First: Congratulations to the People of Great Britain for their courage and commitment to self-rule and local governance. I'm glad they voted to leave the European Union; it's in their best interests. The days ahead will be hard, and at every bump in the road talking heads will tell them how "it's their own fault" for choosing independence. To a degree they're right: independence, self-rule, these things are hard and not without difficulty. But they are worth far more than the fake "security" of being ruled from afar.
As the English withdrawal from the European Union is analyzed and constantly second-guessed, let me submit to you that it was inevitable, and it shows that Donald Trump has a much better chance to win in November than the Talking Heads would have you believe. See, I believe that Brexit and the Rise of Trump are both based on the same thing - the realization by the People that their so-called leaders have failed in their actual duties.
National governments have basically two jobs - ensure a "level playing field" inside their borders and protecting their citizens from non-citizens. That's it. Both of these are predicated on one foundational idea that the West seems determined to abandon: "Us First." A nation's government should always, as its first priority, put the well-being and interests of its citizens over the well-being and interests of non-citizens.
Whether that's non-naturalized immigrants living within its population, foreign threats, foreign business, or even just healthy old international competition, a national government's first priority should be "what is in the best interests of my citizens?"
That's a harder question to answer sometimes that it might seem. Are trade terriffs on imports good? How about a lax or strict immigration policy? What about (any given) war? Not always easy.
Sometimes, however, it is easy. Is illegal immigration good for a nation's citizens, or bad? Bad. There's not even a question here. Is unchecked immigration from majority muslim countries good, or bad? Bad. Again, not even a question - when your best answer is "we don't know they're a threat," you're not arguing that it's good, just that it might not be as bad as feared. Ergo: bad.
Now, most people don't even think of these things in these terms. I'm pretty sure the average Englishman doesn't think in terms of terriffs and duties, or immigration policy. What they do think of is: how easy it is to find a job (harder with lax immigration, and even harder with massive illegal immigration)? How good is my standard of living (worse with poor trade policy and massive immigration)? How safe am I in my home (worse with Muslim Terrorists moving easily about the globe, worse with illegal immigrants)?
And that brings us back to our own shores and Donald Trump. Donald Trump resonantes with people because he understands* these things. He understands them in his bones. Look at his campaign slogan: "Make America Great Again." That says it all in four words. America was great "before." What is "before?" Well, that's up to the individual. But it's not great now. So let's make it great again.
Let's put Americans first. Let's say that the well being of American businesses, the American worker, is more important to us than the well being of Iraqis, Afghans, Israelis, Austrialians, the British, Canadians, or anyone else. Let's get control of our borders - all four of them, and stop importing unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce (what, you think we didn't have one? Everyone starts "unskilled"). Let's stop immigration from majority Muslim countries - we owe them nothing - until either Mohammedanism can tamp down on its more violent tendencies or we can find a way to screen out the terrorists. Let's stop engaging in wars to benefit others and not ourselves. If American boys and girls are going to die, let's make it to the benefit of the country they serve, and not just someone else.
And that's where the leaders of Great Britain (not the EU) and the United States have failed. By allowing massive immigration (usually without requiring assimilation), we import unskilled workers to compete with our own unskilled workforce. The EU member nations are importing terrorists - and it won't be too long before one gets over here. The so-called leadership of Great Britain and the United States has failed to put their own citizens first, and the citizens are crying "no more."
Of course, they also said (as late as yesterday), that the Brexit would fail.
Will Donald Trump win in November? I don't know. People are saying he has no chance.
* - Understanding is not the same as agreeing with or supporting. Personally, I believe he does both, but whether or not he agrees with or believes in "America First," it is clear that he - unlike the talking heads and Washington Establishment - at least understands it.
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Immigration. Show all posts
Friday, June 24, 2016
Friday, March 20, 2015
What Do Conservatives Want?
So, over at the HQ this morning, commenter jwest raised an interesting point. His comment is too long to quote in its entirety, but the gist seems to be this: Conservatives, especially in the blogosphere, are too ready to pull out the Long Knives whenever one of our allies (actual allies- a Perry, or Walker, or Cruz, or Lee) makes a tiny misstep. So we should probably make some decisions, as a movement, about where we really stand.
So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader). I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.
Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it). Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens. Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals. Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.
Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.
The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance. The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance. Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).
I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money. I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much). Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient. If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.
One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA. Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's. For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan. Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.
I'll add on top of that:
A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country. Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).
What are your thoughts? Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.
So here are some areas he highlighted, and my thoughts on them (all quotes: sic; I'm not a proofreader). I'll follow up with a couple more at the end.
1: Immigration/Border
On immigration, has anyone defined what the word "amnesty" means? We can't simply say "follow existing law", because than entails kicking in doors at 2am and dragging mothers away from their children (which looks bad on the evening news). It would be good to have a well written position on what true conservatives want.Amnesty means "officially not administering just punishment for a crime." Any "path to legalization" or "path to citizenship" is Amnesty.
Step 1 (before anything else) secure the border (or take real, substantive steps to secure it). Step 2 Make explicit that illegal aliens are not eligible for any federal benefit, reduce Medicaid payments to States who pay State benefits for illegal aliens. Step 3 Come down like "a ton of rectanular building things" on any employer- large or small- found to be hiring illegals. Step 4 expedite deportation hearings, stop releasing illegals into their own recognizance.
2: ObamaCare/Health Care/Health Insurance
On healthcare, certainly everyone wants Obamacare repealed, but that's not a position. Never in the history of the U.S. has the government been able to give citizens free shit and then turn around and take it back. Those who think this is an option just aren't being serious. We need a conservative plan on what is going to replace Obamacare.
Burn it down.
Scatter the stones.
Salt the earth where it stood.
The federal government has no authority over health care/health insurance. The only space where the feds have authority is to end the prohibition on interstate sale of insurance. Would consider making personal health insurance tax deductible, just like employer coverage... but that has issues (since I want the tax code to be much less complex).
3: Defense (esp. Defense Budget)
On defense, some are taking the position that patriotism can be gauged by how much we spend on the military. Others know that at some point, enough is enough. It's hard to make the case of being a budget hawk while handing out blank checks. We should nail this down so that voters know where we're at.
