Rockville Rape

Tuesday, March 21, AD 2017

 

 

A 14 year old girl was allegedly brutally raped in a boys’ bathroom at Rockville High School by two illegal aliens, 18 and 17 years old.  This comes at a time when Rockville, Maryland was considering becoming a sanctuary city.  The Superintendent of Montgomery County Schools, Jack Smith, seems a lot more concerned about protecting illegal aliens than he does about protecting his female students from rape.

 

The two suspects, Henry Sanchez-Milian, 18, and Jose O. Montano, 17, who was charged as an adult, are being held without bail. Montgomery Schools Superintendent Jack Smith told reporters that both suspects had been in a special program for non-English speakers at the high school and not in classes with the victim.

Smith pushed back hard against questions about whether the rape case should affect local efforts to comply with federal law, which guarantees a free public education to any child living in the United States, regardless of citizenship status.

“It’s totally inappropriate to suggest that we’re going to deny a 14-year-old, a 16-year-old, an ­18-year-old an education because of a horrible thing that happened in our schools last Thursday,” Smith said. “Some have tried to make this into a question and issue of immigration . . . but we serve every student who walks through our doors.”

Continue reading...

32 Responses to Rockville Rape

  • Are you crazy, protect the rapist, next you blame the victim! No, this was an illegal alien grown man who with the help of another illegal alien 17 year old, orally, anally and vaginally raped a child. No there is place for them in this country. The only reason to keep them here is for life in prison!

  • My prayers are with the fourteen year old this morning. May she find a sanctuary that will help her heal emotionally and physically.

    Illegal immigrants who are learning English and committing crimes such as rape….read and understand this word punks; Incarceration! Deportation will only work if they are incarcerated when they return to their homeland.

    Liberal Maryland will probably give them four weeks of sensitivity training, box of condoms from local planned parenthood and a fake voters ID.

  • Possibility of life in prison;

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/03/20/maryland-girl-allegedly-raped-in-high-school-bathroom-by-two-teens-at-least-one-here-illegally.html

    The slack jawed Obama administration should be reminded of the role they played in this horrible act of violence.

  • Once again, liberals don’t give a fig for the very groups they claim to represent. They stand for no higher value other than the acquisition of power. In the end, they just don’t care about that 14 year old girl. Now, let some privileged white male students do such a thing, and liberal outrage will pour forth.

  • Life inprisonment, AC? Nah, I see a tree with some strange fruit hanging from it!

  • And the sound of crickets from the National Organization for Women.

  • Well, I had to dig to find this story. There was one story about a 14 year old being shot that came up first. I thought that was the story here. It took a few to find this one, and reports of it that weren’t coming from more conservative outlets. And then it was the WP of all places.

  • About 1960, Martin Meyer published “The Schools,” on elf his books about the professions. Tio show that nothing has changed, I quote something he wrote. Public school administration is a form of appointive politics. “ No institution is more political in the broad sense than the public schools, a fact to which people seem oblivious. I had an-mail exchange with a school board member, from another district. I had pointe out that a school district is a government agency. She demurred. Not us, she said. Did she think that she was not as much as elected official as her state representative? Did she and her colleagues not set policy? No ones so blind as he who will not see. IAC, the Superintendent ought too resign and if he will not than he should be fired. This is the downside of the large salaries and generous perks awarded by the school district.

  • I state my credentials because context for my comments is necessary.

    I am an attorney and have been in the immigration Civil Service for more than twenty years. What I am writing are my own perceptions and views and do not, in any way, represent the views of my agency. They are not based upon any information not publicly available.

    This is a disturbing case for a number of reasons:

    1) I note that the sine qua non of education has switched from “that which is good for students” (plural) to “that which is good for the student” (singular). When I was in elementary school, that which was disruptive to the many was removed and that which affected the individual was tolerated. I was bullied. Some was earned and some was not but it was clear that the many were the concern, not the one. Now, the opposite is true.

    Here, we have 17 and 18 year old “freshmen” in class with 14 year old children. Note that I am not saying “what did they expect would happen” because normal 17 and 18 year old humans do not sodomize 14 year old children. I am pointing to the reality that the school felt that it had an obligation to the 17 and 18 year olds that was more serious and significant than their obligation to the student body as a whole. “We have to help THAT person” is the touchstone, not “how do we deliver the best education possible, for the greatest percentage of our students?”

    I am not saying that the other was better. As noted above, I was bullied and bullying is most unpleasant. What I AM saying is that public education cannot be so individualized that no holistic analysis of what is good and useful is done. This leads to my second point that these “unaccompanied minors” should never have been in that school at all.

    2) Central America has imploded. That is the reality that the media chooses not to cover. The children FROM Central America and Venezuela are in a position not dissimilar to the child soldiers of Africa: they have witnessed and, in many cases, directly experienced real horror.

    I dealt with a child soldier case back in the mid-1990s in which the man had been kidnapped and used as a sex slave when he was seven. By age eleven, he was gleefully chopping off the hands of babies and toddlers. He had been so seriously warped by his experiences that I suggest he was barely human anymore.

    What, exactly, does one do with such a one?

    His Holiness talks about charity in the context of immigration, and so he should, but these rapists illustrate a certain reality of immigration and that is that some people are so seriously damaged that they will never be safe to be around.

    I do not know these boys’ histories. My guess is that, if one looks at them, they have no small experience with sexual abuse and that this is not the first sexual assault they have participated in. We DO know that sexual assault is frighteningly common in Central America and that a very large percentage of young people have been raped and have raped.

    One case I dealt with a few years ago was of a young woman whose mother put her on the pill in her home country, before entrusting her to the care of smugglers THAT SHE KNEW WOULD BE RAPING HER. Her mother expressly told her to go with it, lest she be hurt, and, so, she was raped many times by the smugglers, people smuggled with her, and even authorities in Central America and Mexico… All so that she could come to the US as an “unaccompanied minor.”

    This brings me to my third point: The Obama Administration owns this problem, lock, stock, and barrel.

    3) The Obama Administration openly encouraged unaccompanied minors to come to the US. By using US tax dollars to complete the smuggling from the border to relatives in the interior of the US, the message got out that IF one got one’s kids to the US, the US would take care of them. This encouraged folks to send their kids to the US, despite all of those risks and, in some cases, BECAUSE of all of those risks.

    We talk about “vetting” of refugees and it is wise to do so but the vetting of these unaccompanied minors was nearly nothing. They show up at the border with no documents. An inspector or Border Patrol Officer interviews them and fingerprints them. If the fingerprints come back negative… Which they should if they person hasn’t been here before, and the CLAIM to be under 21, they were either permitted to go to their intended destination, were taken to a detention center (this is for the clearly too young to be let go), or taken to their intended destination.

    Stated differently, if you got to the US, claimed to be under 21, and had no prior US arrests, we let you settle here… Ostensibly awaiting an immigration hearing that would be no less than three years in the future IF you showed for that hearing at all.

    This leads to my last point: Having admitted “adults,” for, let us be hones, the boys in this horror are not “kids,” the school should have segregated them from the others. It was fundamentally unwise to let the boys wander about, unnoticed.

    The range of assaults here is staggering. I have no idea how long sexual assault takes but it cannot have been a quick crime for them to have done all that was reportedly done to her… And, no one noticed.

    Thanks for your patience here but this is a case that I find remarkably disturbing and it is cathartic to say what I think about it.

  • I doubt there’s any federal statute which does or could compel states to enroll illegal aliens. They’re confusing federal law with arbitrary exercises of judicial wilfullness.

  • People like Smith would much rather see our daughters raped and murdered than see the immigration laws of our nation enforced.

    Ignoring violent crime does not disrupt the Democratic Party’s vote farming operation. Enforcing the immigration laws does.

  • Superintendent Smith’s “Equity Initiatives Unit” ? It’s going to make that young victim whole again? Prevent another crime? Liberal Lala Land. What if the victim had herself been an illegal? It probably wouldn’t have been reported. When an underclass like illegals is created all sorts of crimes by illegals upon illegals the cl are not reported or under reported for the obvious reason.

  • The (open-borders, bring-in millions of Muslims) establishment and elites don’t care about ordinary Americans. The agenda (fundamentally transform/wreck evil, racist Americans in fly-over country and reduce labor costs) is all and all.

    This woman’s poor daughter was expendable. She was not even “collateral damage.”

    This is one of the many ticking time bombs Obama left behind.

    In addition to hundreds of unnecessary (they should not be here) murders and rapes, Obama overloaded, and will bankrupt, many states’ social programs with tens of millions of illegal immigrants.

  • That is, of course, correct, T. Shaw: an 18 year old, who cannot read or write in their own language, who has no skills, and has an horrific life history, cannot be other than a burden on the State.

    One of the things I have noticed about the Left is that they are ALL about institutional change for things like race and sex discrimination but then refuse to even look at institutional matters when the issue does not fit the narrative. What I mean is that we hear “you may not have MEANT to discriminate but that is the effect so you must institute dubious, expensive, and potentially disastrous institutional changes to fix it” but “why would we bring adults here as though they were children and then put them in proximity to our children, without vetting them” is racist and xenophobic.

  • Just another reminder that the bottom line of multiculturalism is that it is a man’s world. And a particularly unpleasant man at that.

  • Mr. Spalding, We can take off the gloves and appropriately act given the nature of the war. It is a war for America, for our children, for our liberties , for our way of life. These evil people hate you and me. They hate America and the uses Americans we make of our liberties. Ergo., when you defend America you are a “racist,” a “xenophobe,” “etc.”

    Obama misspent eight years wrecking America and our way of life. Hillary would have finished us off.

    Therefore, I am blessed when evil people falsely call me “racist,” “xenophobe,” and sorts of evil things for so did evil men persecute the Jesus and the prophets before me.

  • Thanks David Spaulding for sharing your expertise and inside insight on this matter. Your views on the hell many of these illegals come from is sobering. It’s almost impossible for US to imagine what it would be like to suffer their plight. To be brought up in a slave mentality and only knowing oppression and hate.

    I am not defending the punks nor their actions. I’m perplexed at a humanitarian answer in this fubar.
    Rehabilitation centers?

    In this climate can we be our brothers keeper, especially if they resemble the persecuted and perpetrator at the same time?

  • The lib elite narrative is everything. Anything that belies the agenda is censored, distorted, explained away, whatever. Compare and contrast any gun violence incident – every American gun owner is guilty – with any illegal invader atrocity or Muslim massacre.

    The point is that the authorities treat this epidemic of hatred and violence as “Nothing to see here, keep moving.” And, that President Trump and 63 million voters are “uncharitable” for wanting to reverse that perversion.

    In the less-enlightened era, the authorities’ motivations were protecting the innocent by punishing the predators. In these “enlightened” times, it’s “She was expendable.” In the unenlightened, bad old-days, rapists were hanged.

    Recently, Suffolk County, NY police arrested a dozen illegals, members of MS-13, for brutally (baseball bats/machetes) murdering two young American women. My sister works with one victim’s mother. And, we hear “crickets” from the dums and media. It would be 24/7 anti-gun outrage if a deranged white had gunned down the poor women.

  • It ought to have been Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi who got raped and Obama who got sodomized and orally violated. Life in prison means two months after an appeal. Castrate the rapists with a dull, rusty knife and shorten his member so that every time he pees he is reminded that violating people is a crime. Our American Liberty is predicated on the LAW.

  • Illegal immigrants are invaders. Never invited and never welcomed. Outlaws are criminals and wars are started by outlaws. This is not CHARITY. This is insanity Let us put Obama and Hillary Clinton in prison for this violation of personal sexual integrity and privacy.
    the green light for the rapist is Obama’s bathroom bill. Clinton and Obama enabled this violation of the sovereign personhood of a minor child, our constitutional Posterity. Exile the enablers, then the criminals will stop coming.

  • Mary De Voe.

    Need I be reminded of my like for you?
    Never!
    Your on target!
    Again.

  • “It ought to have been Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi who got raped and Obama who got sodomized and orally violated. Life in prison means two months after an appeal. Castrate the rapists with a dull, rusty knife and shorten his member so that every time he pees he is reminded that violating people is a crime.”

    That is quite enough, far more than enough actually, of that.

  • In Mary’s defense, not that she needs me to defend her, unless you’ve been raped yourself, or know someone who has, the response to the outrageous act on the fourteen year old is understandable.

    I do know someone, and her ability to move forward and forgive her assailant is saintly to say the least.

  • 2) Central America has imploded. That is the reality that the media chooses not to cover. The children FROM Central America and Venezuela are in a position not dissimilar to the child soldiers of Africa: they have witnessed and, in many cases, directly experienced real horror.

    What are you talking about? There were 3 wretched insurgencies which went on over the years running from 1960 to 1996. One was largely suppressed by the end of 1984 and formally settled 12 years later. The other two were settled via armistices in 1990 and 1992, respectively. Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras have an exceptional problem with street crime. Guatemala and El Salvador are more tranquil in this respect than was the case 20 years ago. Honduras is suffering, but 80% of Central Americans live elsewhere.

  • The Superintendent of Schools statement was pure garbage but not unexpected. Rockville is the county seat of affluent Montgomery County. Many years ago they used to elect a Republican Congresswoman, albeit not a conservative, but not the crazy liberals that now occupy many seats of the state govt. and represent MD on the federal level. Montgomery County was the forerunner in proposing self identifying transgenders use bathrooms in public schools, parks and other county buildings. Nancy Pelosi is a product of Bal’more politics. Thank God (and that’s a prayer) that the self styled “new JFK” Martin O’Malley didn’t get either the #1 or #2 Dem nominee slot in the last election. A Caucasian Obama in Irish Catholic sheep’s clothing.
    Hopefully there is some good resulting from the heinous crime IF school policies are changed and the wacky, liberal pols are voted out.
    Let’s turn our anger into prayers for the young girl and her family.

  • Thank you Donald McClarey. Caution noted. Thank you Philip: The rapists would have killed her if she had fought back. The victim’s innocence and virginity are not precluded by rape..

  • Thank God (and that’s a prayer) that the self styled “new JFK” Martin O’Malley didn’t get either the #1 or #2 Dem nominee slot in the last election. A Caucasian Obama in Irish Catholic sheep’s clothing.

    Dr. Zummo will have to weigh in on this. As far as I could ever see, Martin O’Malley is a standard-issue Democratic pol, careerist type. In fairness to O’Malley, he practiced law for 3x as long as BO did and tried his hand at executive positions ‘ere running for President. Trouble is, when you’re Mayor of Baltimore, you have one job: cut crime. He pretty much failed. Didn’t hurt his career, though.

  • The destruction of the girls psyche, her haunting memories are scars slow in healing. If it was your daughter…well, God only knows what retribution you would like to wield on the men. Forgiveness is not easy. It’s a life’s work. Tomorrow I’ll beg our Lady for special graces to enfold the child and her parents. As for the rapists, God’s mercy and as He see’s fit.

    Our Lady of the Annunciation help us.

  • “A lawyer for Sanchez said his client is innocent, and sex with the 14-year-old girl was consensual.”
    The 14-year-old victim was not an emancipated person when the crime was committed against her. Therefore, the victim did not have informed sexual consent to give. Had the victim agreed to have sex with the adult males, it is incumbent upon the adult males to refuse. If the judge hearing the case decides that the victim had the maturity of informed sexual consent to give, enough to be emancipated, without being able to vote, to serve on a jury, to serve in the Armed Forces, to drive, it is after the fact of the crime and inadmissible. The crime against her was committed while she was a minor child.
    Some judges emancipate minor children when they become pregnant to enable an abortion with school counselors and without parental consent. Another miscarriage of Justice, especially since the unborn sovereign person, our Constitutional Posterity, protected under our Preamble, is now a ward of the court.
    “Sean Spicer said, “Part of the reason that the president has made illegal immigration and crackdown such a big deal is because of tragedies like this.”
    This is not a tragedy. This is a crime, a violation of a human being, assault and battery of an American citizen. Earthquakes, floods and hurricanes may become tragedies.
    Sanctuaries are holy places. Sanctuary cities must be holy places. The taxpayers are being swindled.

  • Philip Nachazel: Thank you again Philip. I am listening to an audio book of Anne Catherine Emmerich :The Dolorous Passion of Our Lord, Jesus Christ May I recommend the book?

  • Self-Defense For All 12-Year-Old Girls! I was a victim/survivor of a sexual assault that happened when I was 15 years old. I was modestly dressed, on the campus of a Christian university for a school program, and was doing nothing wrong. I was alone in a girls’ only dorm. I was in the wrong place and at the wrong time and there was an opportunity for an attacker, and he took it. I later took self-defense in college. It helped, but it was really too late for me. We need to teach our girls anti-rape strategies along with how to use a maxi pad and how to wear a training bra. It’s sad, but it’s true. Please, if you have daughters, help your girls to help themselves.

  • Mary De Voe.
    Thanks, and yes…One of Mel Gibson’s resources in the making of The Passion of the Christ. My parents bought five copies for each of their sons. I read it then and gave my copy to an individual, and now it’s part of providence vacuum…the unknown but hopefully in the right hands.
    I will search out another copy at our extensive lending library at Church.
    It’s been eleven years since I’ve read it.
    I recall being stirred in the soul as events unfolded. The Poem of the God Man by Maria Valtorta’s, eight volumes I believe, was another moving piece that left you wanting more. A friend loaned a couple of her books to me and yes, she did get them back.
    I will search out St. Emmerich’s book this week.

    @Emily

    God bless you. Self defense at twelve years old. If it helps one girl it is worth it. If it causes more pain because the attacker is much stronger and now somewhat hurt, then I feel worse for the child, however at least the child had a fighting chance at escape.
    Peace to you and your loved ones.
    Thanks for sharing.

Podhoretz Gets It

Thursday, November 10, AD 2016

 

 

Lots of commentary out there about what happened in the elections, most of it rubbish.  However, one of the better short pieces is by John Podhoretz, one of the more vehement Never-Trumpers:

 

The nation’s cultural and political elite has been handed its walking papers by the American electorate.

What just happened is the most momentous shift in American political and cultural life in our time. There’s no way to digest the meaning of Donald Trump being on the verge of victory. Understanding it is the work of a generation.

Of course, we’re seeing desperate and pathetic efforts to declare the results illegitimate. For example, Paul Krugman of the New York Times said last night that Hillary Clinton’s loss was due to conscious efforts to suppress the African-American vote.

That idea is beyond preposterous and intellectually deranged. What we saw was a national wave that turned blue states red, not a case in which voter ID laws and efforts to restrict early voting changed the balance of a state or two.

We saw the populaces of America’s rural counties and exurbs — places Donald Trump visited and said had been neglected and forgotten and mistreated by America’s leaders — rise up practically in unison and vote for someone who said he would be the vehicle of their anger and the tribune of their restoration.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to Podhoretz Gets It

  • The left’s “War on Women”, and “You’re a Racist” cards have expired. The bigger news is that much of the revolt (and it is a revolt) has been caused by overuse of their own political correctness weapon. Apparently the populace had run out of cheeks to turn and decided to throw out the money changers from the American temple.

  • Tuesday was an early skirmish. Keep in mind Churchill’s “beginning of the end” speech. The culture and political wars persist flagrant.
    ..
    The colleges and the lying media are cesspools of dishonesty, intolerance and totalitarianism. Red state Americans voted against the evil.
    .

  • Question for Podhoretz: Is he self-aware enough to count himself among the cultural and political elite?
    .
    And a follow-up: Will he humbly accept the walking papers he’s just been handed?

  • “And for support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” “divine Providence” sees us through. God bless America.

  • Interestingly enough, Norman Podhoretz, his old man, came out in support of Trump. I doubt if John Podhoretz considers himself a member of a cultural and political elite. He and his father have been conservatives in a liberal milieu for a very long time.

  • Too bad Podhoretz didn’t get it sooner. Still so miffed that so many, so smart, so ‘conservative’, worked against him. Now I hear ripples of doubt about what Trump campaigned on- ‘hold his feet to the fire’ from LifeNews (yesterday AM!) and will he really appoint good SCJs. He made a list. I am far more doubtful of all the Repubs, conservatives, talking heads etc that turned on him. Most people I had trusted in the past. I’m not just talking about criticizism. Those who used the full weight of their position against him. I hope they get it now…..But I’m not counting on them anymore.
    I was seriously disappointed in Podhoretz and the others. Trump had to overcome them as well as the lefties, and he did.

  • Shock: Populist policies are popular! Who’da thunk?!?

  • I have more concern about treacherous Senate RINOs sabotaging nominees than about Trump and his list for SCOTUS. I hope Trump names names when one of them rears its hideous head, with a hearty “You’re fired!”

  • Some of the more “popular” items on various state ballots this year: recreational marijuana and assisted suicide.
    .
    So popular isn’t a synonym for “right.”

  • The American dream of hope and promise returns with Trump. It was sold out and destroyed by large corporations, Wall Street, academia, the Catholic Church. The dream of a good secure job was shipped overseas, it was replaced by machines, it’s name was changed to selfishness, it’s cities were destroyed, it’s morals were mocked, the rich got richer on free government money while nearly everyone else became poorer, etc.

    Obama and Hillary became catalysts for change for all the ordinary Americans seething with anger and despair. Donald Trump identified, focused this exploding resentment despite his character flaws and won against the very personification, Hillary Clinton.

    Let’s give thanks to God that we now have an opportunity to change our ways and make America great again.

  • When the cultural elite tell me saying ” Merry Christmas” is micro aggression then I am no longer living in the land of the free and it’s time to go to war

  • “I do not have portraits of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman on display, but if I owned such portraits they would have pride of place in my law library.”
    You could make a triptych by adding Claude-Frédéric Bastiat – the only economist I have ever come across with a real gift for satirical humour; the fallacies he so famously ridiculed still live on after a century and a half.

Illegal Immigration: Cui Bono?

Wednesday, January 6, AD 2016

 

 

A brilliant ad in which Ted Cruz points out the fact that in our immigration debate, short shrift is given to Americans who have to compete with illegal aliens for low end jobs.  Few policy debates in contemporary America are more class driven than the immigration debate.  Upper class Americans can be advocates for illegal immigration, knowing that they and their kids will never have to compete with an illegal alien for a job, that they will not live in a neighborhood suddenly inundated with illegal aliens and the criminal gangs that often follow in their wake, and that they will benefit from cheap servants and cheap labor in businesses that employ illegals, and, if they are Democrats, future voters.  Would to Heaven that I could say that there was any difference between this attitude of limousine liberals and that of the prelates of the Church in this country, but there really is not.  The attitude is quite simply one of, “I will do good, at least in my eyes, and you, the American poor, will pick up the tab.”

Continue reading...

15 Responses to Illegal Immigration: Cui Bono?

  • That is a great ad. But whatever you may think of him, we can thank Donald Trump for dragging this issue back into the Overton Window. The donor class must be freaking out.

  • And heaven forbid if the ones that pay the price dare complain— even if it’s a lady out for a day with her dad, murdered in cold blood.
    Heck, I’m not even supposed to notice how expensive my car insurance is, due to the large number of uninsured drivers.

  • Good luck President Ted with getting funding from Congress to achieve that worthy goal. See, because the GOP congressional leadership is just as resistant to securing that border as the Democrats in Congress are. Never mind that keeping the border porous hurts the GOP. That being, great ad. It’s 100% right.

  • Illegal immigration seems to be one of the few issues on which Republican and Democrat leadership barely differ. Seems the only difference is why they each favor it (cheap labor v. future votes). Good luck trying to get anything to change when both illusory sides of the aisle agree.

  • “attitude of limousine liberals and that of the prelates of the Church”
    Oh that point breaks my heart

  • I wasted my time going to vote for McCain and Romney. This time, I won’ bother. They’re all (one for cheap labor; one for votes) fundamentally transforming the USA into a Latin nation.

  • I don’t think it has as much to do with cheap labor or future voters as it does with making up for the birth dearth that undermines the major social welfare programs.
    .
    Cheap labor and future voters are fringe benefits.

  • My wife’s daughter from a previous marriage (husband is deceased) is a registered nurse in the Philippines and cannot come over to the US without waiting for years to get a work Visa. My boss at work joked by suggesting she should get on a boat and pretend to be an illegal Musloid or Hispanic. One thing is certain: once she understands what is going on, she certainly will not vote Demoncrap when she becomes a citizen. But as things are going now, will Conservatives still be free and unimprisoned by that time?

  • Ilegal Latin Americans artificially inflate the AmChurch numbers, concealing the freefall. Many will find themselves in evangelical sects within a couple of generations. Church needs numbers to bolster its position as a Democrat PAC. And, as always, there is the incessant moral preening to assure your peers that you’re the right sort.

  • On paper, the parish with a Spanish Mass is about three time the size of any of the other parishes in our group. I know that for the weekly charity count-up they’re less than half the size, and by the less finance driven response to the Annual Appeal (they report what % have responded, and one of the options is “I’ll pray for you”), if we assume the same response rate as my parish (which also has a non-English Mass, but not Spanish) then they are about a quarter of that size.

    That’s number of families registered, too.

    For the parish I grew up in… we were the only non-Spanish parish served by that priest (multiple satellite parishes), and between the pressure of most of the members being illegal and most of the money coming from Seattle folks with vacation homes, there wasn’t much room for orthodoxy. They actually got a priest removed from the area after doing a sermon on the indissolubility of marriage.
    (One of the big parish council women was divorced, after being abandoned with the two kids. She was quite vocal about looking for a replacement, to the point that my mom had to quit trying to be involved with the parish council because she suggested that maybe God didn’t need quite as many specs on the prospects as the lady was laying out.)
    (there’s a blessed REASON I’ve made no secret that I know how messed up things can be. 😀 )

  • Catholic Apologist Jesse Romero actually some of the same points the Bear alluded to above:

    http://www.catholic.com/radio/shows/the-spiritual-implications-of-illegal-immigration-6984

  • Trump and Cruz are right. The American born working man has no friends.

    . He is being sold out by Union bosses who collect his dues and give it to the Democrat party who support immigrant friendly politicians and laws that help maintain the union bosses in power.

    . He lives in fear that he will be replaced by a lower waged worker or a machine.

    . He is being shamed by his Church who has no sympathy for his plight but only desires to increase it’s membership.

    . Politicians pay him lip service to get his vote but sell him out for campaign contributions and votes.

    It is time for a revolution. Hopefully, Trump or Cruz will be elected to bring it off and the American working man will realize he has been screwed all these year by folks who said they were on his friends.

  • as it does with making up for the birth dearth that undermines the major social welfare programs.

    Nope. Were that the issue, it could be finessed with the admission of about 400,000 settler-immigrants through legal channels if pro-natalist tax policy were ineffective. As we speak, permanent residency is granted to over 1 million people per year on top of the roughly 250,000 illegal aliens who arrive every year.

  • The donor class must be freaking out.

    The freak out was in the destruction of Gov. Walker’s campaign. He’d equivocated on a number of issues to please his donors.

  • Hopefully, Trump or Cruz will be elected to bring it off and the American working man will realize he has been screwed all these year by folks who said they were on his friends.

    All well and good, but what is to prevent them from selling out or “growing in office” once elected?

10 Responses to Bill? Obama Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Bill!

  • The will of the people, the voice of freedom, enrolled in the bill was assaulted, battered and abused. Constitutional protocol was abandoned, rejected, refused and ignored by the individual in the White House. The executive’s orders are only valid and constitutional when the executive order deals with citizens, “We, the people…”
    .
    Obama has no authentic authority over non-constituents, illegal aliens or war criminals when they impact or threaten citizens. Non-citizens are not under Obama’s executive privilege.

