Archive for the ‘Illegal Immigration’ Category

Amnesty AssClowns

Monday, April 29th, 2013

An Unenforced Law

Speaking of the people who are fiddling while the nation burns, here’s a group happily stoking the fire.  While average Americans struggle to keep their heads above water, inside the DC beltway, the same crowd Sarah Palin observed “yukkin’ it up” at the White House Correspondents Dinner are actively plotting the end of the republic.  After all, it’s a new week and therefore a new opportunity to shove despicable legislation down throats of the American people to which most of them stand opposed.  As Byron York has pointed out in the pages of the Washington Examiner, your criticisms of the bill are being ignored.  They know you’re opposed, but they’re pretending not to hear you.  As York also reported, despite the fact that the response has been overwhelmingly negative to a page put up by Marco Rubio(R-FL) to take suggestions for improving the Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill, there has been no indication that Rubio or other members of the “Gang-of-Eight” have any intentions of backing down.  Yes, if there is anybody in Washington DC who is completely out of touch with American people, the Amnesty AssClowns are at the head of the class.

One friend today quipped that the reason Barack Obama is pushing so hard for an amnesty bill is that he will avail himself of the law, but one needn’t make jokes about the President’s questionable origins to get the real point across: If an amnesty bill passes the Congress, the Democrat Party will own the keys to the  kingdom in perpetuity.  Nobody is more conscious of that fact than Barack Hussein Obama.  It represents the opportunity to demolish  conservatives in the mid-terms next year, in which a large  number of fast-tracked illegals would move down the proposed “path  to citizenship,” offering Democrats an opportunity to pass any bill  they please.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the attendees at the White House Correspondents Dinner are indeed out of touch with the mainstream of America.  In the aftermath of the Boston Marathon Bombings, Americans have been reminded how a lack of enforcement of existing laws has made us more vulnerable at home, so they’re understandably in no mood for loosening immigration policies.  Despite the promises of politicians like Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Marco Rubio and the other members of the “Gang-of-Eight,” the American people understand that making allegedly tougher laws with hundreds of gaping loopholes will not improve our security, in part because it’s a logical farce, but also because more than three decades of promises on the issue have yet to be delivered.  After all, apart from a majority of New Yorkers, who really believes Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY) has the best interests of the nation in mind, rather than the furtherance of the aims and agenda of the Democrat Party?

This week, the Senate will try to move this legislation, and they will try to do it without amendments if Harry Reid can find support.  This bill is the Holy Grail for Democrats, but as I explained on Saturday, the reasons so many Republicans are going along is because they’ve either been sold a bill of goods by the Beltway political class, or because they’re out to negate the influence of conservatives in the electorate.  There really can’t be any other reason apart from ignorance, or perhaps money, and if you don’t understand how Republicans could sign on for the extinction of their own party as an electoral force, you need only consider the party shift of 1995, in which Democrats moved over to the Republican Party for their electoral survival, not because their views had changed so much as because they wanted to remain in power.  Many Democrats who had barely survived the surge of 1994 merely changed horses.  If this amnesty bill goes through, you can expect the same thing in 2014, only this time, it will be Republicans jumping ship to join the Democrats.

It’s going to be a difficult fight, and conservatives should expect that the permanent political class in Washington DC will do everything it is able to ignore any outcry arising among the American people, but after more than a week for facts about the Boston jihadis and their subsistence on welfare as legal immigrants, this may turn out to have been the worst possible time for the DC “ass-clowns” to move this legislation.  If your response is ferocious enough, Harry Reid could be forced to shelve the legislation to await a more opportune moment.  Some blue-state conservatives have confided that they don’t bother calling their senators any longer, because staffers are frequently rude and obnoxious, but the truth is  that the members need to hear from their constituents particularly if they’ve been inclined to support this bill.  Besides, it’s time to make good on the promise to turn Barack Obama into a lame-duck President.  We need this win – America needs this win – and we shouldn’t let the Amnesty AssClowns deter us from being heard.

.

Make sure to go by Marco Rubio’s site and politely offer your suggestions. I offered mine, but they’ve yet to be approved.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Amnesty, Congress, Featured, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Law, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

Immigration Reform Bill a Death Warrant for America

Saturday, April 27th, 2013

The Immigration Reform bill pending in the US Senate is monstrous document, and the results of its passage would be catastrophic for our nation.  Politically, it’s the death-knell of conservatism, but fiscally, it will accelerate the demise of our economy and usher in a new condition we might call: “Third World America.”  You might be skeptical of this claim, and I’d understand if you asked for some kind of evidence.  According to the group Numbers USA, this bill enacted would bring at least thirty-three million people to our country over the next ten years, but it may be far worse.  At the same time, it has been admitted by the US Department of Agriculture that their foodstamps program does not check the immigration status of applicants, actively advertising  in Spanish in borders states and even in Mexico.  As if this is not bad enough, the traitorous Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, is now professing the view that immigration to the United States is a human and civil right.  This legislation comprises an attack on our birthright, our financial health, and our political sovereignty.  The costs of this bill are too high to be borne by any people,and we must fight like Hell to defeat it.

Ladies and gentlemen, this really is the moment to draw a line.  As many as ninety-five percent of newly minted American citizens vote for one party: The Democrats.  I would like for you to understand that if thirty-three million people are added to our voter rolls over the next decade, chances are exceedingly high, a virtual numerical certainty, that they will add thirty-one million new Democrats.  What will happen to your “Red States” under this circumstance? The answer is simply: “Think Blue!”  Republicans, never mind conservatives, will find themselves unable to be elected in any place at any time. Remember in 1995 when the avalanche of Democrats changed party affiliation to Republican?  All of those and more will be going back. With them will go what remains of your principles of limited government, individual liberties, and fiscal responsibility.  We will see the nation as a whole become like California, and locales like California will become political analogs to Venezuela.

Your birthright is being stolen by the process of political dilution.  You will on some future day awake to find yourself in a foreign nation.  These ruthless bastards in Washington DC are intent upon stealing your nation from you.  In imagining US citizenship as some sort of human or civil right, what they are really saying is that they are going to throw open the doors to any who will come.  How many of the world’s billions of desperately poor will flood to our nation under the rules these people now imagine?  How will we feed them? How will we feed ourselves?  This immigration bill isn’t a recipe for reformation of a broken system, but instead a recipe for radical transformation of a civilization.

Some will insist that I am too harsh or caustic in my appraisal, but what would they have me say?  Shall I pretend that this bill represents only a “speed-bump” in the language of our President?  Shall we accept the claims of Senator McCain who tells us these illegal immigrants come only to “pick our lettuce?”  Let me explain to you what the sell-out anti-Republicans in favor of this bill are really trying to obtain:  You demand they behave and vote as conservatives, but they wish to be freed from those constraints.  In their states and districts at present, a Democrat could not win. Therefore, before they can change party and flip the bird at conservatives for good, they must set up a circumstance in which a Democrat could win in their states or congressional districts.  It is at this point that you must think very carefully and clearly: The easiest way for them to make conservatives irrelevant is to out-number them.  You’ve stirred-up so much trouble for them with your Tea Parties and your conservative activism that the only way to ignore you is to import a political force larger than you.  That is the purpose of these millions of immigrants they wish to bring to our country: To replace and supplant you as the dominant political force in the nation.

Who will insist now that I had been too harsh? Could it be that I’m over-stating the political impact of this mass migration bill?  According to Byron York, writing in the Washington Examiner, this legislation includes a number of loopholes that will fast-track many illegal aliens to full US citizenship.  Writes York:

“A little-noticed exception in the Gang of Eight bill provides a fast track for many — possibly very many — currently illegal immigrants.  Under a special provision for immigrants who have labored at least part-time in agriculture, that fast track could mean permanent residency in the U.S., and then citizenship, in half the time Rubio said.  And not just for the immigrants themselves — their spouses and children, too.”

