Posts Tagged ‘Immigration’

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.

 

Advertisements

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.

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).


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.

 

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.

Boston Marathon Bombers Explode Immigration Reform

Saturday, April 20th, 2013

Terror in Boston

In Boston, the bloody attack on the famous marathon has given residents a sample of what it must be to live in Israel on a daily basis. One dead, and one  now in custody, what the two twisted, radicalized brothers Tsarnaev ought to have taught a nation is an abject lesson in the complete failure of our immigration policy.  Details are still coming to light, but it is now apparent that the nineteen  year-old, Dzhokhar, hospitalized in custody, is a perfect example why the entire idea of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” as currently being discussed in Washington is a complete and utter failure.  Dzhokhar Tsarnaev became a citizen of the United States on September 11th, 2012.  A mere seven months later, he conspired with his older brother Tamerlan to commit an act of terror against the nation that had adopted him with open arms. The elder bomber shouldn’t have been in this country, but thanks to an immigration system that does nothing to protect the American people from violent offenders, he remained in this country despite a conviction for domestic violence.

His mother spouted conspiracy theories, claiming her sons are innocent, but this comes from a woman who was herself convicted of stealing over  $1600.00 worth of merchandise just last year.  The two brothers and their sister along with their  mother have been on public assistance for much of their time in the US, and this is the thanks the American people have been offered in exchange for a foolish generosity that exceeds all rational boundaries.  The now-deceased elder brother, twenty-six year-old Tamerlan, was an engineering student, and with those skills, he apparently learned to build things like pressure-cooker bombs.  There is no doubt that  these two bear full responsibility for their crimes, but our government and its foolhardy policies are to blame for their entry and residence in the United States, using all they were given by a beneficent nation that too easily took them in.

What is wrong with a country that invites in people and permits them to re-establish their own sectarian cultures in our nation, cultures that are in direct ethical and religious conflict with our own?  What is wrong with a nation that invites in people who will become killers, raised, fed, and housed by our welfare state that is so greedy to extend its reach that it will take all comers at the expense of taxpayers, and this time, at the expense of at least four lives of people who would otherwise be with us today had these two villains not been permitted the opportunity to act as predators on the streets of Boston?  Schooled by you, fed by you, that vacation you couldn’t take as you were taxed to pay for their food or housing, or enjoying the fruits of scholarships  and other financial aid, these two monsters were the product of an immigration system that is broken but will not be repaired by the fraud being discussed by the “gang of eight.”  If there is any justice in the world, it will be that the moronic and morally bankrupt notions of “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” now under discussion in our Capital will have exploded with those bombs on the street in Boston.

The members of the “Gang-of-Eight” promise there will be no welfare eligibility, but we now know that members of this family of terrorists-in-training subsisted for some time on public assistance, according to an on-air report on Foxnews.  Why?  The mother was convicted of $1600 theft, and she remains in the US?  Why?  She should have been deported immediately after conviction.  ICE should have been waiting at the back of the courtroom to shove her onto a plane bound for her homeland, but that didn’t happen.  Why?  In 2009, Tamerlan Tsarnaev could have been deported after an arrest and conviction for domestic violence, but he was permitted to remain, according to JudicialWatch.  Why?  The immigration system didn’t fail them.  It failed us.  The welfare system didn’t fail them.  It failed us.  All of the stooges in Washington DC and around the country who will now assure us that immigration needs to be reformed  are correct, but they are lying to the American people when they offer their prescriptions.  We need to secure the border, we need to screen would-be immigrants more thoroughly, we need to monitor  them at least until they become US citizens, and we must forbid them from subsisting on the benevolence of a willing welfare state for at least that long. Violations of our laws should result in immediate and irrevocable deportation, particularly crimes of violence, fraud and theft. This shouldn’t apply only to those coming from largely Muslim countries or regions, but to immigrants from every country.

We cannot afford moral agnosticism when it comes to the integration of immigrants into our society.  The failure of such amoral policies are written forcefully on the pages of our newspapers and websites throughout the tragedies of the last dozen years.  We mustn’t tell people that their belief in Islam disqualifies them from immigration, but we must inform them that in the United States, in our civil society, the civil law – not the religious – must dominate the interactions among all people.  We have arrived at the sickening point at which we not only import terrorists, but also import people who establish their own enclaves and sub-cultures in which some will be subjected to those seeking to recruit terrorists or radicalize young people. We see this in the open, but we permit them to remain.  Do we not have enough evil-doers of our own without inviting in more, funding their existences, and bearing the burdens of their crimes against us?