  • Believe it or not, The Washington Post felt compelled to do a “fact check” on this sketch. Next, they’ll be solemnly informing us that Fr. Guido Sarducci was not really the Vatican newspaper’s gossip columnist….

  • The President is using the examples of Reagan and Bush for precedence. Maybe somebody can explain why these examples are no bueno. I don’t understand the legalities of all of this.

  • The shorter version: Obama does not have the power to make citizens of illegal individuals through amnesty because the illegal individuals are not citizens and constitutional law applies only to citizens. Illegal immigrants have been instructed to respect our laws by the United States. Yet, they have violated our borders.
    .
    Obama can bestow any kind of honor on the illegal immigrants, knighthood, champion, first in class, Congressional Medal of Honor (NO) he wants, but citizenship requires legal entry and prerequisites that must be met before citizenship. Citizenship remains out of illegal immigrants grasp until they are citizens.

  • Tom M. “The President is using the examples of Reagan and Bush for precedence. Maybe somebody can explain why these examples are no bueno. I don’t understand the legalities of all of this.”
    .
    I believe that it was Bill Clinton who certified citizenship to over one million illegal immigrants who then voted for his second term. Clinton had overstepped his legal authority to make citizens of illegal individuals who violated our borders and our laws, as he, Clinton, had not power over non-citizens.
    It was Clinton who set the precedent for unauthorized executive privilege.
    .
    Clinton also made all the free lands and waterways the exclusive domain of the Chief Executive, himself, by executive order. This begot the Clive Bundy travesty; changing laws without asking the will of the people or consulting the Fifth Amendment, the takings clause for public domain. Clive Bundy’s use of the land was and is public domain as he was contributing rent.
    .
    I do not know if Bush or Reagan ever did.

  • Arrogance = Tyranny.
    Obama is in infamous company; Hitler Stalin and Lucifer.

  • It has been said that Obama micro-manages the military, much like Hitler. That didn’t go well.

  • Relevant videos:

    http://search.yahoo.com/search?rewrite=72&.tsrc=apple&first=1&p=trey+gowdy+video+can+the+president+void+law%3F&pintl=en&pcarrier=Verizon&pmcc=310&pmnc=038&fr=onesearch

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/03/13/trey_gowdy_if_president_doesnt_execute_the_law.html

  • The Chief Executive executes the will of the people. The will of the people is learned through the legislative process.

A Moral Crisis

Thursday, July 10, AD 2014

 

 

Victor Davis Hanson, my favorite living historian, has long thought and written about the problem of illegal immigration into the US.  Go here to read some of his earlier thoughts about the issue.  He agrees that what is happening currently in the “children’s crusade” to effectively eliminate our southern border is a moral crisis:

 

 

Mexico strictly enforces some of the harshest immigration laws in the world that either summarily deport or jail most who dare to cross Mexican borders illegally, much less attempt to work inside Mexico or become politically active. If America were to emulate Mexico’s immigration policies, millions of Mexican nationals living in the U.S. immediately would be sent home.

How, then, are tens of thousands of Central American children crossing with impunity hundreds of miles of Mexican territory, often sitting atop Mexican trains? Does Mexico believe that the massive influxes will serve to render U.S. immigration law meaningless, and thereby completely shred an already porous border? Is Mexico simply ensuring that the surge of poorer Central Americans doesn’t dare stop in Mexico on its way north?

The media talks of a moral crisis on the border. It is certainly that, but not entirely in the way we are told. What sort of callous parents simply send their children as pawns northward without escort, in selfish hopes of soon winning for themselves either remittances or eventual passage to the U.S? What sort of government allows its vulnerable youth to pack up and leave, without taking any responsibility for such mass flight?

Here in the U.S., how can our government simply choose not to enforce existing laws? In reaction, could U.S. citizens emulate Washington’s ethics and decide not to pay their taxes, or to disregard traffic laws, or to build homes without permits? Who in the pen-and-phone era of Obama gets to decide which law to follow and which to ignore?

Who are the bigots — the rude and unruly protestors who scream and swarm drop-off points and angrily block immigration authority buses to prevent the release of children into their communities, or the shrill counter-protestors who chant back “Viva La Raza” (“Long Live the Race”)? For that matter, how does the racialist term “La Raza” survive as an acceptable title of a national lobby group in this politically correct age of anger at the Washington Redskins football brand?

How can American immigration authorities simply send immigrant kids all over the United States and drop them into communities without firm guarantees of waiting sponsors or family? If private charities did that, would the operators be jailed? Would American parents be arrested for putting their unescorted kids on buses headed out of state?

Liberal elites talk down to the cash-strapped middle class about their illiberal anger over the current immigration crisis. But most sermonizers are hypocritical. Take Nancy Pelosi, former speaker of the House. She lectures about the need for near-instant amnesty for thousands streaming across the border. But Pelosi is a multimillionaire, and thus rich enough not to worry about the increased costs and higher taxes needed to offer instant social services to the new arrivals.

Continue reading...

49 Responses to A Moral Crisis

  • Tragically, the tens of millions of surplus, resentful/wrathful and ignorant/unintelligent people continues to increase.
    .

    They overtly tried it seven years ago: 6/28/2007: “When the U.S. Senate brought the Amnesty bill back up this week, they declared war on the American people. This act created a crisis of confidence in their government. Thankfully, the American people won today,” said Senator DeMint. “This is remarkable because it shows that Americans are engaged and they care deeply about their country. They care enough for their country to get mad and to fight for it, and that’s the most important thing of all. Americans made phone calls and sent letters, and convinced the Senate to stop this bill.”
    .

    “The Senate rejected this bill and the heavy-handed tactics used to ram it through. Americans do not want more of the same – amnesty and broken promises on the border. Americans want legislation to be written in public – not in secret – and they want Congress to engage in an open and fair debate.”
    .

    “There is a better way forward without this bill. The President has said that the border security measures can be implemented over the next 18 months, and they can be done under current law. Now the Administration needs to prove it and stop holding border security hostage for amnesty.”
    .

    “Once we have secured the border and restored trust with the American people, we can begin to take additional steps.”
    .

    .

  • If what I have gathered from various sources is correct, this whole thing is being orchestrated by “The Cartels” – the Mexican crime syndicates – for whom a primary source of income is being threatened by a very-likely legalization of marijuana in most of the country within the next 3-5 years. They control the pipeline – the roads and crossings through which the stream of both pot and Central American kids is flowing.
    .
    Illegals of all ages have come across the border for decades, but a concentrated and purposeful approach by tens of thousands of children is not “just another day along the border.” On the few occasions I’ve seen the “news” on television, the fact that this swarm is mostly kids doesn’t seem to be eliciting any kind of remark. Neither does the seeming absence of Mexican children seem to be noteworthy.
    .
    Given the tightly-woven familial structure of Latin cultures, it is difficult to believe that families would let their children attempt this trip, and all the exposure and abuse it certainly guarantees, unless there was coercion, pay-off or other more menacing impetus to do so. And certainly, only the Mexican syndicates have the kind of money and power to nullify at will the draconian Mexican immigration structure; it is to wonder whether “No ninos Mexicanos” was part of the deal . . .
    .
    My just-slightly-educated guess is that this is a shot across the bow; the Cartels are demonstrating their dissatisfaction and telling the Obama regime that they’d better not think about doing anything “rash” regarding marijuana laws. If there is a statement about “rethinking” legalization or a reversal of the lax enforcement of Federal law shortly, then, as the comedian says, “There’s yer sign.” It won’t happen until this crisis has dissolved into the shadows of the next, but once some back-channel “agreement” is reached, suddenly the tide will stop and a couple of weeks later, some “announcements” will emerge.
    .
    Just putting 2 and 2 together . . .

  • Here’s what I’m wondering…

    What if we emulated Mexico and just started shipping the illegals all straight to Canada?

    Oh come on, you know it’d be funny!

  • Waal, this makes plain where we are. By and large, the metropolitan professional-managerial set are not curators of communities or of the country at large. Obama and (in the course of her adult life) Pelosi are derived from that stratum and manifest its vanity and its thoughtlessness. The rest of us are…employees. We are expected to accept without complaint management’s agenda.

  • Nate,

    A bunch of Canadians are not amused.

    5/15/2008: “A couple of weeks back, Statistics Canada reported that, after adjustment for inflation, Canadian wage-earners are earning less than in 1980. For example, in British Columbia the median wage-earner earns 11.3% less than a quarter-century ago. The media flew into a dither about all the usual fixes — increase taxes on the rich, etc — until one lone columnist, Trevor Lautens, pointed out the obvious:
    ‘In recent decades immigration, especially in British Columbia, has massively swung away from Europe to the less-developed (awful phrase) world… The plucky (another vanished word) of any nationality can overcome anything, as many praiseworthy immigrants have. But any immigrants to Canada without English, notoriously hard to learn and internationally valued — see the April 28 New Yorker story on Li Yang, who literally shouts what he calls “Crazy English” to his students in China — or French, are likely to settle into ethnic ghettos where they are vulnerable to exploitation, including lousy under-the-table wages…’
    “So it’s not surprising that, as a group, immigrants for decades have dragged down Joe and Jane Median’s income.
    “When advanced economies admit ever larger numbers of unskilled workers (plus a chain of relatives through “family reunification”), they are importing poverty. The President says this is to do “the jobs Americans won’t do”. For the sake of argument, take him at his word. So why won’t Americans do them? Because they’re a great way to ensure you live in poverty. So we import foreigners to be our poor people. Can we import just the right number to ensure that poverty doesn’t “grow”? Unlikely.
    “There are arguments to be made both for and against immigration, but you can’t be in favor of mass unskilled immigration and then pledge to fight the “war on poverty”. It’s like spooning out a bathtub with a thimble while leaving the faucets running.” And, you all can again repeat, “The monstrous Repubs hate poor people!”

  • Because 12 million strangers and their exploitive employers decide it is economically beneficial to remake the law.

  • If this is so, it is an illustrative case of a structure of sin being errected. Individual sins multiplied across society to produce an unjust structure. I wonder if the social justice crowed is paying attention.

  • I imagine some laissez-faire economists would argue that bringing down wages, like any other cost reduction, will also bring down prices.

    Certainly, that was the argument for allowing the importation of cheap foreign food and the consequent damage to the incomes of domestic producers.

    And I suppose in a world of perfect competition it would work.

  • MPS – That also is the position of the Chamber of Commerce wing of the GOP. And, the progressives/liberals are either simpletons or want to complete the destruction of the evil, racist United States.

    My economic stratum places a high value on low wages we pay for unskilled labor.

    There are more important issues than my personal ease and net worth.

    Obamnesty is a disaster for blacks, Hispanic Americans and the rest of us, including 92,000,000 working-age Americans who are unemployed or forced out of the labor market.

    Again, Friedman: You can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both.

  • “If this is so, it is an illustrative case of a structure of sin being erected. Individual sins multiplied across society to produce an unjust structure. I wonder if the social justice crowed is paying attention.”

    Exactly right. The problem is that the social justice crowd (an unfortunate but accurate term, as we should all be for social justice, but never as part of an unthinking crowd) sees U.S. immigration law as the structure of sin, and refuses to see these foreign structures of sin that have been erected in opposition to U.S. law and society. They are a classic case of spouting off on the color of the pot and ignoring the kettle.
    If everyone who sees the inequalities in Latin America were to cite them to our bishops as what needs to change, and not our laws – indeed, changing or not enforcing our laws simply enables and perpetuates Latin American inequalities – then perhaps they might change their tune on this issue.

  • A partial repost of a comment from two days ago.

    It is unbelievable that so many people from Latin America, and in particular Central America, are sending their children north in this manner, especially when many do not support international adoption of their children. What does it say about them as parents? The best thing is ‘desperate’, but others less kind come to mind. Furthermore, what does this say about them as citizens of their counties? It says that they have decided their countries are failures, that their only hope for their children is to go to a better place, but they lack the humility to say so publicly and to do the only honest thing, which would be to get their leaders to apply for U.S. statehood. There are many options for them, but their pride keeps them from doing all but the trafficking.

  • “And I suppose in a world of perfect competition it would work.”

    Of course it would. I can’t wait to practice law in Scotland, I’d bet I’d make more money than what I do in the U.S. and the average Scot would pay less for legal representation. It should only take me about 2-3 years to get up to speed with the law. Can’t wait! Oh, there’s barriers to free trade? A bar association? Immigration laws? How bigoted! And I’m descended from some McLanes to boot, so I have a right to enter Scotland!

  • Certainly, that was the argument for allowing the importation of cheap foreign food and the consequent damage to the incomes of domestic producers

    Grain and fruit are grain and fruit. They do not generate social abrasions or create policy dilemmas through their mundane conduct. Neither are grain and fruit an electoral army which can be mobilized against domestic populations by The Regime.

    That aside, it is characteristic of every single affluent country that the share of the population earning a living from agriculture has undergone a drastic decline over more than two centuries. There is no exception to this rule. New Zealand is the only occidental country in which the share employed in agriculture even made it into the double digits at any time in the last 40-odd years. (Not that the real value of agricultural production has suffered). You have liberal trade in foodstuffs, and your product mix changes to specialty crops or to those most amenable to mechanized production. (From yesterday, I take it you have a particular issue with the timber industry). The net effect of a mess of trade restrictions, cartels, and subsidies in agriculture is the promotion of rent seeking behavior. There is no analogue to this problem in the labor market.

  • It says that they have decided their countries are failures, that their only hope for their children is to go to a better place, but they lack the humility to say so publicly and to do the only honest thing, which would be to get their leaders to apply for U.S. statehood. There are many options for them, but their pride keeps them from doing all but the trafficking.

    Can we not have arguments which depend on rhetorical gamesmanship?

  • “Can we not have arguments which depend on rhetorical gamesmanship?”
    Thought we were, considering the economic and legal facts that most Central Americans would be better off as U.S. citizens – Costa Rica excepted. Prove otherwise Art (except with the “but they’ll never apply for statehood so it’s silly” argument, which would only prove my point) and I’d concede some rhetorical sin. Given the lives that are involved it is no game.

  • I am disgusted more at the response of the Church in the United States to all this – enabling the continuation of illegal immigration and exacerbating an already horrible situation – than I am at the Obama Administration for selectively enforcing the immigration laws that do exist. My wife’s daughter (a registered nurse in the Philippines) and her son (a construction worker with lots of electrical experience) can’t get a visa to visit let alone immigrate, and both speak perfect English (besides of course Tagalog). But if they were Mexican illegals unable to speak or write English and on the government dole, then the Church would say it is a moral issue to not welcome them with open arms.

  • Paul, to be fair the Church does favor immigration laws and procedures that allow for family reunions such as that sought by your wife. The unfairness is that such stands are taking a back seat to people who are really impoverished and whose poverty is causing the Church to turn a blind eye to illegality.

  • Wasn’t this law regarding these Central Americans passed by the Bush regime? Why can’t they just repeal it?

  • Egon Wolff, one of the darlings of the Left, who is heavily studied and hugely influential in Mexico and throughout S America and its enclaves of socialism (a Chilean by birth; son of a German Jewish couple who emigrated there) sowed much of this concept, the invasion of the US, in his play Los Invasores (“The Invaders: A Play Within a Dream”):

    “Egon Wolff’s Los invasores (1962) deals with an invasion—
    the invasion and conquest of a city by the poor people or harapientos who
    live on its outskirts. The conquerors, obviously bent on exacting vengeance for
    the oppression they have so long endured, quickly destroy all vestiges of the
    capitalist way of life and impose a rule which, although it has anarchic overtones,
    is essentially socialist in nature. The destruction of capitalism and imposition
    of socialist doctrine is exemplified by the confiscation and melting down of
    silverware, jewelry, and other precious items to make tools, the equal division of
    clothing among all the people, and the fact that every woman, regardless of background, is sent to do manual labor in the hills.” —Leon F. Lyday, preface

    I have long been haunted by the glee expressed by those who have loved this nightmarish story, and longed for its realization as the emotional expression and the wish-fulfillment among many “educated” Mexican- and South American literati, a wish for the destruction of the USA, The play’s influence on the ruling elite and generations of students especially in Mexico City cannot be underestimated. Mexico’s bitterness over the loss of her northern boundary states is a living poison, bubbling for decades in the so-called educated elites, and now they are “living the dream.” And for us it is a true nightmare. And make no mistake: it is entirely a deliberate act by Mexico to facilitate our destruction.

  • Friedman: You can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both.

    What a dumb statement by Milton ‘turn on the printing press’ Friedman. El Salvador/Honduras/Guatemala have some of the lowest taxes and government spending in the world. In no way could any of them be described as a welfare state. Doesn’t seem to have stopped the mass poverty that makes parents send their kids to the much more welfare statish United States. Do people like Friedman actually check statistics before they write such drivel?

  • “Do people like Friedman actually check statistics before they write such drivel?”
    He was referring to the US Tom. Here is a video so you can understand what he was saying:

  • I value Milton Friedman’s words more than yours, Tom D.

    Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras have been wretchedly poor nations since they broke away from Mexico two centuries ago.

    Notice that Mexico never bemoans the loss of her southern territories that became the Central American nations.

  • Thanks for the video link Donald. While he makes a good case for restricting immigration when you have a welfare state, I don’t think he makes a case at all for open borders without a welfare state. Like I wrote before, there is no welfare state in Central America and they have some of the lowest taxes and government spending in the world. Does anyone think the solution to their problems is open borders?

  • Steve Phoenix that is horrible.
    Our help is in the name of the Lord, who made heaven and earth. We do need to exalt the Lord, repent abortion, seek HIs forgiveness and guidance.
    ISAIAH 56:1 Thus says the Lord: Observe what is right, do what is just, for my salvation is about to come, my justice about to be revealed. 2 Happy is the one who does this, whoever holds fast to it: Keeping the sabbath without profaning it, keeping ones hand from doing evil.

  • I don’t Tom. I think the million legal immigrants we allow each year is more than generous.

  • Penguins Fan, I think you meant to reply to Tom M, not me. True?

  • Mexicans who self describe as La Raza “covet” the improvements in their former American territories (ie, California) which generate so much wealth for so many. What they don’t acknowledge or appreciate is that modern day California didn’t just happen; it is the fruit of the Protestant work ethic and an American exceptionalism whose genius is not easily replicated. California’s vineyards, movie industry, high tech computer industry, naval bases, and agricultural output are the products of hard work and scientific innovation.
    .
    La Raza members may discover that when and if they reclaim California, they will not be able to sustain it. Mexico has never proven itself capable of the sort of creativity, innovation, or sophistication necessary to birth and grow wealth generating businesses or a flourishing and well functioning state.
    .
    Hence, La Raza’s infiltration of California may prove the adage that capturing and killing the goose that laid the golden eggs merely causes the production of the golden eggs to summarily end; a pyrrhic victory indeed.

  • Some of these posts remind me of Sidonius Appolinaris predicting the ruin of Gaul by the Franks, the Burgundians and the Goths, or St Gildas, so shocked by the incursions of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes that he quit Britain for the Celtic enclave of Brittany. To Romans, or to Gauls and Britons Romanised, it must have seemed the end of civilisation as they knew it.

    What would Europe (or the United States) be today, without the Volkswanderung of the Germanic peoples? The great story of the West begins with the anointing of Clovis and the coronation of Charlemagne. All that had been effete and decadent was swept away by that human deluge and all that was great in the Roman order not only survives, but flourishes. Their jurists are our lawgivers and rule the descendants of the barbarian conquerors from their graves.

  • “To Romans, or to Gauls and Britons Romanised, it must have seemed the end of civilisation as they knew it.”

    It was.

  • “All that had been effete and decadent was swept away by that human deluge”

    What utter and complete rubbish. Read the History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours for a useful corrective to this rose colored view of the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. A little Chesterton is instructive also:

    For the end of the world was long ago,
    When the ends of the world waxed free,
    When Rome was sunk in a waste of slaves,
    And the sun drowned in the sea.

    When Caesar’s sun fell out of the sky
    And whoso hearkened right
    Could only hear the plunging
    Of the nations in the night.

    Centuries of human misery stood between the collapse of the Empire in the West and the High Middle Ages. It is hardly something to wish to emulate. Of course the barbarian invasions bear no relationship to this attempt by fatheads in this country to erase our southern border for political, economic and misguided humanitarian reasons that are directly antithetical to the laws and the wishes of the American people.

  • Right, Mac.

    They don’t call them the Dark Ages for nothing.

    Maybe them German peoples weren’t wandering, they were being pushed by more savage peoples from the east.

    The progressive agenda will result in a tragic fiasco.

  • I’d be rooting for Chile in Sunday’s soccer game.

    Steve Phoenix- Thanks!

    Tom D, I’m sorry you feel that way.

    I am not an academic or an economist. I think (klaxons!) Dr. Friedman was a really bright guy: one of the miniscule number of academics with an iota of an appreciation for reality.

    From 3/2/2010: WSJ: “How Milton Friedman Saved Chile” Bret Stephens synopsis –

    .
    In 1973, the year the proto-Chavista government of Salvador Allende was overthrown by Gen. Augusto Pinochet, Chile was an economic shambles. Inflation topped out at an annual rate of 1000%, foreign-currency reserves were totally depleted, and per capita GDP was roughly that of Peru and well below Argentina’s.
    .

    Chile had intellectual capital, thanks to an exchange program between its Catholic University and the economics department of the University of Chicago, then Friedman’s academic home. Even before the 1973 coup, several of Chile’s “Chicago Boys” had drafted a set of policy proposals which amounted to an off-the-shelf recipe for economic liberalization: sharp reductions to government spending and the money supply; privatization of state-owned companies; the elimination of obstacles to free enterprise and foreign investment, and so on.
    As for Chile, Pinochet appointed a succession of Chicago Boys to senior economic posts. By 1990, the year he ceded power, per capita GDP had risen by 40% (in 2005 dollars) even as Peru and Argentina stagnated. Pinochet’s democratic successors—all of them nominally left-of-center—only deepened the liberalization drive. Result: Chileans have become South America’s richest people. They have the continent’s lowest level of corruption, the lowest infant-mortality rate, and the lowest number of people living below the poverty line.
    .

    Chile also has some of the world’s strictest building codes. That makes sense for a country that straddles two massive tectonic plates. But having codes is one thing, enforcing them is another. The quality and consistency of enforcement is typically correlated to the wealth of nations. The poorer the country, the likelier people are to scrimp on rebar, or use poor quality concrete, or lie about compliance. In the Sichuan earthquake of 2008, thousands of children were buried under schools also built according to code.

  • TomD wrote, “Maybe them German peoples weren’t wandering, they were being pushed by more savage peoples from the east”

    Of course. There was a steady settlement of the lands west of the long, porous Danube frontier by tribes under pressure from fiercer rivals to the east, notably the Huns.

    Then again, there were large contingents of barbarians, serving as auxiliaries in the Roman army, under their own chieftains (Clovis was the third generation of such commanders) and willing to support any victorious or mutinous general who offered to reward them.

    Finally, there was a large servile class, of the same races, ready enough to throw in their lot with any adventurer who might ameliorate their condition.

    There were no “barbarian invasions.” Clovis commanded a force of 5,000 men and with these he conquered a population of, perhaps, 2,000,000 Gauls? Really? The fighting, such as the battle of Vouillé (where Clovis had Byzantine allies), were between rival generals of auxiliaries. The real barbarian invasions, Mongol, Norseman, Arab, were all repulsed.

    Chesterton’s gloomy picture is a caricature. My parish church in Paris (I have a little studio apartment off the Bd Raspail, near the Luxembourg Gardens) was build by Childebert, King of the Neustrian Franks, the son of Clovis and St Clotilde. He built it to house the holiest of his relics, the stole of Saint Vincent of Saragossa. It was consecrated in 558, in the middle of the “Dark Ages.” It contains the tombs of other notable benefactors of the church and abbey, all patrons of religion and learning: Chlothar II, King of all the Franks, who died in 629 and the assassinated Childeric II, together with his wife Bilichild and their five year old son, Dagobert, who died with him in Livry forest in 675. The abbey school was the nucleus of the University of Paris.

  • There were no “barbarian invasions.”

    Rubbish. If Clovis was not a barbarian the term is devoid of meaning.

    “It would seem as if the episode of the celebrated vase of Soissons were an incident of the campaign against Syagrius, and it proves that, although a pagan, Clovis continued his father’s policy by remaining on amicable terms with Gaulish episcopate. The vase, taken by the Frankish soldiers while plundering a church, formed part of the booty that was to be divided among the army. It was claimed by the bishop (St. Remigius?), and the king sought to have it awarded to himself in order to return it intact to the bishop, but a dissatisfied soldier split the vase with his battle-axe, saying to this king: “You will get only the share allotted you by fate”. Clovis did not openly resent the insult, but the following year, when reviewing his army he came upon this same soldier and, reproving him for the defective condition of his arms, he split his skull with an axe, saying: “It was thus that you treated the Soissons vase.””

    That Clovis and his father had Roman military appointments in the dying empire is precisely of the same significance as calling a dog’s tail a leg: the name of a thing does not change the substance of a thing. The late Roman armies in the West largely consisted of barbarian war bands and barbarians, bearing Latin titles of office from feeble Emperors, usually led them, this military impotence being one of the chief elements in the fall of the Western Empire.

    The barbarian invasions of course had been a gradual process for centuries prior to Clovis. That civilization took a massive hit by the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West is denied only by those who lack any understanding of the period. Demographically, culturally and technologically this was a disaster, and the aftermath took centuries to climb out of.

  • Mexico has never proven itself capable of the sort of creativity, innovation, or sophistication necessary to birth and grow wealth generating businesses or a flourishing and well functioning state. –

    Deducting natural resource rents and applying a fudge factor to correct for Mexico’s abnormally skewed income distribution, standards of living in Mexico are similar to those of the United States about 90 years ago, which is near to the global mean of our time. Life in the 1920s was in places hardscrabble in ways we can scarcely imagine anymore, but there was quite a bit of mass affluence as well. Mexican crime rates are wretched. However, Chicago was not exactly tranquil ca. 1922 (and a number of Southern cities were in worse shape than Chicago).

    As for the Mexican political order, there has been complete legal-formal continuity since 1920. There was a sanguinary civil war during the period running from 1913 to 1920, but the country has not had a military coup since 1913, nor since 1915 any head of state drawn from the institutional military, nor since 1946 any head of state with a history as a partisan officer. The political machine which ran the country for 80 years lost its monopoly in stages over the period running from 1983 to 2000.

    A succession of governments over the last three decades has liquidated much of the country’s portfolio of state enterprises and common property. What remains if I understand correctly are PEMEX, some public utilities, and ejido lands. There’s also been considerable deregulation as well. The country suffered a sharp economic contraction in 2008 and 2009, but not a disaster of abnormal dimensions.

  • Bush said America could be a “lawful society”. A “lawful society” of lawbreaking illegal aliens? How is that possible? The influx of minor children who must be supported until they are emancipated is created by foreigners who know full well that they are violating our borders and our laws. Weren’t American citizens targeted in recent history and accused of “stealing” Guatemalan children and smuggling them out of Guatemala? Now, all of a sudden it is OK?
    Government does not get to dictate the virtue of charity for the citizens.

  • Michael you and I have apparently read different accounts of history.

  • The Irish saved civilization.