I'm sorry, Hawks, we don't have money. I don't want to cut defense spending, but neither can we let it grow (or, at least, grow much). Let's fix the procurement process, cut out the "diversity" stupidity, and see any other avenues available to make the defense budget more efficient. If that's still not enough, *then* we can talk about more money.
4: Social Security
On Social Security, for decades the holy grail of the conservative side of the aisle was a plan to privatize SS. If this is still the plan, it could be marketed in such a way as to gain the black vote. Of course, our side needs to agree on plan first.
One-time payment of "your" SS money into an IRA. Retirement planning is your business, not Daddy Government's. For current or near retirees, we'll have to figure out a plan. Some kind of phase-out will be necessary, but not sure exactly how that would work.
I'll add on top of that:
5: Taxes
A massively simplified tax code. Flat tax, fair tax, even a progressive/graduated tax which is simple to understand would be far better than what we have today. I don't think, realistically, we'll ever get a true "flat tax," and the "fair tax" scares me unless we can repeal the 16th Amendment. Repeal the estate tax, drop corporate taxes to around 15%, stop taxing capital gains (and maybe dividends).6: Budget
A balanced budget amendment is way over-due in this country. Texas has one in our State Constitution, and it has contributed to tax surpluses (since people and especially businesses know that there aren't huge deficits, Texas is seen as very tax-payer friendly).
What are your thoughts? Jwest is right- the sooner the *base* figures out our starting point, the easier it will be to judge when someone has deviated from it, and to what degree- thus (hopefully) preventing some of the circular firing squads which have led to the last two disastrous Republican presidential candidates.
Friday, November 9, 2012
A Second Honeymoon?
Do you remember when George W Bush was re-elected in 2004 how the Democrats said, "Oh, the American People have spoken, we have to work with this man?" Yeah, me neither.
Nevertheless, that seems to be what John Boenher and several other Republicans in leadership positions (I won't call them leaders) seem to be doing with Barack Obama, who remains a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant, and a traitor. The two major issues on the plate right now are immigration (read: Amnesty) and The Fiscal Cliff (read: Tax cuts for the Rich!).
Obama wants, as he has maintained for the last several months, to keep the Bush Tax Rates, with the exception that he wants the top marginal rate to return to Clinton-era levels. On immigration, of course, a full amnesty (excuse me, a "path to citizenship") is the goal.
I believe these require two different strategies. Hopefully we won't just get sold out (note: I'm not holding my breath, though).
On taxation, I think Republicans need to say, "No, no, if the Clinton era tax rates are good enough for small business owners, they're good enough for everyone. We'll act to stop sequestration, but tax rates all go back to Clinton era levels." The American people have spoken, after all, and if Clinton rates are good for one group, they should be good enough for every group.
On immigration, I think we need to stick to our guns. No compromise, no surrender. We've granted amnesty-for-enforcement in the past, and we never got the enforcement part. Require enforcement first. Gain real control of the border, start checking immigration status. Deport illegal aliens. Only once that is done and is showing results do we talk about some kind of amnesty or path to citizenship.
Then, in negotiations, we can moderate that stance a little. Offer this (again- start with the other, work toward this, anything past this is no deal): If an illegal alien can prove they've been here since X Date (call it Jan 1 of the year the law is passed. So if they pass it in the next month, Jan 1, 2012), they will be temporarily exempt from deportation. All other laws still apply (especially against employers who hire them), but they won't be subject to deportation. In return, we get 4 years of full enforcement (including deportation on first pick-up) of illegals who cannot prove they were here prior to that date. We get 4 years of full enforcement on the border, including more border patrol agents, better ROE for the border patrol, etc. If, after those 4 years, we see that enforcement really has become a priority, then we will discuss some form of a "path to citizenship" for illegals already in the country.
Any attempt to force a national DREAM act, or path to citizenship (that is: amnesty) before enforcement has been proven should end negotiations immediately- we won't even discuss those issues until enforcement has been agreed upon and implemented.
I have three reasons for the positions. First, I believe they are fairly practical and still conservative. Neither is perfect, but we have a Democrat President and Senate, we're not going to get "perfect." The best we can hope for is "not disastrous." Second, I believe they should actually be obtainable. These are opinions showing we're willing to "meet the President half-way." Finally, I believe they'll show the grassroots- those of us who are licking our wounds from Tuesday and have (either permanently or temporarily) joined the side of "just let it burn"- that the GOP is serious about Conservative ideas, and that we won't be sold out "in the spirit of bipartisanship."
That last one is probably the most important. If Boehner and the House sell out conservatives, the Republicans are done, and a new party will arise- probably giving Democrats the Presidency and Senate (at least) for the next 12 - 20 years.
Nevertheless, that seems to be what John Boenher and several other Republicans in leadership positions (I won't call them leaders) seem to be doing with Barack Obama, who remains a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant, and a traitor. The two major issues on the plate right now are immigration (read: Amnesty) and The Fiscal Cliff (read: Tax cuts for the Rich!).
Obama wants, as he has maintained for the last several months, to keep the Bush Tax Rates, with the exception that he wants the top marginal rate to return to Clinton-era levels. On immigration, of course, a full amnesty (excuse me, a "path to citizenship") is the goal.
I believe these require two different strategies. Hopefully we won't just get sold out (note: I'm not holding my breath, though).
On taxation, I think Republicans need to say, "No, no, if the Clinton era tax rates are good enough for small business owners, they're good enough for everyone. We'll act to stop sequestration, but tax rates all go back to Clinton era levels." The American people have spoken, after all, and if Clinton rates are good for one group, they should be good enough for every group.
On immigration, I think we need to stick to our guns. No compromise, no surrender. We've granted amnesty-for-enforcement in the past, and we never got the enforcement part. Require enforcement first. Gain real control of the border, start checking immigration status. Deport illegal aliens. Only once that is done and is showing results do we talk about some kind of amnesty or path to citizenship.
