Today our federal government officially jumped the shark. It couldn't have been more apparent if they had called Ted McGinley to testify instead of Stephen Colbert. Don't get me wrong, Colbert is great. He's a funny guy. But how in the world is he qualified to testify on immigration - in character, no less?
The reality show that is Washington politics of late has gone too far. By inviting Colbert, Immigration Subcommittee chairwoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) turned the entire immigration debate, as well as congressional hearings, into a joke. And not even a good one, with all due respect to Mr. Colbert, who was doing his satirical best:
Okay, so he was kind of funny. In an awkward, trainwreck-y kind of way. You really can't fault him for doing it - what entertainer in their right mind would give up a chance to play the Hill? Even the famous Onion, the University of Wisconsin's hilariously satirical newspaper/website, couldn't have dreamed this up. This will boost his ratings phenominally, and he will come out of this just fine. The people who invited him to speak, however, may not fare so well. Unless, of course, Rep. Lofgren is angling for her own show in case she loses on Nov. 2nd - in this job climate, it's every congressperson for themselves, and sometimes you have to think outside of the box!
Some democrats seem to be slaves to the cult of personality, and Colbert's appearance plays more like a desperate attempt for the party to be seen as hip and cool than a legitimate attempt to investigate policy issues. The fact that this opens them up to ridicule and lowers the profile of the US governement as a whole seems to matter little to Lofgren. At least Rep. John Conyers )D-MI) tried to stop the circus and preserve the dignity of our legislative branch. He most likely saw what many other people saw - the serious issue of immigration reform, the U.S. Congress and the democrat party in general being made a mockery of in one fell swoop.
In a country where Comedy Central's Daily Show host Jon Stewart is seen as the most trusted name in news, this irresponsible dog and pony show will only further blur the line between real world politics and political satire.
At least we got a laugh out of it.
Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label illegal immigration. Show all posts
Friday, September 24, 2010
Saturday, July 24, 2010
ARIZONA ON TRIAL
The federal case against the state of Arizona and Gov. Jan Brewer over SB1070 has officially begun. The feds are busily arguing their case, citing the Constitution's supremacy clause. This is the crux of the Holder DoJ's case. They argued racism in the press, but have chosen to go with what they considered to be the more solid argument of preemption in court.
Preemption means that the state of Arizona is allegedly stepping on federal toes with their immigration law. The feds are arguing SB1070 is unconstitutional because federal law overrides it, according to the supremacy clause; they further assert that only the federal government is capable of and lawfully allowed to pursue immigration enforcement. It seems the judge, Susan Bolton, is having a hard time reconciling that line of attack (via the Washington Post):
The DoJ's stance that immigration enforcement is strictly the purview of the federal government was their primary argument today:
The state pushed back on this assumption:
Mr. Kneedler also argued that the law is detrimental to foreign relations:
Brewer's lawyer, Mr. Bouma, shrugged off the foreign policy claims:
It is, however, a promising start for the beleaguered state.
Preemption means that the state of Arizona is allegedly stepping on federal toes with their immigration law. The feds are arguing SB1070 is unconstitutional because federal law overrides it, according to the supremacy clause; they further assert that only the federal government is capable of and lawfully allowed to pursue immigration enforcement. It seems the judge, Susan Bolton, is having a hard time reconciling that line of attack (via the Washington Post):
Bolton, a Democratic appointee, also questioned a core part of the Justice Department's argument that she should declare the law unconstitutional: that it is "preempted" by federal law because immigration enforcement is an exclusive federal prerogative.
"How is there a preemption issue?" the judge asked. "I understand there may be other issues, but you're arguing preemption. Where is the preemption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?"
The DoJ's stance that immigration enforcement is strictly the purview of the federal government was their primary argument today:
"The regulation of immigration is unquestionably, exclusively, a federal power," Kneedler told a rapt courtroom.
The state pushed back on this assumption:
Lawyers for Brewer argued with equal force that the legislation, scheduled to take effect July 29, is a legal expression of a sovereign state's right to secure its borders against a tide of illegal immigration. The federal government, the lawyers said, has failed to act.
"We keep hearing that we can't really do anything about these illegal aliens -- Arizona should just deal with it," said John J. Bouma, Arizona's lead attorney. "Well, the status quo is simply unacceptable."
Mr. Kneedler also argued that the law is detrimental to foreign relations:
He added that the Arizona law might lead to police harassment of U.S. citizens and is threatening to harm vital cooperation along the border with Mexican authorities, who have strongly condemned the law. "These are very concrete harms, very substantial foreign policy concerns," he said
Brewer's lawyer, Mr. Bouma, shrugged off the foreign policy claims:
"Foreign outrage doesn't make the law preempted," he said. He accused the Obama administration of ignoring requests from Brewer and numerous other governors for more help in securing the border.
"You can't catch them if you don't know about them," he said. "And they don't want to know about them."Today marked the opening salvo on this highly charged issue, but there is no doubt there will be more to come. Although the judge seems to be questioning the main point of the federal case, it doesn't mean Arizona and Brewer have won yet.
It is, however, a promising start for the beleaguered state.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
GUSHERS AS FAR AS THE EYE CAN SEE
The Obama administration is in the midst of a series of crises that all have something in common. They are all gushers, and the administration is slow to react and ineffective with all of them.
