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.
TURN THE ENEMIES WEAPON AGAINST HIM
Call the Senate Immigration Reform Hotline at 1 800 417 7666
Press 1 for your senior senator, 2 for your junior senator.
This will connect you DIRECTLY to your senator without going through the congressional switchboard.
JAM THE LINES. LET THEM HEAR OUR ANGER AND FURY.
300 million additional applications for "Z" Visa's ought to help shut it all down. Blackbird.
Do you see the media report on this topic without political spin? Only a very few. The negatives we espouse are swept under the rug.
In short, I believe that the last 30 yrs. or more are absolute evidence that our politicians have not taken their oath or responsibilities seriously. It’s time for a pay cut. And a benefit cut. When they begin to take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously then we can talk. And anyway where does it state in any document from the founders or any writings that these individuals should be compensated so highly. I didn't know PUBLIC SERVICE was to be rewarded so greatly. I thought it was for an individual to make an impact on policy not my pocketbook.
We are seeing those signs in Colorado too. I wonder if it is a nationwide campaign tied in with TV ads and cereal box promotions.
This is how they grab power. They mandate by law something that makes common sense. How can you argue against seat belts? Now they are telling us what we can eat and how much water we can have in our toilets.
We are seeing those signs in Colorado too.
Here in fairyland also. It’s an opening for them to search your vehicle if you don’t look quite right.
At this moment, yes he does. But after four to eight years of Hillary's misrule, who knows. Remember how nostalgic the sheeple were for the son of Bush after eight years of Bill's misrule?
I suspect with a big chunk of Mexico living and voting here (if those demonstrations flying the Mexican flag get the illegals made legal in a couple of months, I think they'll be voting maybe by '08, perhaps illegally, but certainly legally by '16) and we'll see our first Mexican-born El Presidente. Wonder if the Canadians are ready for it? Probably, since they're much more progressive than we are.
Did you see the poll that says ONLY half of Mexico wants to come here at the present time?
Is that because the other half is already here?
I'd be a lot more open to immigration if Mexico would take some of our lazy, white liberals in return. It would be nice if La Raza wasn't so racist as to be willing to discuss such an exchange. It would save the marijuana growers a bundle in shipping costs too.
Mexico will not be entering the Olympics anymore, because everyone that can run, jump, swim, or crawl is already in the USA.
I really meant that from the standpoint of ethics and morality, i.e. why should I obey the law when literally tens of millions will get a largely free ride for not having done so. I agree that spending time in prison is a good reason not to do certain things, and I'm not serious about breaking the laws in question.
But I'd love to see one of the pro-amnesty pols answer that or a similar question.
Oh, and IF I was REALLY going to break the law, I wouldn't be stupid enough to simultaneously announce it and leave behind evidence of premeditation.
Everywhere in the mid-atlantic too. Methinks across the Nation.
Its an opening for them to search your vehicle if you dont look quite right.
Agreed; but seriously, the question is, who is "them"?
As to morality, experience should be a guide as well as a reminder. One’s personal experience should help make these decisions, but seeing what happens to others gives a lot more examples since there are many more others than yourself. Sometimes history can help, too, although there are probably more examples of atrocious behavior than benevolent. There’s a lot of material to study and even then it comes down to what you decide. There is also the possibility of eternal punishment in the fifth ring of hell, but then again maybe that’s just a story.
Best just be good. Granted it is no guarantee of a happy or long life, but the odds are better.
Adios America, bienvenidos Amexica.
I try...but what is "good." Oh, I know, there are immutable laws on important things like not murdering others, etc. I don't have a problem with them - and don't even need a law to tell me what to do (or not to do, as the case may be). I have a problem with legislated, victimless "crimes" like going 60 in a 55 zone, not being able to legally buy the same guns my father or grandfathers could, etc. Ideally speaking, of course, everyone should obey all laws, and all laws should be just and reasonable, and also impartially enforced. When the laws aren't just or reasonable, when they aren't enforced (or only against the little guy, or against certain targeted segments of society), and when many or most others don't obey them, well then I have a very hard time doing what "should" be done. Besides, if we are a democracy (of sorts - I know, we're really a Republic), and people "vote" by essentially flipping the bird to the idiots in DC or in state capitals for passing stupid laws that are arbitrarily enforced, isn't that kind of the way things are supposed to work?+
Same might be said of logic. Law has a logic of its own.
Orange trees are not particularly closely related to apple trees.
Great idea, the exchange. LOL!
The further from morality any particular law is - especially if it has little rational basis (in the logical sense of that phrase, not the Constitutional Law sense), the less likely the average person is to obey it. Witness Prohibition and the 55 MPH speed limit. All that laws like those do is to encourage contempt for ALL laws.
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.