“A second provision in the legislation creates another fast track for illegal immigrants who came to the United States before they were 16 — the so-called Dreamers.  The concept suggests youth, but the bill has no age limit for such immigrants — or their spouses and children — and despite claims that they must go to college or serve in the military to be eligible, there is an exception to that requirement as well.”

Have I been unnecessarily caustic in my appraisal, or does this bill offered by the “Gang-of-Eight” constitute a treason against the people of the United States?   Imagine if you will, my own state of Texas, under the constructs of this legislation: Inside five or six years, it will have become impossible for any office-holder at any level of government to maintain his or her position while remaining in the Republican Party.  The whole miserable lot will either retire, or merely change parties as happened in 1995.  Do you see it now?  Do you understand the dire meaning of our current situation?  We are headed for one-party rule, and your conservative principles will be swept aside in the building of the new Democrat hegemony.  If rank-and-file Democrats had any discernment, they too would be terrified, because they would understand that the only thing that offers any possibility of keeping their politicians honest is the competition of at least two vital parties.  For conservatives and Republicans, this immigration bill is a death warrant not only for the sake of politics, but for the sake of the nation.  Do you like losing?  If this bill passes, you had better become accustomed to the concept.  It will become a permanent condition for what will become a rapidly declining number of conservative office-holders, and indeed, for conservatives across the country. What you had known as America will be left in ashes.

This bill represents a threat against the American people far worse than that of al-Qaeda, because it will demolish the United States from the inside.   Those who have advanced and advocated  this bill knew or ought to have known its implications.  It’s intentional, and it is far worse than we had dared to imagine.  This one really is for all the marbles: We can be a sovereign nation that stands some chance of remaining a constitutional, representative republic, or we can fall into the abyss of a century of one-party rule and Third-World devolution.  The choice is ours, but if we permit them to enact this bill, it may be the last substantial political choice we are ever permitted to make.

.

Call, write, and fax your Senators. Emails are nice, but they go largely ignored.  Visit their home-state offices. It’s time for you to show up, again.  Call your Congressmen. Tell them that if they pass this bill(or any like it,) they won’t be left in office long enough to switch parties, because in 2014, you will send them home, while you still can. Tell every person you know what the game is, and what is being done. If we are to preserve this nation, this must be stopped.

 

 

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Activism, Featured, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, News, Politics, Tea Party | 3 Comments »

Calling All Conservatives: Time to Draw a Line

Wednesday, April 24th, 2013

Drawing the Line

I  realize that at this very moment, you are being attacked on all fronts.  Our voices have earned us a temporary reprieve on gun control, but they’re trying to tax sales on the Internet again, and they’re pushing a ludicrous, maniacally self-destructive immigration bill. I realize we’re all a bit depressed by the unrelenting onslaught of big government, and I would understand if fatigue had set in for many of my friends  and fellow conservatives.  Ladies and gentlemen, we don’t have time to be depressed.  We might survive an Internet sales tax, but conservatism will not survive the immigration reform bill now being pushed by the “Gang of Eight” senators, or probably the version being pushed in the House by none other than Congressman and former Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan(R-WI.)  The immigration bill must be stopped if conservatives are to retain any political future.

There’s a very good reason the DC establishment has co-opted these “fresh faces:”  They know you won’t listen to the likes of John McCain or Lindsey Graham, but you might be convinced to listen to Paul Ryan or Marco Rubio. They walk these younger guys off a plank, in part because they’re more effective than the old bulls, but also in part to dominate them and keep them in check. If Rubio and Ryan are ultimately damaged by the immigration debate of 2013, who will benefit? Setting the inside politics aside, however, let’s be blunt about the ramifications of the immigration bill: If it is enacted, it will destroy movement conservatism as an electoral force for a generation or longer.  For conservatives, this is a fight for survival and it must be fought with all hands on deck.

Naturally, there are others who see danger in this bill.  Among them are African-American groups who see the potential for making themselves less vital and more disposable to the Democrat Party.  Wouldn’t it be astonishing to find that in the House, we may see the Congressional Black Caucus moving to oppose any immigration bill because it represents an almost complete displacement of their power base in the Democrat Party?  It is said that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but in this case, we may see an alliance of the extremely liberal members of the CBC with House conservatives to put the axe to immigration reform. Honestly, if it weren’t for the mortal  damage this bill would do to our nation, I’d almost be inclined to let it go through unchallenged just to make the Congressional Black Caucus moot.  Apart from the fact that the CBC would likely be an unreliable ally, the fact is that this bill would do immeasurable damage to the country and leave us wide open to more of the same we’ve faced over the last decade, with the added “bonus” of the “Californication” of the rest of the nation inside a decade.  States that are now light red would become deep blue, and states that were solidly red would become purple or even blue, in the case of Texas, and Arizona.  You can forget winning the White House. Just forget it.

This bill’s rejection is as important to the survival of conservatism as was the presidency of Ronald Reagan. If we don’t find a way to stop this, it will finish conservatism for the next two decades.  More, it will dispirit conservatives and we will lose the House in 2014, resulting in two years of a lame-duck President who will never be held to account and who will then have two years of a majority in both houses of Congress, a condition that we will find impossible to reverse.  If you have any doubts about the seriousness of the implications of this issue, I’d commend to you this clip from Tuesday’s Mark Levin Show.  In this clip, Dr. Levin sounds many of the same warnings, and for many of the same reasons I have brought to you previously on Tuesday.  You can download the entire show from Mark Levin Show Audio Rewind.  Here is the relevant clip:


Alternative content

If you understand what Dr. Levin has explained, then you must see the seriousness of the threat posed by this bill. We must begin to attack the provisions of  the bill, but also the basic concept that they are trying to shove another de facto amnesty down our throats, once again with promises of improved security for which they have no real intentions to enforce.  More, it will weaken our security in the face of continued attacks by radical Islamists, with no end in sight.  One of the provisions of the Rubio-Schumer bill actually requires that this amnesty must not be applied to any who arrived in the US illegally after December of 2011.  The idea is that  this prevents the law from acting like a magnet in the short run to draw more immigrants across the border in a mad rush for amnesty.  The problem is that there is absolutely no way to demonstrate when they arrived.  That’s right, we’re going to take their word for it, since they are by definition undocumented.  How many do you suppose will proclaim that they had arrived after that date? Even if there was the slightest willingness on the part of some to faithfully apply such a provision, what is to prevent Barack Obama from simply waiving it?  Nothing.  There is nothing to prevent the whole thing from blowing up in our faces.

Paul Ryan discussed with Joel Pollak at Breitbart the questions surrounding the immigration bill, and Ryan claimed dishonestly that this would create new economic growth.  As I explained on Tuesday in my rebuttal to Senator Rubio, such an argument is a farce.  There is no net economic benefit to the people of the US from immigration, and in fact, a notable economic detriment.  As Dr. Levin rightly observed in the clip linked above, if we are looking for unskilled labor on the cheap, we could just as easily begin cutting welfare-state benefits to our own citizens and realize a real economic gain, since we would be removing people from the roles and they would begin to fill all of those jobs “Americans aren’t willing to do.”  I imagine that if their option is starvation, booted from clutching bosom of the welfare state, they will damned-well become willing.