  • Art Deco,

    I have visited Mexico approximately 5 times; once to Tia Juana on the west coast and four times to Tulum on the east coast (the Yucatán Peninsula).
    .
    What I observed in Tia Juana in 2000 was an incalculable level of poverty that was beyond anything I had ever witnessed. People were living in homes that appeared to be made of cardboard boxes and children begged for food, money, or anything of value. I could not reconcile what I witnessed in Tia Juana with the world I had just left behind in San Diego where the poorest resident appeared almost rich by comparison. The persons who were suffering so profoundly in Tia Juana appeared to be native Indians.
    .
    On the east coast, Tulum was beautiful with architectural remnants of a great and mighty Mayan (pagan) civilization. The local residents of this area were also primarily Indian, and very poor, making a pittance from work in and about the tourist areas of nearby Cancun supporting hotels which catered to tourists. All of the local people with whom I came in contact were gracious, kind, and appeared to be Catholic. They were, however, dependent for their well being on a political elite who controlled the economy by keeping native Indians living on subsistence level stipends. It was patently obvious that there was an existing class structure that excluded native Indians from its elite brotherhood and barred them from the bounties of the land just because they were Indians.
    .
    Also very obvious was a strong military police presence in Tulum with approximately four or six uniformed police riding in the back of pick-up trucks with exposed rifles or machine guns (I am no gun expert) held aloft as they drove through the villages.
    .
    I will defer to you on what occurs in places such as Mexico City but what I saw on the coasts was scary and I feel great compassion for the native Indians who are treated as second class citizens in their native land by corrupt overlords. The fact that so many American businesses, seeking cheap labor, would set up shop in this milieu is disturbing.
    .
    As to my observations regarding those who comprise the liberal nationalist group “La Raza”…I found comments by “Victor Davis Hanson and The Conservative Forum” to be informative. See, minutes 1:16 and forward at http://youtu.be/E1NnxsOMG70

  • T. Shaw writes, “The Irish saved civilization.”
    .
    Probably not…but we (their descendants) like to think so. : )

  • The Mexican military is contextually small. That’s bog standard for Latin America. They also have malintegrated labor markets and abnormally skewed income distribution. That’s also quite unremarkable for Latin America. You’re going to see deep pits of poverty there you will not in other countries of similar levels of mean affluence (the metrics I refer to above were comparisons of the middle 80% to correct for that skew). Also, the commodity mix available to people of similar real income levels changes drastically over time.

    Latin American crime rates are exceptional. You do not see anything like it anywhere outside of southern Africa, and, again, the social stratification is weird and distorted in a way you find elsewhere only in quondam pigmentocracies like South Africa.

    For the most part, though, Mexico is about average for the human race. Those places on the globe more affluent would be the occidental core (Western Europe, North America, and the Antipodes), Asian tigers, some post-Communist countries in Eastern Europe, and (if you do not bracket out natural resource rents) a mess of oil prinicipalities. There is a list of about 18 others whose income levels exceed Mexico, but most of these are ministates (like Malta) or have income levels of which Mexico is within striking distance (like Argentina).

  • What’s going on our border is not a moral crisis, it is a political one. The alignment of borders of different countries opening and closing at will, of security and police forces standing down to permit entry and transgress through sovereign territories, is not orchestrated by poor workers.
    .
    It is a coordinated crisis by political and no doubt economic leadership within America, Mexico, and various Central American countries to tear down walls/borders and flood the United States with peoples from all over the Americas. .
    It is the fulfillment of a political promise made to the international community by President Obama’s in his Berlin address of 2008.

  • The evil, unjust United States are being destroyed. It is not accidental.

    End welfare/free hospitalization for invaders. Secure the border without firing a shot.

  • “It is a coordinated crisis by political and no doubt economic leadership within America, Mexico, and various Central American countries to tear down walls/borders and flood the United States with peoples from all over the Americas. . It is the fulfillment of a political promise made to the international community by President Obama’s in his Berlin address of 2008.”

    Slainte–so true. Recall how Clinton and Obama in 2009 supported a leftist despot who, through Honduran law and its constitution, had to be forcibly removed from office as he sought complete Chavez like power in his country. More recently the US did nothing as the drug cartels aided and abetted a hate filled Marxist in the El Salvador elections. The US withdrew support under Obama for any intermediary broker let alone opposition in Venezuela and has withdrawn aid and assistance as the Central American countries sought to fight the criminal overlords seeking to control their countries. We now have Chavez like regimes spreading throughout Central and South America all with the same ideology possessed by our own President. All this is done with the intention of destroying this country, destroying the civic and church and political institutions which promote liberty, and remaking America.

  • Lord Paddy Ashdown comments on “the Global Power Shift” as an evolution from a Lateral model of government (sovereign states) to a Vertical model of government (one world government) with an accompanying system of laws to regulate “global governance”. In this vertical model, traditional alliances between nation states give way to identifying new “common interests” which drive the formation of new alliances to meet those interests.
    .
    See, Lord Ashdown at http://youtu.be/zuAj2F54bdo
    .
    Noticeably absent from Lord Ashdown’s commentary is a failure to address the concerns of Lord Acton (10 January 1834 – 19 June 1902), who opined, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…”
    .
    Where in the world does one go to protest abuses which arise from a global world government and its absolute leadership?

  • Michael Paterson-Seymour, I didn’t write “Maybe them German peoples weren’t wandering, they were being pushed by more savage peoples from the east”, T.Shaw did.

    T.Shaw, I didn’t write anything against Milton Friedman, Tom M did

  • Art Deco
    You could have included in your summary that, in 1982, the Mexican economy effectively went into bankruptcy and had to be bailed out by the IMF, and international banks, with the support of the US government.
    In 1979, the oil price had risen from $2 to $3 a barrel to $40 a barrel, following the fall of the Shah of Iran. In a fit of hubris, Mexico went on a huge spending spree, borrowing enormous sums of money, backed by the assumption that the price of oil would remain in the $30-40 range until the end of the 20th century without interruption. In the event, in 1982, the price of oil fell to around $10.

  • TomD – Sorry, a slip of the pen.

  • Spero News reports that:
    .
    “…Obama Seeks To ‘Destabilize’ the United States….A ‘Dear Colleague’ letter sent by Senator Sessions to all 535 members of both houses…accuses President Obama of a ‘breathtaking’ usurpation of power. Obama ‘threatens foundation of our constitutional republic’
    .
    Sessions is further quoted as saying in his Dear Colleague letter that:

    “….The action the President is reportedly contemplating would be a nullification of the Immigration and National Act by the Executive Branch of government. Indeed, it would be an executive nullification of our borders as an enforceable national boundary. By declaring whole classes of illegal immigrants beyond the reach of the law, it would remove the moral authority needed to enforce any immigration law, creating the very open-borders policy explicitly rejected by Congress and the people. And it would guarantee that the current illegal immigration disaster would only further worsen and destabilize….”
    .
    Source: http://www.speroforum.com/a/SWNRKOIWOH49/75034-Obama-seeks-to-destabilize-the-United-States-says-Republican-senator#.U8YJzJRdWSo
    .
    Ugh….sort of makes you want to have a drink…anyone for a Margarita?

Illegal Immigration and the Church

Wednesday, July 9, AD 2014

immigration_billboard

 

 

 

I admit to some puzzlement as to why the Church in this country is so stridently in favor of illegal immigration.  The Church in America being in favor of legal immigration I can understand, with so many Catholics tracing their ancestry to the waves of immigrants from Europe in the 19th and early 20th century.  But until the day before yesterday in historical terms the Church was never in favor of illegal immigration.  I think much of it tends to be that many of the powers that be within the Church in this country tend to favor the political left in most contexts.  They are embarrassed that fights over abortion,  gay marriage and religious liberty aligns the Church with political conservatives.  Being in favor of illegal immigration allows these clerics to align with political forces they find much more congenial.  Jack Cashill at The American Thinker gives us a case in point:

 

 

Motives, however, are rarely as simple as money. On the question of the church’s motives, one local Catholic explained how the noisy “peace and justice” cliques within the church seized a new opportunity to lure the Church leftward. As she explained, these cliques were attempting to negate the rightward drift of practicing Catholics on life issues by elevating workers’ rights to a comparable status. In the 2000 election, she noted, they tried the same tactic with the death penalty. 

The problem for the P&J crowd is that the Catholic Church considers abortion “always morally evil” — “murder” in fact — but has no official position on immigration, legal or otherwise. One can read all four gospels and every encyclical ever written without encountering a single “undocumented immigrant” swimming across the River Jordan. Serious Catholics treat the hierarchy’s showy preference for immigration issues over life issues as some sort of Job-like test of their fidelity.

I had absolutely no intention of saying anything at the press conference. But with the woman’s lucid argument still resonating in my head, I could not resist the urge to inject a note of realism into the Q & A happy talk that followed the speeches.

“Bishop,” I blurted out, “what do you say to those Catholics troubled by your alliance with these left-leaning groups given their historic affection for abortion rights?”

The Bishop looked at me as if I had just peed on his shoe. “What are you talking about?” he scoffed. As respectful as I try to be to my Catholic clergy, I did not appreciate the public dissing. “Let me tell you what I mean,” I answered and elaborated in more detail what I had already said.

“This isn’t about left or right,” he finally answered. “This is about justice.”

“Bishop,” I smiled, “May 1st? International Worker’s Day?”

I had expected the other reporters to give me the evil eye, but they did not. My question seemed to remind them of the role that reporters used to play, “Bishop,” said the next fellow. “You keep saying that the Church is supporting immigration. Isn’t this really about illegal immigration?”  I did not have time to listen to the answer. I had a 12 o’clock appointment across town, and I had already spent $9.00 on parking.

A few months later the unions repaid the Catholic Church for its support in a way that left me feeling much more insightful than I actually am. The Los Angeles Times summarized the issue succinctly enough: “California’s leading union organization, bucking organized labor’s long-standing neutrality on the issue of abortion, is for the first time taking a strong stand in favor of abortion rights.” 

Specifically, the union asked its 2.1 million members to reject Proposition 85. This initiative would merely have required abortionists to honor the standards of ear-piercers and aspirin dispensers and get parents’ permission before going to work on their daughters.

Spearheading the union assault on parental rights was none other than Dolores Huerta, star of the press conference I had attended at the Cathedral. As the Times noted, Huerta, “a Roman Catholic,” had persuaded a pro-choice group to put its many interns to work passing out pro-abortion propaganda to the union delegates before the vote was taken. The union support proved crucial in defeating Prop 85 by a narrow 53 to 47 margin.

Said Tod Tamberg, an Archdiocesan spokesman, “It doesn’t preclude us from working together on those areas where we do share common concerns.” The “it” in question is the union’s decision to sanction what the church considers to be murder. In the battle for the Hispanic soul, the Church hierarchy had already surrendered, and God only knows why.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Illegal Immigration and the Church

  • “I was a criminal and you welcomed me.”

    “I was a murderer and you welcomed me.”

    “I was a thief and you welcomed me.”

    Shaw 7:9

  • Said Tod Tamberg, an Archdiocesan spokesman, “it doesn’t preclude us
    from working together on those areas where we do share common concerns.”
    The “it” in question is the union’s decision to sanction what the Church
    considers to be
    murder.
    .
    So, if I follow Mr. Tamberg’s line of thinking, the Church should avert Her eyes
    and lend support to any group with whom “we share common concerns”.
    I’d ask Mr. Tamberg and his fellow travelers: if NAMBLA sought the Church’s
    help setting up a program of, say, mentoring inner-city youth, would Tamberg
    likewise urge the Church to ignore Her revulsion and give the group Her
    support? And if not, Mr. Tamberg, then why not?
    .
    I would agree that there are all too many in the US Church’s administration who
    are more interested in using Her infrastructure and public presence to further
    their own political ends– even when those ends are contrary to the Church’s.
    What can we do about it?

  • “What can we do about it?”

    By protesting it and calling the purveyors of this type of malarkey out each and every time. Too many times Catholics simply suffer in silence when “professional Catholics”, ordained and unordained, use the Church as a hobby horse for their cause du jour.

  • “professional Catholics”,

    Amy Welborn described them thus: steeped in “bored out of their minds careerism”.

  • Immigration has been a ‘theological issue’ from the time of the Exodus and giving of the Torah. They did not use the word ‘immigration’ but instead, ‘resident alien’. Now that can embody many categories today, it certainly encapsulated those Canaanites, etc who still lived in Israel [as the Native Americans do with us today]. Rahab and her family were a prime example of this-and became the forebear of King David, Solomon and Jesus Christ Himself [see Matthew 1.1-18]. It encapsulated those who migrated into Israel for many reasons-famine, etc. as we see in the Moabitess Ruth, who again became the forebear of David and the Lord Jesus. Justice was to be done with and for them for Israel themselves had once been ‘aliens’ in Egypt (as had the Patriarchs at various times).

    Archbishop Kurtz, the present head of the National Bishop’s Conference recently wrote a pastoral letter to his own diocese which is instructive. I believe. In it he called for immigration reform within the law. That’s the way to go IMHO. Make legal immigration, one that does not split families etc ‘easier’ [now the exact dimensions of what that means is way beyond my pay scale and I presume each person in here has their own position on the matter] However, I know that at least one wing of my ancestry from Ireland landed in New York long before Ellis Island was set up and working. They certainly did not have papers when they arrived. I have a sense they were lucky to be walking off the boat. At that point, the Irish men were met at the docks by reps of the Democratic Party offering to help them at least get a meal etc. They were also met by the military who needed ‘able body’ men to enlist in the US Army to fight in the Mexican-American War [Somehow my male ancestors did not get into that war, they would later fight in the Civil War].

    A major issue at the moment of the illegal immigration is the failure of Mexican, Central and some Latin American countries to establish justice within their own borders. Some are still ‘banana republics’ where oligarchies rule and the rest suffer destitution. They do little or nothing for their citizens, and now with the drug cartels do nothing to protect their citizens from these new ‘mafiosa’.

    There should be and is a way, although I also know that it is complex, through this whole problem of ‘immigration’. I can tell you that the solution is not to do anything. Another solution is not to make this a liberal/conservative issue as tempting as that may be. Socialism in Cuba and now Venezuela is not working. Liberation theology in its ‘politicized’ [social class based and open to acts of violence] is dying or dead. Thanks be to God. However, the Church [and I mean from the Pope on down to all of us] cannot collude either with ‘the status quo’ in these ‘banana republics’ or in the byzantine politics of liberal and conservatives in America. “You shall not oppress the resident alien” still holds.

  • Don, you’re right about the illegal alien thing being used to draw the Church leftward. But you know, helping these criminals will backfire on the Church. This idiocy will tick off all the Non-Catholics in this country and turn many of them into Anti-Catholics. And also, what guarantee do we have that these ‘immigrants’ will be good Catholics or good citizens? They’re already criminals by virtue of being illegal aliens. News story after news story shows these people tend to be drawn into other illegal and criminal activities, and reports over the years show that even many legal south of the border immigrants tend to drift away or outright leave the Church for Evangelical sects a few years after they come here. Our fearless leaders need to do some serious rethinking of their immigration policies before they do even more damage to the Church and our country.

  • ‘You shall not oppress the resident alien’ still holds.”

    But the right and duty of the State to set reasonable limits on immigration also still holds.

  • Milton Friedman said, “You can have a welfare state or open borders, but not both.”

    About 92 million Americans (ages 16 to 64) are unemployed or no longer looking for work – lowest labor force participation rate in decades.

    God Almighty has not altered the laws of supply and demand, nor has He willed the necessary, immediate globally-huge expansions in the Earth’s exploitable resources, jobs, and capital assets.

    The mendacious Messiah has been unable to save the American middle class even despite $7 trillion in added national debt and the FRB printing $3 trillion (most of which went to Wall Street, special interests, crony-capitalists, et al).

  • Some Catholics and evangelical Christians are beginning to feel like resident aliens in their own country.
    Ruth did cross the Jordan from Moab. She accepted the Torah and abided by the laws and customs of Israel.
    When we find ourselves in a hole, the standard advice is to stop digging. And dithering. Closing the border and severely limiting new applications for even legal immigration until we can get a hold on it. O for leadership that pleases God!
    People who are here and cannot be immediately turned back will just have to be converted! to pro life, law abiding Catholic capitalists! 🙂

  • “But you know, helping these criminals will backfire on the Church. This idiocy will tick off all the Non-Catholics in this country and turn many of them into Anti-Catholics.”
    .
    I was thinking this on the way home just a few minutes ago. If reports of a January job memo are to be believed (the gov’t looking for logistics companies to bus massive amounts of people throughout the country), then perhaps this was part of the plan all along–to divide the Church internally. The bishops and priests may be all for keeping these people here (many are in fact children), but vast numbers of laity are not, including many who are regular contributors to the collection plate.
    .
    For my part, I’m at a loss as to what to do about this. I don’t see any good answer to this problem.

  • “When we find ourselves in a hole, the standard advice is to stop digging. And dithering. Closing the border and severely limiting new applications for even legal immigration until we can get a hold on it.”

    I think even 10 years would be a great advance down the road of assimilation. We could maintain the one million legal immigrants per year with no trouble. Currently we have 37,000,000 legal immigrants in this country which is the highest in our history. The number of illegal aliens is anyone’s guess. I think the best estimate is between 12-15 million, overwhelmingly from Mexico and Central America, with a net 700,000 each year, which I expect to decline due to the birthrate of Mexico and Central America rapidly declining.

  • to paraphrase from The Incredibles, if everyone is an American, no one is an American.

    What does it mean to be an American citizen? Do citizens have claims on their government that differ from the claims of non-citizens?

    In a way, it seems that Sister Walsh wants our earthly government to act as the Body of Christ. But who is suffering from the heresy of Americanism, then?

  • Don

    When I read the source documents on Catholic Social teaching I see a lot of good common sense.

    When I hear or read the Social Justice advocates I really wonder how they got here from there.

    Perhaps I got through grad school with zero reading comprehension skills. Or not.

  • I think the difference Hank is because those who claim to be champions of the SJ teaching of the Church often seize upon only a part of it, rather than attempting to understand and implement the entire teaching.

  • Good answer Donald.

  • I don’t know about others but it seems at least from reading Shea and some others, some Catholics believe importanting a bunch of mexicans will end up making this country more Catholic.

    Stephen Dalton, this article may be of some interest to you.

    After reading it I’m ready to compromise: Let’s seal up the border so that people can’t come north, AND guns can’t go south.

  • Nate, I read the article you linked to, and I agree with you, seal the southern border, and I’d add, revive Operation Wetback, and send every illegal back to Mexico!

  • Bear with me, folks, as I tell a little story.
    .
    My wife is a Filipino immigrant. It will be another two years before she can become a citizen. She had to fight tooth and nail to get this far. Her children in the Philippines (she is a widow) find it next to impossible to get a visa to visit her here in the United States. We even considered me taking a job at new nuclear build in the United Arab Emirates (they are building five new 1500 MWe APR-1000 reactors – super System 80+ pressurized water reactors originally designed by Combustion Engineering – Obama wouldn’t think of a useful project like that here in the US, but I digress) because it would be easier for her children to visit her there in a Muslim country than to visit her here in the post 9-11 People’s Demokratik Republik of Amerika.
    .
    I once worked with an Iraqi nuclear engineer and a Nigerian nuclear engineer at a former place of employment. Both had to go through hell and back to get here into the United States. The Iraqi man had a devil of a time getting his wife over here. He and his family are devoutly Catholic and he used to attend apologetic sessions that I ran as religious education training at a local parish. The Nigerian girl (also Christian but not Catholic, and by the way drop dead gorgeous in addition to having a better brain in her head than I have in mine) had no hope of bringing her parents here. Both were freaking great engineers. If either had been Muslim or Mexican, then the Obama Administration would have welcomed them with open arms.
    .
    Indeed, if you’re a Mexican drug lord or welfare recipient or a Muslim protected under liberal diversity, then you get a free pass under the Obama Administration, whose enforcement of the law selectively favors criminals and indolents and anti-Christian religions. and is biased against those (especially Christians) who actually work, produce something for a living, and pay taxes. I have seen it happen with my own eyes. My legal immigrant wife worked two jobs before she married me just so that she could make ends meet and not go on state assistance. The idea was abhorrent to her. She would make a bad Democrat. (Fortunately, she has since been able to quit the night job.)

  • It’s curious that Mexico suddenly decided to relax security on its southern border to allow immigrants of all ages from Ecuador, Honduras, and Guatemala to illegally enter into, and then pass through, sovereign Mexican territory.
    .
    Why didn’t Mexico halt the progress of these immigrants at its southern border by denying them access to Mexico or by deporting those who successfully breached Mexican border security?
    .
    This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.

  • I agree with Slainte on this. Strange the very tough southern border of Mexico lets all this huge number of people through.
    Slainte said “This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.” It seems an almost unavoidable conclusion to me.

  • Slainte & Anzlyne said: “I agree with Slainte on this. Strange the very tough southern border of Mexico lets all this huge number of people through.
    Slainte said ‘This American border crisis appears to be a well coordinated international effort which does not pass the smell test.'”

    I agree with both of them.

  • My daughter attended an all girls Catholic school. There were no illegal in that school. Why isn’t the Catholic church educating the illegal? Why does the taxpayer need to pick up the tab. The Catholic church should put its money where its mouth is and pay to send every illegal to a Catholic school. They are so much better than public schools and illegals deserve a good Catholic education at the expense of the Catholic Church

Elites v. The Rest

Monday, July 8, AD 2013

 

 

 

 

The older I get, the more I comprehend that one of the ways of understanding how contemporary American politics works is  the vast gulf that often exists between elite opinion and motivations in this country and the opinions of most Americans.  Case in point, illegal immigration.  At a time when the American economy is on the rocks and we have a federal debt that can never be repaid short of debt repudiation or ruinous inflation, which is another name for debt repudiation, the political class is focused on a Senate bill to give illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, amnesty.  Leaving aside the merits of the bill, which I suspect is one with Nineveh and Tyre  as far as the House is concerned, it is an odd priority until one looks at it as elite opinion does in this country.  My favorite living historian, Victor Davis Hanson, does so in a recent column:

Take illegal immigration. On the facts, it is elitist to the core. Big business, flush with cash, nevertheless wants continued access to cheap labor, and so favors amnesties for millions who arrived without English, education, or legality. On the other end of the scale, Jorge Hernandez, making $9 an hour mowing lawns, is not enthusiastic about an open border, which undercuts his meager bargaining power with his employer.

The state, not the employer, picks up the cost of subsidies to ensure that impoverished illegal-immigrant workers from Oaxaca have some semblance of parity with American citizens in health care, education, legal representation, and housing. The employers’ own privilege exempts them from worrying whether they would ever need to enroll their kids in the Arvin school system, or whether an illegal-alien driver will hit their daughter’s car on a rural road and leave the scene of the accident. In other words, no one in Atherton is in a trailer house cooking meth; the plastic harnesses of missing copper wire from streetlights are not strewn over the sidewalks in Palo Alto; and the Menlo schools do not have a Bulldog-gang problem.

Meanwhile, ethnic elites privately understand that the melting pot ensures eventual parity with the majority and thereby destroys the benefits of hyphenation. So it becomes essential that there remain always hundreds of thousands of poor, uneducated, and less-privileged immigrants entering the U.S. from Latin America. Only that way is the third-generation Latino professor, journalist, or politician seen as a leader of group rather than as an individual. Take away illegal immigration, and the Latino caucus and Chicano graduation ceremony disappear, and the beneficiaries become just ordinary politicians and academics, distinguished or ignored on the basis of their own individual performance.

Mexico? Beneath the thin veneer of Mexican elites suing Americans in U.S. courts is one of the most repressive political systems in the world. Mexican elites make the following cynical assumptions: Indigenous peoples are better off leaving Mexico and then scrimping to send billions of dollars home in remittances; that way, they do not agitate for missing social services back home; and once across the border, they act as an expatriate community to leverage concessions from the United States.

Nannies, gardeners, cooks, and personal attendants are increasingly recent arrivals from Latin America — even as the unemployment rates of Latino, African-American, and working-class white citizens remain high, with compensation relatively low. No wonder that loud protestations about “xenophobes, racists, and nativists” oil the entire machinery of elite privilege. Does the liberal congressman or the Washington public advocate mow his own lawn, clean his toilet, or help feed his 90-year-old mother? At what cost would he cease to pay others to do these things — $20, $25 an hour? And whom would he hire if there were no illegal immigrants? The unemployed African-American teenager in D.C.? The unemployed Appalachian in nearby West Virginia? I think not.

Continue reading...

35 Responses to Elites v. The Rest

  • In general, I think he is right, but the notion that Mexico has one of the most repressive political systems in the world is bizarre. I do not think you could find any authority which systematically tracks the elements of civic and political life (and Freedom House is the most trustworthy) who would offer that judgment.

  • I wouldn’t call Mexico one of the world’s most repressive political systems either Art, although I think it would score high on any measure of governmental corruption. That they have fostered illegal immigration both as a steam valve and for the money the emigrants send home is on target. Crashing demographics in Mexico and the lousy Obama economy have greatly lessened the number of illegals heading north.

  • The Mexican government provides written literature in cartoon format to those citizens wanting to make the trip across the border. They have a guy named Carlos Slim who is either the richest guy in the world or one of the richest, yet, they can’t provide for their less fortunate. It is easier to prompt them to come here and have us take care of them. We need to close the borders, once and for all time. When we choose to have people come across, it should be our decision. That is what real countries do. No gang of eight immigration reform until the border is secured.

  • So, Donald do you still think Marco Rubio ship;d be the GOP standard beare?

  • Yes as to the Marco Rubio who will introduce the no abortion after 20 weeks bill in the Senate passed by the House. No as to the Marco Rubio who is pushing the Gang of Eight immigration bill.

  • Problem is the latter reveals more of the real Marco Rubio than the former.

  • Do you really have to ask that question? Which has Rubio been willing to invest more political capital into?

  • Rubio has been anti-abortion throughout his political career, and you can bet that making this a front and center issue for him will destroy the good press that he has been receiving in the liberal media for immigration. It appears to me that will destroy any political capital he has gained through his immigration stance.

  • We’ll see about that.

  • The republicans have been putting the life issue front and center since Reagan. It is pure pandering to us for our votes. Eventually, we may wake up and realize we are being duped. Reagan, Bush the Elder and young Bush all had control either one or both the Senate or the House during their terms . Pandering is too nice a term, BSing or hypocritical better describes them. Rubio lost all his creds when he threw in with the gang of eight. At one time I had high hope for him.

  • Well Ray what magic wand did any of those Republican Presidents have to reverse Roe? A constitutional amendment requires two-thirds of both the House and the Senate, something the Republicans have never had since the days of Calvin Coolidge. Your cynicism ignores that fact, the Hyde Amendment, the partial birth abortion ban, a torrent of anti-abortion state legislation where the Republicans are in control and the fact that the Democrats are lock step in support of abortion. Being angry at the Republicans over abortion when they are confronted with not only a party that is pro-abortion, but also the media, academia and the entertainment industry that are wildly in favor of abortion strikes me as absurd. Especially since the alternative are third parties that measure their votes on the national scene at under 200k.

  • Thank you for the VDH article, Mr. McClarey. I say he’s put his finger on
    it exactly.

  • There have been a litany of bills passed in the states, especially in the last few years, that have slowed down the abortion industry. The Hyde amendment has been made obsolete by the current administration ruling by executive orders and mandates that bypass the Congress. I will never vote again for a republican, as I did in 2012, because he was less evil than the other major party candidate. I not only wasted my vote by doing this but I compromised my moral underpinnings and values. Served eight years in the military and don’t need anyone including you telling me I’m wasting my vote if I don’t agree with your reasoning. Usually, I’m in full accord with your writings Mr. McClarey but not on this issue. I for one and only speaking for myself am a Conservative and have no allegiance to either party. Henceforth, my votes will mirror my convictions.