The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the most physical representation of this premise. The Obama administration was responsible for coordinating the cleanup and working with BP in partnership to deal with the disaster, while allowing BP to fix the well as quickly as possible (preferably with the help of a panel of industry experts, not congressmen). Instead, he waited a ridiculously long time - a month - to address the nation about the disaster, dragged his feet on requests by governors of the affected states and waited almost two months to talk to the heads of BP - on day 58, to be exact. To make things worse, instead of working in partnership with BP to solve the problem and expedite the cleanup, the administration threatened litigation, demanded huge sums of money and demonized the company and the industry to the public in an attempt to garner support for their pet eco-legislation. And here we are, more than 80 days later, and the oil is still gushing, the press are blocked from reporting accurately and the people are suffering. The oil is still creeping towards our shores and the response has been sporadic and anemic. It has been nearly three months - there should be a synchronized, well organized response worked out, but there isn't. It seems sometimes that the primary objective of the administration is litigation and moratoriums, not making things right on the ground, where it counts.
Which brings us to our next political gusher. Jobs. There just doesn't seem to be any relief in sight, even with a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package, a huge increase in budgetary spending. and all sorts of porky little goodies in a myriad of other legislative actions. The administration is trying to sell the public that they are pro-business, but the fear in the business sector over increased upcoming regulations and taxation and the demonization of corporate america tells a different story. The drilling moratorium they are trying to force through the judicial system (they're on their third attempt already) seems to be more about scoring political points with their base, but will probably do more harm than good if successful, since there are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line - in a recession, in states that are already in deep distress from the loss of the fishing industry and tourism. Every month we are told that we have turned the corner, and things are getting better. But when the unemployment number dropped from 9.7% to 9.5% recently, it wasn't because of an increase in jobs, it was because over 500,000 people have given up and dropped out of the workforce. That is not a victory.
The third political gusher is the deficit/debt. This country is hemorrhaging money at an alarming pace. For every issue that has come up, the administration's answer seems to have been throwing enormous sums of money at it. We are being burdened with new legislation that is going to cost north of a trillion dollars and wasted ten economically devastating months The $835 billion stimulus was a bust, and so they have put forward a new whatever-you-want-to-call-it-just-so-its-not-'stimulus' bill, arguing that they just didn't go big enough the first time. Really? Nearly a trillion dollars wasn't enough? The experts are advising an immediate end to spending or there is a possibility of a major crash. Instead they are trying to pour more money into the system like it's going out of style, and, at best, we are stagnating; at worst we are going over a cliff.
The fourth gusher is in Arizona, where they have been plagued by a flood of illegal immigrants. Most of the illegals are peaceful, hardworking people who just want a better life, but there is are many that are not, and they are wreaking havok on the state. Above and beyond that, the peaceful illegals are still a burden on the state - a state that is facing a budget deficit of over a billion dollars this year and more than three billion next year. The biggest problem, though, is that the mexican drug cartels have moved in with a vengeance. The administration's response to the situation has been to sue the state over their immigration enforcement legislation and to put up signs declaring portions of the state to be too dangerous for americans. Because nothing says 'effective governance' like forfeiting sovereignty of 80 miles of American land. Obama has halted all building on a border fence and, although he has sent down national guard troops, it is woefully inadequate. The administration seems content to allow things to continue as they have been, even though more and more americans are dying, and a major city, Phoenix, is becoming a violent no-man's land.
For those who prefer to play the 'blame Bush' game, yes, many of these problems started under Bush. But the 2006 and 2008 elections were referendums against the Bush years. Obama and the democrat led congress ran on and were put in office specifically to change these things. The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same. Or, in this case, get worse.
Which brings us to the final gusher. This is the one that has been caused by all the others - the deluge of political fallout. And boy, is it a doozy. From the drop in approval to the sinking polls, it doesn't look good. This administration seems to have forgotten that they were ushered into power by citizens who were not so much voting for them as voting against the previous administration. They have dropped the ball on that mandate, and as a result voters are flowing in an ever increasing flood away from congressional democrats who, in turn, are starting to distance themselves from the president. Others are even trying to sell themselves as 'outside the beltway'. Um, if you've been in office for, say, 18 years, you're an insider. This gusher started with a trickle of political goodwill last year, but now is approaching floodlike conditions. Even the White House spokesman is conceding a possible loss of the House. Here we are in mid-July, and reality seems to be suddenly dawning on those in power (but not all). They are trying to staunch the flow by slinging mud and blaming others, but the other gushers have so seeped into people's consciences that it's unlikely they will be distracted.
In 2008, we were faced with an economic crisis that was worse than anything we had faced in decades, so we installed a government that promised change. In a year and a half, we have added unprecedented spending, the worst oil spill in american history, a major crisis on the border and unemployment that went from 6.7% at the end of the Bush administration all the way up to 10.2% in Oct. '09, settling now to the current rate of 9.5%, with no end in sight. All of these major crises have been backburnered by the administration in favor of passing health care legislation or attempting to push throughamnesty comprehensive immigration reform and cap and trade in order to capitalize on them without ever doing anything concrete to solve the actual crisis. With all of these crises, the administration has taken abominably long to act, which has, in turn, allowed them to get so much worse.
The final gusher is set reach maximum flow in November and, much like the other gushers, the administration is doing too little, too late, and this one looks like it, too, is out of their control.