This isn’t the time to consider immigration reform that will merely strengthen the Democrats in perpetuity.  This isn’t the time to create new and larger holes in our security in exchange for contrived and demonstrably false economic advantage.  We are at a point in American history that if we do not rise to fight against this, the loss of our country and all the liberties we have enjoyed is certain.  I understand there  are those who will see the looming Internet sales tax proposal as the worst threat facing us at present, but I must ask those of that view to reconsider:  The Internet Sales Tax can be repealed if it’s enacted, but amnesty is forever, and so is the electoral advantage to be gained by Democrats if it should pass.  When even the leftist political site Politico notes the grotesque advantage the immigration bill represents for Democrats, we are right to try to stop this at all costs.  The simple fact of the matter is that we can defeat this bill or prepare to yield our shrinking liberties.  It’s as simple as that.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in audio, Featured, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, News, Politics | 5 Comments »

My Response to Senator Rubio: Not Good Enough

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

The Hard Sell

On Tuesday, FoxNews published an op-ed by Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL) discussing his views on immigration.  I have some thoughts on what Senator Rubio has discussed, and I find some of his article misleading and disappointing.  Rather than simply summarize his column, I am providing a link to its full text as well as taking it on, point-by-point here. The article is entitled Here’s the Truth About My Plan for Immigration Reform, and I suppose I could start with the title: Senator Rubio’s column does much to characterize his plan in a generous light, but those characterizations do not seem to match the bill’s substance. He opens:

“Americans believe in the value of immigration. We are the most generous nation on earth to immigrants, allowing over one million people a year to come here legally. They come here in pursuit of what we recognize as the American dream – the chance to live in freedom and have the opportunity to work hard to make a better life for themselves and their families.”

Like Senator Rubio, and most Americans, I too believe in the value of immigration.  My own wife is an immigrant, as were my grandparents and great-grandparents.  The United States is the most generous nation on Earth toward immigrants, but this may be part of the problem.  Sometimes, our naive generosity leads to policies that permit people who have malevolent designs land on our shores.  Not all native-born Americans recognize the American dream, much as they might like to, in part because they are forced to carry the burdens of politicians’ generosity with the public treasury.  The chance to live in freedom is a glorious thing, but I suspect that if one were to survey immigrants who have come here legally over the last three decades, liberty is in marked decline in part because our immigration policies have and continue to inflict a serious burden on the American people.  It is the job of Senator Rubio and his cohorts to explain why Americans ought to bear more burdens on the behalf of immigrants. Such explanations should come in terms of concrete legislative language rather than flowery prose. Senator Rubio continues:

“The problem is that our legal immigration system has been broken for decades. It has enabled 11 million people to come here illegally or overstay visas. It is a bureaucratic and inefficient system that does not address the needs of our economy.

All this has further deepened the American people’s mistrust in the ability of their government to perform basic functions.”

Our legal immigration system has been broken for decades. It is not, however, the laws that are malfunctioning, but instead the bureaucracy that is entrusted with executing them. There are only 11-20 million illegal immigrants because this government has taken no concrete steps to enforce the laws already on the books. To the contrary, this president and his predecessors have intentionally undermined those laws, or in the case of the current president, actively set out to ignore them by issuing orders preventing their enforcement.  The purpose of the immigration system is not to address the needs of the economy.  Its purposes are to serve the needs of the nation in all aspects, not merely economic, but also security, cultural, and moral.  Senator Rubio seems focused on the economic aspects at the expense of even our national security, much as the recent attacks in Boston demonstrate.  That our current system permitted those two to gain entry to the nation and to remain is a damning rebuke of our current system, but unfortunately, because Sen. Rubio’s bill is more focused on economics than on security, this is not likely to be addressed by his bill. Sen. Rubio warns us:

“Leaving in place a broken immigration system -– and the millions of people whose identities are a mystery to us –- is simply not an acceptable option. This must be fixed.”

Our current immigration system is broken, but what is more broken is our immigration enforcement systems.  As examples in opposition to Senator Rubio’s claim, the Tsarnaev brothers were legally in the country and we knew who they were.  The 9/11 hijackers were legally in this country and we knew who they were.  It is not merely the identities of illegal aliens that is a problem, but it is critical to remember it is a separate problem from legal visitors who overstay visas, or legal immigrants who are permitted to stay despite convictions for crimes and applications to welfare systems.  The problems born of the bureaucracy are clear, but they are separate and apart from the conscious decisions by those responsible for carrying our laws into execution who for whatever reasons or pretenses simply fail or even refuse to do so.  Senator Rubio’s bill does absolutely nothing to address a bureaucracy and an executive branch that refuses to carry out the law.

“That is why I am advocating for securing our borders, improving enforcement, modernizing our legal immigration system and changing it so that it prioritizes welcoming people to the U.S. based on skills, not just on whether they have a family member already living here.”

Senator Rubio says he is for securing our borders and improving enforcement.  If I take that on faith, let me suggest that the Senator could do a good deal to remedy the distrust he laments by taking these steps first.  As in medicine, when addressing something one claims is an emergency, one must evaluate the problem.  We cannot assess the true scope of the problem until there has been a good faith effort on behalf of the United States Federal Government to improve enforcement and to secure our borders.  Otherwise, what Senator Rubio herein promises is a preposterous reiteration of existing law that condenses to the sentiment: “We are going to pass a law to tell our government to more forcefully enforce existing law.” This is an absurd proposal, inasmuch as a government that cannot be entrusted to enforce existing law certainly cannot be entrusted to enforce a more stringent one.  It’s akin to claiming, “OK, well, we’re really, really serious this time.”  As much as anybody, I think immigration ought to include certain tests as to what skills a person brings to the game, but is Senator Rubio seriously suggesting that people from India are less-skilled than those from Central and South America?

Senator Rubio continues, ticking off a laundry list of measures:

“And that is why I support a process to identify and register those who are here illegally. They will have to submit biometric data in order to pass multiple national security and criminal background checks, pay $2,000 in fines, pay taxes, and learn English and American civics. They won’t be able to get any federal benefits like welfare or ObamaCare.

Fines?  Most of the people immigrating to this country can’t afford $2.00 in fines, much less $2000.00. Will there be waivers for the fines?  Will President Obama simply sign an extra-statutory waiver to fines, like he did with Obama-care?

“Before they can even apply to become permanent residents, they will have to wait at least ten years. They will have to get in line behind those who are trying to come the right way.”

Why should they be permitted into line at all? After violating the laws of the United States, why aren’t they prohibited? More, what is the real chance that somebody who is told they won’t get permanent resident status for at least ten years deciding voluntarily to “step out of the shadows” and be liable for fines and a ten year wait?

“They will have to wait until we have a system in place to prevent illegal immigrants from being hired.”

What will make them wait?  The same farcical enforcement exhibited by the Obama Administration?

“They will have to wait until we have a system in place to track people who overstay their visas.”

People who overstay their visas?  Those are people who started out with legal status, having arrived here legally. That’s an entirely different law enforcement problem from the immigrant who had sneaked into the country in disregard of our laws from the outset.

“And they will have to wait until we implement plans to spend at least $5.5 billion dollars to secure the border through more border patrol officers, more technology and more fencing.”

We’ve been promised all of this before.  In 1986, and several times since, we’ve been promised all sorts of improvements, and yet despite a mass amnesty in 1986, the Federal Government has managed to let another 11-20 million people come into the country. The truth is that the number may be even higher, but we can’t know, since in 1986, and all the years since, this government has not kept its promises.  What Senator Rubio here offers is another promise.  I’m afraid that I must insist that government finally fulfill its past promises before we consider any more, in the name of decency, and in the name of holding my government to its word.

“I thought long and hard before taking on this issue. I understand how divisive it can be. I’ve seen how the left has used it to accuse opponents of their version of reform of being bigots and racists. And I would much rather be having a debate on the more fundamental ways we can grow our economy and get our debt and spending under control. But with or without us, the president and the Democrats who control the Senate were going to bring this issue up.”

