Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., left, and Janet Murguia from the National Council of La Raza, take part in a news conference on immigration reform, Tuesday, June 5, 2007, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
Posted on 06/05/2007 8:31:10 AM PDT by AuntB
Imagine all the money we've wasted putting bank robbers behind bars. After all, they just "wanted a better life." How else are they going to feed their families if we don't let them rob banks — one of those "jobs [other] Americans won't do."
The Senate immigration bill is a threat to the rule of law. But then Washington's scofflaw approach to immigration for over 40 years has made a total mockery of "the law."
Oooooh! Stop scaring people
President Bush has accused conservatives of "scaring" people merely by pointing to the many flaws in his immigration proposal. Not satisfied with an approval rating that threatens to match Nixon during Watergate — Mr. Bush seems complacent about driving it down to the basement. Incumbent Republicans who face the voters next year are horrified as the White House now shakes its fist at the party's base and says, "Charge! — we'll show 'em! That's what they get for sticking with us when we needed them."
Longtime Bush voters who put a premium on protecting the borders are standing more in wonderment than in anger. Support for the war on Islamofascism, including Iraq — despite mistakes in conducting that war — and for Social Security reform and embattled court nominees, account for nothing at the White House. For the president to turn on his most loyal supporters reflects a mindset that is about as close to reality as was that of John Jacob Astor IV aboard the Titanic, who dressed in formal garb so that he would "go down like a gentleman."
The bipartisan amnesty train is leaving the station. Kennedy, McCain, and Co. scoff at mere legalities. To them — to paraphrase Lenin — laws are like pie crusts, to be broken.
To them, illegal aliens — excuse me, "undocumented immigrants" — in our midst are a "tolerance" issue. Why can't we be "tolerant" of drug dealers — excuse me, "unlicensed pharmacists" — crashing the gates? We don't have enough of them here already. We need more, to do those — altogether now — "jobs [most] Americans won't do."
Criminals welcome
Me? Scared? In disproportionate numbers, illegal aliens do things that are — well — illegal. Murder, rape, robbery, manslaughter, violent drug traffic — you name it. Criminals need love too. A throwback to President Clinton's Surgeon General Joycelyn Elders, who proclaimed the problem with criminals could be found in "the root causes" (i.e., maybe they had to wait five minutes for their bottles)?
In her book Invasion, Michelle Malkin has documented that America's lax immigration enforcement has allowed some of the world's worst thugs and war criminals into our midst — including a Haitian death squad leader; an Ethiopian war criminal who hung naked women upside down from poles and beat them with wire; and a Cuban nurse who tortured political prisoners with wet electric prods wired to their temples and genitals.
A "how-to handbook on law-breaking
And why shouldn't the illegal arrivals assume lawbreaking is OK? In my own backyard, there is a pro-illegal alien outfit called Casa de Maryland, funded by Montgomery County. That's my wallet. But you'll get yours, too. Casa de Maryland also has received funds from the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development. That's my and your wallet. But then who are we to complain? As taxpayers, our job is to shut up and pay the bills.
This taxpayer-funded Casa De Maryland has been instrumental in preparing a pamphlet flat-out advising the "undocumented" how they can break the law and get away with it.
Its advice is: If you are questioned by authorities, don't provide them with information about your immigration status. If the police, FBI, or immigration officials should come to your home, don't open the door. Instead (paraphrasing now) put them through all kinds of hoops and legal technicalities.
Better use of my tax dollars would be to send the local cops (with a warrant) to knock on the Casa de Maryland door, seek out its leaders, and cuff them for aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. Oh, but that's a mere law, you see.
Collaborating with Casa in its advice to lawbreakers are the Detention Watch Network and the National immigration Project of the National Lawyers Guild.
The National Lawyers Guild (NLG), according to a September 1950 report by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA), was organized in 1936 by a caucus of the Communist Party USA. The title of the congressional report was "The National Lawyers Guild: Legal Bulwark of the Communist Party." In the post-Soviet World, NLG is reported by Wikipedia as having received funding from George Soros's Open Society Institute, the Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Ford Foundation, "and others."
You pay, you stay
What are newcomers to think of our "rule of law" when they know that immigration officials have (1) traded visas for money, sex, and gifts; (2) accepted bribes from felons awaiting deportation; (3) smuggled drugs and people and peddled fake documents; (4) punished and intimidated whistleblowers; and (5) jailed border guards doing their jobs, and even hauled an "unlicensed pharmacist" back to the U.S. to be a witness against them in court. Talk about stop hitting my fist with your face.
More laws to be ignored
Now, having disregarded immigration laws on the books, you are earnestly urged to believe that new laws on the books somehow will take on the aura of respect by the criminals who have profited by ignoring the old ones.
In truth, the amnesty bill that the president and a bipartisan coalition are trying to ram down our throats without so much as a Senate hearing also — (surprise!) — makes fools of those who respect laws. For details, we are indebted to Kris W. Kobach and Matthew Spaulding (Ph.D.) of the Heritage Foundation:
1 — It would create a new "Z-visa" by granting massive benefits to those illegal aliens or — in legalese — "those who were previously in unlawful status." In contrast, it would deny benefits to those immigrants and would-be immigrants who have played by the rules. And just for good measure, some of those benefits would be denied American citizens.