The Deepwater Horizon catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is the most physical representation of this premise. The Obama administration was responsible for coordinating the cleanup and working with BP in partnership to deal with the disaster, while allowing BP to fix the well as quickly as possible (preferably with the help of a panel of industry experts, not congressmen). Instead, he waited a ridiculously long time - a month - to address the nation about the disaster, dragged his feet on requests by governors of the affected states and waited almost two months to talk to the heads of BP - on day 58, to be exact. To make things worse, instead of working in partnership with BP to solve the problem and expedite the cleanup, the administration threatened litigation, demanded huge sums of money and demonized the company and the industry to the public in an attempt to garner support for their pet eco-legislation. And here we are, more than 80 days later, and the oil is still gushing, the press are blocked from reporting accurately and the people are suffering. The oil is still creeping towards our shores and the response has been sporadic and anemic. It has been nearly three months - there should be a synchronized, well organized response worked out, but there isn't. It seems sometimes that the primary objective of the administration is litigation and moratoriums, not making things right on the ground, where it counts.
Which brings us to our next political gusher. Jobs. There just doesn't seem to be any relief in sight, even with a nearly trillion dollar stimulus package, a huge increase in budgetary spending. and all sorts of porky little goodies in a myriad of other legislative actions. The administration is trying to sell the public that they are pro-business, but the fear in the business sector over increased upcoming regulations and taxation and the demonization of corporate america tells a different story. The drilling moratorium they are trying to force through the judicial system (they're on their third attempt already) seems to be more about scoring political points with their base, but will probably do more harm than good if successful, since there are hundreds of thousands of jobs on the line - in a recession, in states that are already in deep distress from the loss of the fishing industry and tourism. Every month we are told that we have turned the corner, and things are getting better. But when the unemployment number dropped from 9.7% to 9.5% recently, it wasn't because of an increase in jobs, it was because over 500,000 people have given up and dropped out of the workforce. That is not a victory.
The third political gusher is the deficit/debt. This country is hemorrhaging money at an alarming pace. For every issue that has come up, the administration's answer seems to have been throwing enormous sums of money at it. We are being burdened with new legislation that is going to cost north of a trillion dollars and wasted ten economically devastating months The $835 billion stimulus was a bust, and so they have put forward a new whatever-you-want-to-call-it-just-so-its-not-'stimulus' bill, arguing that they just didn't go big enough the first time. Really? Nearly a trillion dollars wasn't enough? The experts are advising an immediate end to spending or there is a possibility of a major crash. Instead they are trying to pour more money into the system like it's going out of style, and, at best, we are stagnating; at worst we are going over a cliff.
The fourth gusher is in Arizona, where they have been plagued by a flood of illegal immigrants. Most of the illegals are peaceful, hardworking people who just want a better life, but there is are many that are not, and they are wreaking havok on the state. Above and beyond that, the peaceful illegals are still a burden on the state - a state that is facing a budget deficit of over a billion dollars this year and more than three billion next year. The biggest problem, though, is that the mexican drug cartels have moved in with a vengeance. The administration's response to the situation has been to sue the state over their immigration enforcement legislation and to put up signs declaring portions of the state to be too dangerous for americans. Because nothing says 'effective governance' like forfeiting sovereignty of 80 miles of American land. Obama has halted all building on a border fence and, although he has sent down national guard troops, it is woefully inadequate. The administration seems content to allow things to continue as they have been, even though more and more americans are dying, and a major city, Phoenix, is becoming a violent no-man's land.
For those who prefer to play the 'blame Bush' game, yes, many of these problems started under Bush. But the 2006 and 2008 elections were referendums against the Bush years. Obama and the democrat led congress ran on and were put in office specifically to change these things. The more things change, it seems, the more they stay the same. Or, in this case, get worse.
Which brings us to the final gusher. This is the one that has been caused by all the others - the deluge of political fallout. And boy, is it a doozy. From the drop in approval to the sinking polls, it doesn't look good. This administration seems to have forgotten that they were ushered into power by citizens who were not so much voting for them as voting against the previous administration. They have dropped the ball on that mandate, and as a result voters are flowing in an ever increasing flood away from congressional democrats who, in turn, are starting to distance themselves from the president. Others are even trying to sell themselves as 'outside the beltway'. Um, if you've been in office for, say, 18 years, you're an insider. This gusher started with a trickle of political goodwill last year, but now is approaching floodlike conditions. Even the White House spokesman is conceding a possible loss of the House. Here we are in mid-July, and reality seems to be suddenly dawning on those in power (but not all). They are trying to staunch the flow by slinging mud and blaming others, but the other gushers have so seeped into people's consciences that it's unlikely they will be distracted.
In 2008, we were faced with an economic crisis that was worse than anything we had faced in decades, so we installed a government that promised change. In a year and a half, we have added unprecedented spending, the worst oil spill in american history, a major crisis on the border and unemployment that went from 6.7% at the end of the Bush administration all the way up to 10.2% in Oct. '09, settling now to the current rate of 9.5%, with no end in sight. All of these major crises have been backburnered by the administration in favor of passing health care legislation or attempting to push through
The final gusher is set reach maximum flow in November and, much like the other gushers, the administration is doing too little, too late, and this one looks like it, too, is out of their control.
Saturday, May 22, 2010
AY CARAMBA!
The public disagreement between the Obama democrat machine and the state of Arizona has reached a new low. And that's really saying something.
First, other American cities decide to attack the economy of a fellow state during a recession.
The state responds to one particularly vehement city with a reminder that if they really want to boycott, they should go all in, reminding them of some other contracts they should consider cancelling. The bluff is called and both sides end up retreating into their respective corners.
Then a foreign head of state is not just allowed to chastise us for our own laws, but he is given a standing ovation by our government.
But wait, there's more! John Morton, head of ICE, steps in with his two cents on the matter, saying they may just refuse to process illegals from Arizona. Because, after all, it's not like their refusal to enforce the laws in the first place put Arizona in their dangerous, $2.7 billion per year predicament, right?