Sadly, even Senator Rubio’s spokesman uses the language of division. As many noted on Monday, your own spokesman, Mr. Conant, abrasively and dishonestly compared the status of immigrants to that of slaves.  Is the Senator seriously suggesting that his spokesman is a leftist, or only that his spokesman has resorted to the dishonest tactics of the left? The President and his friends in the Senate do not control the House, so that any such bill could be stopped there if Republicans weren’t insisting on shoving bad legislation down the throats of an unwilling American people.

“And I believe conservatives need to fight for the ideas and policies we believe are critical to fixing our immigration system.”

I agree that conservatives need to fight for the ideas and policies that are critical to fixing our immigration system, but they must be the right ideas, and they must conform to conservative principles and the rule of law.  Sadly, Senator Rubio’s proposal does no such thing. I am anxious for the day when we can eliminate undue burdens inflicted on lawful immigrants, but I will not flex or move so much as one inch on the legal liabilities of those who have already broken the laws of our country. More, before I will accept any movement on this, there must be a good faith enforcement of the laws of our nation, and a keeping of promises already made.

“The opponents of reform raise important points about not rewarding the violation of the law. I, too, have felt the frustration many feel that our nation’s generosity has been taken advantage of by some.”

Indeed.

“But policy-making is about solving problems. And to pick the right solution, you have to weigh the realistic alternatives. Deporting all illegal immigrants is not a practical solution. But ignoring the fact that they are here is just as bad.”

Are we to take from this that while the Senator finds those points raised by opponents to be important, he’s perfectly willing to dismiss them?  One needn’t talk dismissively of the idea of deporting all illegal aliens immediately and at once, but one must explain why a good faith effort isn’t being made to deport as many of them as reasonably possible.  I have tired of this dismissive approach to the issue as expressed here by Senator Rubio and some others, who derisively suggest that we cannot deport all of them.  The country that launched three men to the moon cannot deport people illegally in the country?  Preposterous!  The country that invented the Atom-Bomb cannot deport people who have come into the country illegally? Nonsense.   Nobody expects the US Government to flip a switch and instantaneously corral 11-20 million people, pushing them out of the country the next day, but if there are 11-20 million of them, it shouldn’t be too hard to find one-tenth of them.  This insulting line of dismissal is one of the reasons there is a distrust between the American people and their government on this issue, a distrust Senator Rubio laments, but herein promotes. Who has been ignoring the fact that they are here?  The American people are too well aware of the presence of millions of illegals, because while they allegedly hide in the shadows, they seem to fill our emergency rooms and our schools and our courtrooms.  Who is ignoring it?  The American people, or their government?

“For example, passing a law that only focuses on modernization and enforcement and leaves for another day the issue of those here illegally is not a good idea. Because as the enforcement measures kick in, millions of people living here illegally will be unable to work and provide for themselves and their families. The resulting humanitarian impact will then force us to scramble to address it. It is better to address it now as part of an orderly and measured process.”

Again, this expectation that we will force 11-20 million people to pack their bags in one day is preposterous.  Can we not begin with a somewhat less ambitious number and work our way up?  No, you see, the Senator is concerned first and foremost with the economic impact on the nation, and businesses that employ illegals may be hampered if they cannot continue.  Welfare workers would have less to do, and therefore justification for their jobs. Senator Rubio should not take such liberties in assuming that we are so desperately stupid and childish as to believe enforcement could come at once and immediately in complete perfection.

“The only solution I know that can work is to reform legal immigration in a way that is good for the economy, do everything we can to secure the border, and allow illegal immigrants to eventually earn permanent residency by passing background checks, paying a fine, learning English and waiting at the back of the line for at least 10 years, at the same time that border security and enforcement measures are put in place to prevent this problem from happening again.”

Again with the economy?  I have news for Senator Rubio: The economy is doing poorly already. The easiest improvement to the economy by virtue of our immigration policy is to be gained by deporting as many as we can, and preventing those here from making use of our welfare state.  That would address many issues, including our deficit and exploding national debt. The benefits to our economy and to our fiscal condition would be immediate.

“The bill I helped write is a good starting point, but it is not a take it or leave it proposition. I am open to any ideas others may have on how to do this, and I’ve been listening to the legitimate concerns people have raised with the expectation that we will be able to improve the bill as this debate continues.”

I am glad that Senator Rubio views this law as a proposal open to amendment and revision.  If he’s serious, he could scrap the 800-plus page bill and offer a simpler one, as an act of good faith on the part of the United States Government keeping its past promises to its citizens.  He can draft a resolution stating that before any easing of immigration requirements can commence, the current laws of the United States must be in full force for not less than five years, at which time the American people can re-evaluate the government’s efforts to earnestly enforce the law and secure our border.  In short, get back to us when you show you can enforce the current law, a law you claim is not even as stringent as your new proposal.  If the new law is so much tougher, it should be a simple matter indeed to merely enforce current law.

“We must do something to end today’s de facto amnesty, and conservative Republicans should lead on this issue. Because without conservatives at the table and in the fight, we are ceding this issue to President Obama and his allies in Congress. And as the last four years have proven, that is never a good idea.”

Senator Rubio should grasp that conservatives have no need or reason to come to a table to negotiate in good faith when past promises have been broken and previous laws ignored.  If the Senator is serious about his concerns regarding the prospective actions of President Obama, he should surely join in the open opposition to the President and his allies in Congress.  Perhaps rather than preach to conservatives as to how they must accept the “inevitable,” Senator Rubio could instead join with other senators in sufficient numbers to prevent its inevitability.  I recognize the fact that Senator Rubio has worked hard at pushing this legislation, but given what we’ve learned about the concrete legislative language in this bill, he should perhaps consider spending more time on the bill’s reformulation than on salesmanship.  Sufficiently addressing the former would certainly ease the chore that will be the latter.  It is on this basis that I oppose this bill, because if a serious proposal were brought forward that would address the concerns of conservatives, complying with their cherished principles without dismissively deriding them as unrealistic, conservatives might well go along.  Until then, I must respectfully disagree with the Senator’s bill. Simply put, it’s not good enough.

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Conservatism, Featured, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Law, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

The Dishonesty of the Gang of Eight

Tuesday, April 23rd, 2013

Water Carrier?

Breitbart is carrying informative stories on the bogus “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” bill that is being pushed by the “Gang of Eight” senators.  I would urge readers to pay close attention to Breitbart.com for more news on the issue.  Byron York of the Examiner is also doing fantastic work exposing the gaping holes in this bill.  Breitbart’s William Bigelow has revealed another fatal flaw in the supposed reforms offered by the Rubio-Schumer/Gang-of-Eight bill that will leave a giant opening for the administration to do absolutely nothing in enforcing the allegedly strict measures contained in the new law.  As reported by the Byron York, via the Examiner.com, the feature of the bill described by Marco Rubio on Mark Levin’s show last week that would create a commission including the four border-state governors is nothing less than a sham.  There are no teeth to the provision, and no means by which to guarantee that provided there are recommendations by a commission of four governors, but also six bureaucrats selected by the President, any of these recommendations would see the light of day.  York explains:

“It sounded tough, intended to convince skeptical conservatives that reform would be based on stringent border security.  But as it turns out, the structure Gang sources described is simply not in the bill.”