2 — The "temporary" Z-visa can actually be renewed every four years, or until the visa holder dies, and would allow the holder many privileges (work, attend college, travel, and re-enter) that are denied legal law-abiding aliens holding normal visas.
3 — The bill would make it extremely difficult to prevent criminals and terrorists from obtaining legal status. If a background check isn't completed by the end of the day after applying for the Z-visa application — which is unlikely — the applicant gets a probationary Z-visa, good for six months, plenty of time to work legally regardless of background, or to plot a terrorist attack.
4 — Amnesty would apply even to fugitives ordered deported but who defied the orders. About 636,000 absconders have ignored the law — in some cases twice.
5 — If an illegal is in the deportation process and is deemed "prima facie eligible" for a Z-visa, an immigration judge must halt the proceedings and offer the alien a chance to apply for amnesty.
6 — Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be transformed from a law enforcement agency to an amnesty distribution center.
7 — Gang members would be eligible for amnesty. Deporting gang members (who have created mayhem in American cities) has been a top ICE priority. Not any more, if this disaster becomes law. The over-the-border gangster-dominated Mexican town of Nuevo Laredo may become a model for U.S. towns in the 33 states where illegal gangs have operated.
8 — In-state tuition (or tuition subsidies) would be available to illegals, but not to mere out-of-state naturalized or native-born American citizens.
9 — Contrary to current law, many illegal aliens would be entitled to taxpayer-funded lawyers.
10 — So-called "provisional" Z visas would actually give the aliens immediate lawful status, protection from deportation, authorization to work, and ability to exit and re-enter the country (with advance permission).
This column knows of an individual — a professional person — who came to America, played by the rules, has contributed to the economy, applied for citizenship, and went through all the legal hoops. But he is required to travel a lot on company business. When it turned out he had been out of the country for just one day beyond that allowed in the year prior to acquiring citizenship, he had to go back to the end of the line and start the process all over again. No Z visa for him.
Of course he complied, but the point is immigration enforcement can be ultra stickler-like on legal immigrant applicants. However, if you're illegal — hey, we don't need to obey any stinkin' laws. Forget it. Y'all come!
This immigration bill is a "compromise" of sorts. It badly "compromises" law enforcement and tosses the "rule of law" to the four winds.
Wes Vernon is a Washington-based writer and veteran broadcast journalist.
Ya mean there’s a risk of getting caught? Gosh, thanks for the insight. Never woulda figgered.
There’s gonna be a lotta “law breakin’” if this bill passes.....Congress will have made lawlessness the law. Why should I be honest on my tax return? Why should I follow any laws at all? The future could get very “interesting.”
I posted it on the live debate thread but I don't think anyones at home there. If anyone's interested I'll post it here as well.
Well a person who murders someone could say he didn’t agree with the law against murder...come on. Civilized societies have rules and laws that prevent chaos. If you don’t approve of a law work to end it.
Imagine if 50 million Americans decided not to pay taxes. I guess it wouldn't be practical to round up 50 million people. Like the leftist say, it would just be impossible and cause way too much anger.
“F the law.
And that is the attitudes they are instilling in us.
“
__________________________________________
It started for me with seatbelts.
DISCLAIMER: I am not here to argue about whether or not seatbelts are a good idea, or that the “social cost of making bad decisions” requires the law.
PLEASE RE-READ DISCLAIMER
Now then: The Kalifornia state legislature once swore six ways from Sunday that they would NEVER, EVER make not wearing a seatbelts a “primary offense.”
As I recall they did just that in less than five years, and now on every idle freeway sign are the words
“CLICK IT OR TICKET”
Just another way for the government to shove it in your face. Folks, we’re playing a game where the rules change as you go along, and ignorance isn’t an excuse.
Ronald Reagan once joked that the most frightening thing an
American could hear is “I’m from the government and I’m here to help”
That’s changed, now. The quote should be “I’m from the government, and I’m here to show you who’s boss.”
Ya gets so ya don’t give a rat’s patootie about nuttin.
My ex and I forgot to file our taxes one year (back in the 80's) as we were separated, moving and what not. It was a case of "he thought I filed and I thought he did". In the meantime, we got back together and moved out of state for a new job, when his parents called and said 2 IRS agents had come to their house looking for us. It had only been 10 months late...not 10 years! Good grief. They can find a gnat on a horsefly if they want to.
You know they say it is impossible to deport them all. Well, I’m sure someone said the same thing about going to the moon too, but hey we did it.
They have all violated the oath of office. And they don’t care.
now that is an excellent point.
I have to agree with you on that. This bill will be passed no matter how we feel about it. This week, next week or the week after that, but it will be passed.
The dye has been cast!
The only question that remains is 'what are we going to do about it?'
Should I start with the 800 number in post #1?
Actually, short of a revolution that might be the only way to get the politicians attention.
The only question that remains is ‘what are we going to do about it?’
I have some suggestions. But, they could only be shared in Executive session with only true patriots.
Understood.
No dear your husband told you to call days ago. Why start now?
Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., left, and Janet Murguia from the National Council of La Raza, take part in a news conference on immigration reform, Tuesday, June 5, 2007, on Capitol Hill in Washington. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)
I suspect Vincente Fox has a much better chance of being Hillary's successor than Jeb Bush does.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.