And now, like the sickeningly sweet cherry on top, the democrats have found a new gimmick to signal their disapproval. Bracelets.
Yes, that's right, bracelets. Apparently it's the thing for the season. Eeeevrybody's wearing them in DC. Expect bedazzled versions to pop up in Hollywood in 3...2...1....
How lame is this? Well, waaaaaay back in 2009 Remy Albillar from the Arizona Daily Wildcat said it best:
First, other American cities decide to attack the economy of a fellow state during a recession.
The state responds to one particularly vehement city with a reminder that if they really want to boycott, they should go all in, reminding them of some other contracts they should consider cancelling. The bluff is called and both sides end up retreating into their respective corners.
Then a foreign head of state is not just allowed to chastise us for our own laws, but he is given a standing ovation by our government.
But wait, there's more! John Morton, head of ICE, steps in with his two cents on the matter, saying they may just refuse to process illegals from Arizona. Because, after all, it's not like their refusal to enforce the laws in the first place put Arizona in their dangerous, $2.7 billion per year predicament, right?
And now, like the sickeningly sweet cherry on top, the democrats have found a new gimmick to signal their disapproval. Bracelets.
Yes, that's right, bracelets. Apparently it's the thing for the season. Eeeevrybody's wearing them in DC. Expect bedazzled versions to pop up in Hollywood in 3...2...1....
How lame is this? Well, waaaaaay back in 2009 Remy Albillar from the Arizona Daily Wildcat said it best:
But for all those “protesting X cause by raising awareness through X,” stop kidding yourself. Your commemorative, fashionable armband, pin, t-shirt or hat is not a legitimate form of protest. It’s an excuse to give yourself a pat on the back.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
ARIZONA AND CALDERON
Megyn Kelly went on the O'Reilly Factor tonight to discuss the Arizona immigration law. She not only read the law in question, SB 1070, she also read the federal immigration law as well as a few supreme court cases pertaining to the federal law.
This isn't good news for the 24% who oppose the law, because she found that the Arizona law is much like the federal law, with the exception that it is even more strict as far as what the police can and cannot do than the federal statute.
ooops. There goes that narrative!
No doubt her findings will get no press coverage whatsoever. Even though 71% of Arizonans approve of the legislation, 55% of Americans would like to see their states adopt similar legislation, and Arizona governor Jan Brewer has enjoyed a 19 point jump in her poll numbers since last month, according to Rasmussen. Check out Pew's polling numbers on the issue.
Thankfully, our esteemed Congress didn't embarrass themselves in their ignorance. Oh, wait.
No doubt their cheering on a foreign head of state as he attempts to dictate immigration policy to them is standard procedure. Doubtless, too, they will take his recommendation to reinstate the assault weapons ban under advisement. If we're really, really lucky, maybe he will tell us what to do about Cap and Trade and Iran as well. Dare to dream.
Perhaps someone in this administration will grow a spine and recommend Calderon get control of his own country before attempting to impose his views on this one. Things obviously aren't going well down there if one-third of the country are so desperate to get out that they are willing to run the gauntlet of a desert, coyotes (both animal and human), and border patrols. Let's face it - if Mexico wasn't such a disaster, we wouldn't have such a huge problem on our borders.
The fact that Obama and the democrats supported this pompous ass and his insulting behavior is nothing short of disgraceful.
This isn't good news for the 24% who oppose the law, because she found that the Arizona law is much like the federal law, with the exception that it is even more strict as far as what the police can and cannot do than the federal statute.
ooops. There goes that narrative!
No doubt her findings will get no press coverage whatsoever. Even though 71% of Arizonans approve of the legislation, 55% of Americans would like to see their states adopt similar legislation, and Arizona governor Jan Brewer has enjoyed a 19 point jump in her poll numbers since last month, according to Rasmussen. Check out Pew's polling numbers on the issue.
Thankfully, our esteemed Congress didn't embarrass themselves in their ignorance. Oh, wait.
No doubt their cheering on a foreign head of state as he attempts to dictate immigration policy to them is standard procedure. Doubtless, too, they will take his recommendation to reinstate the assault weapons ban under advisement. If we're really, really lucky, maybe he will tell us what to do about Cap and Trade and Iran as well. Dare to dream.
Perhaps someone in this administration will grow a spine and recommend Calderon get control of his own country before attempting to impose his views on this one. Things obviously aren't going well down there if one-third of the country are so desperate to get out that they are willing to run the gauntlet of a desert, coyotes (both animal and human), and border patrols. Let's face it - if Mexico wasn't such a disaster, we wouldn't have such a huge problem on our borders.
The fact that Obama and the democrats supported this pompous ass and his insulting behavior is nothing short of disgraceful.
Monday, May 3, 2010
MAYDAY, MAY DAY
Violence erupted at immigration protests across the country this weekend, but of course the agitators got a pass from the mainstream media. From California to New York, there were numerous cases of graffiti, broken wondows, and even violent attacks against anti-illegal immigration supporters. Amnesty supporters hurt their cause with their behavior, but they seem oblivious to that fact. Perhaps because even with all of that, their rallies are called "Mostly Peaceful" by the media, while the TEA parties have SWAT called on them. They are, of course, emboldened by this.
Every year it's the same - amnesty supporters, as well as marxists, anarchists and other socialist groups march and rally on May Day and by the end of the day, there is vandalism and even violence, as well as some arrests. This year was no different, except, perhaps, for the vehemence in the wake of the Arizona law. Here is the photo of the day (h/t What Planet Am I On):
That photo encapsulates the entire mindset of the left on this issue. They do not agree with our immigration laws and thus are exempt from them. I propose this sign as the official rebuttal to the TEA party's "Keep the Guvment out of my Medicare" sign. Both signs are idiotic and cancel each other out.