York continues:

“In the legislation, the Commission would be formed if the Secretary of Homeland Security “certifies that the Department has not achieved effective control in all high-risk border sectors during any fiscal year beginning from the date that is five years after the enactment of this Act.” The Commission’s “primary responsibility,” according to the bill, “shall be making recommendations to the President, the Secretary, and Congress on policies to achieve and maintain the border security goal” of 100 percent surveillance and 90 percent apprehension.  The Commission will have six months to write a report “setting forth specific recommendations for policies for achieving and maintaining the border security goals [specified in the bill].”  That report shall contain, according to the bill, “recommendations for the personnel, infrastructure, technology, and other resources required to achieve and maintain [those goals].””

As if this isn’t bad enough, York then delivers what should be the final nail in the coffin of this horrible legislation:

“The bill requires that the head of the Government Accountability Office then review the report to determine whether the Commission’s recommendations are likely to work and what they will cost.  And then — the process stops.  “The Commission shall terminate 30 days after the date on which the report is submitted,” says the bill.

“There is nothing about the Commission going from “being an advisory panel to a policy-making one.”  The strict trigger that Gang sources advertised as being in the bill just isn’t there.

“As far as the “money set aside in escrow” for the Commission and its enforcement plan, the bill specifies that $2 billion “shall be made available” to the Secretary of Homeland Security “to carry out programs, projects, and activities recommended by the Commission.”  It is not clear whether there is any directive for the Secretary to actually do anything.”(emphasis added)

What this all means is that when Marco Rubio appeared on Mark Levin’s show on Wednesday of last week to explain the bill, he misled the audience and presumably the host. Levin asked tough questions despite being friendly with the Senator, but it seems that Senator Rubio “dissembled” a bit on some of the details.  The Daily Caller quotes Rubio from his appearance on Dr. Levin’s show:

“If, in five years, the plan has not reached 100 percent awareness and 90 percent apprehension, the Department of Homeland Security … will lose control of the issue and it will be turned over to the border governors to finish the job …. which is not a Washington commission, made up of congressmen or bureaucrats.  It’s largely led by the border state governors, who have a vested local interest in ensuring that that border is secure … and there’s money set aside in the bill for them to do it.” [Emphasis added]

You can listen to the audio of the segment here, from Mark Levin’s Audio Rewind:

Alternative content

Unfortunately, as the Daily Caller goes on to detail, this is a bit less than fully honest:

“True, the bill does create a $2B pot of money for the DHS to use to carry out the commission’s recommendations–but there’s nothing that compels the DHS to actually spend it on all of them, or any of them, let alone to actually achieve the “90 percent apprehension” goal.

“Nor, if the goal isn’t reached, does the bill delay the issuance of green cards to the already-legalized former illegals (as Rubio at one point seems to suggest to Levin).

“Oh, and the commission isn’t “made up of the governors” of the border states–they only control four of the 10 commission seats. The other six are “Washington” appointments (see pages 14-15)

“Aside from those things, everything Rubio said about the commission was true.”

Whether the statements of Senator Rubio were intentionally misleading, or whether he is simply being led around by the nose by staff or other senators on the plain language of the bill, what is deeply troubling is that by appearing on the Mark Levin Show, repeating falsehoods(whether or not he knew them to be falsehoods,) Senator Rubio has done much to contribute to the lack of ill will and distrust over this legislation.  Whatever other supposed virtues this legislation may have, it’s wrecked by the propaganda being spread in this instance by Senator Rubio.

As this goes on, Rubio’s own spokesman, Alex Conant, is on Twitter comparing immigrants, legal and illegal, to slaves, H/T Twitchy:

Alex Conant @AlexConant

@conncarroll We haven’t had a cohort of people living permanently in US without full rights of citizenship since slavery.

If this is the attitude of Rubio’s spokesman, one must wonder about the strategy being employed by Rubio. The claim that immigrant are akin to slaves is a ridiculous notion, and frankly, Rubio should fire Conant.  It leaves open the question as to whether Senator Rubio might endorse such notions, and while I doubt that to be the case, it won’t help the Senator’s cause. Likewise, it isn’t helpful when one sees a conservative senator going around arm-in-arm with Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY,) one has every reason to believe that Rubio may have relied on the characterization of the bill provided by the likes of Schumer.  I wonder if Rubio isn’t being made a patsy, but then again, I’m not sure it matters because there is something disturbing about a purportedly “conservative” senator relying on the explanations of the legislation of anybody.  Why isn’t he reading the language?

Schumer has taken a slightly different approach, going on the offense and claiming that some would use the occasion of the Boston Marathon Bombing to stall or obstruct the Immigration Reform legislation.  I must say that given the disclosures about the actual provisions of the bill revealed over the last week, I sincerely hope some conservative senators will do precisely that.  It makes no sense to pretend that this ridiculous immigration bill will accomplish anything but to make our nation less secure, and the Boston bombing clearly exposes that for the average citizen. The dishonesty being employed by proponents of this legislation is very much like an Obama campaign, and that’s all the more despicable when you think that a rising star in the Republican party may have diminished himself into nothing more than a flash in the pan.  That’s a sad prospect, one that could be headed-off if these politicians would simply read the legislation they’re advocating.  Senator Rubio owes us an explanation for the incomprehensibly misleading statements made on Levin’s show, but one probably won’t be forthcoming.  Draw your own conclusions as to the reason(s).


Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in audio, Conservatism, Featured, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Mark Levin, Politics | 1 Comment »

Rubio Joins Forces With Norquist, CATO on Immigration Lie

Monday, April 22nd, 2013

Breitbart is reporting that a number of secret emails demonstrate that Senator Marco Rubio(R-FL)  is conspiring with Grover Norquist and the libertarian, pro-open-borders CATO Institute on messaging for the upcoming Immigration Reform bill.  Incredibly, they actually intend to use the Boston Marathon Bombers as an argument for the legislation, rather than as a condemnation of it. In this article, the talking points of Senator Rubio are outlined. From the article, H/T Breitbart:

The message contained three talking points from Sen. Rubio, the first of which argued that the immigration bill would prevent people like the Boston Marathon terrorists from getting into or staying in the country.

“These terrorists came here under the existing system, the one opponents of reform want to leave in place,” Sen. Rubio wrote in his first talking point.

The second Rubio talking point argued that the terrorists “didn’t cross the border” to get into America.

In his third talking point, Rubio argued that authorities only know who the terrorists are because they came here legally to begin with.

Let’s take these one at a time. These terrorists did indeed come here under the existing system, as the talking point asserts, but what the talking point leaves out is that the last four presidents’ administrations have done nothing but undermine the existing laws in a grotesque dereliction of their duties to uphold the law.

Rubio would argue that the terrorists “didn’t cross the border.” What he’s suggesting here is that they were in the country legally, but as a matter of fact, anybody who enters the US is crossing the border, whether they do it legally or illegally.  If our immigration laws had been enforced, they might well still have made legal entry, but after the domestic violence conviction, the elder Tamerlan Tsarnaev would have been deported at the very least.  Rubio’s twisted attempt to dismiss these facts by dishonestly characterizing the problem with the bombers actually exposes the fatal flaws in his proposed legislation: One would have to believe that this president (or any other) would actually act in earnest execution of that office to deport criminals.  We have more than two decades of evidence that this would not happen.

Rubio’s last argument is the most preposterous of all.  He implies that by legalizing various people, we would know “who they are” but the fact is that we knew who the two Boston bombers were and it did nothing to prevent their criminal, terroristic acts.  He pretends that  “knowing who they are” would have improved things, but the salient truth is that because we were not tracking or monitoring them as immigrants, we didn’t know who they were with respect to these bombings and other crimes until they were identified by virtue of footage at the scene of their crimes.  It is an embarrassing attempt to deflect criticism of the immigration bill, in part because  all he offers is excuses for how the new proposal would improve security despite all the evidence that makes it plain his proposition is fanciful at best.