  • Jorge Hernandez, making $9 an hour mowing lawns, is not enthusiastic about an open border, which undercuts his meager bargaining power with his employer.

    This seems doubtful.

  • And the AmChurch bishops back this because they will get more Catholics (new evangelization?) without telling the non-Catholics outside of the Church, there is no salvation…you know, Catholic dogma…

  • “This seems doubtful.”

    Why?

  • “What evidence is there that low-income Hispanics oppose immigration reform? VDH certainly doesn’t offer any.”

  • “I not only wasted my vote by doing this but I compromised my moral underpinnings and values.”

    People can vote however they please but I have never understood this line of reasoning. The only candidate I ever voted for who I whole-heartedly supported was Ronald Reagan. Every other candidate I ever voted for I did so because I found him or her less objectionable than their adversary. On the national scene there are only two parties that will have any say on abortion laws in the foreseeable future: The Republican party and the Democrat party. That alone is enough to keep me voting Republican, although additionally my views are normally much more congruent with the Republican candidate on most other issues than the Democrat candidate.

    I didn’t think much of either McCain or Romney, and I said so frequently on this blog. However, compared to Obama, either of them was the reincarnation of Ronald Reagan. If there was a viable third party with views more like mine than the Republican party I would consider such a third party. No such viable party exists today or is likely to exist in the future as far as I can tell.

  • “What evidence is there that low-income Hispanics oppose immigration reform? VDH certainly doesn’t offer any.”

    There actually is a fair amount of polling evidence that most Hispanic voters care little about immigration “reform”.

    http://dyn.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/06/28/the_gop_and_hispanics_what_the_future_holds_119011-full.html&showimages=1

  • I have very seldom given to political candidates, but future primary challengers to M. Rubio and K. Ayotte will be receiving a cheque from my household. John McCain and Lindsey Graham have long been indifferent to law enforcement (for reasons I have never been able to fathom) and Susan Collins is a temporizer as a matter of routine, but Rubio and Ayotte quite self-consciously defrauded their own electorates; Kelly Ayotte, juris doctor, endorsed a bill with whose provisions she was unfamiliar and Marco Rubio went on a sales tour that would have made the fictional Prof. Harold Hill blush. There is always a certain amount of artifice in social interactions, there is often a great deal of embarrassment and its progeny, but there should be zero tolerance for that sort of sociopathy in public life.

  • I’m with Art. If nothing else, McCain and Graham have been consistent. Rubio out and out lied to his constituency, and to add insult to injury, has been played by a snake-oil salesman from New York. His sycophants can play all the ads they want on conservative talk radio, but he sunk his career before it even started.

  • Sometimes a single act is sufficiently terrible that I cannot reasonably support the individual in other endeavors.

    No one who voted for this bill should be retained in office due to anything they have done or promise to do. The bill is that awful.

    If you wish citations, I will give you a list of pages and lines. In general though: the bill says that DHS “shall” and then modifies it with the equivalent of “if the Secretary wants to” in so many areas that it is a fair assessment to say that there are no enforcement mechanisms with teeth in the bill. It forgives all fraud – whether proven in court or not – prior to enactment. It waives virtually all criminal grounds too. It duplicates authority across a spectrum of agencies – bloating the civil service farther and guarenteeing chaotic enforcement. It laughablyproclaims that providing aliens with counsel at government expense is a “cost savings ” measure. It forbids DHS from holding fraud – even in filing for amnesty – against an alien in any proceeding and makes critical biographic data unavailable for adjudication or enforcement. It creates a safe haven of healthcare, religious, cultural, and educational facilities – free from all manner of intelligence gathering and enforcement without a warrant – virtually guaranteeing terrorist attacks.

    Now it is my experience that every time I think I’ve noticed the novel or articulated things in a particularly clever way, others noticed it and said it better. I assume that US Senators have folks on staff smarter and more clever than me. I assume, therefore, that Rubio knows all of these things and that he decided to go ahead anyway, that he decided to destroy immigration enforcement and render a decade of intelligence gathering and soft enforcement waste. The question is, “why?”

    The most immediate answer is that he has higher regard for short-term political gains than national sovereignty, the rule of law, or national security. No man with such screwed up priorities should be in public office or entitled to the public trust in any way.

    Similarly, Sen. Casey knowingly betrayedhis oath by supporting this bill. (I say “knowingly” because I sent a page and line analysis to his office, just to be sure he had put it together. It would be unjust to hold a Democrat Senator accountable for his actions. He may, in fact, be incapable of reason.). He should be drummed out of office with every other person who supported this bill.

    The bill really is this bad.

  • John “Complete the Dang Fence” has been far from consistent as this campaign video from 2010 demonstrates:

    My view is that legalization is a fairly minor problem compared to the economic issues facing the country. The Gang of Eight Bill is a bad bill because it does not seal the border from illegal immigration. (Short of another Mexican Revolution I doubt we will see again the mass immigration from Mexico that we saw from 1990-2005, but that is another issue.) Some form of legalization process for illegals makes sense only if we can be certain that this is the ending of a problem and not exacerbating an old one.

  • Forgive me for saying so but “securing the border” is a red herring. It was a catchy phrase, tossed at the Right to get us to ignore immigration enforcement, to set aside instincts properly leaning on the rule of law in favor of a bold and obvious lie. The bill is so flawed that the failure to secure the order ranks as low as the bill’s title in importance.

    Oh, make no mistake that Rubio’s supporters will talk in flowing terms about political necessity, and greater good, and compromise, and demographics, but his support for this bill amounts to nothing greater than political prostitution. He has lain down on a dirty matress and no amount of cologn can alter the stench of that perverse act.

  • In regard to the ending of mass immigration from Mexico, Victor Davis Hanson commented on that in 2010:

    “HANSON: Well, in Mexico what we’ve really had is a perfect storm creating pressures for pushing labor out the door and towards the United States. The first part of – the first ingredient in that storm was the tanking of Mexico’s economy in the early 1980s, associated with debt problems, poor macroeconomic management and an international environment which was pretty hard on the country. But as important, if not more important were demographic changes going on in the country that were the opposite of what had been going on in the United States. So as we all know, after World War II, the U.S. had a huge baby boom, increasing birth rates up until about 1960, and then those birth rates really dropped off. What that meant was fewer workers entering the labor force in the 1970s and early 1980s. In Mexico, what happened was a baby boom that kept roaring right through the 1960s and into the 1970s. And that meant large numbers of young people looking for work in the early 1980s right as the economy fell apart.

    CAVANAUGH: And, Professor Myers, you categorize the idea of a baby boom in Mexico, and more mothers and more children surviving causing that baby boom, as part of a demographic transition. Explain what that is for us.

    MYERS: Well, historically in the world there’s been a transition where, really, it was high mortality, lots of deaths, and high fertility and they balanced out. But over time, starting first in Europe and the U.S. the death rates really fell and after a lag of a couple generations, then birth rates fall. And in the in-between period you have an explosion in population because there’s too many babies relative to deaths. But in the – in Europe and the U.S. death rates came way down, then the fertility rates fell. Now, developing nations are falling behind that trend and they are slower to drop the death rates but they are dropping. And Mexico is now engaged in this dramatic transition where they have lower deaths and now finally are lowering the birth rate. The extraordinary thing, in 1970, there’s 6.8 babies for every Mexican woman. 6.8 babies. Now, 2.1 is kind of break even, balancing the population. Today, Mexico is moving down close to that break even point for the first time. But that transition from 6.8 to 2.1 has not penetrated the American consciousness. We still think Mexicans have 6.8 babies.

    CAVANAUGH: Exactly. So we haven’t kept up with what’s been changing in Mexico, is what you’re saying.

    MYERS: Yeah, and that surplus number of babies was coming across the border to meet the labor demand that Professor Hanson just outlined. And now, today, as those kids grow up, there won’t be that surplus and we’re not going to have this number of people clamoring to come into America.

    CAVANAUGH: I’m speaking with Dowell Myers. He’s professor in the School of Policy, Planning and Development at USC. And Gordon Hanson, professor of Economics at UC San Diego. We’re talking about changing demographics in Mexico that may have a profound affect on the future of immigration to the United States. Our number, if you’d like to comment or if you have a question, is 1-888-895-5727. So, Professor Hanson, in a nutshell, what you both seem to be saying is that for about 20 or 25 years, a little longer than a generation, we’ve had what I believe was characterized either by you or someone else in the article I’m referring to, as a perfect storm of population and economic factors that have been driving immigration from Mexico to the U.S. Would you agree with that, Professor Hanson?

    HANSON: Absolutely. And what we’re going to see over the course of the next decade or two is that one of the elements of that storm, those population pressures, are really going to start to ease. The impact of the changes in fertility patterns in Mexico that Professor Myers just outlined, those don’t show up in terms of how they impact immigration until 15 to 20 years after these declines in birth rates occur. That’s because that’s how long it takes for those babies born to grow up and enter the labor force. So the declining Mexican fertility is just starting to hit in terms of lowering numbers of young people entering the labor force and looking for work. So from here on out, we’re going to see a dramatic – a reduction in those labor supply pressures for immigration from the country.

    CAVANAUGH: Well, why is it that we haven’t heard that much about birth rates plummeting in Mexico, Professor Myers? I mean, I think that you have been lecturing on the subject for a while but it really hasn’t, as you say, sort of entered the consciousness of the American debate about immigration.

    MYERS: Well, there’s a great paradox here, Maureen. We, like everybody else, we’re very self-centered and focused on our own view of the world and yet we can’t even see ourselves. So we’re looking at these others, these others being the Mexicans and viewing them the way we looked at them 30 years ago and not seeing any differences. But we’re not looking at ourselves at the same time and we, ourselves, in the last 30 years have become 30 years older. All of us who were born then are now 30 years older, including the large baby boom generation. And so what’s happening right now is the Mexicans are changing and we can’t see it. We, ourselves, are changing and we can’t see it. And they’re going in opposite directions. So the Mexicans are now going to be subsiding in the growth pressures to come across the border and we, ourselves, are going to be retiring from the labor force creating a shortage of workers in the U.S. which we’ve never seen before. And we – And so these two trends are in opposite directions and yet we can’t see it because we’re so self-centered. It’s very odd.

    CAVANAUGH: Now, Professor Hanson, the idea that the last, as I say, the last 25 years or so has been this big wave of Mexican immigration driven by demographics and economics, is the decline that we’re seeing now in birth rates in Mexico also maybe just another fluke? Another wave, or is there a solid change that’s going on?

    HANSON: No, it really looks like a permanent shift. And to echo something that Professor Myers just said, what we’ve seen in Mexico is this, what social scientists call, a demographic transition. It’s similar to what we’ve seen in many other countries. As countries get richer, as they urbanize, as girls go to school and get educated, what you see is that families have fewer children and invest more in them. And in Mexico, that process of declining fertility was just more dramatic than we’ve seen in other places but it’s very consistent with broader international patterns.”

    http://www.kpbs.org/news/2010/jul/08/perfect-storm-mexican-immigration-coming-end/

  • I have no objection to regularizing status for many of the unlawfully present. I’ve been an immigration officer for a long time. I am not surprised to find unlawfully present persons I’d happily marry to my children and citizens born here that I’d ship to Mars for their day-to-day behavior.

    Regularize status. Do it because we think it will make Hispanics join the GOP, or because we think there are too many people here without status, or because we think immigrants are willing to do jobs people born here won’t, or because the USCCB thinks the only reason Hispanics are becoming Evangelicals in droves is because the Church hasn’t helped them. Do it for whatever reason but THIS bill is a travesty and so obviously so that no supporter of it should be other than sent packing!

    I don’t object to regularizing status, I object to being lied to and manipulated. I object to stripping Intelligence and law enforcement of the powers they need to preserve the State, the rule of law, and our lives.

  • Only vaguely related to the title…

    GUYS, GUYS, WE GOT LINKED BY MR. POURNELLE!!!! HE WROTE THE FIRST THING EVER I READ THAT SUGGESTED A GEEK CULTURE!!!! Besides that’ he’s awesome!</i

  • I saw that also Foxfier! I have almost all the books ever written by Mr. Pournelle in my personal library. It is a true uber geek moment for TAC!

  • The bottom line needs to be that we love our neighbors even if they don’t have papers.

  • Which of course works both ways. I would expect my Mexican Catholic neighbors to love me. I would not expect that would give me a license to ignore the fairly draconian immigration laws of their country.

  • Milton Friedman said, “You can have your welfare state or you can have open borders, but not both.” In other words, I think, Margaret Thatcher, “You run out of other people’s money.”

    One does good works/Corporal Works of Mercy with one’s time and treasure, not with OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.

  • The bottom line needs to be that we love our neighbors even if they don’t have papers.

    We may want the best for our neighbors though the adolescents in their households commit crimes. You still have to enforce the law.

  • Interesting article, but he momentarily lost me with the dig at “violent video games.” Is there a particular need gun supporters feel the need to throw something under the bus to deflect blame from guns?

Illegal Immigration and Injustices

Monday, June 10, AD 2013

Last week Jason Hall posted a column at the Catholic Stand that somewhat snarkily takes on the question of why illegal immigrants don’t just come here legally. Jason rightfully points out that it’s not exactly a piece of cake to legally immigrate to the United States. The process is terribly cumbersome, and it takes years for most people to finally gain legal residence, and that’s the case for people who have more connections and resources than the typical migrant worker.

That being the case, while Hall’s column does a good job at highlighting the inefficiencies of the immigration system, what it does not do is provide justification for the comprehensive immigration reform proposal being discussed in the Senate. As I said in the comments to his post, the question of whether the current process of legal immigration is cumbersome  is not germane to the question of what to do with those individuals who have nonetheless entered the country illegally.

Now some have addressed this by stating that the current system is unjust, and therefore those who have entered the country illegally should not be punished for breaking an unjust law. I should emphasize right up front that Hall himself does not state this, at least in the column, but I have heard other immigration reform supporters make this claim. There are a couple of problems with this argument.

First of all, as admittedly burdensome as the immigration process is, that alone does not make the system unjust. Yes, it’s a bureaucratic mess, but unjust? I am not quite sure that an excess of red tape is an injustice that justifies blatant disregard for American laws and the violation of our sovereign border.

Furthermore, if our system were unjust, those who have immigrated illegally are in fact themselves guilty of committing an injustice, and any legislation that effectively rewarded their behavior would be an even graver injustice. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people have begun the process of legally immigrating. The current proposal would effectively grant legal status to millions of people who cut in line, and would do so with minimal punishment. So now some ten million people would have been granted legal privileges ahead of those who respected the laws of this country. Moreover, the already over-loaded immigration bureaucracy would undoubtedly be stretched to even greater degrees in the process of legalizing or normalizing the statuses of those here illegally. I have a hard time believing that the overall immigration process would be smoothed out by such a dramatic change.

There are no easy solutions to this mess, and there are legitimate arguments to be made on behalf of some kind of comprehensive immigration reform plan. Of course it’s hard to avoid the feeling that we’re being sold a bill of goods by disappointingly dishonest politicians. But if we’re going to lament having a broken system, perhaps it’s time to acknowledge that those we are trying to help played a large part in breaking it in the first place.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to Illegal Immigration and Injustices

  • I don’t know if the present system is unjust. It may very well be. Cumbersome does not necessarily equal an injustice. Do these migrants (or anyone else for tht matter) have an absolute right to emigrate here?

    That said, I would be inclined to agree that those who are here illegally ought not to be punished nor be looked down upon. But not because of whether or not our present immigration is unjust but because why should we demand they respect our immigration laws if we don’t respect our laws enough to enforce them?

    I don’t think anything other than allowing them to stay is necessarily punishment. I am not, in principle, against making provision for some kind of legal status. I think once we get the border situation under control then we can debate whether or not allowing these people to stay would be a win win situation. But not until we have the will to get the border under control.

  • That said, I would be inclined to agree that those who are here illegally ought not to be punished nor be looked down upon.

    I agree with that, and with most of your comments. I’m not exactly a hard-liner on this issue. It seems that there has got to be some kind of middle ground approach between deporting them all and legalizing them all, as neither is practicable or necessarily just.

  • ” I’m not exactly a hard-liner on this issue. It seems that there has got to be some kind of middle ground approach between deporting them all and legalizing them all, as neither is practicable or necessarily just.”

    I don’t know of any of the more of the even hard liners who favor mass deportations, at any of those on the mainstream.

  • I don’t know of any of the more of the even hard liners who favor mass deportations, at any of those on the mainstream.

    For the most part, no. What I’m getting at is that at least to me there is no solution that will be fully just. The status quo is unworkable, but the reform being offered now is a bridge too far. So what then? It’s honestly a difficult question for me to answer.

  • I disagree about the need for a middle ground. You cannot compromise on principles and much of the illegal immigration was encouraged by the purposeful lack of enforcement of our immigration laws and safeguarding both our borders, the integrity of our sovereignty and welfare of the citizens of the United States and its institutions.

    You can go to many high end construction job sites in both the Hamptons on Long Island and the Jersey Shore and you will not hear one word of English spoken among the workers who have co-opted tens of thousands of formerly well paying positions in the building trades.

    And there is also the matter of criminal activity among many of the illegals including the formation of one gang in Florida which boasts a membership in excess of thirty thousand. How does that number compare to the ranks of National guardsmen in many of our smaller states?

    Time to face reality and adopt the same immigration laws enacted in Mexico and most other countries around the globe.

  • The assertion that immigration is cumbersome and a mess is simply not true. Look at the processing times on USCIS.gov. Greencards are under six months processing times nationally and, in some locations, under three. Naturalization hovers at around six months year after year. Work authorization is at 2 months with travel authorization. Asylum is at record processing times – around five months for those who don’t continue their own cases.

    Pray tell, where is the agency failure everyone keeps talking about?

    What we here are individual case and those narrative, even if true an based on full knowledge, are not significant if they don’t tell a wider story supported by data.

    Frankly, USCIS’ problem is the exact opposite of that which is posited: the agency is so focused on timeframes that it swallows a lot of fraud to avoid statistics that would damage its reputation. Make no mistake, the borderline case is always approved. It is only the clearly proven frauds that are denied.

    Immigration’s “mess” is wrapped around the unlawfully present and those persons seeking visas where there are none available. What is so often overlooked is that USCIS and the USDOS can only issue as many visas and in the timetables authorized by congress.

    But what of that? So what if Zeke has to wait 10 years to bring his siblings here? He files the petition, waits out the time, and they enter. Why should we lose sleep over that? It isn’t as though we are talking about minor children or spouces, their visas are immediately available and, if those relationships existed prior to the petitioner getting their status, they were eligible to ride then.

    The delays immigration advocates decry aren’t for those who entered legally, maintained their status, filed for a Greencard, and sought naturalization. That entire process takes between 4 and 6 years. Not a bad timetable in my book for obtaining the most valuable citizenship on the planet.

    You know I have the utmost reapect for you, Paul. Your intelligence dwarfs mine. However, on this narrow topic, I respectfully ask you to seperate the two questions: the “mess” is what to do with the unlawfully present; it isn’t with the legal immigration system and it isn’t with USCIS.

  • One more thing, Jason is an hysterical child by the way and his piece shouldn’t garner any mor attention than an internet recipe for boiling an egg. I was in the midst of responding to him when I realized that he was just another, tired, bleeding heart immigration advocate. If he can’t be bothered to find out what the process is and whether it is working, he doesn’t deserve to be engaged.

  • One more thing, Jason is an hysterical child by the way and his piece shouldn’t garner any mor attention than an internet recipe for boiling an egg.

    No, he is nothing of the sort. The piece is disfigured by an unarticulated premise that steals every base: that people should be able to immigrate to the United States without irritants or impediments.

    The issue at hand has a mess of elements that drive one to despair: contrived helplessness and contumely on the part of the bureaucracy and their political superiors, an elite cartel conspiring against both the interests and the sentiments of the populace, and much confused discussion and argument.

  • Thank your for your input, Dave. I will defer to you on the ins and outs of our immigration system as you have vastly more experience in this matter. Those I know who have immigrated to this country have certainly faced enormous hurdles, though I don’t think think it took them quite as long as Hall suggests people must wait.

    I won’t comment on Jason’s temperament other than to say he didn’t acquit himself very well in the comments to his post, but that is a failing I think all of us are guilty of on occasion.

  • I apologize for my characterization of Jason as a person.

    I do not know him, have read few of his pieces, and read into his character what I wanted to see in an opponent. It was unfair to do so and I retract my statement without reservation.

    If it is possible to remove it from the comments so that it does no more harm to him while leaving this apology, I sure would appreciate it.

  • The delays that people experience over the last decade or so are in struggling to find and use an employment remedy to their lawful nonimmigrant status.

    Many H1bs decide that they want to stay in the US. Sometimes that was their intention all along. Often it was a general idea that, if the occasion arises, they would like to stay. However, H1bs often stay for six or more years and, after so much time here, become desperate to remain.

    With luck, their employer files an I140 petition for them to get a greencard. There is a problem though: congress never allocates enough visas to grant all that are pending. (I wouldn’t call this a “backlog” since the agency is forbidden to grant them until their is a visa to allocate.) Thus they sit in limbo: able to work and travel but without the assurance of permanent residence. Further, their time in “limbo” doesn’t count towards citizenship.

    It is a thorny problem though because, while their hardship is real and likely detrimental to the US economy, visa allocation is theoretically based upon industry employment figures. The theory is that the alien beneficiary of an employment visa is being granted the visa to fill a hole in employment that cannot be filled by US persons. Further complicating this is that the jobs we are talking about are sought-after jobs that pay between 75K and 225K a year.

    Politically, congress is hamstrung: industry wanting those visas allocated yesterday and yet their constituents are unemployed and rightfully looking at the intended immigrants and saying “there ARE people here who need and are eligible for that job. You only got it because you are willing to be paid less.”

    They aren’t entirely wrong about that view either.

    My points is only this: immigration is an incredibly complicated subject and narratives are only so useful to the discussion. The statistics have to matter and USCIS and the US DOS have performed, in my view, admirably. We can do better in allocating visas and such. There is room for improvement in the system but it is the system, not the agencies and our work ethics that create the complained-of hardships.

    Dealing with the unlawfully present and preventing the circumstances that led us to this place are similarly complicated subjects but they are distinct subjects from the legal immigration system that we have and it does no good to mingle the two in discussion.

  • They merely want to pad democat voting rolls with 25,000,000 more dependents.

    This chimera has been squishing around in dem and GOP politicians’ hare-brains for generations.

    The open borders lobby (OBL) wants you to believe “immigration reform” (a.k.a. amnesty) will not encourage more law-breaking.

    The politicians, socialist justice whiners, and OBL don’t want you to know the history, which tells you that the invasion will worsen.

    Between 1986 and 2000, the “over-sized children” in congress enacted seven illegal alien amnesties that made 5.7 million illegal invaders “legal.” In 2006, after 20 years, we still had 11 million additional illegal invaders.

    If we don’t do it differently now, we will have 25 million more illegal invaders in America by 2016.

    None –not one—of those amnesties resulted in a drop in illegal immigrants.

    Today there are what-four times as many illegals as in 1986.

    We need to start sending adults to congress.

    – The 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act blanket amnesty for an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens

    •1994: The “Section 245(i)” temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens

    •1997: Extension of the Section 245(i) amnesty

    •1997: The Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act for nearly one million illegal aliens from Central America

    •1998: The Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti

    •2000: Extension of amnesty for some 400,000 illegal aliens who claimed eligibility under the 1986 act

    •2000: The Legal Immigration Family Equity Act, which included a restoration of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty for 900,000 illegal aliens]

    The OBL does not care about the average American. OBL cares about lower salaries and fewer benefits.

    The OBL (the 1%, Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Buffett, Soros, Wall Street) is making more money while your wages are falling, hospitals are closing, taxes are rising, schools are falling apart, and our quality of life is being trashed.

    Your liberal, abortion-supporting saints believe that every poor man, woman, and child that can scrape up the $3,000 to $5,000 to pay to be smuggled into the USA has the God-given social justice/blessing/grace/right to stay and live off of us.

    Try doing your social justice with your money, not my children’s and grandchildren’s.

    This from Cafeteria man (Gaius Maus) before he crashed hard left.

    “Yes, and if there were no laws against theft, there wouldn’t be thieves. It’s not the immigration policy that has created “a large underclass”, it’s the ignoring of the immigration policy that created it. Ignoring by, in no particular order, a) government, which doesn’t have the balls to enforce the border, b) business, that continues to knowingly hire illegals and c) illegal immigrants who disrespect American sovereignty. Nothing in American immigration laws creates an “underclass” or exploits people. If people lived by them, there’d be none. It’s the collective IGNORING of the laws that did. It is indeed “morally unacceptable” that a), b) and c) continue to do so.”

  • I didn’t bother to respond to the original post; it’s pretty obvious when someone has their mind made up, especially with the unstated assumption that an individual’s desire to come here is all that’s important in deciding if they should be coming here.

    I like America. I want folks to come here and make it better, not just come here because they can get more stuff faster. Looking around the areas that have large numbers of illegal aliens– for some reason, folks are surprised that Washington has a lot of them– I notice that there’s no interest in becoming an American.

  • “First of all, as admittedly burdensome as the immigration process is, that alone does not make the system unjust. Yes, it’s a bureaucratic mess, but unjust? I am not quite sure that an excess of red tape is an injustice that justifies blatant disregard for American laws…”

    If burdensomeness was per se unjust, then how many laws may we as individuals or groups and businesses disregard as unjust? How about Obamacare (independent of its clearly unjust applications) with its 13,000 + pages of regulations/

  • Drew M has a piece that makes many of the same points, though I think he does a better sense conveying what I was getting at.\http://ace.mu.nu/archives/340830.php

What’s a Constitution Between Friends?

Saturday, June 16, AD 2012

The federal DREAM Act failed to pass Congress; however, President Obama has never been one to let a pesky little thing like the U.S. Constitution to get in the way of achieving his policy objectives.

The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.

The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.

Let’s take a look at Article II of the Constitution (the article dealing with the presidency, for those of you in Rio Linda). Hmmm, we’ve got length of term, eligibility requirements, the electoral college, Commander-in-Chief, state of the Union, adjourning Congress . . .  don’t see anything here about just ignoring the will of Congress when they don’t implement policies you approve of.

Oh. Wait. There it is. It’s right between the penumbras and emanations guaranteeing the right to privacy and abortion. My bad. Clearly my Ph. D training was incomplete.

Now you might be upset with this decision, but do not question President Obama’s fealty to the Constitution. This is a man who has been a zealous guardian of the Executive Branch’s duties and responsibilities. And if you don’t believe me, just take a closer look at the tremendous work the Justice Department has done in fighting for the Defense of Marriage Act. No, that president would never let partisan politics prevent him from faithfully upholding the laws of our land.

In all seriousness, this is another power grab that would be impeachable in a saner world. Make no mistake, this is not about the policy itself. That is a topic for another discussion, and is absolutely not the point of this post. The merit of the policy is irrelevant to the concerns over constitutional authority and power. Last I checked this was still a constitutional republic, not an autocracy, and the president of the United States cannot simply make policy absent a grant of legislative authority.