Then, in negotiations, we can moderate that stance a little. Offer this (again- start with the other, work toward this, anything past this is no deal): If an illegal alien can prove they've been here since X Date (call it Jan 1 of the year the law is passed. So if they pass it in the next month, Jan 1, 2012), they will be temporarily exempt from deportation. All other laws still apply (especially against employers who hire them), but they won't be subject to deportation. In return, we get 4 years of full enforcement (including deportation on first pick-up) of illegals who cannot prove they were here prior to that date. We get 4 years of full enforcement on the border, including more border patrol agents, better ROE for the border patrol, etc. If, after those 4 years, we see that enforcement really has become a priority, then we will discuss some form of a "path to citizenship" for illegals already in the country.
Any attempt to force a national DREAM act, or path to citizenship (that is: amnesty) before enforcement has been proven should end negotiations immediately- we won't even discuss those issues until enforcement has been agreed upon and implemented.
I have three reasons for the positions. First, I believe they are fairly practical and still conservative. Neither is perfect, but we have a Democrat President and Senate, we're not going to get "perfect." The best we can hope for is "not disastrous." Second, I believe they should actually be obtainable. These are opinions showing we're willing to "meet the President half-way." Finally, I believe they'll show the grassroots- those of us who are licking our wounds from Tuesday and have (either permanently or temporarily) joined the side of "just let it burn"- that the GOP is serious about Conservative ideas, and that we won't be sold out "in the spirit of bipartisanship."
That last one is probably the most important. If Boehner and the House sell out conservatives, the Republicans are done, and a new party will arise- probably giving Democrats the Presidency and Senate (at least) for the next 12 - 20 years.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Eric Holder Derelict in Duty As AG
"Didn't Know" about Fast And Furious
The Inspector General's report on the covert Act of War known as Operation Fast and Furious has been released. The Obama designated fall guy has resigned, but the report (which is still full of "questions") says that Eric Holder did not know of the operation.
"The report says Attorney General Eric Holder was not made aware of potential flaws in the program until February of last year."
Now this is a travesty. A year's worth of investigation, and Eric Holder still has not turned over but a tiny fraction of the documents subpoenaed by Darrell Issa. Over three hundred dead Mexican Citizens, plus at least two American Citizens, including Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, and the IG Report is essentially a white wash to say, "well, we investigated. Nothing to see here, folks, move along."
Despite that, it's a damning indictment of Eric Holder.
Read that again, "...was not made aware..." That is, Eric Holder didn't realize there might be flaws in a plan to give guns to Mexican drug cartels with no plan for the trailing and retrieval of those weapons other than to hope they showed up at crime scenes. Doesn't that strike you as odd? He's supposed to be the Top Cop in the United States. You would think he would at least have the critical thinking skills to know, "hmmm. Giving away guns has a lot of potential down-sides. What have we done to mitigate those?"
Of course, there's another option, but it's even worse. In the second scenario, Eric Holder is a figurehead at the top of a rogue agency that operates without his approval or say-so. In this scenario, it's not that he "was not made aware of potential flaws," but that he wasn't even aware of the operation. In this scenario, a covert war against the Mexican Government was waged without anyone's say-so except some assistant AG no one has ever heard of.
Either way, it boils down to the same thing: Eric Holder was derelict in his duties as the Attorney General of the United States, and should be fired for his incompetence.
And that's assuming there's not something more damning of him (and their probably is) in those documents he's still refused to release.
Thursday, August 23, 2012
(Battle)Field of DREAMs
Governor Rick Perry is telling President Barack Obama to "Come and Take It" over the illegal immigrants now referred to as DREAMers.
As you may recall, President Obama issued an unconstitutional order instituting the already-defeated-in-congress Federal DREAM Act by executive fiat. In response, Governor Perry has issued an order to State agencies: Do not comply. He has ordered that State agencies continue to verify eligibility for State and Local benefits.
Liberals and Big Government types (BIRM) are all agog over this. Ignoring the fact that ICE and CBP have said they have been specifically forbidden from verifying claims of putative DREAMers, they harp on the fact that Obama "said" he wasn't changing the law, just priorities. Of course, Obama also "said" he was against an individual mandate, and he "said" that he would Close Guantanamo Bay. We see how those worked out.
And the fact remains that this is a Federalism question. Certainly ICE can choose not to deport anyone they desire, for whatever reason they decide. The Governor's order doesn't change that one bit. What his order does is to prevent illegal aliens from receiving more social benefits than they already do (and that's a big amount), and it makes it just a little bit harder for them to vote.
Before anyone attempts to dismiss that, I'll direct them to look at Florida, who have been sued by the Department of Justice for attempting to purge their voter rolls of illegal aliens.
So the real question here is this: does the Federal Government have the right to instruct States to render State benefits to illegal aliens? Nothing in the Constitution suggests it does. If ICE wants to let illegal aliens stay in country, and grant them de facto amnesty, that's up to the Federal Government. That doesn't mean Texas has to help, or to provide any benefits or services we wouldn't provide to illegals in the first place.
As you may recall, President Obama issued an unconstitutional order instituting the already-defeated-in-congress Federal DREAM Act by executive fiat. In response, Governor Perry has issued an order to State agencies: Do not comply. He has ordered that State agencies continue to verify eligibility for State and Local benefits.
Liberals and Big Government types (BIRM) are all agog over this. Ignoring the fact that ICE and CBP have said they have been specifically forbidden from verifying claims of putative DREAMers, they harp on the fact that Obama "said" he wasn't changing the law, just priorities. Of course, Obama also "said" he was against an individual mandate, and he "said" that he would Close Guantanamo Bay. We see how those worked out.
And the fact remains that this is a Federalism question. Certainly ICE can choose not to deport anyone they desire, for whatever reason they decide. The Governor's order doesn't change that one bit. What his order does is to prevent illegal aliens from receiving more social benefits than they already do (and that's a big amount), and it makes it just a little bit harder for them to vote.
Before anyone attempts to dismiss that, I'll direct them to look at Florida, who have been sued by the Department of Justice for attempting to purge their voter rolls of illegal aliens.
So the real question here is this: does the Federal Government have the right to instruct States to render State benefits to illegal aliens? Nothing in the Constitution suggests it does. If ICE wants to let illegal aliens stay in country, and grant them de facto amnesty, that's up to the Federal Government. That doesn't mean Texas has to help, or to provide any benefits or services we wouldn't provide to illegals in the first place.