Every year it's the same - amnesty supporters, as well as marxists, anarchists and other socialist groups march and rally on May Day and by the end of the day, there is vandalism and even violence, as well as some arrests. This year was no different, except, perhaps, for the vehemence in the wake of the Arizona law. Here is the photo of the day (h/t What Planet Am I On):
That photo encapsulates the entire mindset of the left on this issue. They do not agree with our immigration laws and thus are exempt from them. I propose this sign as the official rebuttal to the TEA party's "Keep the Guvment out of my Medicare" sign. Both signs are idiotic and cancel each other out.
Then there are those who feel that "America is a continent, not a country". Apparently it's quite confusing, but the country is actually called "The United States of America", and it is located on the North American continent. This means that the country is a confederation of states that have united together to share their destiny as a single entity on the North American continent. Perhaps Mexico should simply petition for statehood - Puerto Rico could be #51 and Mexico could be #52! Much as Brasil is a country in South America, the United States is a country in North America. Otherwise, we would have had to name ourselves after the original thirteen colonies. NorSouth Vircondelmarvarhodepencarogeormassland just doesn't trip off the tongue quite as easily, does it?
The accusations of having to "show your papers" is ridiculous. Yes, they will have to show their papers when they are pulled over or stopped by the police. Just like natural-born citizens and legal immigrants do every day. Those "papers" are called drivers licenses, state id cards and green cards. This disgusting attempt by the left to confuse the issue with correlations to Nazi Germany is insulting to the millions of Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Czechs and others who were slaughtered by Hitler and his henchmen during WWII. To compare Arizona police making a legal stop which might or might not end with requests for proof of citizenship to the gestapo making Jews disappear via a trip to Auschwitz is nothing short of obscene. Not to mention the all-out attempt to paint our police as racist, gestapo-like enforcers. Note to the left: the police are not the bad guys. The people breaking the laws - including the federal immigration law - are the bad guys. Time for a reality check, people. Arizona has merely given state authorities the same powers as federal authorities in the enforcement of a standing federal law. No more, no less. These claims of crimes against humanity are insane. Racial profiling is specifically prohibited.
Immigrant rights are not civil rights. Comparing the two is ridiculous. The civil rights movement was necessary because legal American citizens were being discriminated against. In the case of illegal immigrants, they are not legal citizens and so they have no rights in this country. Period.
We already have laws on the books providing the legal entry of immigrants into this country - something that happens every day. Those laws were enacted under the McCarran-Walter bill of 1952 and have been amended over the years, but the core of it requires legal emigration, the carrying of a green card at all times, and breaking the law can result in felony charges. It is also illegal to harbor an illegal immigrant - a federal law our more liberal cities flout on a daily basis. One "wise latina" at a D.C. rally doesn't want to see a Berlin Wall here in America. Perhaps she is unaware that the US and Mexico are not the same country, as Germany was before the wall. A wall between the two countries would merely, well, separate two countries. Other countries are allowed to patrol and guard their borders, why can't we?
Why do these people feel entitled to be able to just walk over our borders and instantly become citizens? What makes them so much more special that the millions of legal immigrants who jump through the federal hoops to become legal citizens every year?
This whole argument boils down to a case of not agreeing with a law and feeling that is reason enough to ignore it. It is just too easy to paint any resistance as racist. What other laws should we be allowed to ignore? How about theft - or should I call it "spreading the wealth around"? No doubt that one should be ignored, too.
The clear fault for this mess is the federal government's refusal to enforce federal laws currently on the books. Arizona did what the feds refuse to do - enforce the law.
The illegals and their supporters only hurt their cause with their offensive, violent tactics. If you want to come here legally, we will welcome you with open arms. Otherwise, just like every other country on the planet - including Mexico - we will enforce our laws and kick you out.
For those who "demand" legalization, go home and "demand" things from your own government. If you want to be part of this country, come here legally. If you break our laws and refuse to renounce your foreign citizenship, you have no right to change our laws. Go change your own country's government; leave mine alone.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
ARIZONA INSANITY Updated
I have been watching the Arizona immigration situation with a great deal of amusement. The histrionics on the left have been both amusing and appalling. Their hypocrisy is showing on federal, state and local levels.
First there is the blatant misrepresentation of the legislation. The left are insisting that this is going to bring on gestapo-style police tactics - guilty of "breathing while undocumented". The author of that little gem is beside herself in righteous indignation, but, as is usually the case with the left, she has her facts wrong and is quoting the wrong bill. This is really par for the course these days - it doesn't matter if the information is correct, as long as it furthers the narrative.
Long story short, the bill is quite specific about police needing just cause to ask for identification. Will there be a few rogue cops who might abuse the new law? Possibly. But didn't that happen prior to passage of the bill? We've all heard stories about inappropriate profiling in the past. The problem is that, as usual, the accusations are flowing fast and furious and with a very broad brush. Every law has the potential to be abused. By the opposition's logic, no new laws should be passed for fear someone will pervert the meaning or step outside the boundaries. One could also infer that the left sees all police as racists who are just itching to lock up as many people as possible, illegal or not. Quite frankly, it's appalling that our own president is forwarding that narrative. But then, it's not like this is the first time he's insinuated that the police are racist and out of control.