It’s not uncommon for Charles “Chuck-U” Schumer(D-NY) to lie to the American people, and to attempt to push bad law on the basis of worse arguments, but to see Senator Rubio joining in this tactic is disappointing to say the least.  If Senator Rubio had any sense, he’d flee from this as quick as quick can, but it seems as though he’s been captured rather quickly by the Washington DC establishment that rules against the will of the American people.

The  plain fact is that the terrorist bombings in Boston should act as a natural brake on this immigration reform bill, but once again, it’s easier to lie to the American people and push ahead with a law they are bound and determined to shove down our throats.  I’m sick of it.  I’m sick of the betrayals.  I’m sick of finding that alleged “Tea Party Senators” are nothing of the kind when it comes to the issues.   Where is Senator Rubio’s jobs bill?  Where is his budget-cutting proposal?  Did he have secret emails with Norquist and CATO over those issues?  Hell no.  No,  instead, he conspires with the likes of Lindsey Graham(anti-Republican, SC) and Chuck-U Schumer(Communist-NY) to give us a “bipartisan bill” that is really an example of one-party rule.  It’s the Party of Washington DC, and they generally win, while the American people lose and get stuck with the bill…and the bombings…and the bodies.

 

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Featured, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, News, Politics, Tea Party | 3 Comments »

The Shameful Statement of Senators McRINO and Grahamnesty

Saturday, April 20th, 2013

It should be incomprehensible that politicians who have helped to create our immigration woes would seize on the opportunity of the Boston attack to pimp their latest bad idea, but that’s precisely what happened on Friday night. Worried that some Americans might catch on to the fact that the bombers in the Boston Marathon case were immigrants legally in this country, and fearing that these inevitable disclosures would damage their efforts at making immigration even easier, Senators John McCain(anti-Republican, AZ) and Lindsey Graham(anti-Republican, SC) made the case that the case for pending legislation on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” was now more important than ever.  Suspect number two wasn’t yet in custody when the RINO twins issued a joint bit of dishonest propaganda:

In the wake of this week’s terrorist attack in Boston, some have already suggested that the circumstances of this terrible tragedy are justification for delaying or stopping entirely the effort for comprehensive immigration reform.

In fact the opposite is true: Immigration reform will strengthen our nation’s security by helping us identify exactly who has entered our country and who has left – a basic function of government that our broken immigration system is incapable of accomplishing today. The status quo is unacceptable.

We have 11 million people living in the shadows, which leaves this nation vulnerable to a myriad of threats. That is all the more reason why comprehensive immigration reform is so essential.

By modernizing our system of legal immigration, identifying and conducting background checks on people here illegally, and finally securing our border, we will make America more secure.

Senators McRINO and Grahamnesty should be ashamed, but since they’re opportunists who don’t give a damn about the American people, they’ve instead made what must be regarded as a maniacally pompous statement aimed at pushing their “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” agenda forward despite  all the facts that make plain the absurdities of their ideas.

These two bombers weren’t “living in the shadows.”  They were right there, in the open, and at least one of them had a previous conviction for domestic violence.  Why was he still in the country?  Are we to believe the preposterous assertion that the elder Tsarnaev brother would have been deported under CIR?  No way.  Their mother is a convicted thief, and she still resides in the United States.  Why?

The immigration reform legislation being pushed by these two sell-outs won’t do a thing to lessen the problem, but instead threatens to  worsen the problem.  The two senators allege that we have 11 million people “living in the shadows,” but has either considered that some significant proportion of them would just as soon remain in the murky darkness on the fringes of our society?  To pretend that every immigrant is just a hard-working American-in-waiting is a preposterous absurdity.  The evidence tells a different story, and the fact is that among the 11-20 million illegal aliens now in the United States, there is a significant number who are evading justice in their home country, or who have already committed serious crimes in this country.

Given his service record, many are willing to give Senator McCain a pass, but I think that service record means he should be more cognizant than his colleagues in the Senate regarding the security interests of the American people.  Instead, he and his sidekick from South Carolina are waging an immoral war against the American people, siding with the likes of Barack Obama who will preside over any law these two push through the Senate.  Our current president refuses to enforce the immigration laws as exist right now, but we’re to believe that he will magically change his mind should the Comprehensive Immigration Reform proposals of these two senators be enacted? It’s preposterous on its face.

I am more than a little fatigued with Washington DC establishment politicians urinating on our heads while telling us it’s merely raining.  Senators McCain and Graham should be ashamed of this, but the fact is that they have no discernible shame, otherwise they would retire and make way for candidates who are willing to fight against Obama’s agenda, rather than propping it up and supporting it.  The American people express what should be a simple demand: Secure the border first. Deport illegals and resident aliens who commit crimes, even minor ones, because these should serve as warnings about worse things to come.  Instead, these two Senators are more concerned with pushing an agenda that is distinctly un-American than with protecting the American people.  They don’t deserve the title “Senator.”

In the wake of this bombing, what is clear is that the war against America is being waged by radicals from all over the world, and it goes on apace, while the war against Americans being waged by Washington insiders like McCain and Graham continues despite all evidence against their shoddy proposals.  Rather than expressing their concerns for the people whose lives were wrecked or destroyed in Boston this week, these two Senators were more interested in seeing to it that their pet legislation would not be derailed.  Senator McCain wants to disarm you, as demonstrated by his vote on the failed gun bill.  Now he wants to invite in more people, and legalize some who are already here, some of whom may be out to kill you.  Do the math.  “Despicable” and “shameful” are the only words that cross my mind when I think of these two senators, and particularly Senator McCain, whose service to the nation ought to have meant that he could be trusted to know better.

Sadly, he doesn’t.

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Featured, Idiotic Politicians, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, News, Politics | 2 Comments »

Obama’s Leak of Immigration Plan an Endorsement of Rubio’s

Tuesday, February 19th, 2013

Conservatives should not be swayed by theatrics. whether they are born in the bowels of a Rove operation, or inside the Obama administration.  Open collusion with Republicans on “comprehensive immigration reform” isn’t necessary, and in fact, it’s not desirable.  Obama understands that to get Sen. Marco Rubio’s proposal through the Senate, and also the House, it will be a matter of positioning.  It’s not as though the two proposals are substantially different, but that conservatives around the country will be treated to the few ways in which they are dissimilar as the critical differences that have caused Senator Rubio to come out and call the President’s leaked proposal “dead on arrival.”  If you ever fall for the belief that there’s no bipartisanship in Washington DC, think again, because the two parties are quite capable of coordinating, not for the good of the American people, but strictly against them.

According to Charles Krauthammer, the only substantive difference between the proposals is when the alleged “enforcement” provisions kick in, but the truth is that enforcement will never arrive if either is enacted.  You’re being set up, and that’s all there really is to that.  These proposals are simple reiterations of the Simpson-Mazzoli Act of 1986, when Ronald Reagan was deceived by pro-amnesty sorts in his own party.  Just as with that Act, either of these two proposals will provide for a virtual Day One legalization of illegals already in the US.  It’s made cosmetically more acceptable by pretending the legalization consists of two steps, but the fact remains that a legal status to remain in the country is conferred on the first day.  There will be no enforcement of any law against the scoff-laws already in the country, with only a legislative head-fake in that direction.

If conservatives were fully aware of the details of Senator Rubio’s bill, they would flee from him as though from a leper colony, but the whole point of the Obama administration’s leak of their own plan is to present one against which conservatives can rally, so that Rubio’s will be seen as the more conservative bill.  It’s funny to hear news analysts contend that Obama getting into the middle of this is a mistake because he’s such a polarizing figure, and that his involvement will poison the well of “good faith efforts” being made by Rubio and others.  That too is a misdirection, and a false narrative you’re supposed to swallow, hook, line and sinker.  If either of these plans makes it through, Washington DC and the Democrats win, as well as a handful of GOP establishment types.