Tuesday, August 21, 2012
'Don't Call Us Illegal,' say... Illegal Aliens
Yep. I said it. They're not "undocumented immigrants." They're not even "illegal immigrants." Immigration connotes the concept of assimilation. Too many of those who come legally have no desire to be "immigrants" in that sense- those who are here illegally certainly do not.
A group out of Long Island is protesting the use of the word "illegal" in regards to illegal aliens. To quote one of them: "By saying illegal, they're assuming that we broke a criminal law. No everybody enters illegally."
Honey (I can say that without being sexist, 'cause I'm from Texas)? You did break a criminal law. Entering the United States without proper documentation (Visa, Passport, green-card, whatever) is a Federal Crime. It's punishable by jail time. If you came to the United States without the appropriate documentation, you're here illegally. Thus, "illegal" is exactly the right word.
Of course, this is simply a continuation of the tactic that began when they pushed to move the word 'alien' out of the discussion. They were well aware of the connotations of the word 'alien' versus the word 'immigrant.' Immigrant, all on its own, conveys a sense of legitimacy. The point is to make it impossible to talk about illegal aliens without having to jump through convoluted hoops to ensure everyone knows you're talking about actual illegals, and not legal immigrants or resident aliens.
Even there you can see that, in proper usage, there's a reason we call one "immigrants" and the other "aliens."
You know aren't lumped in with illegal aliens? Legal aliens and immigrants.
But that's not the worst part. It only stands to reason that illegal aliens would want to change the terms of the debate. As one referenced in the article remarked, the term "illegal" makes him feel "uncomfortable." Kind of like the word "criminal" probably makes criminals feel "uncomfortable." It's called guilt.
No, worse than that are their apologists. Those people who seek, for whatever motive, to shelter them from the reality that what they're doing is illegal. People like Alina Das, assistant professor of clinical law at New York University. Ms. Das is quoted thus:
"Using a phrase like 'illegal aliens' or 'illegals' . . . reinforces the notion that you could treat another individual as less than a human being," said Alina Das, assistant professor of clinical law at New York University. "One action -- whether it's a crime -- shouldn't be used to define a whole group of people or one individual." (Emphasis mine)
One wonders if she would believe the same thing- that the action should not be used to define an individual, if the subject in question was a murderer. A wife beater? A rapist? In absolute terms, a given illegal alien is probably not the kind of scum those three examples are, but some of them are. Some of them, indeed, are murderers and rapists. If you don't want to be "labelled" an illegal alien- don't be here illegally.
There's also the little bit of trickery she tries to pull here:
"It's a politically correct way of saying illegal," she said. "What you're also talking about in proper form are the real undocumented -- asylum seekers -- people who are fleeing for threats of their life or freedom."
See, those illegal aliens aren't really illegal aliens- they're seeking political asylum. Of course, the fact they've never bothered to visit an ICE office or a consulate to formally ask for asylum is just a technicality. What she overlooks is that no one is talking about asylum seekers. Just like we're not talking about aliens on H1-B visas, or immigrants who are legally seeking citizenship. The law already provides for all of those things, thus an "illegal alien" is someone who doesn't fit into one of those categories, and has entered the United States illegally.
A group out of Long Island is protesting the use of the word "illegal" in regards to illegal aliens. To quote one of them: "By saying illegal, they're assuming that we broke a criminal law. No everybody enters illegally."
Honey (I can say that without being sexist, 'cause I'm from Texas)? You did break a criminal law. Entering the United States without proper documentation (Visa, Passport, green-card, whatever) is a Federal Crime. It's punishable by jail time. If you came to the United States without the appropriate documentation, you're here illegally. Thus, "illegal" is exactly the right word.
Of course, this is simply a continuation of the tactic that began when they pushed to move the word 'alien' out of the discussion. They were well aware of the connotations of the word 'alien' versus the word 'immigrant.' Immigrant, all on its own, conveys a sense of legitimacy. The point is to make it impossible to talk about illegal aliens without having to jump through convoluted hoops to ensure everyone knows you're talking about actual illegals, and not legal immigrants or resident aliens.
Even there you can see that, in proper usage, there's a reason we call one "immigrants" and the other "aliens."
You know aren't lumped in with illegal aliens? Legal aliens and immigrants.
But that's not the worst part. It only stands to reason that illegal aliens would want to change the terms of the debate. As one referenced in the article remarked, the term "illegal" makes him feel "uncomfortable." Kind of like the word "criminal" probably makes criminals feel "uncomfortable." It's called guilt.
No, worse than that are their apologists. Those people who seek, for whatever motive, to shelter them from the reality that what they're doing is illegal. People like Alina Das, assistant professor of clinical law at New York University. Ms. Das is quoted thus:
"Using a phrase like 'illegal aliens' or 'illegals' . . . reinforces the notion that you could treat another individual as less than a human being," said Alina Das, assistant professor of clinical law at New York University. "One action -- whether it's a crime -- shouldn't be used to define a whole group of people or one individual." (Emphasis mine)
One wonders if she would believe the same thing- that the action should not be used to define an individual, if the subject in question was a murderer. A wife beater? A rapist? In absolute terms, a given illegal alien is probably not the kind of scum those three examples are, but some of them are. Some of them, indeed, are murderers and rapists. If you don't want to be "labelled" an illegal alien- don't be here illegally.
There's also the little bit of trickery she tries to pull here:
"It's a politically correct way of saying illegal," she said. "What you're also talking about in proper form are the real undocumented -- asylum seekers -- people who are fleeing for threats of their life or freedom."
See, those illegal aliens aren't really illegal aliens- they're seeking political asylum. Of course, the fact they've never bothered to visit an ICE office or a consulate to formally ask for asylum is just a technicality. What she overlooks is that no one is talking about asylum seekers. Just like we're not talking about aliens on H1-B visas, or immigrants who are legally seeking citizenship. The law already provides for all of those things, thus an "illegal alien" is someone who doesn't fit into one of those categories, and has entered the United States illegally.
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Obama's DREAM: See Also: Fantasy, Lies
First it was so-called DREAMers. They were supposed to be illegal immigrants who had "come here as children" and who "had or were working to a High School Diploma, or a College Degree." Then we found out that ICE and CPB weren't even allowed to demand proof that someone claiming to fall under the DREAM doctrine would actually qualify. And now this.