The gestapo accusations are quite funny, with their attempted corrolation to having to "show your papers" like in 1930's Germany. Even Obama has played that card with his story about someone being harassed because they forgot their "papers" when they were just taking their kid for an ice cream. I have friends who have emigrated to this country legally, and part of the process is carrying your green card with you at all times. It's a federal law. The Arizona law is merely reinforcing the federal law. You know, the one the feds refuse to enforce, even though Americans are being victimized by illegals in our border towns and sanctuary cities on a nearly daily basis.
The point of the Arizona law was to enable the state enforcement agencies to do what the federal government is supposed to be doing. If the feds were doing their jobs, this law would never have passed.
The law is overwhelmingly popular in Arizona, because the legal residents of the state are desperate for action on a situation that has been out of control for decades but has recently reached a fever pitch. The Governor of the state has seen her approvals ratchet up by 16 points since she signed the bill into law. Sen. John McCain, however, has seen his numbers drop, due to his blatantly political pivot from decades of being an amnesty seeker to suddenly becoming a hard-line immigration enforcer. The electorate is not buying it, Maverick.
The President of Mexico has come out and ordered a boycott of Arizona by all Mexicans. Hopefully that will extend to the hundreds of illegals who cross our borders into the state every day. Michelle Malkin has a great rundown of how the Mexican government treats illegals for a little perspective.
The mayor of many cities in the western US are also boycotting the state. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was one of the first to say state employees should cancel all functions planned for Arizona. Good idea, Gavin - maybe you should be visiting California cities for your little junkets. God knows the state needs the revenue, and the taxpayers would will also see less of their money spent on travel expenses. At this point, I find it insane that during an economic crisis, our politicians are perfectly happy to punish fellow Americans for trying to protect themselves and their property. It is a sad commentary that we are so amenable to inflicting harm on our own countrymen over an epidemic of illegals flooding over our borders.
The boycott idea is really catching on with the lefty bloggers. Unfotunately, they are showing their ignorance on this subject as they have on soooooo many others. Many in the blogisphere are demanding the boycott of AriZona Iced Tea, with one brainiac calling it "the drink of fascists". As usual these doofuses didn't do any research - if they had, they would have realized that AriZona iced tea is brewed on Long Island, New York. Good gracious, these people seriously need to get a clue.
I'm all for immigration in this country. Millions of people emigrate to this country every year. Legally. That is the only requirement most Americans have - come here legally. The left's attempts to smear anyone who opposes illegal immigration as being against any and all emigration to this country is, as usual, painting with a broad brush in order to forward their narrative. It's not too much to ask that people come here legally. All countries have immigration laws, and support of those laws in this country does not make one a racist hater of poor, innocent immigrants.
Which brings us to the most comical part of the coverage of this issue - the obvious bias of the media reports covering the protests in the state capital. Protesters are attacking police, painting swasticas (in refried beans, no less) on buildings, and even calling for burning the city down. And yet these protests are being portrayed as "mostly peaceful" by the press. The same press who were calling the tea parties riotous mobs ready to explode. Yeah, right.
No doubt this issue with remain in the news for a while yet, what with Texas considering similar legislation and three cities in Arizona considering fighting the law.
The Obama administration are beside themselves in fury, initiating an investigation into the legality of the law. Their fury is understandable, though, because the passage of this law highlights the fact that the feds have seriously dropped the ball on the issue, to the detriment of our own citizens. It focuses attention on the fact that there are immigration laws on the books that are simply not being enforced due mostly to political considerations - namely trying to ingratiate themselves to a potential voting block. The realization of how badly they have served the American people might come to be construed as an orchestrated effort to make the situation untenable in order to ensure Americans get behind some sort of amnesty to relieve the pressure. The fact that the new law is as popular as it is on a national level must surely give them pause, but, considering how tone deaf they have been so far, expect them totry to ram through amnesty anyway.
After all, how much damage can creating 12 million new competitors in the job market do? And there surely won't be any sort of flood of new illegals hoping to get amnesty as well. That is just the talk of evil nay-sayers saying nay.
There is a distinct stench of desperation in the air on this one, so it definitely bears watching. The democrats need to pass amnesty before the election because they desperately need the potential votes.
As usual, their narrative trumps reality and the needs of their party trump the needs of the country.
UPDATE: Does this count as a success?
UPDATE II: Kris Kobach, author of the Arizona law in question, has written an op-ed in the New York Times in defense of the law. It's a good read - very informative and debunks the left's talking points with facts. It's hard to believe the NY Times actually printed it - I'm sure they'll be getting a few nasty phone calls and emails today from the Lord and Master. Don't they know this goes against the carefully crafted and nurtured narrative that has been encouraged by the White House?
First there is the blatant misrepresentation of the legislation. The left are insisting that this is going to bring on gestapo-style police tactics - guilty of "breathing while undocumented". The author of that little gem is beside herself in righteous indignation, but, as is usually the case with the left, she has her facts wrong and is quoting the wrong bill. This is really par for the course these days - it doesn't matter if the information is correct, as long as it furthers the narrative.
Long story short, the bill is quite specific about police needing just cause to ask for identification. Will there be a few rogue cops who might abuse the new law? Possibly. But didn't that happen prior to passage of the bill? We've all heard stories about inappropriate profiling in the past. The problem is that, as usual, the accusations are flowing fast and furious and with a very broad brush. Every law has the potential to be abused. By the opposition's logic, no new laws should be passed for fear someone will pervert the meaning or step outside the boundaries. One could also infer that the left sees all police as racists who are just itching to lock up as many people as possible, illegal or not. Quite frankly, it's appalling that our own president is forwarding that narrative. But then, it's not like this is the first time he's insinuated that the police are racist and out of control.