You see, the thinking in Washington DC goes that anytime they wish to put something over on us, they must make a big show of the fight between them, so that we’re tricked into believing every one involved made their best efforts, and that whatever the result, somebody was fighting the good fight on our behalf.  Nonsense!  In fact, in Washington DC, the only thing that happens to the benefit of your best interests is when the Congress goes out on recess, and the President takes off for some foreign destination, because these are the only times they may not be acting from a legal footing to harm you.

Senator Rubio’s proposal is a sham and a lie because of the provisions that create an amnesty, but they intend to give us a good show and stuff it down our throats.  If Rubio’s plan passes rhe Senate and the House, going on to be signed into law by the President, you can bet he will happily sign it.  Much like the maneuvering over the debt ceiling in 2011, the deal has been done for some time, and all that remains is to put it over on you in such a way as to prevent conservatives from discovering that they have been had.  Be prepared for some last-minute wrangling that will lead to the ultimate bait-and-switch in which Obama’s plan winds up being the one to go forward, though in real terms, it makes damnably little difference.

Obama’s slightly more radical plan is intended to make Rubio’s plan more palatable.  There will be much apparent gnashing of teeth, as Republicans attack the President’s proposal, but in the end, they will be duped into supporting Rubio’s bill as the lesser among evils.  If you think that’s a stretch, ask yourself how many times the opaque Obama administration has ever leaked anything to its actual detriment.  How frequently does the media report on leaks detrimental to the Obama administration’s agenda?  Isn’t it stunning that the typically flat-footed Republicans had in place a ready response in the person of their State of the Union responder whose big issue is currently “comprehensive immigration reform?”

If we are to believe these are coincidences, and that Marco Rubio wasn’t waiting for the leaked story he knew would come, I think we may have problems with what might be termed “excess gullibility.”  In short, we’d need to be suckers.  Just as with the debt ceiling, and the deficit, it’s understood in Washington DC that the Republicans alone cannot pass the bill, so that in order to get something in front of the President, a piece of legislation will need bipartisan support in both Houses of Congress.  Washington DC intends to win this round, and they’ll play upon the partisan reflexes of the grass roots, when the truth of the matter is that both plans are abominable.  Conservatives should begin assailing both plans now, focusing their efforts on House members as well as Senators.  The real fight will be in the House, if there’s to be a fight at all, and only the House stands even a slim chance of stopping this.  They’re doing it to us again, but this time, we have no excuses to pretend we hadn’t seen it coming.

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Activism, Featured, Illegal Immigration, News, Politics | 3 Comments »

Kennedy and Roberts Join Jihad on States’ Sovereignty

Wednesday, June 27th, 2012

The Last Sane Men?

Reading through the tortured legal arguments of the majority of the Supreme Court, in the case of Arizona v. United States, it’s clear to me that the court is now stacked to a majority with dullards.  This ruling is unconscionable, and makes no constitutional sense whatever.  This is the inevitable result of our cultural rejection of the rule of law.  The absolutely dictatorial claim of prosecutorial discretion on the part of the Obama administration in enforcing the immigration laws of the United States is just the beginning.  Now enters a Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue in such a manner as to confound the will of the people, subvert the rule of law, and turn aside long standing precedents, or to misapply them in a manner that defies all logic.  With this as our backdrop, we must wonder why we bother with a constitution at all.

Among the eight justices ruling(Kagan having recused from the case due to her participation in it while serving as  Solicitor General,) only three seemed to have even the vaguest idea what is at stake in the case, or to bear in mind any context of what our constitution actually provides.  If it were not for the minority opinion of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joining him in dissent, there would be no indication whatever that this had been the ruling of an American court.  If this is any indication of the nature of our court as currently comprised, I suggest we get rid of the lot, keeping the three dissenters in this ruling, but otherwise starting from scratch.

Anthony Kennedy has always been a quirky, flaky, and vacuous, but to see Chief Justice John Roberts rule in a fashion befitting a leftist ideologue is incomprehensible, and signifies the worst decision since the abomination that was the Kelo decision. Ruth Bader-Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor are incompetent leftist hacks, and they ruled precisely as one would expect.  At stake in the case had been whether the State of Arizona could act to enforce federal immigration law, even when the Federal Government fails in that duty, or determines not to do its duty.  Apparently, according to these five justices, there is no distinction among the fifty states, and there is no sovereignty among them.  According to these five justices, the individual states are merely servants of the Federal Government, whomever may run it at any particular time.  Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion nails every issue, and we should take a moment to consider what it is that Scalia has said.  His arguments are clear-headed and succinct, if lengthy and thoroughly considered.  You can read the decision in its entirety here.  Scalia’s opinion begins on page 30 of the PDF.

He begins this way:

The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.” Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938). Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there. Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result. I dissent.

There is no way around this basic issue Scalia raises, and yet five of his colleagues on the court seem to have been oblivious to reason.

As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated: “The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).

Here, Scalia points back to the philosophical principles under-girding not only immigration law, but indeed all law insofar as it is to be implemented and enforced by a sovereign.  Here, a sovereign is defined, and it is clear that Scalia recognizes the assault on the very concept underlying the majority opinion.  He immediately delved into the constitutional justifications for siding with the Arizona statute, and he pointed out the distinctions one must consider in ruling on such a matter.  Clearly, Scalia lives and breathes the Constitution, while the majority in this opinion are shallow, tinkering fools.  As usual, Scalia offers tremendous logic to the matter, explaining that the Federal jurisdiction over the matter does not exclude the States’ jurisdiction, except perhaps in such case as there is a conflict between the two. Fortunately, as Scalia notes, there is no conflict between the Federal statute and the Arizona statute:

In light of the predominance of federal immigration restrictions in modern times, it is easy to lose sight of the States’ traditional role in regulating immigration — and to overlook their sovereign prerogative to do so. I accept as a given that State regulation is excluded by the Constitution when (1) it has been prohibited by a valid federal law, or (2) it conflicts with federal regulation—when, for example, it admits those whom federal regulation would exclude, or excludes those whom federal regulation would admit.

Possibility (1) need not be considered here: there is no federal law prohibiting the States’ sovereign power to exclude (assuming federal authority to enact such a law). The mere existence of federal action in the immigration area—and the so-called field preemption arising from that action, upon which the Court’s opinion so heavily relies, ante, at 9–11—cannot be regarded as such a prohibition. We are not talking here about a federal law prohibiting the States from regulating bubble-gum advertising, or even the construction of nuclear plants. We are talking about a federal law going to the core of state sovereignty: the power to exclude. Like elimination of the States’ other inherent sovereign power, immunity from suit, elimination of the States’ sovereign power to exclude requires that “Congress . . . unequivocally expres[s] its intent to abrogate,” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 55 (1996) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).Implicit “field preemption” will not do.

Scalia makes it plain that Arizona also should have the right to make their law more restrictive in certain respects:

But that is not the most important point. The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including a more rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States,” ante, at 15. It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona.