It turns out that Obama's DREAM by fiat is not actually the DREAM act that has received Democrat and even some Republican (primarily among the already pro-amnesty crowd) support. No, this one includes middle school drop outs. Yes, you read that correctly. People who never bothered to finish middle school, let alone high school or attempting to get a college degree, are eligible under Barack Obama's unconstitutional power-grab, which went into effect yesterday.
Now, I could complain that we were lied to, but so what? It's Barack Obama, if he told me the sky was blue I'd go outside to verify it. If he told me water was wet, or ice was cold, I'd touch them just to make sure he wasn't lying. I fully expect him to lie. Lies are all he has. No, I place the blame for this squarely on Congress and on the States.
Congress has the constitutional authority to set immigration policy, and the constitutional duty to keep the executive in check. Thus it was Congress's job to slap down the President when he issued his illegal executive order in the first place. That Congress did not is a gross dereliction of duty.
The States, on the other hand, bear no direct culpability for the executive order or the failure to block it. They do, however, bear the blame of not stepping up when the Federal Government failed, and enforcing already existing Federal Law. Yes, even over the Federal Government's objections. One State, that I know of, has stood up to this act of lawlessness. I wish I could say that state were my native Texas (are you listening, Governor Perry?), but it's not.
That one State is Arizona. Their excellent Governor Jan Brewer issued her own executive order yesterday. She re-affirmed the spirit of their Immigration Enforcement law, and instructed state agencies not to provide any state benefits to illegals, even those who had applied for Barack Obama's illegal amnesty. Considering Arizona has already been sued by the Federal Government over their desire to police the illegal immigrant community, this is a gutsy move. The coming weeks and months will show us how it all ends up, but this was a courageous move which should be emulated by other Governors.
When the Federal Government fails to protect legal citizens, then the States must do the job. The Federal Government divests itself of more legitimacy every day. I hope the States will not follow suit.
It turns out that Obama's DREAM by fiat is not actually the DREAM act that has received Democrat and even some Republican (primarily among the already pro-amnesty crowd) support. No, this one includes middle school drop outs. Yes, you read that correctly. People who never bothered to finish middle school, let alone high school or attempting to get a college degree, are eligible under Barack Obama's unconstitutional power-grab, which went into effect yesterday.
Now, I could complain that we were lied to, but so what? It's Barack Obama, if he told me the sky was blue I'd go outside to verify it. If he told me water was wet, or ice was cold, I'd touch them just to make sure he wasn't lying. I fully expect him to lie. Lies are all he has. No, I place the blame for this squarely on Congress and on the States.
Congress has the constitutional authority to set immigration policy, and the constitutional duty to keep the executive in check. Thus it was Congress's job to slap down the President when he issued his illegal executive order in the first place. That Congress did not is a gross dereliction of duty.
The States, on the other hand, bear no direct culpability for the executive order or the failure to block it. They do, however, bear the blame of not stepping up when the Federal Government failed, and enforcing already existing Federal Law. Yes, even over the Federal Government's objections. One State, that I know of, has stood up to this act of lawlessness. I wish I could say that state were my native Texas (are you listening, Governor Perry?), but it's not.
That one State is Arizona. Their excellent Governor Jan Brewer issued her own executive order yesterday. She re-affirmed the spirit of their Immigration Enforcement law, and instructed state agencies not to provide any state benefits to illegals, even those who had applied for Barack Obama's illegal amnesty. Considering Arizona has already been sued by the Federal Government over their desire to police the illegal immigrant community, this is a gutsy move. The coming weeks and months will show us how it all ends up, but this was a courageous move which should be emulated by other Governors.
When the Federal Government fails to protect legal citizens, then the States must do the job. The Federal Government divests itself of more legitimacy every day. I hope the States will not follow suit.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
The Growing Police State: Not-So-Unintended Consequences Edition
 |
| A Dangerous Illegal Immigrant |
By extension, then, it stands to reason that legitimate immigrants will suffer the consequences. Case in point: Lauren Gray. With the exception that she's here legally, instead of illegally, she's exactly what the DREAM act claims its supposed to support. Brought over as a minor (4 years old) from England, she's never known any country but the United States. She graduated high school, went on to college and got a Bachelor of Liberal Arts degree in Dance. This is exactly the kind of behavior DREAM is supposed to be encouraging- except DREAM gives preference to people here illegally, and requires no proof that they're actually eligible for its benefits.
However, for her parent's crime of immigrating legally, and her crime of finishing high school and college, Ms. Gray will not be allowed to immigrate legally to the united states. Her parents are here on work visas, trying to make their residency permanent. She turned 21 today and "aged out" of eligibility under her parent's visas. She was supposed to get her own green card before her senior year in college, but her priority date got pushed back. By two years. Odd that such a push back just happened to put her outside her eligibility under her parents' work visas.
So, for playing by the rules, and trying to respect our laws, Ms. Gray will be punished by not having a green card and legal residency status. Showing, once again, the class and respect for our laws which we should be rewarding and holding up as an example, Ms. Gray says she will self deport and return "home" to a country she doesn't know.
Contrariwise, if she were of Hispanic origin, her parents hadn't come here legally, and she merely claimed (remember, ICE and CBP aren't allowed to require proof) that she met the eligibility requirements in the DREAM act- which was never passed by congress but unconstitutionally enacted by executive fiat, she would be immediately granted a temporary visa and allowed to "work toward citizenship."
I'll leave you with this quote from Ms. Gray: "Immigration is a broken system and I don't know why someone isn't fixing it." And my response: "Ms. Gray, they are. In the favor of groups more likely to vote Democrat that yours."
Photo via original article at FoxNews.Com
Friday, July 27, 2012
The Lawless Administration Strikes Again
No. Not that "Lawless." This "lawless:"
"Prosecutorial discretion for dreamers is solely based on the individual's claims. Our orders are if an alien says they went to high school, then let them go," he said at a press conference with GOP senators. "Officers have been told that there is no burden for the alien to prove anything. ... At this point we don't even know why DHS has criteria at all, as there is no requirement or burden to prove anything on the part of the alien.
"We believe that significant numbers of people who are not dreamers are taking advantage of this practice to avoid arrest," he said.