The gestapo accusations are quite funny, with their attempted corrolation to having to "show your papers" like in 1930's Germany. Even Obama has played that card with his story about someone being harassed because they forgot their "papers" when they were just taking their kid for an ice cream. I have friends who have emigrated to this country legally, and part of the process is carrying your green card with you at all times. It's a federal law. The Arizona law is merely reinforcing the federal law. You know, the one the feds refuse to enforce, even though Americans are being victimized by illegals in our border towns and sanctuary cities on a nearly daily basis.
The point of the Arizona law was to enable the state enforcement agencies to do what the federal government is supposed to be doing. If the feds were doing their jobs, this law would never have passed.
The law is overwhelmingly popular in Arizona, because the legal residents of the state are desperate for action on a situation that has been out of control for decades but has recently reached a fever pitch. The Governor of the state has seen her approvals ratchet up by 16 points since she signed the bill into law. Sen. John McCain, however, has seen his numbers drop, due to his blatantly political pivot from decades of being an amnesty seeker to suddenly becoming a hard-line immigration enforcer. The electorate is not buying it, Maverick.
The President of Mexico has come out and ordered a boycott of Arizona by all Mexicans. Hopefully that will extend to the hundreds of illegals who cross our borders into the state every day. Michelle Malkin has a great rundown of how the Mexican government treats illegals for a little perspective.
The mayor of many cities in the western US are also boycotting the state. San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom was one of the first to say state employees should cancel all functions planned for Arizona. Good idea, Gavin - maybe you should be visiting California cities for your little junkets. God knows the state needs the revenue, and the taxpayers would will also see less of their money spent on travel expenses. At this point, I find it insane that during an economic crisis, our politicians are perfectly happy to punish fellow Americans for trying to protect themselves and their property. It is a sad commentary that we are so amenable to inflicting harm on our own countrymen over an epidemic of illegals flooding over our borders.
The boycott idea is really catching on with the lefty bloggers. Unfotunately, they are showing their ignorance on this subject as they have on soooooo many others. Many in the blogisphere are demanding the boycott of AriZona Iced Tea, with one brainiac calling it "the drink of fascists". As usual these doofuses didn't do any research - if they had, they would have realized that AriZona iced tea is brewed on Long Island, New York. Good gracious, these people seriously need to get a clue.
I'm all for immigration in this country. Millions of people emigrate to this country every year. Legally. That is the only requirement most Americans have - come here legally. The left's attempts to smear anyone who opposes illegal immigration as being against any and all emigration to this country is, as usual, painting with a broad brush in order to forward their narrative. It's not too much to ask that people come here legally. All countries have immigration laws, and support of those laws in this country does not make one a racist hater of poor, innocent immigrants.
Which brings us to the most comical part of the coverage of this issue - the obvious bias of the media reports covering the protests in the state capital. Protesters are attacking police, painting swasticas (in refried beans, no less) on buildings, and even calling for burning the city down. And yet these protests are being portrayed as "mostly peaceful" by the press. The same press who were calling the tea parties riotous mobs ready to explode. Yeah, right.
No doubt this issue with remain in the news for a while yet, what with Texas considering similar legislation and three cities in Arizona considering fighting the law.
The Obama administration are beside themselves in fury, initiating an investigation into the legality of the law. Their fury is understandable, though, because the passage of this law highlights the fact that the feds have seriously dropped the ball on the issue, to the detriment of our own citizens. It focuses attention on the fact that there are immigration laws on the books that are simply not being enforced due mostly to political considerations - namely trying to ingratiate themselves to a potential voting block. The realization of how badly they have served the American people might come to be construed as an orchestrated effort to make the situation untenable in order to ensure Americans get behind some sort of amnesty to relieve the pressure. The fact that the new law is as popular as it is on a national level must surely give them pause, but, considering how tone deaf they have been so far, expect them totry to ram through amnesty anyway.
After all, how much damage can creating 12 million new competitors in the job market do? And there surely won't be any sort of flood of new illegals hoping to get amnesty as well. That is just the talk of evil nay-sayers saying nay.
There is a distinct stench of desperation in the air on this one, so it definitely bears watching. The democrats need to pass amnesty before the election because they desperately need the potential votes.
As usual, their narrative trumps reality and the needs of their party trump the needs of the country.
UPDATE: Does this count as a success?
UPDATE II: Kris Kobach, author of the Arizona law in question, has written an op-ed in the New York Times in defense of the law. It's a good read - very informative and debunks the left's talking points with facts. It's hard to believe the NY Times actually printed it - I'm sure they'll be getting a few nasty phone calls and emails today from the Lord and Master. Don't they know this goes against the carefully crafted and nurtured narrative that has been encouraged by the White House?
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
PELOSICARE HORROR PROVISION OF THE DAY: PART 2
Today's horror is two-fold.
First, the scoring of Pelosi's bill rings in at $1.2 trillion. But she still insists that it will help reduce the deficit - not just in the first decade, but also in the second. I don't know what she's on, but it must be in the hallucinogen family.
So what does that $1.2 trillion buy us?
111 brand spanking new bureaucracies.
Oh goody, just what we need - more government!
Oh, and just for good measure, the word 'shall' appears 3,345 times in the bill. How much you wanna bet each one of those 'shalls' is backed up with a penalty or fee if we don't comply?
Democrats are denying that there are so many bureaucracies, saying they are 'demonstration projects', and the new agencies are just new 'projects' (rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!):
"A Democratic source dismissed the list of "bureaucracies" as an exaggeration, calling them "demonstration projects" instead.