What’s troubling to me is seeing a handful of Catholics applauding this decision, including Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati. I understand why these individuals support the overall policy, but again, the policy itself is beside the point. You should not applaud a policy when the manner in which it is implemented so flagrantly violates the Constitution.

So let me say this bluntly: if you approve of the president’s actions in this particular case, then you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to to complain about the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. If you support this action but think the HHS mandate is a tyrannical show of force, then you are a complete hypocrite. You’re essentially signalling that you are okay with usurpation of constitutional authority when you agree with the policy outcome. Just as we can’t be cafeteria Catholics, we don’t get to be cafeteria constitutionalists either. You don’t get to pick which parts of the Constitution you uphold. Now of course constitutions, unlike dogma, can be amended and changed, though I suspect permitting the president of the United States to do whatever he likes whenever he likes would not be an advisable change.

This president has absolutely no regard for the Constitution, and this action only helps underscore this undeniable fact.

Continue reading...

53 Responses to What’s a Constitution Between Friends?

  • “So let me say this bluntly: if you approve of the president’s actions in this particular case, then you have absolutely no standing whatsoever to to complain about the constitutionality of the HHS mandate. If you support this action but think the HHS mandate is a tyrannical show of force, then you are a complete hypocrite.”

    Speaking of hypocrites, John Yoo, who famously claimed that a wartime president had the legal authority to torture anyone he wanted, including crushing that child’s testicles, now claims executive overreach on the part of Obama:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/303038/executive-overreach-john-yoo

    My own feeling is that the president does in fact have an obligation to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” Congress should fund enforcement adequately, but we know they don’t. And when resources are stretched, sometimes the prudent thing to do is go after the worst violators. Obama’s action may or may not be prudent. I’m opposed to the HHS mandate either way.

  • Sometimes I think Obama is the culmination of everything that is evil in this country, and maybe that is part of God’s plan. He must draw unto his person everything that is wicked – media, hollywood, academia, unions, the illegals, abortionists, homosexuals, etc., and when the time comes, all of this will be taken out in one big swoop. I can dream can I?

  • “Sometimes I think Obama is the culmination of everything that is evil in this country…”

    How is this policy/excecutive overreach pertaining to illegal immigrants “evil”? It may be imprudent, it may be unconstitutional for all I know, but I don’t see it as evil. How are illegal immigrants “wicked”?

  • The way in which it is being done Spambot I would say is evil. There are laws on the books regarding deportation. Obama by presidential fiat is now saying that he is not going to enforce those laws. Such action is lawless and goes to the heart of whether we are ruled by law. His action is destructive of the Constitutional order by which Congress makes the law and the Executive, Obama, enforces the law. His action instructs each and every citizen that when you disagree with the law you have the right to ignore it. Yes, evil is the term I would apply to this.

  • Paul

    You missed the latest amendments to the constitution.

    Preamble

    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    We, Barrack H Obama, in Order to form a more perfect Commune, establish Fairness, insure domestic Tolerance, provide the Nomenklatura’s Defense, promote the Welfare system, and secure the Benifits of Multiculturism to ourselves and our (unaborted) Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.</i?

    SNIP

    Article 1 Section 8

    1: The Congress shall have Power [Delete to end and replace with] to legislate the wishes of Barrack H Obama

    Snip

    Article II Section 1

    1: The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. Barrack H Obama. He shall hold his Office ,during the Term of four Years, for life

    From
    A new Constitution

    Hank’s Eclectic Meanderings

  • Donald, thank you.

    An analogy: Congress does not fund the IRS sufficiently to audit every income tax return, so the Executive Branch conducts audits on the returns that are flagged as suspicous and/or contain egregious errors. Tax returns of wealthy income earners are more likely than poorer Americans to be audited. Penalties for those caught cheating on returns might differ, too. Those caught cheating in big ways might face criminal prosecution, while those caught cheating in small ways may be let off relatively easy.

    This approach to enforcement of income tax laws does not seem evil, even if Congress did not authorize it.

  • A better analogy Spambot would be the President proposing that the IRS stop auditing tax returns below a certain income threshhold. Legislation to accomplish this is defeated in Congress. The President announces that he will simply order the IRS not to audit such tax returns anyway, any existing laws regarding the auditing of such tax returns to not be enforced by his administration.

    When a President has a blank check not to enforce laws that he does not like we are pretty far down the road to tyranny.

  • Illegal immigration IS a great evil. They know they’re breaking our laws, they know they’re stealing from our treasury, and they know they’re pulling down our workers salaries and eventually taking the bread out of the mouths of OUR children. They are not displaced people – they have a country and they have chosen to invade mine. Their presence in this country is an insult to the proper citizens who ancestors built it and to those who have legally and legitimately entered this country, sometimes taking them years to do so and at the cost of thousands of dollars! They are also willing pawns of a larger agenda of a wicked ruling class that wants to crush and depose the founding people so they can impose their communist agenda! I have very little sympathy for these criminal invaders.

  • D. McCleary ” Obama by presidential fiat is now saying that he is not going to enforce those laws.” Agreed. Just what I was about to say although ” Fiat” dignifies his actions– could just call it “power grab” I am willing to use the term evil.
    Not enforce of DOMA
    Overreach past local school boards
    1st Amendment
    2nd Amendment
    5th Amendment
    Zimmerman endangerred by him
    voter fraud, I.D.
    voter protection
    hope martial law doesn’t occur to his Hench-people

  • The USCCB is a toothless tiger in the fight for the preservation of our Constitutional freedom of the free exercise of religion because in part it openly supports this latest usurpation of due process through Congress:

    http://www.usccb.org/news/2012/12-110.cfm

    I am thoroughly disgusted with the American Roman Bishopry. At heart they are Democrat and always will be. Social justice crap has always been more important to them than conversion and repentance.

  • What is more disappointing than Obama’s action is the reaction from the majority of the citizenry and the opposition party. It will be a little hand wringing here and there and then nothing.

    This movie scene is for the bishops council and Spambot…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

    How many more trees are you willing to see cut?

  • Jobs . . .

    Where are the jobs?

    Maybe jobs would be created if he decided to not enforce the penal (as in Federal prison) sections of the Internal Revenue Code.

    Maybe Obama, the genius, can concoct something – anything – unConstitutional or otherwise, that will create jobs for 23,000,000 Americans who can’t get work.

  • Paul,
    If you want to know what happened to the Catholic Church in this country, please read Bella Dodd’s “School of Darkness”. The Church was infiltrated and compromised a long time ago. With few exceptions, I have no faith in the Bishops to stand tall and fight Obama on the HHS mandate. I believe a schism is coming and the authentic Church will be greatly persecuted. I pray I’m wrong.

    http://catholicism.org/bella-dodd-%E2%80%94-from-communist-to-catholic.html

  • Oh no, Siobhan, you are sadly 100% correct.

    John 6:22-27 describes this people and their Bishopry so very well:

    22 On the next day the people who remained on the other side of the sea saw that there had been only one boat there, and that Jesus had not entered the boat with his disciples, but that his disciples had gone away alone. 23 However, boats from Tiberias came near the place where they ate the bread after the Lord had given thanks. 24 So when the people saw that Jesus was not there, nor his disciples, they themselves got into the boats and went to Capernaum, seeking Jesus. 25 When they found him on the other side of the sea, they said to him, “Rabbi, when did you come here?” 26 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate your fill of the loaves. 27* Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.”

    —–

    This people and their Bishopry are not interested in the Gospel of conversion and repentance. They are not interested in saving souls from the eternal fires of hell (for they believe not that such a place exists except as myth to scare school children). For them the gospel is all about social justice, the common good and peace at any price. Oh how how I despise and loathe those three phrases!

    So they will welcome the illegal immigrant whole heartedly into this nation to suckle off the teat of the public treasury, Constitution and Laws to the contrary be damned, while they, by their inaction on and apathy towards the true Gospel of conversion and repentance, damn the souls of these same immigrants to hell.

    Ezekiel 34:1-10 rings loudly and clearly. The US Council of Catholic Bishops had better start listening in this life because it will be too late before that Great White Throne of Judgment in Revelation 20:11-15.

    No Democracy. No two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner!

  • Interesting observation about the parallel between the cafeteria Catholic phenom and that of the cafeteria Constitutionalist phenom. Neither wants to abide by or acknowledge any authority above its perverse self.

  • Exactly, Paul. In my eyes, when the Bishops support amnesty, they tip their hand and reveal themselves as frauds. They always talk about “welcoming the stranger”, but how about “THOU SHALL NOT STEAL”, which is a mortal sin! The illegals are not only STEALING our money, they are attempting to steal what they did not build in this country, and our sense of nationhood. That the bishops cannot see the obvious tells me that they are either completely out of touch with reality or they are complicit in the destruction of this country. Plus, in catering to the hispanics, they are also dividing the Catholic Church between english speakers and spanish speakers which will be very destructive. Though, with all of this, we musn’t give up hope because there are signs of renewal with the young and dynamic priests and religious coming up today. We’re still in the darkness, but I do see light at the end of the tunnel. I just hope our country will survive.

  • I’ve always been a little bit unclear to the extent to which the executive branch is permitted to determine its priorities when it comes to enforcement of laws. Let’s say for the sake of argument that the United States was not able, because of budgetary constraints, personnel limitations, or some other practical matters, to apply 100 percent effort to the enforcement of all federal immigration and border control laws and regulations. Every deportation costs money and personnel, after all. Is it perhaps within the executive branch’s authority to set enforcement priorities? (E.g. to focus on deportation of people who have committed crimes besides immigration violations, or on people who arrived in the country voluntarily). After all, it is in the legislature’s authority to write laws more stringently and to assign budget dollars more specifically, and it remains with the people to vote an executive out of office if we judge that he sets priorities poorly. And I don’t know — maybe it’s possible for a state to sue the U. S. in the Supreme Court to force enforcement if they can show harm from the feds’ refusal to enforce some part of the law?

    Don’t get me wrong — the *announcement* of such a policy is obviously a campaign move, and I recognize that there are good arguments for why this makes bad immigration policy. But I’m not entirely convinced that priority-setting is outside the bounds of the executive branch’s powers. Yes, the executive branch has a positive obligation under the constitution to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” but as we know from Catholic moral doctrine, positive obligations usually come with an “unless.”

  • “this is another power grab that would be impeachable in a saner world.”

    One of the offenses for which Gov. Blago was impeached by the Illinois General Assembly was his attempt to implement a health insurance program for low-income families by executive rulemaking alone, without any approval from the legislature (which had not appropriated any funds to pay for it). The offense was NOT that he tried to obtain healthcare for poor families (a good end) but that he attempted to do so without proper authority (bad means).

    I believe that, as a Catholic, one can argue either way about the justice or injustice of allowing illegal immigrants who were brought to this country as minors (and therefore cannot be faulted for choosing to break the law themselves) to stay. Remember, illegal immigration, in and of itself, is NOT a criminal offense but a civil offense — it is still wrong, but not on the same level as murder, rape or robbery.

    That said, the means which Obama has chosen to do this is wrong even if the end is just or justifiable. The separation of powers must be respected. In my opinion it would be just as wrong if a future president who was a devout Catholic and staunchly pro-life were to attempt to outlaw abortion or gay marriage nationwide by executive fiat alone, without approval of Congress or of the states.

  • Speaking of hypocrites, John Yoo, who famously claimed that a wartime president had the legal authority to torture anyone he wanted, including crushing that child’s testicles, now claims executive overreach on the part of Obama:

    Why not provide quotations verbatim and in context ‘ere making particularly inflammatory remarks?

  • AD:

    Facts!?

    Facts?!

    Obama-worshiping imbeciles don’t need no bloody facts.

    The Executive branch executes laws passed by the Legislative branch. The executive doesn’t have power to ex post facto veto any law nor to pick and choose which law it will enforce and which law it will flaunt.

    Sic semper tyrannis.

    The common good and social justice form the alibis of all tyrants.

    It seems bishops et al place a progressive, liberal temporal narrative ahead of the salvation of souls.

    St. John Chrysostom: “The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of bishops.”

  • So what IS the proper use of an executive order? I am unclear on that. For the record, Archbishop Schnurr didn’t say anything about the president. The quote is from an archdiocesan official.

  • Obama is pandering to just about any groups for votes but what I don’t understand is that Hispanics in general are Catholics & conservatives but yet they support him. I can understand illegals supporting him but most legals do too. Of course, they know many illegals so they don’t want them deported. Why didn’t he do this when the democrats were in control two years ago if he believed in it so strongly. He once said he couldn’t do because it was illegal but, of course, he needs votes.

  • “So what IS the proper use of an executive order?”

    I don’t know all the details of federal law on this question, but based on my own experience in Illinois state government, I would say that executive orders are properly used to manage or change details of a program or policy that has been legislatively authorized, or to reorganize executive agencies (e.g., merge them or change their names). Oftentimes the legislature will authorize a program in law and insert a clause in the law saying that such-and-such agency will have charge of the program AND will adopt rules for it. Also, executive orders in Illinois don’t become effective unless ratified by the legislature within 60 days. Again, this doesn’t directly relate to how federal law works but I’m offering it as an example of how legislative/executive power COULD be balanced (the only example I’m really familiar with).

  • T. Shaw — While I may (or may not) be an imbecile, please do not imply that I am “Obama-worshiping”.

    Art Deco — Do you really need me to introduce you to Mr. Google?

  • No, you do not.

    Mr. Google will introduce me to 1,001 online rants from people like you, about which I do not give a rip and cannot be bothered to read. Show me a published article or intra-office memorandum where he develops an argument which can be fairly characterized the way you do it.

  • Paul Zummo: for what it is worth. June 17, 2012 10:16 AM
    The Mexican constitution forbids Catholicism and therefore, religious freedom. All the illegal Mexican immigrants may have sought political asylum for religious freedom had they been educated to the fact. It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.
    When Obama learns that the Mexican aliens have come to America for freedom of religion, will he allow it?
    Right-wing extremists, as Obama likes to call pro-lifers, returning veterans of war and individual citizens who disagree with him, are trying to save humanity by keeping to “the laws of nature and nature’s God” (from The Declaration of Independence) and by serving “WE, the people”(from The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution.) Obama, Pelosi, Sebelius and Obama’s 32 czars, Thomas Malthus, Paul and Ann Erhlich with their book Population Bomb, along with Uncle Hitler are trying to save humanity from extinction by a bloody, and obscene massacre of “our constitutional posterity”.
    The Mexican constitution outlaws the Catholic Church, priests and freedom of religion to this very day to protect freedom for humanity.
    The Mexican government does not give freedom. God gives freedom. The Mexican government does not give life to humanity. God gives life and liberty to His children. The Mexican government tells God how God’s people will experience God. Satan, the devil said: “If you eat the apple you will be like God – infinite.” The Mexican government killed the priests and citizens who dared to profess that Christ is King. The Mexican government tortured and killed a fourteen year old boy for being Catholic. The young man had not reached the age of legal majority, emancipation at eighteen years of age, and is considered to be an infant in a court of law. In “a court of law” is not one of the tenets of the Mexican constitution.
    Will Obama give the Mexican aliens protection from Mexican tyranny, asylum and a homeland to practice their freedom of religion and their free will and their observance of the precepts of their conscience? Will Obama give protection from tyranny to U.S. citizens to practice their freedom of religion, their free will and their observance of the precepts of their conscience?
    Only atheists, secular humanists and communists have religious freedom in the United States. This is why we have no religious freedom to petition Divine Providence in the public square for the blessings of Liberty and prosperity. Only atheists can petition Divine Justice for relief from prayer, other persons’ prayer, other persons’ speech to God, other persons’ assembly to pray, other persons’ petition for Divine Justice. Communism, atheism, and secular humanism is the diabolic intervention of the devil in human affairs.

  • applaud Mary De Voe
    thanks for the great link Siobahn

  • Anzlyne. Many Hail Mary’s for you and yours. Please pray for me and mine, one Hail Mary.
    Siobahn: Let us pray too, that the Cardinals planted by the Communists coverted to the Catholic Church.

  • It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.

    All right, let’s dial it back a little. We haven’t quite reached Soviet status in this country. This administration has been bad enough that we don’t need to exaggerate what has happened.

  • Paul Zummo makes a point we are not quite at the extreme of the soviets, but I do think there are several things communist already in the US.

  • Not sure about the exact relevance of the Mr. Yoo reference, but I did see the piece and Spambot seems pretty accurate about Yoo being comically hypocritical about presidential overreach. But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

  • But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

    No, you are right about that, cmatt. I was just providing a counterbalance to Paul’s inference in the original post that a Catholic bishop was “a complete hypocrite” for supporting this one particular action by Obama while opposing an unrelated action by Obama. I suspect the constitutionality of each action will be determined on grounds unrelated to each other (not that I’m the expert).

    It’s been said that President Bush selected judicial appointees who favored his vision of a strong “unitary executive” — a president with broad and complete authority to execute the laws and prosecute the wars, including the war on terror. My memory is that people on the left complained most about a strong “unitary executive”, while people on the right were generally supportive, because the context was often treatement of captured terrorists. Now, the shoe is on the other foot.

    Anyway, that was all my mind when I read Paul’s piece that I may be a hypocrite.

  • The concept of the “unitary executive” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in our political lexicon. To put it as succinctly as possible, all it means is that the executive branch of the federal government is under a single head – the president of the United States. He is ultimately responsible for all executive decisions of the federal government. So even with the labyrinth bureaucracy that exists today, the buck stops with the presidency, and he and he alone is responsible for executive branch action. It does not mean, and was never meant to imply that the chief executive has plenary decision making power over all the government. He only has the ultimate authority within his own sphere (or branch), a concept that our Founding Fathers would heartily have endorsed.

    So, your counter-example of hypocrisy falls flat.

  • The concept of the “unitary executive” is one of the most misunderstood concepts in our political lexicon.

    Maybe it’s easy for me to get “misunderstood concepts” about the definition or extent of “unitary executive” because of what John Yoo stated in testimony. He said in so many words that unless a treaty or law explicitly forbade the president from crushing a child’s testicles during lawful prosecution of a war, then the president had the power and authority to do so.

    I think my counter-example is a pretty good one: John Yoo is a complete hypocrite for pushing broad powers to the president then, but regretting it now.

  • I think my counter-example is a pretty good one:

    Just thinking it doesn’t make it so.

    John Yoo is a complete hypocrite for pushing broad powers to the president then, but regretting it now.

    Even if your depiction of what he said is true, so what? You’ve proven that another person is a hypocrite. Congratulations, but you haven’t in any way made you or anyone else who supports the president’s actions any less of a hypocrite.

  • By the way, even your example doesn’t exactly hold up as a case of hypocrisy. I think Yoo has a too expansive view of executive authority, but his theoretical exercise is still distinct from the situation under discussion. According to Yoo, presidential authority is expansive absent a Congressional prohibition. In this particular case, President Obama is essentially defying a law enacted by Congress (and passed under previous administrations).

    Of course this is still beside the larger point, but I’ll give you points for trying to change the subject.

  • Even if your depiction of what he said is true, so what? You’ve proven that another person is a hypocrite.

    Paul,

    In your original post, you called out one particular individual as a hypocrite, and then used that as a launching point to say like-minded persons were also hypocrites. I’m just following your lead.

    …but you haven’t in any way made you or anyone else who supports the president’s actions any less of a hypocrite.

    The legal basis/justification for (or against) the HHS mandate would seem to be completely unrelated to the legal basis/justification for (or against) the new amnesty policy. Your original post complained of “usurpation of constitutional authority” which I believe still needs to demonstrated in both instances. My man-in-the-street view of my 1st Amendment rights is that HHS over-reached and intruded into my free exercise of religion.

    On the subject of amnesty, the administration complained of inadequate resources to faithfully execute the laws preventing illegal immigrants from entering the country, and now choose to enforce them selectively, picking on the “worst violators” for severe treatment. The allocation of resources would be more of a judgment call than a constitutional issue.

  • In your original post, you called out one particular individual as a hypocrite, and then used that as a launching point to say like-minded persons were also hypocrites. I’m just following your lead.

    My lead doing what? I said that any individual who holds a certain viewpoint is a hypocrite. Instead of arguing the case, you pointed out another person’s supposed hypocrisy on a completely different issue. What does one have to do with another? This is called a red herring argument.

    The legal basis/justification for (or against) the HHS mandate would seem to be completely unrelated to the legal basis/justification for (or against) the new amnesty policy.

    The point I was trying to make is not that the issues are the same, but that you can’t cry about unconstitutional decision making in one area, and then excuse it another. As I said, you can’t be a cafeteria constitutionalist.

    The allocation of resources would be more of a judgment call than a constitutional issue.

    But it didn’t end there. The president of the United States issued a directive that said a law would not only not be enforced, but went above and beyond to essentially declare that a federal law (or aspect of a law) is nullified. This is far beyond the powers of the presidency.

    By the way, though I disagree with your assessment of the constitutionality of this decision, that’s a legitimate argument to make. This Yoo red herring, on the other hand, doesn’t advance the ball for anybody.

  • …and maybe I should add that if the amnesty action is a constitutional issue and it withstands a court challenge, John Yoo should be the last person to complain.

  • Spam Buddy,

    This is not about John Yoo or illegal immigrant salutatorians being denied the opportunities to give Spanish orations at their graduation ceremonies.

    This is about distracting and confusing the people about Obama’s policies and their horrid effects on Yoo and me.

  • It may be too late since the United States no longer has any religious freedom.

    All right, let’s dial it back a little. We haven’t quite reached Soviet status in this country. This administration has been bad enough that we don’t need to exaggerate what has happened.
    I was thinking of the aborted children who have had all of their constitutional rights taken from them. These persons have no religious freedom, taken from them by a government that ought to protect them and their constitutional rights.

  • Aside from issues of constitutionality, I oppose the HHS policy outright, but am ambivalent on immigration. I’ve always favored an orderly process for immigration and this new policy has long-term disadvantages in that regard for various reasons people have pointed out. Catholic bishops have supported the DREAM act as “a practical, fair, and compassionate solution for thousands of young persons.” So, the is the basis for my tentative support of the policy, as long as the causes of mercy and justice are served.

    The question about executive overreach is something the courts will need to decide. I don’t think Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati is a hypocrite for expressing his opinions for how these complex matters should be resolved.

  • There are as many as 20 million illegals in the country, according to many estimates. Nobody knows the actual numbers. But what we do know is that they came to America unlawfully and more than 80% are from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
    Mexico, which is responsible for around 57% of the total, has done nothing to stop the unlawful exodus until, ironically, it issued a warning to its citizens not travel to Arizona, which was forced to toughen immigration laws because the federal government failed to do so. Notwithstanding its concern for its own people, Mexico has managed to export drug cartels, kidnapping rings and criminal gangs to the U.S., all of which have rightly caused fear and loathing by lawbiding U.S. citizens.
    When he placed his hand on Lincoln’s Bible back in January 2009, Barack Obama swore to “faithfully execute” the laws of the United States of America. But is he?
    . As Pat Buchanan wrote: “(Obama) is siding with the law-breakers. He is pandering to the ethnic lobbies. He is not berating a Mexican regime that aids and abets this invasion of the country of which he is commander in chief. Instead, he attacks the government of Arizona for trying to fill a gaping hole in law enforcement left by his own dereliction of duty.
    “He has called on the Justice Department to ensure that Arizona’s sheriffs and police do not violate anyone’s civil rights. But he has said nothing about the rights of the people of Arizona who must deal with the costs of having hundreds of thousands of lawbreakers in their midst. Obama has done everything but his duty to enforce the law.”

  • The question about executive overreach is something the courts will need to decide

    This is a very dangerous attitude. I don’t fault you, spambot, for expressing it because it’s been so deeply rooted into our collective psyche. But the Courts are most definitely not the sole repository for adjudicating constitutional matters. What’s more, when it comes to inter-branch squabbles, the Court is generally reluctant to act.

    So while the Court can intervene, we should shake off this attitude that dictates that we await their say and only their say.

    I don’t think Archbishop Schnurr of Cincinnati is a hypocrite for expressing his opinions for how these complex matters should be resolved.

    I’m not saying he’s a hypocrite for expressing an opinion, but for being okay with violations of the constitution that are in accord with his personal policy preferences.

  • Thank you, Paul Zummo for responding to my comment. My opinion is dialed back to reset.
    Mary De Voe

  • No worries, Mary. I’ve been known to engage in hyperbole from time to time.

  • Not sure about the exact relevance of the Mr. Yoo reference, but I did see the piece and Spambot seems pretty accurate about Yoo being comically hypocritical about presidential overreach. But again, so what? Bush and Obama are both guilty of overreach – is that supposed to exculpate one or the other?

    The Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice has a handy website providing links to legal opinions issued by the office since 1995 or thereabouts. Included among them are four (4) opinions issued during 2001, 2002, and 2003 bearing the signature of one John Yoo, Esq. I am not an adept of this, so maybe you and Spambot can read through them and tell us all where we can find the text about crushing children’s testicles or something remotely related thereto.

    When you are done with that, maybe we can have a panel discussion between you, Spambot, Mark Shea, Zippy, Daniel Nichols, Ronald Dworkin, and any three members of the Gitmo Bar where you can all discuss the circumstances under which we should have boards of judges on battlefields (helpfully advised by white shoe lawyers and professors) reviewing tactics and strategy.

  • Art Deco,

    John Yoo’s comments that I referenced are not posted to the OLC website that I am aware.

  • Obama is doing what he said he couldn’t and wouldn’t do. He is flaunting the law. I think he (and the DOJ) should be should be impeached. Only..I am afraid that if he were impeached the left thinkers see that he has no support and no leg to stand on, they might try to convince him to let another democrat run instead of him, and then Romney would have a harder time.
    Borrowing trouble?

  • Not to be picky, Anzlyne, but believe you meant “flouting,” not “flaunting.”

  • ok — you are right Joe
    I could say that he flaunts his education and knowledge of the Constitution… : )

  • Joe I hate it when I make mistakes like that because then you look at the mistake and not at the content of the comment. Maybe not such a worthy comment but I’ll ask:

    Are we too close to the end of his term for an impeachment process to get started? Can the actions and authority of the DOJ be scrutinized?
    Even if his time as president is over, shouldn’t an investigation be done, so that our system of government is protected from this kind of breaking the Constitution.

    I hope he is out of office soon, I hope we vote him (and all his appointees out) but I wouldn’t be surprised if the bad guys pull a fast one and try to run someone else if he gets too much more unpopular… or like LBJ, just pull out – then it would be quite a different race

  • Anzlyne,

    Who would they run – Barney Frank?

    Your comment’s content is perfect.

    November must mark the end of an error or the USA could well be finished.

    Re: this latest ill-advised campaign ploy/Exec Order: Which is served social justice or common good for 20,000,000 American citizens and legal immigrants that cannot find work, when the Anointed “Won” doles out extra-special work benefits to 600,000 extraneous persons who absconded into the USA?

    Joe, Did I correctly use the word “absconded”?

45 Responses to Arizona: Doing the Job the Feds Will Not Do!

  • This is a failure by the federal government. I don’t know anybody who wants to send people back who are looking for work, but there has to be some kind of order. Why hasn’t the U.S and Mexican governments set up some kind of system where workers can come and go in a legal fashion. Instead of them risking their lives crossing the desert.

  • Nice touch on the “o” in “won’t”, lol

  • And, I’m a proud American with a long and rich Lebanese heritage, which means sometimes people think I have a long and rich Mexican heritage.