It is not only Islamists.  From Mexico and points South, we import millions who subsist on our welfare, our health-care, and our generosity.  Our courts here in Texas are filled with the cases of robbery, thuggery, mayhem, and murder committed by illegal immigrants as well as resident aliens who import with them some of the worst facets of their cultures.  In some cases, illegals are turned loose for violations of law for which legal residents would be prosecuted, but that are much harder to contend with when you add in the bureaucracy of the Immigration service. Here in Texas, the number of people killed by drunk drivers who turn out to be in the country illegally is staggering, and all too often, they do not face deportation after their sentences, not because they “slip through the cracks,” but because our government refuses to do so. Let loose as a matter of policy after non-felony offenses, many escalate to more serious crimes.

Is it all Muslims?  Not nearly.  Is it all Mexicans?  Hardly.  Is it a troubling proportion?  Yes.  This is because under the leadership of four consecutive presidents, we have permitted the government to excise most notions of integration or assimilation from the process.  Our welfare systems invites the poor but also the malevolent to arrive in huddled masses on our shores.  I  have listened to the purveyors of “comprehensive immigration reform” peddling their wares to the American people, but there can be no doubt that while behind their marble columns, and oaken desks, they are immune from most of the consequences, we who fund this country are the first victims of their big ideas.  We mustn’t have a friendly and generous immigration system at the expense of the lives, liberties, and treasure of the American people.

As the President announced the capture of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, touting the goodness and resolve of the American people, I couldn’t help but wonder if our policies correlate with the Presidents flowery words.  It is this president, after all, who refuses to enforce our immigration laws.  It is this president who issued executive orders that will be found to have made it easier for the elder Tsarnaev brother to remain in this country despite warnings from a foreign government and a domestic violence conviction in this country.  It is this president whose administration now faces a lawsuit from ICE agents for being punished for doing their jobs by enforcing the immigration laws of this nation.

There was a time when the immigration policies of this country were aimed at making the country greater, but now our policy has become one that proclaims “come as you are and live like you wish, even at our expense.”  There will be those who will accuse me of being anti-immigrant, but being the grandson of immigrants, and married to an immigrant myself, I dismiss such foolish claims. Instead, I assert that America must remain a nation to which immigrants may come, but we must return to a policy that is a good deal more discerning and demanding when we decide who may come and who may remain.  The first evidence of one’s suitability to immigration must be a willingness to wait in line, abiding by the laws of our country, including particularly those regarding who may enter and under which conditions.

This sad incident had begun with the despicable act of terror by two young, radicalized men. These men had been here in the United States by virtue of our pity and our charity, and these among our virtues were turned against us.  This is only possible because we have permitted politicians to imagine that their personal feelings of beneficence  permit them the discretion to extend it endlessly at our expense, to all comers.  It’s not only this incident, but all of the lesser incidents of torment and murder that are enacted by people residing illegally and legally in the United States who ought not be permitted to stay, and who should have been ejected at the first instance of entanglement with our criminal judicial systems.  Hundreds of thousands of times each year, people permitted by the policies or intransigence of our government enact crimes at the expense of the American people, and the trail of dead and maimed is much longer than the media or politicians would have you know.

“Losers”

Perhaps we should adopt the standard laid forth by furious but ashamed Ruslan Tsarni, the uncle of the two men, interviewed in Maryland Friday, where he was asked by reporters what he thought brought about the behavior of his nephews:

“Being losers, hatred to those who were able to settle themselves — these are the only reasons I can imagine.”(emphasis added)

Tsarni, paternal uncle to the two bombers, seemed to be saying that these two were unable to settle themselves, a suggestion that they had not fully assimilated into the culture of America. Tsarni professed a love for his country, and explained that he teaches his own children to love the country, in effect, seeking to make of them Americans. He clearly regards those who won’t assimilate as “losers.”

This is ultimately the problem with our immigration system: It no longer screens out the losers, and worse, now promises them unearned rewards if they can get here somehow.  More, agencies do nothing whatever to monitor immigrants to see how they  are progressing toward assimilation.  The “Gang of Eight” Senators is going to have a harder job selling their indecent proposal on immigration, if only because this entire event highlights just how poorly the liberal ideas on immigration policy have worked.  It has created a wave of crime, a bloody trail of victims, and an absurd lack of judgment with respect to those who come to or seek to remain in our country.  A loose policy is not what America needs, and this incident, combined with more than two decades of tragedies borne by an irresponsible sense of benevolence on the part of politicians has created an environment in which this sort of thing may become the new normal.  These villains are responsible for their own acts, but our politicians are responsible for holding the door open to all the world without judgment.  They’ve let in far too many “losers,” because just like the 9/11 hijackers, these bombers were here legally.  As evidenced by the decline of our civilization, we have plenty enough “losers” of our own.  Thanks to the diligence of our law enforcement personnel, these two are off the streets, but sadly, due to an unjustly forgiving immigration policy, there will be more who will likely follow in their footsteps.

 

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.

 

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.

Rick Perry’s Immigration Surrender

Wednesday, September 14th, 2011

More Insincerity?