"The programs and demonstration projects they list aren't new agencies but rather new projects," the source told Fox News. "And they're sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. ... Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported." "
Yes, because we all know that programs and projects the government implements are hardly ever made permanent. If you read the quote carefully, you will note that the source says they are "ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them", which means they will be implemented eventually, right? Unless they are trying to get us to believe they will admit to a mistake and dismantle an agency...sorry, I need a minute to get the laughter under control.
Anyhoo, of course they have to mention that there are republican ideas included in those 'projects' to give it an air of acceptability. What ideas would those be? Not funding abortion? No. Tort reform? No. Opening up state lines for a free-market insurance solution? No. Restricting illegals from accessing coverage with the public option? No.
Yeah, sounds real bipartisan.
I'm an optimist at heart, so the silver lining of this behemoth is that 111 new bureaucracies should mean more jobs.
Well, at least in 2013, when the plan goes into effect. I'm sure we can hang on 'til then....it's not like our taxes are going to go up astronomically in the meantime!
Oh, wait....
First, the scoring of Pelosi's bill rings in at $1.2 trillion. But she still insists that it will help reduce the deficit - not just in the first decade, but also in the second. I don't know what she's on, but it must be in the hallucinogen family.
So what does that $1.2 trillion buy us?
111 brand spanking new bureaucracies.
Oh goody, just what we need - more government!
Oh, and just for good measure, the word 'shall' appears 3,345 times in the bill. How much you wanna bet each one of those 'shalls' is backed up with a penalty or fee if we don't comply?
Democrats are denying that there are so many bureaucracies, saying they are 'demonstration projects', and the new agencies are just new 'projects' (rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!):
"A Democratic source dismissed the list of "bureaucracies" as an exaggeration, calling them "demonstration projects" instead.
"The programs and demonstration projects they list aren't new agencies but rather new projects," the source told Fox News. "And they're sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. ... Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported." "
Yes, because we all know that programs and projects the government implements are hardly ever made permanent. If you read the quote carefully, you will note that the source says they are "ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them", which means they will be implemented eventually, right? Unless they are trying to get us to believe they will admit to a mistake and dismantle an agency...sorry, I need a minute to get the laughter under control.
Anyhoo, of course they have to mention that there are republican ideas included in those 'projects' to give it an air of acceptability. What ideas would those be? Not funding abortion? No. Tort reform? No. Opening up state lines for a free-market insurance solution? No. Restricting illegals from accessing coverage with the public option? No.
Yeah, sounds real bipartisan.
I'm an optimist at heart, so the silver lining of this behemoth is that 111 new bureaucracies should mean more jobs.
Well, at least in 2013, when the plan goes into effect. I'm sure we can hang on 'til then....it's not like our taxes are going to go up astronomically in the meantime!
Oh, wait....
Sunday, September 27, 2009
LET LOOSE THE FLOODGATES
A few weeks ago, our esteemed president promised that no illegals would be covered under ObamaCare, and was called out by Rep. Wilson as a liar. It now turns out that, in the strictest sense, Obama wasn't lying, because it seems that his next step in 'transforming' our country involves amnesty (although I'm sure it won't be called that), so that all those poor illegals will no longer be illegal and thus will be eligible for health care and a major crisis will be averted.
Apparently, coming here legally and getting a real (legal, taxpaying) job is too much to ask.
Those who come to this country legally and overstay their welcome should be assisted in obtaining citizenship, but those who came here illegally, be it via desert, raft or tunnel, should be returned to where they came from and apply for legal status through the proper channels. Those who overstayed their welcome are at least documented as being in the country, and, in these terror-filled times, that is important.
The problem is, amnesty and free health care for 12 million isn't the end of it.
Now our esteemed leader is starting a campaign of decreasing our presence at the borders. Via CNS News:
"(CNSNews.com) - Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1. "
Apparently, the democrats have been paying attention to the polls.
It seems they have decided that their best course of action is to open up the borders and offer amnesty and free health care in order to buy votes, since it seems they have managed to alienate just about every other voting block in the country.
This proposal, just like the mess they are calling health care 'reform' and Cap and Tax, must not be allowed to pass. Luckily, they only need to be held off for a few more months. Once the election season starts in January, they will be too busy campaigning to actually get any work done.
Thank God.
You know, I remember a time when Americans would complain that nothing was getting done in Washington.
Be careful what you wish for, huh?
Apparently, coming here legally and getting a real (legal, taxpaying) job is too much to ask.
Those who come to this country legally and overstay their welcome should be assisted in obtaining citizenship, but those who came here illegally, be it via desert, raft or tunnel, should be returned to where they came from and apply for legal status through the proper channels. Those who overstayed their welcome are at least documented as being in the country, and, in these terror-filled times, that is important.
The problem is, amnesty and free health care for 12 million isn't the end of it.
Now our esteemed leader is starting a campaign of decreasing our presence at the borders. Via CNS News:
"(CNSNews.com) - Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are “easily breached,” and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons “linked to terrorism” and 530 aliens from “special interest countries” were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1. "
Apparently, the democrats have been paying attention to the polls.
It seems they have decided that their best course of action is to open up the borders and offer amnesty and free health care in order to buy votes, since it seems they have managed to alienate just about every other voting block in the country.
This proposal, just like the mess they are calling health care 'reform' and Cap and Tax, must not be allowed to pass. Luckily, they only need to be held off for a few more months. Once the election season starts in January, they will be too busy campaigning to actually get any work done.
Thank God.
You know, I remember a time when Americans would complain that nothing was getting done in Washington.
Be careful what you wish for, huh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