  • As I agree I disagree… this new law will only provide police to wrongfully detain or haggle legal Hispanics. I would rather they start fining Businesses $500,000 per illegal. If there is no work many illegals will not try why punish those who are trying to come to our country to make a life for themselves.. punish those who want slave labor!!

  • I have no problem whatsoever with legal immigration. But relatives in Arizona tell me illegal immigration is making life down there hell – kidnappings, drugs, fights between rival gangs.

    The French-born husband of a friend of mine tells me he waited 7 years before he was able to get a green card. Rather bitterly, he says the smart thing to do would have to been fly to Tijuana and head north; naively, he followed the rules…

  • Donna,

    It makes me sick when people who don’t, and never have, lived in AZ make long-winded proclamations about this law or the situation down there. They know nothing. They’re the real “know-nothings” of our time, intolerant fanatics or people who are so deluded and ignorant about the realities of the situation that they shouldn’t even have an opinion.

    I won’t stand for it. I’m not the racist. La Raza and MEChA, the Brown Berets, the radical Chicano professors and peddlers of hate speech against blacks and whites, are the racists.

    People who agree with them or apologize for them are the soft bigots. They should be confronted.

    They don’t care that we have a destabilizing failed state to the south that poses a security risk to the country. All they care about is moralizing and grandstanding.

  • Amen Tito and there are many others who feel the same way. I agree with the stiff fine for anyone or any employer who abets an illegal regardless of country. Our Imimgration Dpt is as laxed as can be. I have often wonder why Custons could not work with employers who use migrant labor and have a system for them to enter and be controlled together and then return after work is completed. No benefits other than shelter, meals and pay. It would less expensive than the walls and fences. Mexico’s President was wrong in his statements. Why hasn’t he built industry in the rural areas for his people and created jobs for them. Why does he not tell people that entering Mexico is regared as a felony and carries jail time. What if our law was the same and we jailed imimgrants for jail time and anyone who abets them.. would we then need walls and and fences.

  • La Raza and MEChA, the Brown Berets, the radical Chicano professors and peddlers of hate speech against blacks and whites, are the racists.

    I agree wholeheartedly.

    Alex V.,

    Amen to fining businesses for hiring illegals.

    That would have an immediate impact!

  • I have often wonder why Custons could not work with employers who use migrant labor and have a system for them to enter and be controlled together and then return after work is completed.

    Guest worker programs are socially corrupting. Employers who wish to hire ‘migrant labor’ should be told to hire citizens and lawful settlers willing to work for the wages offered.

  • Guest worker programs are socially corrupting. Employers who wish to hire ‘migrant labor’ should be told to hire citizens and lawful settlers willing to work for the wages offered.

    This recommendation runs contrary to statements of many of our bishops, I believe.

    Concerning an immigration enforcment raid on a North Portland, Oregon food processing plant (in 2007, I think):
    “Portland Archbishop John Vlazny quickly denounced the raid by the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, calling it “an affront to a nation whose tradition has always welcomed the stranger.” Calling for a moratorium on raids until national immigration reform is complete, the archbishop said the arrests tear apart families.”
    http://www.catholicsentinel.com/node/8172

    And a more recent statement by Bishop Slattery of Tulsa contained this recommendation:
    “Some way must be found to give the 11-12 million undocumented workers presently in the country some form of legal status. This need not include citizenship and should exclude anyone convicted of a felony.”
    http://www.dioceseoftulsa.org/article.asp?nID=1458

  • Neither statement refers to guest worker programs.

    That aside, both statements as rendered require elaboration.

    Some way must be found to give the 11-12 million undocumented workers presently in the country some form of legal status.

    And why would that be, your eminence?

    Calling for a moratorium on raids until national immigration reform is complete

    Penal codes are flawed. Do we let the muggers have free rein in urban neighborhoods until they are comprehensively repaired?

  • Thank you Messrs. Edwards and Vargas.

    And both of you make your statements, unlike [email protected] bishops spambot quotes and hate-filled libs, without accusing anyone that disagrees of being “the face of evil.”

    Let’s review how many sins against the Ten Commandments are [email protected] bishops endorsing? I make it only four: four, seven, eight and ten.

    And, at their next riot for amnesty, I want Che-worshipping revolutionaries to trot out an American construction worker and his family: whose livelihood was taken by a 12,000,000 undocumented workers and now 25 of them rent the house he lost to foreclosure.

  • Not sure about the Old Testament, but from the New Testament, the bishops often quote Matthew 25:35,
    “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me,” etc.

    http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew25.htm#v35

    See, for example, here:
    http://www.usccb.org/mrs/stranger.shtml

  • Concerning Art Deco’s claim that the guest worker program is “socially corrupting”, the bishops have acknowledged there can be social costs associated with the use migrant guest workers. For instance, responding to reform legislation proposed in 2004, the USCCB expressed concern that some provisions would lead to wage erosion, and called for modifications.
    http://www.usccb.org/hispanicaffairs/immigration.shtml

    I have not found an instance where a bishop called for the elimination of guest worker programs.

  • Concerning whether the millions of undocumented workers receive “some form of legal status”, Bishop Wester of Salt Lake City called for legal protection of immigrants’ due-process rights, among other things.
    http://www.sltrib.com/utahpolitics/ci_14135073

    Bishop Hubbard of Albany notes that “Regardless of their legal status, migrants, like all persons, possess inherent human dignity and human rights that should be respected.”
    http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/BishopHubbardArticle100226.pdf

    As I understand it, the bishops want immigrants to have a legal means of recourse if they are exploited or victimized.

  • As I understand it, the bishops want immigrants to have a legal means of recourse if they are exploited or victimized.

    The persons in question do not have ‘legal means of recourse’ becuase they came here on the q.t. That is a function of the calcuations they made at various junctures with reference to their personal situation. Giving them the benefits of legal status post hoc is not a ‘reform’ of immigration law; it is the abolition of immigration law.

    I have not found an instance where a bishop called for the elimination of guest worker programs.

    So what?

  • How can any honest person interpret “welcome the stranger” as “ignore all laws pertaining to immigration”? Because that’s what the bishops do when they speak out against the enforcement of immigration law.

    To me, “welcome the stranger” means just that – in your midst, you welcome any person who is a stranger. You welcome them with kindness and hospitality. But you don’t clamor for immigration anarchy, or make mealy-mouthed sermons that amount to that implicitly.

    I understand the human reasons often cited for illegal immigration. What I can’t tolerate is the political agitation, the visceral hatred and contempt, that so many seem to have or to at least go along with once they get here for this country and for Anglo Americans. You think its a minority. So did I, until I read about incidents like these. This is what they do in Mexico:

    http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/4236314/

    And this is what they do here, in this Snopes-verified incident:

    “On February 15, 1998, the U.S. and Mexican soccer teams met at the Los Angeles Coliseum. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Mexican even though most lived in this country. They booed during the National Anthem and U.S. flags were held upside down. As the match progressed, supporters of the U.S. team were insulted, pelted with projectiles, punched and spat upon. Beer and trash were thrown at the U.S. players before and after the match. The coach of the U.S. team, Steve Sampson said, “This was the most painful experience I have ever had in this profession.”

    These are the things that normal Americans see every day, that a lot of over-educated, over-socialized, affluenzaed liberals never do. The plain fact is that a significant portion of the illegal immigrants from Mexico believe that they have a RIGHT to be here. Maybe they’re told that in their own society. Maybe they are told when they get here by the Hispanic versions of the KKK or Neo-Nazis that no one on the left ever talks about.

    But they have a racial and national pride that any white person would be categorized as a Nazi themselves for holding. And they have a hatred for this country and its non-Hispanic inhabitants. This is what they do to the blacks:

    http://www.alternet.org/story/46855/

    “According to Stark, “There is no black gang that encroaches on the 204’s turf. The hate is so prevalent and obvious that activists and city officials can no longer avoid calling it by the name being used by everyone from prosecutors to opinion writers in the L.A. Times: ethnic cleansing.”

    http://thelastgringo.com/serendipity/index.php?/archives/16-LATINOS-ETHNIC-CLEANSING-IN-L.A..html

    When the victims are black, of course, expect at least one conflicted liberal to come down on their side. If they were white, radio silence at best, tacit approval at worst.

    Of course we don’t want to demonize Hispanics. But when I see tens of thousands of Hispanics show up at rallies with swastikas emblazoned on the US or various state flags, I have to wonder, are they saying we’re Nazis, or are they declaring their own race war? Maybe they think Hitler had the right ideas and the wrong race. Or maybe they hate Jews too. Who knows?

  • “For instance my opinion of Mexicans in Mexico has been slowly degraded away over the years. I used to have a whole different opinion of Mexico and its people, but after seeing this continued America bashing by everyday Mexicans over and over my opinion and sympathy for the Mexican’s plight has gone to nearly zero.”

    http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/002304.html

    Expect a lot more Americans to undergo this change as they learn the truth.

  • Well it is Catholic website, so the bishops’ opinions are generally relevant, and their statements urge immigration reform, not abolition of guest worker programs (such as H2-A and H2-B) that I can tell, so I thought I would just point out what I have found and what I have not found in that regard.

  • I’m still waiting for Cardinal Mahony and Archbishop Dolan to condemn Mexico’s brutally exclusive immigration laws as “mean spirited” and like “Nazi German” and “Russian communist” techniques.

    I’ll probably be considered someone’s ancestor before that happens.

  • Not one word from the bishops about this:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bA8Br3_FIRg&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

    Eradicate the gangs. Treat them like enemy combatants.

  • Well it is Catholic website, so the bishops’ opinions are generally relevant,

    I am sorry, what the bishops do not say about the technics of immigration enforcement, the designated hitter rule, trade winds, Mexican cuisine, and any number of other things is not of much interest to me. What they do say as a consequence of fulfilling their duties does interest me. And, of, course, faithful Catholics face the challenge of following the teachings of the Church when they are lost in a sandstorm of verbiage on ancillary matters from the staff of the bishops’ conference and diocesan chanceries.

  • “Standing before a small white coffin, Cardinal Roger M. Mahony said Wednesday that two small girls gunned down last week are martyrs of gang warfare and called on residents citywide to have the courage to rise up against gangs.

    “Mahony delivered the stern words to about 300 mourners attending funeral services for 3-year-old Denise Silva of Boyle Heights. He said each member of the community must take responsibility for escalating gang violence.”
    http://articles.latimes.com/1992-04-16/local/me-934_1_gang-members

    That condemnation of gang violence was from 1992, though the shootings in video was from 2008, so I do not know if that quote will satisfy you or you want something more recent.

  • What they do say as a consequence of fulfilling their duties does interest me.

    Great. I think we are the same page. Now if we only had a quote from a bishop that supports your position I think we can just about wrap this up.

  • Spam,

    So you opposed Health Care Reform because the bishops did?

  • I don’t know about S.pamb.ot, but I’m on the same page as the bishops on both health care and immigration. And I applaud Bishop Olmsted’s affirmation of the excommunication of Sister Margaret McBride as well as his opposition to SB 1070.

  • And I note yet again that the same tactic of opposition to Bishop Olmsted is used by both the Democratic and Republican loyalists.

    From the Democrats/pro-choicers, you hear that Bishop Olmsted just doesn’t understand the realities of the hard choices we must make about women’s health.

    And from the Republicans/conservatives, we hear that Bishop Olmsted just doesn’t understand the realities of how issues of immigration must be addressed.

  • The problem with your analysis is that abortion is an intrinsic evil and can never be justified. While immigraion is a right, it is not an absolute right – the state may limit immigration and enforce those laws including deportation.

    As such, immigration laws are properly the provence of the laity who are called to make such decisions. The bishops present the moral principles which the laity then prudently apply. If the bishops present a plan on immigration, a Catholic in good conscience can disagree.

    The particulars of the abortion case are not clear. But if an abortion was performed, no one may licitly disagree.

  • The bishops present the moral principles which the laity then prudently apply. If the bishops present a plan on immigration, a Catholic in good conscience can disagree.

    Fair enough.

    But it seems to be the case that most conservative Catholics disagree with the bishops whenever a bishop’s position is contradicted by the talking points of the conservative wing of the Republican party. And when the disagreement is voiced by these Catholics, it is usually with ridicule.

    I do wish more Catholics would step out from the boundaries of politics, especially when it comes to morality.

  • I will have to say that bishops’ opinions should be treated with respect. Though Cardinal Mahoney’s comments on the AZ law does deserve contempt.

  • JohnH, Phillip, Art Deco, Greg Mockeridge, Donna V., afl, T. Shaw, and S.pamb.ot,

    While you guys are engaged in good dialogue why don’t you all put up some icon pics for your ID/gravatar?

  • I don’t know how. I’m technologically challenged.

  • So you opposed Health Care Reform because the bishops did?

    Yes. I commented about this briefly at Zippy’s a while back.
    http://zippycatholic.blogspot.com/2010/03/more-funding-for-abortion-is-just.html?showComment=1269530687527#c4629179916212773003

    I’ll leave at that for now to avoid going off topic.

  • Great. I think we are the same page. Now if we only had a quote from a bishop that supports your position I think we can just about wrap this up.

    No, we are not. I am not inhibited from advocating a social policy because my bishop has not pronounced on that specific subject. You have not offered one citation to the effect that an immigration policy which permits settlers but not the issuance of visas to imported servant-laborers is in contradiction to a moral principle articulated by the Church.

    But it seems to be the case that most conservative Catholics disagree with the bishops whenever a bishop’s position is contradicted by the talking points of the conservative wing of the Republican party.

    There is no consensual position on immigration within the Republican Party, much less ‘talking points’.

    The bishops need to elaborate on how the moral and ethical obligations of the faithful are articulated in social policy and how the latter compels lax enforcement of immigration laws, amnesty, &c. If they can actually state things in those terms.

  • I will have to say that bishops’ opinions should be treated with respect.

    I think that is all I really wanted. Not necessarily from anyone one person in particular, but from Catholic sites in general when they examine the Arizona immigration law controversy.

    What do the bishops say and why do they say it? Are the various bishops’ statements generally consistent with each other? Should Catholics feel obligated to line up behind them if they are relatively uniform in their opinion?

    Those are some of the questions on my mind and tried to explore a little here.

  • While you guys are engaged in good dialogue why don’t you all put up some icon pics for your ID/gravatar?

    I am not sure I can get it to work.

  • How to set up a gravatar:

    http://en.gravatar.com/

  • Just want to draw attention to the seriousness of the abuse of migrants in Mexico that Greg refers to and acknowledge that I could not find statements from Catholic bishops on that specific situation.

    http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/report/widespread-abuse-migrants-mexico-human-rights-crisis-2010-04-27

  • S.pamb.ot hits the nail on the head, so to speak.

    ” . . . Catholic website, so the bishops’ opinions are generally relevant”

    BINGO!!!!

    Opinion.

    I read books on my commute/RR. One book I read was The Republic. Plato said, “Opinion is not truth.”

    I don’t much care about bishops’ opinions unless they jive with the Scriptures and the Pope.

    Especially since the majority voted for Obama in opposition to Pope Benedict’s non-negotiables, I have no reason to blindly accept any bishop’s OPINION.

    FYI Bamspot BUDDY: Check out OT Tobit on not giving alms to evil people. “Better to put your bread on the grave of a just man than . . . ”

    The criminals (tearing at the guts of many communities) are not the least of Christ’s brothers. And, are breaking at least four of the Ten Commandments.

    But, if you must feed them, send them food in their homelands. And, use your money for your charitable acts.

    Those are my opinions and again opinion is not truth.

    I’m a superannuated accountant who has to look up much of the vocabulary you people use. Plus, what is this gravatar thing?

    BTW: Closed comments on the Second Amend. I am perennially banned at a certain so-called catholic website. Seems totalitarianism resides in socialist saints, as much as stalinists and nazis.

    That’s okay. I had completed my post-doctoral field work in proctology at the time they banned me.

  • Shaw,

    “Closed comments on the Second Amend.”

    I hope you aren’t referring to my post. Comments are closed here because I don’t want two discussions. On my personal blog, where you can read the rest of the piece, you can comment to your hearts content.

  • Thank you, T.Shaw. I’ll try to keep all of that in mind.

  • The USCCB on guest worker programs:
    In May [2006], the Senate passed S.2611, which includes the 200,000 new H2-C visas supported by President Bush as well as pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have worked in the country five years or more.

    Earlier this year [2006], the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the enforcement-only House bill and subsequently called the Senate bill [S.2611] “a good start.”

    Among the bishops’ principles for just immigration reform is a guest-worker program that helps unify migrant families and provides a path to earn citizenship.

    “The bishops are not opposed to border security or national sovereignty,” Torres told Our Sunday Visitor. “But they want to balance the right to migration and the dignity of all human beings.”
    http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20754

    Bishop Wenski testifying before a House Subcommittee on Immigration Reform in 2007:
    While we appreciate the inclusion in Title IV of AgJOBS legislation [temporary workers provision of S.1348], we strongly oppose the Title’s adoption of a temporary worker program that does not provide workers with the option of pursuing a path to permanent residency. This could create an underclass of workers in our society who are easily exploitable and without full rights and privileges in the society. We also have misgivings about workers having to return home after two years and remain outside of the country for a year. We fear this may result in some workers choosing to stay illegally.
    Other problems we have in Title IV include its unrealistic requirements for health insurance and minimum income levels, and the reliance on the unrealistic triggers found in Title I of the legislation before the temporary worker program can begin to operate.
    http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/meh-wenski-adopted-changes.pdf

    The USCCB (again) on the AgJOBS program:
    The U.S. Catholic Bishops support both permanent and, with appropriate protections, temporary visa programs for laborers. However, any such system must adequately protect the rights of workers. Visa costs must be affordable and wages should be sufficient to support a family in dignity. The program ought to provide for family unity and reunification and allow for worker mobility both within the United States and in making return trips to their home country. Labor-market tests should be employed to ensure that U.S. workers are protected. A segment of work visas should be designed to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. In allocating such visas, two factors that should be considered are family ties and work history.
    http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/h2a.shtml

    The USCCB (again) on immigration and border security:
    The Catholic Catechism teaches that in the realm of immigration law all governments have two essential duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored.

    The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person.

    The second duty of government is to secure its border and enforce immigration law for the sake of the common good, including the safety and well-being of the nation’s inhabitants and the rule of law.

    The U.S. Catholic Bishops have outlined various elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform.

    Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign-born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.
    “http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/legal.shtml”

    ~~~~~~~
    From these and other resources, I believe it is fair to conclude that our bishops support issuance of visas to temporary workers as long as legal protections against exploitation and abuse of the workers are provided. This leads me to believe they oppose elimination of the temporary workers programs.

  • An article concerning the USCCB’s position on guest worker programs:
    In May [2006], the Senate passed S.2611, which includes the 200,000 new H2-C visas supported by President Bush as well as pathways to citizenship for illegal immigrants who have worked in the country five years or more.

    Earlier this year [2006], the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposed the enforcement-only House bill and subsequently called the Senate bill [S.2611] “a good start.”

    Among the bishops’ principles for just immigration reform is a guest-worker program that helps unify migrant families and provides a path to earn citizenship.

    “The bishops are not opposed to border security or national sovereignty,” Torres told Our Sunday Visitor. “But they want to balance the right to migration and the dignity of all human beings.”
    http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=20754

    Bishop Wenski testifying before a House Subcommittee on Immigration Reform in 2007:
    “While we appreciate the inclusion in Title IV of AgJOBS legislation [temporary workers provision of S.1348], we strongly oppose the Title’s adoption of a temporary worker program that does not provide workers with the option of pursuing a path to permanent residency. This could create an underclass of workers in our society who are easily exploitable and without full rights and privileges in the society. We also have misgivings about workers having to return home after two years and remain outside of the country for a year. We fear this may result in some workers choosing to stay illegally.

    “Other problems we have in Title IV include its unrealistic requirements for health insurance and minimum income levels, and the reliance on the unrealistic triggers found in Title I of the legislation before the temporary worker program can begin to operate.”
    http://www.justiceforimmigrants.org/documents/meh-wenski-adopted-changes.pdf

    ~~~(cont’d)

  • The USCCB (again) on the AgJOBS program:
    “The U.S. Catholic Bishops support both permanent and, with appropriate protections, temporary visa programs for laborers. However, any such system must adequately protect the rights of workers. Visa costs must be affordable and wages should be sufficient to support a family in dignity. The program ought to provide for family unity and reunification and allow for worker mobility both within the United States and in making return trips to their home country. Labor-market tests should be employed to ensure that U.S. workers are protected. A segment of work visas should be designed to allow laborers to enter the country as legal permanent residents. In allocating such visas, two factors that should be considered are family ties and work history.”
    http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/h2a.shtml

    The USCCB (again) on immigration and border security:
    “The Catholic Catechism teaches that in the realm of immigration law all governments have two essential duties, both of which must be carried out and neither of which can be ignored.”

    “The first duty is to welcome the foreigner out of charity and respect for the dignity and rights of the human person.”

    “The second duty of government is to secure its border and enforce immigration law for the sake of the common good, including the safety and well-being of the nation’s inhabitants and the rule of law.”

    “The U.S. Catholic Bishops have outlined various elements of their proposal for comprehensive immigration reform.”

    “Future Worker Program: A worker program to permit foreign-born workers to enter the country safely and legally would help reduce illegal immigration and the loss of life in the American desert. Any program should include workplace protections, living wage levels, safeguards against the displacement of U.S. workers, and family unity.”
    http://www.nccbuscc.org/mrs/legal.shtml

    ~~~~~~~
    From these and other resources, I believe it is fair to conclude that our bishops support issuance of visas to temporary workers as long as legal protections against exploitation and abuse of the workers are provided. This leads me to believe they oppose elimination of the temporary workers programs.

  • I have heard far more persons discussing that the law is Unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Supremacy Clause forbids state and local laws that contradict federal laws in matters where the federal government has authority to act.
    Once again it only applies in situations where the law contradicts the current law. Arizona’s law requires that State/Local authorities hand over suspect illegals to the proper federal authorities. Maybe you have forgetten (since we haven’t enforced these laws) but it’s still a crime to enter our country illegally.
    But as long as we are talking about Constitutionality let’s talk about the Commerce Clause on the Constitution (Article I, Section 8). This clause prohibits states and localities from passing laws that burden interstate or foreign commerce by, among other things, creating “discriminations favorable or adverse to commerce with specific foreign nations.”
    Boycotting Arizona is UNCONSTITUTIONAL so knock it off already. Also to the Arizona government, how about we step up and actually file suit against these cities?

A Brief Thought on Immigration

Thursday, May 20, AD 2010

Conservatives are fairly comfortable with the point that if you ban or severely restrict guns, than only the criminals will be armed.

Let’s then ask ourselves: If we ban or severely restrict immigration (most especially from a right-next-door country with a much poorer economy, such as Mexico) aren’t we assuring that only criminals immigrate?

If it’s cross-border crime which is such a problem, would anti-immigration advocates be willing to support a massively increased legal immigration quota for Mexico (say 250,000 immigrants a year, rather than the current legal quota of ~25,000) in return for permission and cooperation from the Mexican government for US law enforcement and military units to hunt down cross border cartels?

Continue reading...

34 Responses to A Brief Thought on Immigration

  • How many come illegally now? Will people be happy with 250k if many more come illegally? Can we treat those who exceed the limit as having violated the law and deport them? Can we take 250k a year now?

  • That’s asking an awful lot from a country that can’t control any aspect of their government? We have another border, to the north, that we don’t seem to have as many issue’s with illegals crossing? Again, there is a right way to become a citizens and an illegal way to be in our country. “IF” we legalize the all the illegals that are currently here, how do we stop the “next” wave of illegals coming in? Has anybody asked that question?

  • This ties in somewhat to points that Radley Balko (of Reason) has been making about immigration. He recently linked to this:

    http://futurity.org/society-culture/drop-in-violent-crime-tied-to-immigration/

    and his thoughts on the border town of El Paso from last year:

    http://reason.com/archives/2009/07/06/the-el-paso-miracle

    It is interesting (given that I live in a town with many illegal immigrants, in a neighborhood with a lot of immigrants, legal or non) to compare the American experience with the more segregated experience immigrants have in Europe.

    European countries also do not have birthright citizenship as an option for immigrants, so there can be non-citizens who were born and have grown up in a country while still being threatened with deportation. Given the essentially underground economy and violence among non-citizens living around the suburbs of Paris and other areas, I don’t think America should repeat the European model here.

  • It looks like the Pew Center has estimated that roughly 275,000 illegal immigrants per year have been entering the US since 2005, with more like 500,000 per year from 2000 to 2005. (That’s from all countries, not just Mexico.)

    Part of the theory of setting a large legal quota would be to make it less worth while to accept all the risks that sneaking in currently involves. Since poor non-skilled laborers currently stand almost no chance of getting immigration visas, sneaking in looks good. If they had a good chance of being able to do so legally within a year of applying (and if the process for applying was simple) it seems less likely that people would go to such risk and expense in order to go around the system.

  • So of the 250k per year that come illegally, can we deport them?

  • (That’s from all countries, not just Mexico.)

    My old neighborhood in San Francisco had a very large number of illegal Irish immigrants–mostly doing contracting work, house painting, etc. The local pub had a bulletin board up for under-the-table job postings until the police asked them to take it down.

  • DC

    The issue is not just the number, but the means of access. The difficulty for many is the cost — it is prohibitive for those who are in desperate need. I think we could do things for reform which include:

    1) greater access
    2) various reasons by which the costs can be reduced or waived
    3) work with those lands, such as Mexico, to help reform them so people will feel less need to migrate (I would question the proportionality of using soldiers and war-like methodologies for dealing with the problems, but I think other means, such as economic help, and perhaps some policing — though again with very sensitive elements here — might be possible).

  • In the end we are going to have to have a COMP Soultion. But having a sane guest worker program is going to have to be part of it.

    We used to have a nice pattern of circular migration now not so much

  • You’re using a much more reasonable tone here Henry.

  • Who set the current quota and visa system?

    Can we sustain such levels of immigration, especially during a recession?

  • “If it’s cross-border crime which is such a problem, would anti-immigration advocates”

    who is ‘anti-immigration’ ? Did I miss something? I thought the law in Arizona applies to illegal immigrants (only if they get stopped for another violation not related to their citizenship status).

    I didn’t realize legal immigrants can be arrested to…

  • Can we sustain such levels of immigration, especially during a recession?

    I’d think so, especially if it were tied with legal worker visas. Immigrants (legal and non) are responsible for a 10 billion per year boost in the US GDP, according to the report “The New Americans: Economic, Demographic and Fiscal Effects of Immigration.” The problem is being able to tie employment to accurate tax status. According to this:

    http://articles.sfgate.com/2006-05-21/news/17295663_1_illegal-immigration-low-skilled-george-borjas/4

    A recent analysis by investment research firm Standard & Poor’s found that the Social Security Administration receives about $7 billion a year in payroll taxes that can’t be linked to valid names. S&P presumed that most of those funds come from undocumented workers.

    A lot of the problems surrounding large numbers of illegal immigrants come from the inability to collect taxes that support state/city infrastructure. More visas could help that problem.

  • Increased immigration would help pull us out of the recession.

  • First of all,

    Jasper is absolutely right. Darwin, you shouldn’t assume that people are “anti-immigration.”

    To the question:

    “If it’s cross-border crime which is such a problem, would anti-immigration advocates be willing to support a massively increased legal immigration quota for Mexico (say 250,000 immigrants a year, rather than the current legal quota of ~25,000) in return for permission and cooperation from the Mexican government for US law enforcement and military units to hunt down cross border cartels?”