Let me start by saying that I know a little about immigration.  My wife is an immigrant, and even married to a soldier, the hoops through which we were forced to leap and the fees we paid seemed outlandish as we prepared to move to Texas from Germany.  It was simply another brief hardship we happily faced together in our young marriage.  After I left the Army, we concluded that Texas would make a great home, and it was here in Texas where we came face-to-face with our national crisis in illegal immigration.  In the time we’ve lived here, what we have learned is that both parties tend to ignore the problem and downplay enforcement.   On the Democrat side, there is a tendency to see illegals as more votes, since Democrats aren’t picky if even the dead vote, so non-citizens voting isn’t really a problem in their view.  Some Republicans turn a blind eye for another reason, and it’s simply this:  Illegals are frequently paid in cash, under-the-table, and for jobs in agriculture and construction, they thereby hold down the cost of labor.  This increases profits on any job, and it’s on this basis that many otherwise law-and-order conservatives refuse to rock the boat or challenge the status quo.

This has been true with Democrats and Republicans in the White House, and in charge of Congress.  It’s been true whether Texas had a Republican or Democrat governor and legislature.  Nothing seems to make much difference, and many Texans in either party are in a hurry to sweep the issue under the carpet.  As Texas has grown and its illegal immigrant population has ballooned, is it also true that our economy here has continued along better than most, in part due to our competitive advantage with other states.  Part of that competitive advantage owes to illegal immigrants.  Rick Perry enjoys pointing out how many jobs have been created during his tenure as governor, but the truth is that many of them are low-skilled, low-wage jobs, and many of those are filled by illegals with stolen social security numbers.  Everything has a cost in the real world, and while you may gain an advantage one area, somewhere, somehow, the cost are being borne by somebody.

Let me state plainly that I don’t blame anybody born elsewhere who concludes that their best bet for prosperity lies here in the United States, particularly when measured against the conditions of their home countries.  I understand, because I’ve been abroad to places where I wouldn’t have wanted to raise my child, or build much of anything, because freedom is so sparse and opportunity is so rare.   Let none misunderstand what I’m saying to be some sort of anti-immigrant bias.  Often, I think immigrants more readily appreciate the opportunities this country represents more thoroughly than some fair number who were lucky to have been born here.  It was certainly true of my mother’s grandparents.  For them, America was the greatest opportunity they had dared ever to imagine, and they set out to make the most of it.

With this in mind, let me state it quite bluntly:  You cannot build a nation that provides such freedom and opportunity without defending the rule of law on which these precious commodities had been based.  This means that we must require people to enter legally, and to obtain legal documentation to work.  Who can claim that it’s too much to ask?  If a nation is defined by geographical boundaries, and a common base of governance and law, who can argue that it may be maintained by ignoring its laws or its geographical boundaries?

My first personal experience with illegal immigration consisted of rescuing a young Mexican fellow who had been treed by a neighbor’s young bull.  Clinging to the trunk of an old Live Oak, standing on a stout limb some ten feet from the ground, he was in this predicament because he had wandered into our secluded property, and when he saw our dogs, he flung himself over the barbed-wire fence that separated our property from our neighbor’s pasture.  Landing in that pasture, the young bull came to investigate the barking dogs, and upon spying the young man, gave chase, with the poor fellow seeking refuge in the tree.  I managed to move the bull away, long enough to get the terrified young man down, which was difficult because he understood almost no English.  Once down, I led him to the gate and tried to discover what he had been doing there.

Another neighbor, having spied the goings-on, had called our local constable who was a fluent Spanish-speaker.  The constable arrived, and asked him a question, and all I could make out was that he’d asked for a green card.  The young man lowered his head, and shook it signaling “no,” and the constable loaded him in his car, and thanked me for rescuing the young man from his predicament before departing.  He explained that the young man was working his way north, looking for work, staying off the highway where he might be picked up by law enforcement.  I couldn’t help but feel bad for him.  He looked to be no older than 18 or 19, and he surely had experienced hard times well before he walked into my yard and then leaped from the frying pan into the fire.  My dogs might have scared him, but the young bull would have hurt him.  All this, he risked for work.  Being in Central Texas, if he had walked any part of the distance from Mexico, he’d been on foot a long while.  The term “economic refugee” played in my mind, and I knew what it must mean to people who come here from Mexico and elsewhere.