That's a quote from Chris Crane, the President of the Union which represents the officers with the Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He made the statement yesterday.
You may remember when the SCOAMT enacted the DREAM Act by Executive Fiat. We were told, by the left, that this was just for good kids. It was just for people who had come over as children, and who had never harmed anyone. Well, it turns out that isn't necessarily the case.
"Crane cited one case in which, he said, an immigrant facing criminal charges was let go under the policy. Further, he complained that officers are "under threat of losing their jobs" if they defy the policy."
Whoops. It looks like maybe, just maybe, Conservatives were right after all- this will be abused by illegals to stay in the country. As I've said before, those who break the law, don't care about the law. They're already here illegally. If they cared about the law, they wouldn't have broken that one. If they don't care about laws protecting US Sovereignty, why would we think they would care about laws protecting US Sovereignty? Or, for that matter, personal safety or personal property? They're already criminals, what's one more crime?
And, once again, I have to turn to the States. The Federal Government, under both Republican and Democrat leadership, has turned its back on this issue. Worse, they seem to greet illegals with open arms. The States must assert their authority to be Sovereign within their own borders. If Washington, DC won't let the States deport illegals, then we can bus them all to DC. One way or another, this has to be stopped.
Monday, June 25, 2012
He Has Refused His Assent
With the provision in the Arizona Illegal Immigration law that allowed for checks of immigration status being upheld this morning, Barack Obama has, once again, allowed his mask to slip to show the tyrant beneath.
From the Washington Times (H/T: Ace of Spades) comes this article detailing Obama's decision to suspend existing agreements with AZ police over immigration enforcement. He has issued a policy which will result in either continuous detention of possible illegals (if ICE officials simply do not answer or respond to requests), or will allow illegal immigrants to avoid the just consequences of their crime. First the EO granting amnesty to illegal aliens who came as minors, and now this.
Indeed, these are far from the only examples of love of tyranny. From ignoring Congress (on multiple occasions) to berating or threatening (however obliquely) the Supreme court, to- today- defying the Supreme court, in spirit if not in letter.
Barack Obama is a tyrant. He is a would-be dictator who believes that you live to serve him. He wants you as a subject, not a citizen.
The time has come for our elected representatives to protect us from his tyranny.
If the US Congress will not intervene, then the States must. It must stop, or the country willed to us by our forefathers, that was entrusted to us for our posterity, will die.
From the Washington Times (H/T: Ace of Spades) comes this article detailing Obama's decision to suspend existing agreements with AZ police over immigration enforcement. He has issued a policy which will result in either continuous detention of possible illegals (if ICE officials simply do not answer or respond to requests), or will allow illegal immigrants to avoid the just consequences of their crime. First the EO granting amnesty to illegal aliens who came as minors, and now this.
Indeed, these are far from the only examples of love of tyranny. From ignoring Congress (on multiple occasions) to berating or threatening (however obliquely) the Supreme court, to- today- defying the Supreme court, in spirit if not in letter.
Barack Obama is a tyrant. He is a would-be dictator who believes that you live to serve him. He wants you as a subject, not a citizen.
The time has come for our elected representatives to protect us from his tyranny.
If the US Congress will not intervene, then the States must. It must stop, or the country willed to us by our forefathers, that was entrusted to us for our posterity, will die.
So Now They Can Issue a 'Sternly Worded Letter?'
Today, the Supreme Court released their decision on the Arizona Illegal Immigration law. The part of the law that got the most press was the provision where Arizona police could request immigration documents in the course of "legal contact" (traffic stops, mainly, but also criminal investigations and such) and all departments were required to request immigration information before allowing any arrested person for whom there was cause to believe they were in the country illegally. Other provisions, though, specified exactly what the police were supposed to do if they did, indeed, find an illegal alien.
Per the Supreme Court decision, all the enforcement provisions were "preceded" by current Federal Provisions. The documentation check provision was left in place, pending some future challenge. So, the police in Arizona can check your immigration status, but if you're an illegal alien, they can't actually do anything about it.
I'm not going to discuss whether the decision was right or wrong Constitutionally. I tend to think it's right, on paper, but wrong based on facts on the ground. What I want to look at, though, is why it was necessary in the first place.
It is simply true that border states have bigger trouble with illegal immigration than non-border states. This is especially true along the southern border, meaning Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. These illegal aliens often really are just looking for opportunity, but any job they take is one that could have been filled by a legal resident. Any housing they occupy, any medical or other social service they receive drains resources that could have been used by a legal resident. Whatever your "empathy" for illegals, you have to see that allowing them in is detrimental to those who play by the rules.
Additionally, many of these illegals are criminals. Well, they're all criminals; that's what "illegal" means. But, more specifically, these are criminals in the sense of committing other active crimes- robbery, murder, kidnapping, smuggling, slavery, and so forth. These people are not only here illegally, but they are actively preying on others here and most of their victims are legally here.
All of this is to say that our Federal Government has a responsibility to control the border as much as possible, and to punish those who violate it. Even the best behaved illegal alien is drawing from a limited pool of resources which would be better spent on legal residents. For the Federal Government to do nothing, or, worse, to grant amnesty and a "path to citizenship" is a betrayal of that responsibility, and a blow against those who would follow the law. It encourages illegals while discouraging legal immigration.
The States are writing laws, like the one in Arizona, because the Federal Government has decided to do nothing. This is real harm from which citizens and resident aliens deserve protection, and the Federal Government is not protecting them as it should. States like Arizona and Texas believe they have little or no choice; they must do something because someone has to, and the Federal Government isn't.
It is my hope that Arizona will go back to the drawing-board and find a way to re-write the enforcement provisions of their law to pass Supreme Court muster. Until then, I guess they'll have to be satisfied with issuing the illegals in their state Strongly Worded Letters.
Per the Supreme Court decision, all the enforcement provisions were "preceded" by current Federal Provisions. The documentation check provision was left in place, pending some future challenge. So, the police in Arizona can check your immigration status, but if you're an illegal alien, they can't actually do anything about it.
I'm not going to discuss whether the decision was right or wrong Constitutionally. I tend to think it's right, on paper, but wrong based on facts on the ground. What I want to look at, though, is why it was necessary in the first place.