    Put aside your parenthetical, which I don’t think can be agreed to in a com-box discussion, and I’d say that we could settle on some number and we would have a deal.

    My top concern is the cartels, the gangs, and the criminals who destroy life, liberty and property through violence related to drugs, prostitution (a massive sex slavery ring – don’t forget about that), and even the damage that is done to private property with no restitution during the journey north.

    At my blog I make that clear – I believe the cartels and the gangs are enemies of civilization and should be completely destroyed. I don’t mince words.

    My secondary concerns are the costs of illegal immigration, which can overburden relatively less wealthy states such as AZ.

    If the common good is really the aim of the state, then it would be immoral and insane for it to promise unlimited quantities of scarce resources, which is what an open borders situation brings about by default. The state has a right and a duty to the citizens to regulate and manage costs and social burdens.

  • Jasper,

    who is ‘anti-immigration’ ? Did I miss something? I thought the law in Arizona applies to illegal immigrants (only if they get stopped for another violation not related to their citizenship status).

    I didn’t realize legal immigrants can be arrested to…

    I hadn’t meant this post to be in direct reference to the AZ law, but rather in reference to concerns about illegal immigration in general. As to the question of whether anyone is “anti-immigration”, I am not going to search for citations at the moment but I’ve fairly often heard fellow conservatives of a populist leaning say, “We need to just seal the borders until we have things sorted out for people who live here, and then we can look at allowing other people in.” I don’t think it would be inaccurate to call that an “anti-immigration” stance. I don’t think that necessarily has to be a value judgment term — if people are right that immigration is bad for the existing population, then they’d be right to be against it.

    I tend to accept that analysis that immigration is a net benefit to our country (a very slight benefit to us, a large benefit to the immigrants, and an overall benefit to the GDP since those people are not producing wealth here rather than elsewhere), but I do see illegal immigration as a source of disorder. I think, however, it’s a pretty naturally expected source of disorder if our immigration quotas are so ridiculously low for the poor nations just to the south of us. I think that by increasing those quotas to a reasonable level (and making the application process simple and inexpensive), we could probably both control our borders, provide a humanitarian benefit, and get a better overall quality of immigrants.

    My thought process here is basically this: right now our restriction on immigration specifically from Mexico is so high that it encourages violation, kind of like Prohibition did. If we made the regulation itself more reasonable by taking it to a more enforceable level, it would probably to be possible to combat many of the evils that people associate with illegal immigration more effectively.

    Baron Korf,

    Who set the current quota and visa system?

    The current quota system was created by congress via the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It allocated 170,000 visas to the Eastern Hemisphere, with no more than 20,000 per country, and 120,000 visas to the Western Hemisphere, to be given on a first come first served basis. There are an unlimited number of visas issued each year to spouses of American citizens, and a number of administrative quotas for admitting other types of family members of US citizens. The combination of these quotas end up admitting a total of 700-900k of legal immigrants per year from throughout the world.

    I would tend to think that we can sustain such levels in a recession, but if we can’t, unemployment tends to be worst for non-skilled laborers who don’t speak English well, so if we had “too many” legal immigrants from Mexico, I imagine they would just go back south.

  • In a nation where one-in-six is unemployed or under-employed, you conflate the Bill of Rights’ Second Amendment with the flagrant war being waged on us by undocumented immigrants, to wit: Today, two of the worthies with automatic weapons killed two police officers.

    I welcome all immigrants who have a sponsor; have a place to live; have a job that they didn’t take from an American; live according to our way of life; pay taxes; obey the laws; learn English; and don’t demand that we hand over our collective life savings, i.e., social security funds, medicare/health care, welfare.

    If socialist saints want to do works of charity: do it with your money not my children’s and my grandchildren’s money.

  • Joe,

    Sorry, I took so long writing my previous I hadn’t seen your comment when I posted.

    It sounds like we’re mostly in agreement — I did indeed pick the numbers out of thin air to make a point, not argue the number specifically.

    As for gangs and cartels — I have no problem with going after them hard, aside from the prudential question as to whether certain means might cause more trouble than benefit.

    T Shaw,

    I really don’t think that immigrants are after anyone’s social security — and come to that, if they work legally they’ll be putting money into it just like everyone else, and doing so for a long time since most immigrants are fairly young. I don’t see why we should deny someone benefits at 65 because they didn’t arrive in the country till they were 30, that’s still paying in for 35 years.

    The real threat to such benefits, to those who treasure them, is that so many native born Americans aren’t having many children. And that the bozos who represent us in congress can’t stop their spending and borrowing spree.

    Perhaps we could deport congress? I think everyone could support that.

  • Perhaps we could deport congress?

    Who would take them? “Give me your tiresome, your boors, your befuddled jackasses…”

  • “Perhaps we could deport congress? I think everyone could support that.”

    To the moon!

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2009/07/20/lets-send-congress-to-the-moon/

  • Conservatives are fairly comfortable with the point that if you ban or severely restrict guns, than only the criminals will be armed.

    Umm, no. The military will be armed, the police will be armed, and private citizens who meet the criteria specified in law will be armed.

    Let’s then ask ourselves: If we ban or severely restrict immigration (most especially from a right-next-door country with a much poorer economy, such as Mexico) aren’t we assuring that only criminals immigrate?

    Are the social benefits from restricting immigration flows worth the costs? If they are, why is the composition of the pool who manage to evade the authorities of concern? It is a given that there are troublesome people in this world; your aim is to minimize the number at large in keeping with achieving other social goals.

    If it’s cross-border crime which is such a problem, would anti-immigration advocates be willing to support a massively increased legal immigration quota for Mexico (say 250,000 immigrants a year, rather than the current legal quota of ~25,000) in return for permission and cooperation from the Mexican government for US law enforcement and military units to hunt down cross border cartels?

    No. You don’t bargain with foreign governments over whom you allow to settle in your country. If they would like technical assistance from the United States Government to improve their domestic law enforcement, they are not in a position to insist on additional favors as a ‘price’ for receiving benefits. Our government can contain the cross-border cartels by fortifying the border and arresting and incarcerating those who make it across and commit crimes.

    I have a suggestion. Anyone anywhere who wishes to settle in the United States can apply at a U.S. Consulate and submit to a written and oral examination in the English language. If they pass the examination, they will be issued a place in a queue and derived from that they will be given a schedule of permissible entry dates depending on how many dependents they acquire in the interim. At such time as their entry date arrives, they are clear to enter the United States as soon as each individual in their family over 14 has passed a written and oral examination in English.

    To the foregoing you might append an actuarial assessment designed to inhibit the entry of certain types (e.g. unmarried childless post-adolescents from Saudi Arabia).

    You need no national quotas and can do without the paraphanalia of economic planning the Canadian government uses.

  • Anyone anywhere who wishes to settle in the United States can apply at a U.S. Consulate and submit to a written and oral examination in the English language. If they pass the examination, they will be issued a place in a queue and derived from that they will be given a schedule of permissible entry dates depending on how many dependents they acquire in the interim. At such time as their entry date arrives, they are clear to enter the United States as soon as each individual in their family over 14 has passed a written and oral examination in English.

    Ha. If this had been the law 150 years ago, only the Scots side of my family would have been allowed in. (Or maybe not… they were fishermen, and possibly illiterate.) The rest learned English after moving here.

  • Has any suggested to our southern border friends that perhaps they need to get their economy in order so that their citizens have employment in their own country. Or perhaps build employmnent opportunities in their rural northern sectors near our borders. And last but not least are any of you aware that illegals entering Mexico face a chagre of a felony ( not a hand slap ) and face prison time. Perhaps we need to respond and make illegal entry a felony with jail time for the illegals and those who hire them or abet them and the fences and wall would come down. .

  • Has any suggested to our southern border friends that perhaps they need to get their economy in order so that their citizens have employment in their own country. Or perhaps build employmnent opportunities in their rural northern sectors near our borders. And last but not least are any of you aware that illegals entering Mexico face a chagre of a felony ( not a hand slap ) and face prison time. Perhaps we need to respond and make illegal entry a felony with jail time for the illegals and those who hire them or abet them and the fences and wall would come down.

  • Since someone linked George Borjas, a non-brief lecture on the economic costs of immigration – legal and illegal:

  • Statistics show that Spain’s fertility rate is below replacement. This means if Spain does not open its doors to immigrants, it will go down in population. Spain needs immigrants. Mexicans need jobs. This makes sense, both historically and linguistically.

  • Agreed.

    The only real deterrents are:

    The Spanish economy is not so great.
    Spain is harder to walk or drive to from Mexico.

    Unfortunately, these seem to rate rather heavily with many people.

  • I hear you. But what if Spain fixes its economy? And what if Argentina can fix its economy, too? Then we’ll have two countries that will be welcoming, both economically and culturally, to Spanish-speaking immigrants.

  • That would definitely be to the benefit of all concerned.

  • What if Spain fixes its economy? What if Mexico fixes its economy? What if money grew on trees? What if we could time travel?

    Back to reality. I’m against government rationing but if we’re going to ration, we’d be better off letting in the skilled and educated first. They don’t have to speak English. I’d let in a great Chinese chef before a British bum. I’d rather have a Spanish-speaking nanny than an English-speaking one. Just secure a job (with a minimum salary requirement if you’d like) and you can come.

  • Guns aren’t quite like folks– you can put away a gun for ages, can’t do that with folks taking jobs under the counter– and I don’t know anyone that’s even close to the gun grabbers on restricting immigration.

    If you put “willing to join America and follow her laws” and “will be able to support themselves and any dependents they bring in a fully legal job” as the immigration version of “not a felon” for guns, sounds fine to me.

    Obviously, this makes illegals on the same level as folks who use illegal guns in a crime, but not my metaphor…..

    Now, I would no more allow a higher quota from Mexico to allow us to enforce our laws than I would support allowing a set number of highly armed gangs in order to be allowed to enforce anti-gun crime laws.

  • Back to reality. I’m against government rationing but if we’re going to ration, we’d be better off letting in the skilled and educated first. They don’t have to speak English. I’d let in a great Chinese chef before a British bum.

    At which point you would render the administration of immigration policy rather rococo and also a department of economic planning on the Canadian model. It is not merely that public agencies lack the information set to predict with any degree of precision the evolution of labor demand. People’s properties and dispositions also change. In addition, when you admit someone, you admit all of their descendants.

    When you admit an immigrant, you admit a settler, who may do any number of things with his life. If you are concerned about the admission of ‘bums’, please recall that their is an assessment done of prospective immigrants which seeks to exclude persons likely to be a ‘public charge’; a simple medical examination might do. Please recall also that the receipt of Social Security retirement benefits requires one have paid payroll taxes for a baseline number of quarters and that the receipt of disability benefits has a like requirement and a secondary requirement that one have spent a threshhold period of time in the workforce over the previous decade. Implementing like requirements for the receipt of any sort of benefit of common provision by immigrants should suffice to limit the immigrant population to a productive population.

    Outside of the Anglosphere, there is going to be some corellation between mastery of English and skills and education, but that is not all that important. Any society takes all kinds. A man from Jamaica who slices corned beef for a living makes his contribution to the common life too.

  • Societies have a ” carrying capacity ” to accept immigration without getting in to serious problems, this carrying capacity is not fixed, as it changes as different circumstances change. I am broadly sympathetic to persons wishing to emigrate to the US from Mexico, even when they would chose to do so illegally. I presume that many of the people who choose to emigrate illegally to the US, do so because they are facing catastrophic financial difficulties in Mexico and were they able to obtain a reasonable income through employment in Mexico, that they would sooner stay in Mexico. If one presumes then that many of the people who are emigrating illegally to the US are economic migrants, it is not unreasonable taking their needs in to account, that for immigration in to the US to be useful to them, they need to have better economic circumstances in the US than in Mexico. There are serious structural problems in the US economy and large inflows of low skilled Mexican workers, regardless of whether it is illegal migration or legal migration, will not solve those problems, it will aggravate those problems. The US needs to build a fence on the US Mexican border and reduce the volume of illegal immigration through that measure. If the fence is effective and I believe it will be, then the numbers of persons to be admitted through the legal immigration process from Mexico could be raised but 250,000 is unrealistically high. A fence will also substantially degrade less sophisticated cross border narcotics smuggling operations.There seems to be a lack of comprehension on the part of the person who wrote the item ” A Brief Thought on Immigration “, that one can be a good person, trying to do good people good and it can all go horribly wrong. There is a real risk that the United States of America could implode or morph in to an Islamic state and engaging in well intended but society stressing immigration policies could encourage such an implosion or morphing in to an Islamic state. It is blatantly obvious that Islamists will attempt to target the Catholic Mexican immigrant community in the US for conversion to highly aggressive interpretations of Islam. If one has immigration from Mexico regardless of whether it is legal or illegal immigration, if the US economy can not give those immigrants possibilities of significant social and economic progress, they are not likely to go home to Mexico but rather stay in the US and become increasingly disenchanted with the USA and Islam in an extreme interpretation will likely seem highly attractive as an ideological / religious model to them.

Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

Wednesday, May 19, AD 2010

The boycott that Los Angeles is imposing on Arizona has its first victim, the city of Los Angeles itself.

The state of Arizona is about to strike back at L.A. again to defend itself.

A letter written by one of the commissioners of the Arizona Corporate Commission is telling Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to be ready to accept the consequences of his actions:

If Los Angeles wants to boycott Arizona, it had better get used to reading by candlelight.

Basically Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa’s bluff has been called.

Continue reading...

29 Responses to Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A.

  • So silly on the part of L.A. and California… a state that one day soon might have to be bailed out by the U.S. government, in part funded by Arizona taxpayers! Frankly the best thing to happen to California is bankruptcy at this point…

    Perhaps if California did not have such outlandish welfare services they would not have severe budget and immigration issues of their own.

  • Man, if only CA would have used those billions of dollars of bond money to gain complete independence from the rest of the nation instead of building huge, inefficient new embryonic stem cell research labs, maybe they wouldn’t be so affected by AZ’s actions.

    As it is, the fact that the silliness has gone as far as it has is worrying.

  • You probably could be right.

    A bankruptcy would be beneficial.

    It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    And maybe, just maybe, they’ll vote responsible, fiscally conservative politicians into office.

  • When I first read the letter, I thought it was just chest-beating, but now I’m not so sure. I’m sure it would be a last resort, and there would no doubt be serious repercussions, but it is a delight to imagine. For the moment, I think the commissioner is just telling L.A., “Watch it! We can you hurt you!”, and pointing out the city’s hypocrisy in thinking they can start boycott on their terms alone, without any reverse consequenses..

  • Joseph,

    I think you’re right.

    He’s putting L.A. on notice, though the mayor is not balking, so it’ll be interesting how this plays out.

  • It would sober up California voters to the fact that the socialist-liberal policies of the past 20 years has been a complete bust.

    Actually, it’s more of a schizoid situation. We routinely vote in restrictions on new taxes or introduce tax breaks while at the same time voting for expensive projects like high-speed rail.

  • Good for AZ! I read an article the other day too that AZ travelers are canceling plans to destinations that have called for similar ridiculous boycotts, like San Diego. The response? “Oh, its just local politics, please don’t hurt our economy by canceling your plans!”

    What pathetic, whining, sniveling cowards. I hope AZ sticks to every last one of them and makes them pay for the slanders, their race-baiting, their hatred and their ignorance. Teach them humility, Arizona!

  • BTW, Tito, have you seen Archbishop Chaput’s take on the Arizona law?

    http://www.archden.org/index.cfm/ID/3858

    It’s very good, and quite balanced.

  • Meanwhile, in a country where one-in-six workers is unemployed or under-employed, the undertaker-in-chief fetes in the white house a man mainly responsible for stealing millions of American jobs and almost bankrupting hundreds of municipalities.

    Truth IS stranger than fiction.

  • JohnH,

    That was a good article.

    Archbishop Chaput for prelate of America!

  • Boycotts are blunt instruments that hurt the innocent with the guilty. I would not support cutting off existing business with Arizona but I would support boycotting any new business. I hope sports leagues blacklist Arizona. I’d love to see New York’s Arizona iced tea company change its name in protest. I want Arizona to learn that the rest of America stands in solidarity with those who are unjustly discriminated against. I want Arizona to learn that the bishops of Arizona know better than bigots about what’s right and wrong.

  • RR,

    The rest of America?

    Over 60% of American’s agree with Arizona’s illegal immigration law.

  • I still want to know what the “flaw” is.

  • Restrained,

    It will be we who teach you that false claims about bigotry will be met with the contempt and disgust that they deserve.

  • The Los Angeles Dept of Water & Power doesn’t merely buy electricity from AZ, it is a part OWNER of two electrical generating plants there. We are only using what we own – this guy needs to get his facts straight.

    When did Christianity become so xenophobic. Do you think Jesus gave a rat’s behind where someone was born (sorry, no loaves and fishes for you – you were born on the wrong side of a man-made line)

  • What in the world is xenophobic about reguiring Mexicans to obey American immigration laws if they wish to live in America? Is it xenophobic of Mexico to expect that Americans will obey Mexican immigration laws if they wish to live in Mexico?

  • You don’t get it, Don. You see, we’re all racists and we don’t know it yet.

    Thankfully, we have MSNBC to let us know what horrible people we are on the inside.

    What Mexicans (legal and illegal for that matter) really should be angry about is how they’re used as political pawns by American politicians. That might ACTUALLY be sort of racist.

    A nation that cannot defend and protect its own physical integrity ceases to be a nation. Americans are perfectly within their rights to expect their state or federal government to enforce the border, and not use it as a backhanded means to manipulate demographics and election outcomes.

  • No Power is about to be shut off to California. I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway. Regardless I have to imagine that all sort of things comeinto play here such as the Commerce Clause and the Dormant Commerce cause. I also have to imagine since so much of our power comes from all the over place there is already Fed regulation on this

  • “I am not sure why people are cheering this own anyway.”

    Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.

  • It’s as if they’re saying, “wait, people are taking us seriously? Our words actually mean something?”

  • Liberals are conflating Christianity with “Ali Baba and the 40,000,000 Thieves.”

    I love and pray for all the cloistered marxists that call yourselves social justice advocates.

    Woe unto him who calls evil good.

    PS: If I believed they would comprehend “Marxist/Leninism”, I’d have used that term insetad of “Ali Baba.”

  • “Because it helps illustrate what complete buffoons the LA politicians are for calling for a boycott of the State of Arizona. Politicians, and not just in LA, have gotten used to playing the dirty game of identity politics by appealing to ethnic constituents through empty gestures such as this. Now there is pushback and the solons in LA are squealing about it which is vastly amusing.”

    I just think escalting this is nonsense especially in these bad economic times. People I think will move on from this issue if given time. We have short attentions spans. Also the fact that it appears that

    People actually think AZ can do this is annoying

    That people seem to think it is proper for State to engage in a war with each other
    (Can Louisiana shut off the pipelines of oil and natural gas if we get bad?)

    That people that are proclaiming themselves Federalist think this is a great idea. I MEAN I AM SEEING PEOPLE ACTUALLY wanting this to happen. Why? Because of what some yahoos on the LA City Council did?

    Personally in these days I would prefer that our military assets in San Diego are able to have the lights on.

    This just seems all counterproductive and gets us no where to solving the problem.

  • I guess again it highlights that cities boycotting AZ is also wrong and gets us nowhere. Only punishes hard working people in AZ including the military in Yuma. Really needs to stop.

  • Yeah, the problem is NOT the pushback from the AZ politicians, but the fact that these city governments around the country are engaging in symbolic boycotts.

    Wanna boycott AZ? Then boycott ALL that comes from AZ, even if it means you have to, you know, ACTUALLY make some sacrifices.

    Seriously, the “escalation” isn’t coming from the AZ politicians defending themselves, it’s coming from the grandstanding a-holes threatening to wreck the AZ economy by fomenting a nationwide boycott of the state.

  • Bingo Phillip. All the people of LA have to do is to have their cretinous leaders swallow some crow and simply state that upon reflection maybe calling for a boycott of Arizona wasn’t such a brilliant idea after all.

  • The point is jh that the WHOLE THING is nonsense. LA calls for a boycott in these harsh times and that isn’t irresponsible? That those “yahoos” on the city council are now having to deal with the consequences of their actions is refreshing. Too many politicians shoot their mouths off without regard for the consequences. It’s time they felt the results of their actions.

  • Is a boycott even constitutional? Maybe yes because of freedom of speech. Maybe no because of the interstate commerce clause. Any opinions?

  • Centinel:
    I think boycotts by individuals are generally first amendment protected, but government acts would have to be evaluated under dormant commerce clause jurisprudence.

  • Government boycotts would fall under the market participation exception to the Dormant Commerce Clause.

The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

Tuesday, May 11, AD 2010

The Lying Worthless Poltical Hack, a\k\a Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, tells Priests and Bishops to speak out on immigration from the pulpit based upon a biblical concern for “the dignity and worth of every person”.

The respect that the Lying Worthless Political Hack has “for the dignity and worth” of the smallest and most helpless among us was well demonstrated by this quote from Naral Pro-Choice America in 2007 after Pelosi became speaker of the House:

“Americans who value freedom and privacy have many reasons to celebrate as Nancy Pelosi takes the Speaker’s gavel to make this historic move forward for our country.  For her nearly 20 years in office, Speaker Pelosi has been an effective advocate for women’s health and has championed her pro-choice values by consistently voting to protect a woman’s right to choose.  In November, voters across this country endorsed Speaker Pelosi’s call for a change and new direction by electing 23 new pro-choice members to the U.S. House of Representatives.  Today, we celebrate as Speaker Pelosi takes the reins; under her leadership Americans can expect a new focus on commonsense solutions, not the divisive attacks that marred the previous Congresses.”

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Dignity and Worth of Every Person

  • Problem is that many U.S. bishops don’t need Nip Tuck Nancy to egg them on in using their good offices as a feather to tickle their ideological fancies on this issue. I mean you have both Cdl. Roger Mahony and Abp. Timothy Dolan engaging in New York Slimes-style smear tactics to disparage the good people of Arizona who are exercising their God-given right to protect themselves from the ravages of open borders malfeaseance.

  • Is it dignified to die of exposure in the desert?

    Do we celebrate the worth of those who are suffocated in unventilated containers snuck across the border by ‘coyotes’?

    Or the women trafficked … or raped … crossing the border?

    Or the drug violence? Or gang crime? Kidnapping? Murder. Mayhem. Is that all dignified?

    Anyone who supports the current border situation, or would cause a stampede by offering ‘amnesty’ … has a share of all this blood on their hands. Not very dignified to my way of thinking.

  • Or it could be because of the bishop’s longstanding support of immigrants, mainly because the US Catholic Church was built on the backs of poor, outcast immigrants.

    http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-090.shtml
    http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/

    Despite the Speaker’s horrid theology on abortion, she’s right that more clergy should speak out on a just immigration policy. How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?

  • “How can we say we respect all life when we spit on the poor and needy who come to us looking for a living (in a legal way)?”

    Deporting illegal aliens is not spitting on them. No one of course is proposing that legal immigrants do not have every right to be here, so I do not understand the (in a legal way) that ended your sentence.

    In any case this post isn’t about the debate over immigration, but rather at the deafness the Lying Worthless Political Hack has to an essential teaching of her Church and her willingness to attempt to enlist the Church, with language the irony of which I am certain eludes her, when it becomes politically expedient for her to do so.

  • Mr Smith:

    Immigration is not the issue. It’s about illegal aliens storming across our borders and the attendent dangerous criminal activity. For the bishops to accuse those who take a differing view from that of the open borders crowd od being anti-immigration when they know it is nothing of the sort is reprehensible, to say nothing of being unbecoming the office of bishop.

    USCCB “pastoral” letters on these type issues are more ideological than pastoral and are not worth the paper they are written on esecially that “Faithful Citizenship” one.

  • Again we get to the claim that immigrants have a right to immigrate – which they do according to Catholic Social teaching. But Catholic Social teaching also notes that states have a right to regulate immigration. I suspect the Church understood that when it developed this teaching that there would be some poor immigrants who were cut off. Catholic Social teaching is not about achieving utopia in the here and now. It is about applying moral principles in a fallen world.

  • If the Demonrats were not assured of getting the votes of the illegals, do you think they would be fighting so hard for getting them in to the county AND giving them “defacto” votes (via ACORN, et al)?

  • Pingback: The Values of the Word « The American Catholic

What If A Law Can't Be Enforced?

Monday, May 3, AD 2010

The discussions here about Arizona’s new attempt at enforcing immigration law have set me thinking about a more general question: What should we do as a body politic in a situation in which a law we have passed seems impossible to enforce?

In a sense, no law is enforced perfectly. Cannibalism is against the law, yet it does still, on rare occasions, happen that someone kills and eats someone else. We don’t generally describe this as the laws against cannibalism “not being enforced”. Rather we describe it as someone breaking the law.

When we talk about a law not being enforced, we generally mean that a lot of people are breaking it, and yet few of them seem to be suffering the consequences. Thus, although murders take place on a daily basis in our country, we generally do not hear complaints that no one is enforcing the laws against murder, since we at least see the police and prosecutors going through the process of trying to arrest and prosecute people for those crimes.

Continue reading...

44 Responses to What If A Law Can't Be Enforced?

  • While staggering amounts of resources are devoted to enforcing both of these

    For the record, the sum of appropriations for Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement is under $20 bn, or 0.12% of domestic product. I read an interview with a lapsed INS agent some years ago wherein he stated that (ca. 1990), that agency had all of seven (7) agents in the five boroughs of New York tracking down those who had overstayed their visas. Can we please build that cement wall on the southern border?

  • Thank you DC. It’s frightening that we agree lately. It must be the issues…

  • To answer the primary question, whether the enactment of a law is prudent turns on a number of factors, but one important one is enforceablilty. If a law is generally ignored because it is impractical to punish violators, then it is probably an imprudent law.

    As a related matter, however, it is important to have a proper understanding of enforcement. In general, enforcement efforts are focused on apprehending violators, not preventing crime. In this sense I think it is very mistaken to suggest that our narcotics laws are not enforced. We may have widespread violations, but we have widespread enforcement as well — just look at our justice and prison systems. If we chose not to enforce these laws, the use of narcotics would be far more widespread — see Holland.

    This is equally true of cannibalism. I’m unaware of any widespread problem, but if instances surface so will criminal prosecutions.

    Illegal immigration is a bit different. Most people agree that it is not impractical to police our borders. Most other first world nations do it without much difficulty. The fact that our government chooses not to is scandalous. Apprehending illegals who are already here is far tougher, however, and general success would require prodigious resources and aggressive tactics that many Americans would find discomforting. Plainly, other options must be explored. But simply accepting widespread flouting of the law with no meaningful enforcement is unhealthy for a society. It breeds disrespect for the rule of law, and the respect for the rule of law is a cornerstone of a prosperous and free society.

  • Most people agree that it is not impractical to police our borders. Most other first world nations do it without much difficulty. The fact that our government chooses not to is scandalous.

    Well, we do have 20,000 border patrol agents — that’s not so much choosing not to as trying and failing. I’m sure that we could put more resources into border enforcement, and I’m sure we could use the ones we have more efficiently, but at the same time, it strikes me as unlikely that we can have such an incredibly large border with Mexico, with so much legal travel and trade going on, and not have a fair amount of illegal immigration if we insist on having a fairly low immigration quota.