The next experience we had with illegal immigrants came when we had an occasion to go to the emergency room.  An incident with a bucking horse resulted in a trip to the ER, where Mrs. America was diagnosed with a broken hand.  While we were in the waiting area, a broken hand being relatively lower priority, we encountered a number of illegal immigrants who were there for everything from early labor to children with fever, to more serious conditions.  In short, the place was swamped with them.  You might wonder how I could know their status, but it’s really as simple as this: The lady who was checking us in and verifying financial responsibility took my wife’s insurance card, and said “Praise the Lord! A paying customer!”  Naive as I was in those days, I asked her what she meant, and as she shoved forms in front of me to complete, she explained that most of the people in the crowded waiting area were people who would never pay.  I commented on the fact that it seemed terribly busy for a Tuesday evening, and she remarked that this was turning out to be a slow day.  I asked her bluntly: “If they’re not paying, who does?”  She laughed at me and said: “Dear boy, that’s Medicaid. Most of them are illegals, and we’ll wind up filing for payments from the State. It’s called Indigent Care.”

As I returned to where my wife was seated, cradling her hand, I pondered what all of this must cost us each year.  As I looked around the room at the scale of the problem, I became dizzy with the implications.  My education had only just begun.  Next came the schools.  This is where I learned that in my daughter’s classroom would be children who were receiving an education for which we all pay, but whose parents don’t pay any taxes beyond those unavoidable ones on sales.  Slowly but surely, this all began to add up to something, and then one day, years later, I saw two people walking across my back horse pasture.  I wondered what they might be doing, when one of them inadvertently made contact with one of the electrical strands.  There was an eruption of cursing in Spanish, and I walked out to see who they were and what they were doing.  Like the young fellow of more than a decade before, these two didn’t speak much English.  They seemed harmless enough, but they asked me if I had any work.  “Work” was approximately the extent of their English.  I told them I hadn’t, but I could see they had been walking many miles.

What I realized as they left my property and onto the next was that they probably would avoid detection, and so large is the problem that even a law-and-order conservative like me had no particular concern about it, and had shrugged at the futility of it all, simply returning to the task at hand.  I too had become thoroughly desensitized to it.  Of course, if you live for any time in Texas, particularly in rural areas, you become accustomed to all this as an ordinary part of life, and therein lies a serious problem:  We’ve become accustomed to law-breaking on a wide scale, and no politician here or in Washington seems the least bit interested in addressing it.  Their answer seems to be to simply legalize the former illegality.

Rick Perry is just one more in a long parade of politicians who have done little – virtually nothing really – to discourage all of this, and the problem is that so long as we shut up and pay, that’s how it’s going to be.  Don’t misunderstand: I don’t blame only Rick Perry, not by a long-shot, but the truth is that every time somebody in our legislature has raised a ruckus and offered a bill on the subject, Perry has been there to shoot it down.  More, he’s been happy to sign things into law that effectively act as encouragement, and I can’t endorse any part of that, including the bill that gave in-state tuition rates to the children of illegals.  I realize that politicians also feel stuck between a rock and a hard place on this issue, but after all, for whom do they work?  The answer to this question may contain the key to a larger  universe of issues in which our government is intransigent in the face of our demands.  In too many cases, the answer may well be that they’re not working for us, but for other interests upon whom they rely in order to maintain their power, and as a result, we pay, often in more ways than one.

Barack Obama’s Willful Disobedience of His Oath

Friday, August 19th, 2011

Come On In!

In what has become the ordinary manner of operation by the Obama Administration, as I’ve reported to you previously, Barack Obama is determined to rule America, rather than to enforce its laws as the executive powers provided in the US Constitution demand.  He’s signed an executive order that makes the deportation of illegal immigrants more permissive, based upon a laundry-list of exclusions and exceptions that promises to serve as an open invitation to people illegally entering the country.  What this is, both in essence and in fact, is the maneuver of a tyrant who wishes to implement his own political and philosophical policy preferences to the overwhelming detriment and against the will of the American people.

Under this new policy, the Secretary of Homeland Security will have the ability to provide a case-by-case relief from the ordinary deportation procedures.  In other words, this is clearly a back-door amnesty program that is intended to provide more Democrat voters for 2012, but also to augment the growing army of young scoff-laws who may be mobilized to civil unrest on behalf of American leftists’ aims.  Yes, they’re importing an Army for future activation against you, and they’ll be granting them work permits too.

Those of you who wonder what sort of President could decide to do such a thing ought to consider what sort of President could set out to ravage the economy of the United States.  This sort of savagery against the rule of law is not to be tolerated, but instead of finding we have Congress members denouncing this, and threatening to exert their own power in the matter, what we have is the tepid statement of House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Lamar Smith(R-Texas,) with what is hardly an admonition:

“The Obama administration has again made clear its plan to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants,” Mr. Smith said. “The administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them. Officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”(From NYT On-Line)

It’s not only the President who needs to remember his oath in all of this, Representative Smith.  It is up to you, and other members of both the House and Senate to hold the President to account, and it’s long past time that the Republicans serving in Washington DC on our behalf  finally stood up to do so.  President Obama is disobeying his oath by reckless disregard of the rule of law for the sake of his own political agenda.  There’s only one appropriate remedy, and the constitution provides it.