ridiculous remark. The Federation for American Immigration and Reform cites Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Naturalization Services estimates on this issue:











INS/DHS Estimate The Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) estimated that the illegal alien population in 2007 was 11.78 million persons. This was an increase of 39.2 percent from an estimated resident illegal population in 2000 of 8.46 million persons. This indicates that the estimated illegal alien population rose by an annual average of 475,000 per year over this period.

The Census Bureau issued an estimate in January 2002 that the illegal alien population in 2000 was 8,705,421. That estimate was based on the discrepancy between the number of foreign-born residents and the number of legally admitted immigrants. Included in that number may be aliens residing in the United States under provisions that preclude their deportation, but who are not legal permanent residents, such as beneficiaries of Section 245(i) petitions, or asylees who have not been in the country long enough for adjustment of status, or Central American beneficiaries of the NACARA legislation.

“Tell me how to secure it [the border]. I’m not the government.”

Unfortunately, it appears Mr. Stark believes he is now both entitled to his position and does not need to be bothered with the tasks involved with his job, because his district has been putting him in office since 1972. Not only does he lack competence to do his job properly, but he willfully denies his role for his constituents as a representative in the federal government.

“I’ll tell you what, we’ll go down there, and you design the wall and as soon as we know that you won’t shoot the people coming over, then I’ll go down and start a ladder company, but I don’t know how high that wall is, and I’ll sell a whole lot of ladders for people who want to come.”

Mr. Stark just advocated for aiding and abetting breaking federal law and to add insult to insult…(profiting from it). 

“I don’t have to make fun of you sir, you do a fine job all by yourself.”

Mr. Stark’s condescending statements like this one above was not only meant to demean but also likely meant as a failed attempt to gin up the crowd and show how angry and irrational they were, but in the end, it was Mr. Stark who ended up looking rotten. It is remarkable how his constituents showed unbelievable restraint in the midst of being insulted by the individual elected to represent them.

“We still have for agriculture the Bracero program, which is legal.”

Wrong. The Congressman should no better than to say this. The Bracero program ended in 1964: (H/T HNN)

As the U.S. Department of Labor relaxed regulations on Bracero housing, wages, and food charges in the mid-1950s, more farmers hired legal Braceros; admissions peaked at 445,200 in 1956. However, Braceros admissions began to fall in the early 1960s, when President Kennedy ordered the Department of Labor to enforce Bracero regulations. The November 1960 CBS documentary “Harvest of Shame” convinced Kennedy that Braceros were “adversely affecting the wages, working conditions, and employment opportunities of our own agricultural workers.” Farmers fought to preserve the program in Congress, but lost, and the Bracero program ended December 31, 1964.

“There is no question that if they [illegal immigrants] are apprehended  under any circumstance they are deported (San Francisco, Oakland and most Bay Area cities do not deport illegals) The question is, if the Minutemen don’t shoot’em, the question is finding them. One of the reasons you have such a low incidence of crime, I think, is they’re scared. They know that if they are arrested for a crime, they will be turned over to the immigration authorities, which they try to avoid.”

That’s a funny thing to say, especially since Mr. Stark’s own district has what are considered to be “sanctuary cities.” Furthermore, according to City Journal’s Heather Macdonald, sanctuary city policies restrict authorities from doing their jobs and preventing some of the most violent crimes:

Some of the most violent criminals at large today are illegal aliens. Yet in cities where the crime these aliens commit is highest, the police cannot use the most obvious tool to apprehend them: their immigration status. In Los Angeles, for example, dozens of members of a ruthless Salvadoran prison gang have sneaked back into town after having been deported for such crimes as murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and drug trafficking. Police officers know who they are and know that their mere presence in the country is a felony. Yet should a cop arrest an illegal gangbanger for felonious reentry, it is he who will be treated as a criminal, for violating the LAPD’s rule against enforcing immigration law.

The LAPD’s ban on immigration enforcement mirrors bans in immigrant-saturated cities around the country, from New York and Chicago to San Diego, Austin, and Houston. These “sanctuary policies” generally prohibit city employees, including the cops, from reporting immigration violations to federal authorities.

Such laws testify to the sheer political power of immigrant lobbies, a power so irresistible that police officials shrink from even mentioning the illegal-alien crime wave. “We can’t even talk about it,” says a frustrated LAPD captain. “People are afraid of a backlash from Hispanics.” Another LAPD commander in a predominantly Hispanic, gang-infested district sighs: “I would get a firestorm of criticism if I talked about [enforcing the immigration law against illegals].” Neither captain would speak for attribution.

Finally, here is an interesting exchange between a candidate for Congressman Stark’s seat and Rep. Stark. It highlights the ultimate hypocrisy of Mr. Stark and his career politician life of 38 years:

Chris Pareja: My understanding is that when you first ran against George Miller in 1972, part of your platform was that he’d been in office for 28 years which was too long. You’ve now been in office for 38 years, all 38 that I’ve been on the planet and according to another article I read, you had, as of January, the fifth worst voting attendance record in Congress. My question for you is, do you have any plans for retirement?

Rep. Stark: I have no plans for retirement.

Considering the minimal amount of work Rep. Stark is doing for California with all those missed votes, what exactly does retirement mean to him anyway?