Perhaps the most scathing portion of his dissent arrives in this paragraph:

Of course on this pre-enforcement record there is no reason to assume that Arizona officials will ignore federal immigration policy (unless it be the questionable policy of not wanting to identify illegal aliens who have committed offenses that make them removable). As Arizona points out, federal law expressly provides that state officers may “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” 8 U. S. C. §1357(g)(10)(B);and “cooperation” requires neither identical efforts nor prior federal approval. It is consistent with the Arizona statute, and with the “cooperat[ive]” system that Congress has created, for state officials to arrest a removable alien, contact federal immigration authorities, and follow their lead on what to do next. And it is an assault on logic to say that identifying a removable alien and holding him for federal determination of whether he should be removed “violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government,” ante, at 18. The State’s detention does not represent commencement of the removal process unless the Federal Government makes it so.(emphasis added)

This should serve as a rebuke to the other justices, if any of them gave a damn, but it’s clear that Chief Justice Roberts isn’t interested in logic.  Has he too become a DC  cocktail party gadfly, or has he simply slipped a mental gear?  Is he seeking favor with the “in” crowd?  I’ve lost all hope that Justice Kennedy will ever be a philosophically consistent jurist, and in fact, I don’t believe he observes any particular philosophy apart from whatever may suit him at the moment, but I hadn’t expected the Chief Justice Roberts would ever join that crowd.

It’s clear to me that a narrow third of the court fully understands the implications of the questions of State sovereignty, and the divisions of power constructed within our federal system.  Justice Scalia properly frames this as a matter of Arizona’s sovereign power, and rightly calls into question the woeful lack of observance of that characteristic by the ruling majority in this case.  He also recognizes it might be proper for Arizona to repeatedly detain and arrest people who have not been given appropriate privilege to remain in the United States, and punish them accordingly:

The Court raises concerns about “unnecessary harassment of some aliens . . . whom federal officials determine should not be removed.” Ante, at 17. But we have no license to assume, without any support in the record, that  Arizona officials would use their arrest authority under §6 to harass anyone. And it makes no difference that federal officials might “determine [that some unlawfully present aliens] should not be removed,” ibid. They may well determine not to remove from the United States aliens who have no right to be here; but unless and until these aliens have been given the right to remain, Arizona is entitled to arrest them and at least bring them to federal officials’ attention, which is all that §6 necessarily entails. (In my view, the State can go further than this, and punish them for their unlawful entry and presence in Arizona.)

This should have been the majority opinion, and it punctuates the reasons why I have no confidence in Mitt Romney, should he become president.  There is little doubt that he will continue the work of his predecessors in appointing justices who will further undermine individual liberty and States’ sovereignty.  The majority opinion that will now hold forth as precedent is an act of nearly criminal absurdity.  If only we could clone Justices Scalia, Alito, and Thomas, we might have a chance to save the Republic, but it seems instead that the only thing to be duplicated in Washington is grotesque Federal government operating in absolute disregard and open contempt of the Constitution, a founding document that now seems on the verge of irrelevance.  If the best we can manage is a Supreme Court that will not stand in firm majority for the founding principles on which our constitution rests, what good is it anyway?  This cannot end well.  When you combine the effects of the ruling in this case with the Obama administration actions on immigration policy, it’s clear that we will not maintain our country much longer.  Thank Chief Justice Roberts and associate Justice Kennedy.  These are two who ought to have known better, as Justice Scalia’s dissent should make clear.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Featured, Illegal Immigration, Judicial Activism, Law, News, Politics, Supreme Court | 4 Comments »

Obama Phones to Illegals

Saturday, February 4th, 2012

The Western Center for Journalism is reporting that the so-called “Safety Link” program, known widely as the “Obama Phone,” that provides a phone and some number of free minutes to those on various “safety net” programs is now also providing them to illegal aliens in what is clearly a move to buy votes. This is the reason for Obama’s whole “Dream Act via executive order” that is intended to revisit the pending deportation cases of more than three-hundred-thousand illegals now in process.  This is a sickening abuse of our tax-payer dollars for what is clearly a partisan political goal, and it should be stopped, but it seems that the only way it will be discontinued is if this president is ushered out of office in January 2013.

From the article:

“A source contacted me saying she translated Latino publications, and they are urging Hispanic illegals to be sure to get their work permits, so they can get drivers’ licenses, so they can register to vote. In the Chicago way, are we seeing the Obama campaign begin now to pad their Democrat voter lists by providing illegals incentives to vote for Obama by paving the way to sidestep those onerous voter ID rules about 35 states have enacted?”

I would encourage you to see the rest of the article, as it is an eye-opening bit of serious journalism that reveals how far down the rabbit-hole we’ve already traveled.  Obama is going to use every device of tyranny to overthrow the coming election, and if he has to employ illegal immigrants to do so, he will.  He’s taking no chances, and if we ever manage to get him out of there, and restore our constitutional system of government, this guy and his henchmen need to face charges.  It’s well beyond dereliction of duty at this point.

Tags:, , , , , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Election 2012, Illegal Immigration, Law, Media, News, Politics, Welfare State | 3 Comments »

Has Obamanomics Solved Illegal Immigration?

Monday, December 5th, 2011

Small Stretch of Border Fence

Has our economy been so bad, for so long, that it has caused the flow of illegal aliens into the US from Mexico to a trickle?  That is the supposition of a Washington Post article, and while they point to other obvious factors such as the new laws in Arizona and Alabama, they find a way to dig a positive out of Obama’s poor job on the economy, while also suggesting this is the time for that “immigration reform” (a.k.a. “amnesty”) that the establishment has been trying to foist on Americans for some time.  One of the other things about which they do not conjecture is that under Obama, ICE has been ordered to make fewer arrests via an executive order implementation of some aspects of the “Dream Act.”  I find the entire matter to be of questionable merit, in part because the Washington Post has a history of trying to conceal this president’s failures, or find a silver lining to every towering storm-cloud that attends Obama’s performance as president, but also because this administration has failed the American people at every turn.

Naturally, the article documents this as a substantiation of Obama’s success:

The lower number of apprehensions supports the Obama administration’s contention that the border is more secure than ever — that the doubling of Border Patrol agents since 2004, along with hundreds of miles of new fence, cameras, lights, sensors and Predator drones, has helped slow the illegal flow northward.

I have reason to doubt the Obama administration’s efforts as the cause of the reductions claimed in this article, unless we consider the reasoning at which the writers finally arrive on page 2 of the article.  There, the Post reveals the biggest driver of the reduction:

“The arrests on the border are moving like the U.S. economic cycle,” said Juan Luis Ordaz, senior economist for the Bancomer Foundation. Ordaz and colleagues say Mexican and U.S. data suggest that the number of Mexican migrants arriving each year in the United States has been cut in half since 2005 — and that poverty rates for Mexican migrants living in the United States have grown to 30 percent from 22 percent in 2007.

Especially hard hit in the economic downturn — and the busting of the real estate bubble — were the home-building and construction industries, which employ an outsize number of illegal workers. “Migration has decreased because employment opportunities in the United States are not good. Fewer migrants have full-time jobs. Hours are reduced. Wages are lower. The amount of money they send home is less,” said German Vega of the College of the North in Tijuana. “And another reason is organized crime.”

So you see, even when Obama fails, he’s a winner, according to the post.  It’s small wonder that conservatives and Tea Party folk see the establishment media as a bankrupt source of information.  The truth of this article, like most we get from the so-called “mainstream media” is contained on the second page, if its fully reported at all.  In any event, this case points out just how bad our economy really remains, despite all the nonsense about “jobless recovery” and the other happy-talk with which the Obama administration has tried to swindle the American people.  That illegal immigration may be down for the moment is great, but the cause of it has nothing to do with the allegedly ceaseless efforts of this administration, but instead much more to do with the fact that the economy has yet to recover.  I’m certain that my readers will be as impressed by this bit of news as I have been.  Simply consider that we could have four more years of this…

 

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Barack Obama, Economics, Illegal Immigration, Law, Media, News, Politics | 1 Comment »