It is simply true that border states have bigger trouble with illegal immigration than non-border states. This is especially true along the southern border, meaning Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. These illegal aliens often really are just looking for opportunity, but any job they take is one that could have been filled by a legal resident. Any housing they occupy, any medical or other social service they receive drains resources that could have been used by a legal resident. Whatever your "empathy" for illegals, you have to see that allowing them in is detrimental to those who play by the rules.
Additionally, many of these illegals are criminals. Well, they're all criminals; that's what "illegal" means. But, more specifically, these are criminals in the sense of committing other active crimes- robbery, murder, kidnapping, smuggling, slavery, and so forth. These people are not only here illegally, but they are actively preying on others here and most of their victims are legally here.
All of this is to say that our Federal Government has a responsibility to control the border as much as possible, and to punish those who violate it. Even the best behaved illegal alien is drawing from a limited pool of resources which would be better spent on legal residents. For the Federal Government to do nothing, or, worse, to grant amnesty and a "path to citizenship" is a betrayal of that responsibility, and a blow against those who would follow the law. It encourages illegals while discouraging legal immigration.
The States are writing laws, like the one in Arizona, because the Federal Government has decided to do nothing. This is real harm from which citizens and resident aliens deserve protection, and the Federal Government is not protecting them as it should. States like Arizona and Texas believe they have little or no choice; they must do something because someone has to, and the Federal Government isn't.
It is my hope that Arizona will go back to the drawing-board and find a way to re-write the enforcement provisions of their law to pass Supreme Court muster. Until then, I guess they'll have to be satisfied with issuing the illegals in their state Strongly Worded Letters.
Tuesday, June 19, 2012
GOP Professionals, Can We Talk?
Please, sit down. Make yourselves comfortable. No, no, I'm not going to yell at you. No, you're not in trouble. Yet.
You see, it appears that living inside the Government bubble, you're losing touch with the things we, the voters find important. Take this article from the Texas Tribune. Yes, I know, it's "just Texas," but I'm relatively certain we'd find the same kind of thing if we went state-by-state or even nation-wide.
See, we have things we think are important. Among those are immigration, the economy, taxation, and so forth. You, too, have things you think are important. They seem to include... education funding and the water supply. You do realize those barely register with us, your base, right?
See, we would like you to focus on things like securing the border and fixing the immigration process. We would like you focus on the economy (hint: we think the best bet is for you to get out of the way). These are the things that important to us, and to our families. Quite frankly, we think that if you'd focus on those, the rest would more-or-less take care of itself.
Yes, we understand that education is important. We also understand that the water supply is important. But, really, the most important issues? Come on, you can't possibly actually believe that, can you?
Yes, we get it. The Education Lobby, even in Texas, is pretty powerful. When the teachers get their backs up about something, they can mobilize a lot of votes. They also don't really mind using up sick days and leaving their kids to a substitute when it's time to protest on the steps of the Capitol. Their lobbyists are there every day, and, well, we can't be.
You see, we have jobs, or would like to. We have budgets to keep. We have to worry about getting hit by uninsured drivers, the majority of whom are illegal immigrants. We don't really worry about the schools. For the most part, we'll handle the education part, anyway. Not necessarily by home schooling or private schools, but just by being concerned, involved parents. As for water supply? Hey, we understand drought conditions. We understand wildfires. We get it; but the municipalities and cooperative water districts are already handling that. It's not like they need your special supervision.
What it comes down to, though, is this. We elected you for a purpose. That purpose was to fix the economy (yes, by actively getting government out of the way), and to fix border and immigration enforcement. Everything else is kind of secondary. If you won't address what we want addressed, be assured you will face opposition.
We don't want to spend our time fighting you. We'd rather fight the Liberals. But we can only do that if we're not busy forcing you to pay attention to our priorities. If you want to be left alone, show we can trust you to be left alone. Trust has to be earned, and it is all too easily squandered.
You see, it appears that living inside the Government bubble, you're losing touch with the things we, the voters find important. Take this article from the Texas Tribune. Yes, I know, it's "just Texas," but I'm relatively certain we'd find the same kind of thing if we went state-by-state or even nation-wide.
See, we have things we think are important. Among those are immigration, the economy, taxation, and so forth. You, too, have things you think are important. They seem to include... education funding and the water supply. You do realize those barely register with us, your base, right?
See, we would like you to focus on things like securing the border and fixing the immigration process. We would like you focus on the economy (hint: we think the best bet is for you to get out of the way). These are the things that important to us, and to our families. Quite frankly, we think that if you'd focus on those, the rest would more-or-less take care of itself.
Yes, we understand that education is important. We also understand that the water supply is important. But, really, the most important issues? Come on, you can't possibly actually believe that, can you?
Yes, we get it. The Education Lobby, even in Texas, is pretty powerful. When the teachers get their backs up about something, they can mobilize a lot of votes. They also don't really mind using up sick days and leaving their kids to a substitute when it's time to protest on the steps of the Capitol. Their lobbyists are there every day, and, well, we can't be.
You see, we have jobs, or would like to. We have budgets to keep. We have to worry about getting hit by uninsured drivers, the majority of whom are illegal immigrants. We don't really worry about the schools. For the most part, we'll handle the education part, anyway. Not necessarily by home schooling or private schools, but just by being concerned, involved parents. As for water supply? Hey, we understand drought conditions. We understand wildfires. We get it; but the municipalities and cooperative water districts are already handling that. It's not like they need your special supervision.
What it comes down to, though, is this. We elected you for a purpose. That purpose was to fix the economy (yes, by actively getting government out of the way), and to fix border and immigration enforcement. Everything else is kind of secondary. If you won't address what we want addressed, be assured you will face opposition.
We don't want to spend our time fighting you. We'd rather fight the Liberals. But we can only do that if we're not busy forcing you to pay attention to our priorities. If you want to be left alone, show we can trust you to be left alone. Trust has to be earned, and it is all too easily squandered.
DREAM? More Like a Recurring Nightmare
It's time for Republicans to wake up, and take a look at the political landscape. The Establishment (or "Party Leaders" or "Insiders" or whatever you want to call them) are whistling past the graveyard on an issue which has already bitten them more than once. You'd think they'd learn.
On Friday, June 15, Barack Obama announced that he was providing de facto amnesty for illegals under the age of 30 who had come here as minors. He used the talking point, little questioned, that these were all precious little angels who had come here as small children and didn't know their country of origin as home. Republicans quickly bought into these talking points, indeed, I'm not immune to them, and started talking about how the goal was good, but the method was wrong.
For some reason, no Republican was willing to dig into the actual directive issued by the President, but Mickey Kaus was. It turns out this isn't about precious snowflakes brought over as wee tykes. No, the only requirement here is "continuous residence for the last 5 years." Now, let's do some math. If you can be upto 30 years old, and you've only been here five years, that would mean you could have been 25 when you came across. That's hardly a minor, but with the definition of "dependent child" continually being revised upward- as it is with Obamacare- that may not matter.
Let's assume, though, that you were a minor when you came over. All that means is that you were 16. A sixteen year old knows his or her country of origin. Indeed, he or she probably still has friends there. Deportation may be a lifestyle setback, but it's hardly casting them out of the only home they've ever known.
And it gets worse from there. You see, "continuous residence" actually only means living in America for 6 months out of every year, by current precedent. So that kid who came over at 16 could have spent only a total of 2.5 years out of the last 5 here and still be granted this de facto amnesty.
And where are Republican Insiders on this? Well, Marco Rubio is talking up the DREAM act itself, while complaining about the "way it was accomplished." His complaint is not that it was done, but that he worries that the extra-constitutional nature of the President's move will make the effects only temporary. Mitt Romney seems to back him on this issue. Indeed, in the State of Texas, according to the Texas Tribune, only 1% of GOP Insiders -in Texas!- view Immigration as the most important problem government is facing. That's opposed to 12% of the general public, and 18% of self-identified GOP voters.
I'll have more on the disconnect between the party and the voters in a future post, but this is an important issue. The Party Insiders must figure out that the voters oppose this move on multiple levels. Yes, the extra-constitutional move is a problem. It should be addressed (frankly, Obama should be impeached for myriad offenses). But the policy itself is also bad. Even if passed legislatively, the current policy is bad policy. It does not just protect those who were brought here as small children. Even about that I'm ambivalent. It also protects those who came as near adults. Indeed, many of those came here on their own, without their parents. Why should they receive any special treatment?
Immigration law is a matter of National Sovereignty, of National Security, and it impacts the economy. Illegal immigration hurts all three of those things. Anything that rewards illegal behavior should be avoided; it should be anathematic to Republicans.
Moreover, the Federal Government has been told, in no uncertain terms, that the American People do not want amnesty of any variety, and we especially don't want it before real border enforcement is in place. Twice the Congress under George W Bush tried for some version of amnesty; twice President Bush and Congress were swamped with phone calls and letters saying, "No."
Republicans, take this warning to heart. You were not elected because we think you are special. You were not elected because we believe you know better than we do what needs to be done. You were elected because you made specific promises about upholding the Constitution and looking after the country's legal residents. If you push this issue you will be opposed again. If you do not learn from the past and support true immigration enforcement, you will squander the public trust as surely as if you return to your ways of profligate spending. We have no patience for you any more.
On Friday, June 15, Barack Obama announced that he was providing de facto amnesty for illegals under the age of 30 who had come here as minors. He used the talking point, little questioned, that these were all precious little angels who had come here as small children and didn't know their country of origin as home. Republicans quickly bought into these talking points, indeed, I'm not immune to them, and started talking about how the goal was good, but the method was wrong.
For some reason, no Republican was willing to dig into the actual directive issued by the President, but Mickey Kaus was. It turns out this isn't about precious snowflakes brought over as wee tykes. No, the only requirement here is "continuous residence for the last 5 years." Now, let's do some math. If you can be upto 30 years old, and you've only been here five years, that would mean you could have been 25 when you came across. That's hardly a minor, but with the definition of "dependent child" continually being revised upward- as it is with Obamacare- that may not matter.
Let's assume, though, that you were a minor when you came over. All that means is that you were 16. A sixteen year old knows his or her country of origin. Indeed, he or she probably still has friends there. Deportation may be a lifestyle setback, but it's hardly casting them out of the only home they've ever known.
And it gets worse from there. You see, "continuous residence" actually only means living in America for 6 months out of every year, by current precedent. So that kid who came over at 16 could have spent only a total of 2.5 years out of the last 5 here and still be granted this de facto amnesty.
And where are Republican Insiders on this? Well, Marco Rubio is talking up the DREAM act itself, while complaining about the "way it was accomplished." His complaint is not that it was done, but that he worries that the extra-constitutional nature of the President's move will make the effects only temporary. Mitt Romney seems to back him on this issue. Indeed, in the State of Texas, according to the Texas Tribune, only 1% of GOP Insiders -in Texas!- view Immigration as the most important problem government is facing. That's opposed to 12% of the general public, and 18% of self-identified GOP voters.
I'll have more on the disconnect between the party and the voters in a future post, but this is an important issue. The Party Insiders must figure out that the voters oppose this move on multiple levels. Yes, the extra-constitutional move is a problem. It should be addressed (frankly, Obama should be impeached for myriad offenses). But the policy itself is also bad. Even if passed legislatively, the current policy is bad policy. It does not just protect those who were brought here as small children. Even about that I'm ambivalent. It also protects those who came as near adults. Indeed, many of those came here on their own, without their parents. Why should they receive any special treatment?
Immigration law is a matter of National Sovereignty, of National Security, and it impacts the economy. Illegal immigration hurts all three of those things. Anything that rewards illegal behavior should be avoided; it should be anathematic to Republicans.
Moreover, the Federal Government has been told, in no uncertain terms, that the American People do not want amnesty of any variety, and we especially don't want it before real border enforcement is in place. Twice the Congress under George W Bush tried for some version of amnesty; twice President Bush and Congress were swamped with phone calls and letters saying, "No."
Republicans, take this warning to heart. You were not elected because we think you are special. You were not elected because we believe you know better than we do what needs to be done. You were elected because you made specific promises about upholding the Constitution and looking after the country's legal residents. If you push this issue you will be opposed again. If you do not learn from the past and support true immigration enforcement, you will squander the public trust as surely as if you return to your ways of profligate spending. We have no patience for you any more.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)