    I may be missing something, but I can’t think of any other first world nations which share such a long border with a country so much relatively poorer than they are. So it doesn’t seem surprising to me that we’d have a lot more trouble enforcing immigration laws than other countries.

  • Drug laws can be enforced very efficiently and many countries do. Just execute all offenders. We can do the same for illegal immigrants. But most of us don’t care to deport our pool cleaners.

    Recreation drug use, underage drinking, speeding, and overstaying your visa are all, more or less, victimless crimes. The vast majority of offenders don’t cause any trouble. Libertarians wouldn’t punish any of them. At the very least the punishment should be minimal. Besides, illegal immigration is a result of restrictive legal immigration policy. It’s akin to Prohibition.

  • I do see some distinction between enforcement of immigration laws and drinking and speeding laws. The latter is a transient condition and the former is not. (I believe it was Churchill who told a woman “You’re ugly.” She replied, with disgust, “You’re drunk.” To which Churchill replied, “You are correct, madam, but in the morning I’ll be sober and you’ll still be ugly.” But I digress.)

    The focus of virtually all commentary on this subject is on people crossing the southern border of the United States. Some attribute this to racism. There may be some people so motivated, but I don’t think that playing the race card really adds anything to the discussion, one way or the other.

    Clearly, to better enforce the law in this geographic area, would require a lot more personnel, many more patrols, etc., probably barbed wire, mines and machine gun towers. Neither party has been willing to establish that budgetary priority. That leads me to suggest that, in the real world of politics, it isn’t going to happen.

    Further, it is my understanding that an estimated 40% of the people here illegally came here legally, perhaps to visit relatives, attend school or just came as “tourists.” They just never left when their visa expired. Not surprisingly, we don’t attach tracking collars to people who come to visit. So how do we “secure our borders” against that?

    The experience with the southern border and the over staying their welcome people suggests to me that “securing our borders” is an illusion, along the lines of “energy independence,” sloganeering about something that can not happen, as an alternative to a serious policy discussion. I don’t think that most Americans are really prepared to do the things that would be necessary to actually do in order to prevent further illegal immigration. We’re talking large numbers of armed enforcement officers, road blocks, “Are you papers in order?” etc.

    Further, even if we could identify, with zero errors, who is here illegally and who is not, and I don’t think that is really feasible, what could we do with them? I have heard estimates ranging from 8 million to 16 million who are here illegally. Are we prepared to forcibly deport 8 million people, breaking up families in some cases? Never mind the economic effect on the communities who employ many of these people. Never mind the mind boggling logistics of moving that many people to “some other” country. I don’t think this is a morally or even politically realistic alternative.

    So where does that leave us?

  • I think, actually, that it’s far easier to make a case for the decriminalization of drugs than it is to make a case for the decriminalization of illegal immigration. If the empirical results of Portugal’s experiment in this arena are any sign, the social ills related to decriminalization are far less than those tied to the status quo: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=portugal-drug-decriminalization

    Also, I think that the decriminalization of drugs would actually *help* the country do something meaningful about immigration, as it would do a lot to lessen the stranglehold over northern Mexico currently enjoyed by the cartels and would subsequently lessen the crime in Arizona, California, and Texas associate with those cartels.

  • Darwin quit talking commomn sense/ I can make the same point on DWI laws. We know they are being enforced. BUT OH GOODENSS THERE ARE DRUNK Drivers on the road!! So they must not be being enforced

    I really encourage people who say the Federal Govt is trying to do nothing to get on twitter. A few weeks ago everyone was aghast on the left that Obama was deporting people left and right.

    Again this is a lot more complicated than people on either side will realize

  • Patrick

    As too Machine gun towers does that mean you think its proper to machine gun these people down?

  • This is not that difficult.

    The border with Mexico is a shade under 2,000 miles long. Build a cement wall, decorate it with razor wire, add observation towers, and hire ~15,000 guards working in shifts and equipped with firearms and optical equipment to police it. That will force turnstile jumpers to make use of one of the several score lawful crossing points, where the 20,000 agents made reference to above can apprehend them (and small roving ambulence squads can pick up and minister to any who get shot from the observation towers).

    Once you have apprehended them, take them in front of a justice of the peace and thence off to a forty day stint in solitary confinement in a federal jail dedicated to these purposes. During that stay, you can collect identifying information from your subject and put it in a databank. At the end of his forty days in the cooler, deport him. If he returns, its sixty days in jail.

    You hire 15,000 border guards, a few thousand court functionaries, and some thousands more prison staff and make the associated capital investments and you have resolved that component of the problem of illegal immigration. If it be worth it to you.

  • “and small roving ambulence squads can pick up and minister to any who get shot from the observation towers). ”

    I know you are being sarcastic but sdaly too many would be fine with this

  • You hire 15,000 border guards, a few thousand court functionaries, and some thousands more prison staff and make the associated capital investments and you have resolved that component of the problem of illegal immigration. If it be worth it to you.

    An even simpler approach would have no additional costs at all: We could declare the entire country to be a prison and announce that we have now imprisoned all illegal immigrants.

  • Making it a felony for a person to knowingly hire an illegal alien would go a long way to deterring illegal immigration. An illegal who is deported will often try again to come across the border. He or she has nothing to lose. Drying up the sources of work however would make the US a much less tempting place to live. A few high level prosections of a few corporate CEOs and some Hollywood stars would go a long way to getting the message across that the US, this time, is serious about stopping illegal immigration. Just the threat of such prosecution would eliminate most of the jobs that illegal aliens are currently hired to do. No jobs, no illegal aliens.

  • “Making it a felony for a person to knowingly hire an illegal alien would go a long way to deterring illegal immigration. An illegal who is deported will often try again to come across the border. He or she has nothing to lose. Drying up the sources of work however would make the US a much less tempting place to live. A few high level prosections of a few corporate CEOs and some Hollywood stars would go a long way to getting the message across that the US, this time, is serious about stopping illegal immigration. Just the threat of such prosecution would eliminate most of the jobs that illegal aliens are currently hired to do. No jobs, no illegal aliens.”

    Why does everyome think this is all HIGH priced CEOS and big companies. After Katrina there were a lot of ordianry people that got their home repairs and in fact Parishes Levees reparied because of illegals. They were the only work force

    In case people have not noticed we have a huge Crisis on the Coast and from whqat I hearing we having problems filling jobs that are paying around 15 dollars a hour. Guess what illegals will fill it and no one complain since out lievehood is at stake. Should people with oyster leases get felonies because they got to get people to stop the oil from coming in

  • As Milton Friedman once noted, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. Every dollar spent on immigration enforcement is one dollar less to be spent on ordinary law enforcement, healthcare, education, etc. The question ought to be not whether the law should be enforced or not (since as Darwin notes enforcement is not a binary question) but at what point spending more on border security costs more than it is worth. Given that even conservative estimates are that immigration is a net benefit to the U.S. economy (of approx. $20 billion a year), I would suggest that we are already spending too much.

  • “After Katrina there were a lot of ordianry people that got their home repairs and in fact Parishes Levees reparied because of illegals. They were the only work force”

    I rather doubt that jh. I suspect they were the cheapest work force. Gaining control of our borders I put at a far higher priority than people having access to a relatively cheap source of labor.

  • An even simpler approach would have no additional costs at all: We could declare the entire country to be a prison and announce that we have now imprisoned all illegal immigrants.

    I do not understand this response. I believe their are 3.3 million persons on the federal payroll. A 1% increase in that number might just secure the southern border. If it is not worth it to you, it is not worth it to you. It is, however, feasible.

    I know you are being sarcastic

    I was not. Cops are armed. Firearms are not ornaments.

  • Given that even conservative estimates are that immigration is a net benefit to the U.S. economy

    Largely reaped by immigrant populations themselves and sensitive to public benefit regimes.

    Pareto optimality is not the only issue here.

  • “I rather doubt that jh. I suspect they were the cheapest work force. Gaining control of our borders I put at a far higher priority than people having access to a relatively cheap source of labor.”

    You may doubt it all you want but I know from everyone talking about it it was the only workable compentence work force people could find. Unless you wanted to wait for year with a hole in your roof.

    Just saying the soultion is comprehensive. No doubt now with out crisis on the gulf wioth the oil spill illegals will be play a crucial part in saving our coast because well too many peopl find working for 15 buckes a hour too low!! The roundups will not hasppen and we shall all tuen a blind eye. Untill they are no longer needed and become “criminals” again/ That is the reality

  • Art,

    You think we should shoot illegal immigrants?

  • If I were to charge a state police roadblock, I think I would do so expecting that by luck or finesse, said trooper would miss when he shot at me or my vehicle. Someone making use of whatever technology is available to scale a cement wall being monitored by armed guards should do so understanding that he is risking a dose of lead, most particularly if he is told to halt. It is police work and deadly force is part of their tool kit.

  • “because well too many peopl find working for 15 buckes a hour too low!!”

    Once again jh it sounds to me as if you are talking about a cheap labor force rather than the only labor force available. I might add that here in Central Illinois plenty of people are working for far less than $15.00 per hour.

  • Art,

    I’m not clear what point you’re trying to make here. Yes, clearly if we wanted to implement full Berlin Wall type measures across a two thousand mile border (I assume we would also have “kill foreigners before they clear the surf” rules along the coastline like Shogunate Japan?) we could, as some financially achievable cost “secure our border”. That doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s “possible” to enforce the law, though.

    After all, it would be feasible in a financial and practical sense to mandate the installation of a “black box” in every car which would read a regional transponder that broadcast the local speed limit and if you exceeded the limit by so much as one 1mph, cut the engine and radio for the highway patrol to come and cuff you. It would be feasible to install microchips in the neck of every child which would detect any trace of blood alcohol injected before 21 and immediately radio for police to come pick the under age drinker up. Both would be almost as feasible as building a 2000 mile long wall with machine gun nests every couple hundred yards, but that doesn’t mean that they’re “possible” means of achieving full enforcement of the relevant laws.

    Which was my point.

    I mean seriously, you’d not actually advocating that we shoot people trying to sneak across the border, are you? We don’t allow cops to shoot someone who isn’t obviously an immediate physical threat to someone. Cops aren’t allowed to just gun down people who don’t listen to their verbal command to halt.

  • Making it a felony for a person to knowingly hire an illegal alien would go a long way to deterring illegal immigration. An illegal who is deported will often try again to come across the border. He or she has nothing to lose. Drying up the sources of work however would make the US a much less tempting place to live. A few high level prosections of a few corporate CEOs and some Hollywood stars would go a long way to getting the message across that the US, this time, is serious about stopping illegal immigration.

    Overall, I would definitely approve more of penalizing employers. However, I would imagine that if you weren’t prosecuting someone unsympathetic and famous, it would be moderately hard to make it stick. Picture:

    “Did you know this guy was an illegal immigrant?”
    “Absolutely not. I asked him for documentation when I hired him and he showed me papers that looked genuine.”

    Given the prevalence of face documentation, if you nail people regardless of whether they “knew” their employee was illegal, then a lot of employers will decide not to hire anyone who speaks Spanish just to be on the safe side. If you only prosecute people who “knew”, then somehow no one will have known.

    Personally, I would have no problem with a secure national ID card to deal with that problem, and I think it would probably help a lot, but somehow most conservatives happen to also hate the idea of a national ID card.

  • “Personally, I would have no problem with a secure national ID card to deal with that problem, and I think it would probably help a lot, but somehow most conservatives happen to also hate the idea of a national ID card.”

    I would have no problem with a National ID Card, especially since our social security numbers have been de facto serving that purpose since the New Deal.

    “Absolutely not. I asked him for documentation when I hired him and he showed me papers that looked genuine.”

    That is when you play the video of him boasting to friends or stock holders that he has lowered the costs of the business\corporation by hiring illegals. Disgruntled employees, vengeful ex-spouses, etc all make excellent witnesses in this type of prosecution. Tax fraud prosecutions would be an excellent model for how these type of cases could be won. Oh, and then there are the illegal aliens themselves who might be willing to aid in the prosecution if given the proper incentives, including a monetary reward for informing on their boss which should be a part of any legislation. If government wants to crack down on the employers it wouldn’t be that difficult or that expensive.

  • I would have no problem with a National ID Card, especially since our social security numbers have been de facto serving that purpose since the New Deal.

    Yeah, I’ve never understood the hysteria about the idea. Especially given how pathetically easy it is to counterfeit social security cards.

    Oh, and then there are the illegal aliens themselves who might be willing to aid in the prosecution if given the proper incentives, including a monetary reward for informing on their boss which should be a part of any legislation. If government wants to crack down on the employers it wouldn’t be that difficult or that expensive.

    How about the ultimate Machiavellian twist: Green cards for illegals who successfully inform on their bosses who hired them illegally!

  • There are foreign policy implications in militarizing a border. While there are plenty of illegal immigrants created by illegally crossing the border, more typical is the illegal immigrant that crossed the border legally. As for making the hiring of an illegal immigrant a felony, good luck with that. The federal prison population is 211,455 this week. The number of illegal immigrants is estimated at over 10,000,000. Needless to say, a doubling of the prison population would easily be possible, if not an increase of an order of magnitude were serious enforcement were attempted.

  • I’d have no objection to such a reward Darwin!

    MZ, you don’t need to prosecute them all. A few high profile ones and people will decide it isn’t worth the risk to save a few bucks on having the lawn mowed, on the live-in Nanny, or mega-Corp hiring illegal aliens to gain a few points on the bottom line. Additionally to the felony hit, a fine of $50,000 per illegal alien hired could be tacked on. Otherwise solid citizens who are hiring illegals purely because they work cheap would quickly realize it wouldn’t be worth the substantial headache if they were caught.

  • I guess I am uncertain as to why you would regard a fortification which demarcates a national boundary frequently violated as something analogous to to putting a person’s motor vehicle engine or liquor cabinet under state control. People tend to resist encroachments on their domestic sphere. The Mexican border is not running through your pantry. (And I would not concede that the microchip idea is technically feasible).

    My example of hypothetical dealings with New York State troopers holds here. It is not difficult to avoid being shot by cops. Do not hire heavy equipment to charge border fortifications and stop your vehicle when they tell you.

    I assume coppers in Corpus Christi will take people who wash ashore into custody and kill them only in self-defense.

    Some people refuse to submit to the authority of the police and some portion of these put life an property in danger in the process. I think the municipal police in New York City shoot about two dozen people a year, on average. Would you prefer they were unarmed?

    Conceivably you could have cost estimates of such a construction project which might cause me to reconsider. There’s an awful lot of concrete in the Interstate Highways, though. The one nearest me runs from Boston to Seattle, I think.

  • There are foreign policy implications in militarizing a border.

    Blah blah. Implicate away.

  • MZ, you don’t need to prosecute them all. A few high profile ones and people will decide it isn’t worth the risk

    This has been the path to some of the more egregious abuses of discretion in prosecuting our drug laws. I’m wary of creating a penalty for deterrence effects. 1) Our best evidence suggests severity isn’t a deterrence. 2) I think gross penalties tend to encourage corruption, the current state of plea bargaining being a prime example.

  • Most laws work purely on deterrence. Traffic laws and tax laws are prime examples. As to plea baragaining, whenever you have criminal statutes you are going to have plea bargaining. Without it, the legal system would come grinding to a halt within a month.

  • 1. Make employers of illegals likely to be caught;
    2. Make the fines and prison time for employers of illegals significant;
    3. Make the fines and prison time for financial services organizations doing business with illegals significant;
    4. Enlist all public services delivery organs (excluding emergency medical) in detecting those here illegally, and make them ineligible for those services (again, excluding emergency medical);
    5. Make it easy for employers, financial services firms, and public service delivery organs to determine who is here illegally and who isn’t;
    6. Ensure that those detected, are repatriated, or at least terrifically inconvenienced.
    7. Double or treble the legal immigration opportunities, with anyone apprehended here illegally made ineligible even to visit as a tourist for ten years after their conviction, and put them at the “end of the line” thereafter. (I.e., reward those who go the legal route.)
    8. End birthright citizenship for children whose parents are not both citizens.

    This is the kind of thing a civilized society is morally obligated to do, and it is tender-hearted without failing to be tough-minded. The tough-minded part is the most important, of course, because it makes the tender-hearted part possible. But those who pursue only tender-hearted policies, without the prerequisite tough-mindedness, get neither.

    Anyhow, do all that, and you needn’t militarize the border, except as sufficient to capture, and when needed, destroy, drug runners. (I hear that Predators with Hellfire missiles do an admirable job at the latter, when there aren’t crowds of migrant laborers obfuscating the target.)

  • I guess I am uncertain as to why you would regard a fortification which demarcates a national boundary frequently violated as something analogous to to putting a person’s motor vehicle engine or liquor cabinet under state control. People tend to resist encroachments on their domestic sphere. The Mexican border is not running through your pantry.

    My point was more that having our southern border marked by a large cement wall topped with razor wire with machine gun emplacements every few hundred yard where border guards are under orders to shoot anyone who approaches the wall is something most people would consider to be authoritarian and un-American. I mean, we’re not talking about a country we’re at war with, we’re talking about peaceful trading partner that we have 250 million legal border crossings a year with. Seriously? You think the American people want people getting machine-gunned on a daily basis for approaching a wall? I keep hoping I’m playing the stupid straight man to a brilliant flight of sarcasm here.

    And even imagining this wall. (A little rough math suggests you’d need 8,800 machine gun emplacements if you put them every 400 yards, which with three shifts and two men per emplacement means you’d need about 53,000 guards.) What are you going to do about the thousands of people who could simply approach a legal border crossing point during daylight and respond to, “What is your business in the US,” with, “Para visitar a mi hermano.”

    Some people refuse to submit to the authority of the police and some portion of these put life an property in danger in the process. I think the municipal police in New York City shoot about two dozen people a year, on average. Would you prefer they were unarmed?

    No, I don’t think police should be unarmed, but surely you realize that police have very specific rules of engagement concerning when they can use their guns? They’re allowed to shoot when they think that someone is an immediate physical threat to the officer or to a bystander, not just because someone isn’t listening to order to stop. This is why there’s such a big stink and an officer accidentally shoots an unarmed minority guy.

    Shooting someone simply for putting a ladder against a wall and trying to climb over would be a massive departure from the way the US behaves anywhere other than a war zone.

    Seriously, you know this, don’t you? You’re normally one of the most widely informed commenters we have around here.

  • It did occur to me that police have specific rules of engagement, but thanks for the lesson.

    I am not responsible, Darwin, for where your imagination leads you. I did say that sentinels at the border should be armed and that encounters between law enforcement and its objects lead to lethal violence on occasion. It should not surprise you if this occurs at the Mexican border. The initial subject of these discussions concerned the activities of organized crime, whose members are not adverse to the use of lethal force and do attempt to cross the border on occasion. The business about machine guns and quotidienne killings is in your head. Nothing to do with anything I ever alluded to.

    The purpose of fortifying the border is to channel the traffic to the legally-designated crossings where persons, vehicles, and merchandise can be subject to proper inspection. Your reference to the number of legal crossings is puzzling; fortifying the border does not in and of itself limit the number of legal-crossings, though it may exacerbate queuing problems. I am sorry the aesthetics of a concrete wall offends you. I do not care for the look of strip malls. I suppose the ugliness of them is not so ‘un-American’, however.

    Look, we are either serious about this or we are not. If immigration law is to serve public policy, immigration law has to be enforced. If it is not, circumstance, or someone other than you and your legislators, are establishing the pathways and destination meant to be set by immigration law. Enforcement means capital investment and manpower to see to it that people crossing the border have their paperwork in order. Enforcement means uniformed armed men telling you to do what you might prefer not to. There are occasions in this world when that turns ugly. And there is nothing terribly shocking about that.

    We are not at war with Mexico. That does not mean Mexican citizens should be permitted to settle in this country without a proper visa. If you are not willing to fortify and defend the border, that is your preferred policy by default. If the Mexican government fancies it is a casus belli that their citizens are compelled to follow the regulations which apply to everyone else, tough.

  • What are you going to do about the thousands of people who could simply approach a legal border crossing point during daylight and respond to, “What is your business in the US,” with, “Para visitar a mi hermano.”

    If their paperwork is in order, wave them through. If it is not, hand them the proper forms and tell them to return with their paperwork in order.

  • The business about machine guns and quotidienne killings is in your head. Nothing to do with anything I ever alluded to.

    You’re right, it was another commenter who specifically mentioned “machine guns”, though that doesn’t strike me as a reach from what you said here:

    The border with Mexico is a shade under 2,000 miles long. Build a cement wall, decorate it with razor wire, add observation towers, and hire ~15,000 guards working in shifts and equipped with firearms and optical equipment to police it. … (and small roving ambulence squads can pick up and minister to any who get shot from the observation towers).

    The purpose of fortifying the border is to channel the traffic to the legally-designated crossings where persons, vehicles, and merchandise can be subject to proper inspection. Your reference to the number of legal crossings is puzzling; fortifying the border does not in and of itself limit the number of legal-crossings, though it may exacerbate queuing problems. I am sorry the aesthetics of a concrete wall offends you.

    Perhaps you know of something of which I’m unaware, but the only countries I know of which have fortified borders are those which are officially at war (ex: North and South Korea) and borders between authoritarian regimes and free countries (built by the rulers of the former to keep their citizens in.) Somehow all other civilized nations do have immigrations laws yet don’t have fortifications.

    Though to be fair — the US/Mexico border is the economically starkest in the world that I’m aware of, so I suppose one could argue this is from lack of need.

    If their paperwork is in order, wave them through. If it is not, hand them the proper forms and tell them to return with their paperwork in order.

    There is not a visa required to make a day trip to the US from Mexico. You just show ID and walk right through.

  • I just don’t get it. I have lived in Texas since 1974 and illegal immigration has been around the entire time, if not from time immemorial. Why is it suddenly now such a huge deal? What has so significantly changed? Is it 9/11? If that’s the excuse, then the Canadian border (which is much larger) is an even bigger threat b/c of their much larger Muslim population and more hospitable crossing opportunities (ie, no desert). But no one seems to worry about that for some reason.

  • There are other political frontiers which are also stark economic frontiers (Israel v. any of its neighbors, Saudi Arabia v. Yemen, Albania v. Greece). What is more atypical is the presence of extant social networks in which Mexican migrants can insert themselves and that the United States has a loose associative understanding of nationhood that is more friendly to migrants. Immigration is more a sociological phenomenon than an economic one.

    As for your last point – inneresting. Makes one wonder what is the value-added of surreptitious border crossings and coyotes.

  • The day thing, if I understand correctly, applies to border towns. At least that is how it is for Texas points I have encountered. So, for example, you can just waltz across back and forth in Brownsville, but when you try to get further in (closer to Corpus Christi) there are check points that require additional documentation. Thus, the coyotes are for getting you further in, I imagine.

  • then the Canadian border (which is much larger) is an even bigger threat b/c of their much larger Muslim population and more hospitable crossing opportunities (ie, no desert). But no one seems to worry about that for some reason.

    I am not sure I would characterize the crossing opportunities presented by the Rocky Mountains and the St. Lawrence Seaway as all that hospitable.

    That aside, if the population of Mexico and Central America were about a quarter what it is today, were the per capita income therein about 3x what it is today, were three quarters of the population therein conversant in English, and were the homicide rate a third what it is in the U.S., people might be less anxious about cross border traffic.

  • This discussion has gotten silly. I did laugh about declaring the whole country a prison, so we can say that we’ve apprehended all the illegals. What’s next? Pouring boiling oil on those who try to use a ladder to cross the fortified border?

    “A secure national ID card.” Ain’t no such thing. If you can make an ID card, so can I. All it takes is money to buy or make the equipment. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal last week about counterfeiting. It seems that the North Koreans make $100 bills that look as good as what we can print.

    None of the discussion about a fortified southern or northern border addresses the question of how to deal with people who are here illegally who came here legally in the first place, with a visa and a “welcome to the United States” from immigration.

  • National ID card? What happened to subsidiarity? States are clearly able to and currently do have ID cards.

  • Pingback: Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A. « The American Catholic

Illegal Aliens Boycott Arizona

Sunday, May 2, AD 2010

The State of Arizona is only enforcing what is already law at the federal level.  That being said and myself being the son of a legal immigrant from the nation of Mexico, the May Day protests and the highly unbalanced news reporting from the mainstream media have purposely distorted the legislation that has been passed in Arizona.

Having attended college and lived in Arizona for almost ten years I know for a fact that there are many good people living there and I am disappointed in how unfairly and untruthful they have been portrayed by the mainstream media.

The only other thing I want to say is that Roger Cardinal Mahony’s reprehensible choice of words to characterize the law that had been passed in Arizona is unbecoming of an archbishop.

_._

Related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

Illegal Immigration:  A Winning Issue for Democrats?

Catholic Worker View of NAFTA/Immigration

Mexifornia:  A State of Becoming

Arizona, Immigration, and Moral Panic

Arizonas New Immigration Law

Somewhat related posts on this issue here at The American Catholic:

British Survey on Foreigners in the United Kingdom

http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/04/23/arizonas-new-immigration-law/
Continue reading...

38 Responses to Illegal Aliens Boycott Arizona

  • Well, if the mainstream media is painting the Arizona populace as a cesspool of evil people then surely the media is wrong. But to argue that the people of Arizona are direly wrong about this law (when there’s a poll of 70% or so supporting then), then it is a qutie honest disagreement on strategy. I don’t think it’s helpful necessarily to focus on the most extreme opinions coming from one side or the other because the discourse gets stuck on he-said, she-said, but-he-said-something-even-more-vile melodramatic soap opera nonsense and it does nothing to solve the problem.

  • Most people in America aren’t against immigration; they’re just against illegal immigration. For example, like most of our ancestors, my mother’s parents were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island and followed the various legal steps required in order to establish themselves as true citizens of this country. The immigrants crossing the Mexican border, however, have absolutely no interest in following these legal protocols. Once they cross the border, they change their names and/or purchase social security numbers in an effort to conceal their true identities from the law. It is not uncommon for an illegal immigrant to purchase not one, but two or more social security numbers, just in case one is flagged. I have witnessed this crime with my own eyes. (One day, a supposedly legal immigrant was asked to give their social security card to a receptionist for a job application and an interview. When the receptionist happened to ask to see the card a second time, the immigrant mistakenly handed over a different social security card with the same name on it, but with a completely different set of numbers…)

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not against Hispanics. I have many Hispanic friends, but they either have green cards to work in the United States or have become legal citizens. They decided to follow the rule of law and work within the boundaries of our legal system. Unfortunately, many immigrants do not, and it those particular individuals that we are most concerned about.

    Now it seems that those who sympathize with illegal immigrants wish to hijack the discussion of reform by attacking the law recently imposed by the State of Arizona through protests and boycotts; a state mind you, that has been besieged with crime, drugs and an ever-increasing population of illegal immigrants. Don’t allow them this option. Speak out and take action. This is your country… fight for it.

    In closing, I consider myself to be a bleeding-heart liberal: a Democrat. My ancestor, Roger Williams – one of our founding fathers, was one too; regarding the acceptance of different nationalities, cultures and religions as the vitality and lifeblood of any country. Nevertheless, I think that he would agree with me; that immigrants wishing to become legal citizens have not only the obligation, but the civil and legal responsibility to follow the rules of law established by any country in which they wish to become authentic citizens, just as our ancestors – both yours and mine – struggled so arduously and righteously to achieve.

  • “The only other thing I want to say is that Roger Cardinal Mahony’s reprehensible choice of words to characterize the law that had been passed in Arizona is unbecoming of an archbishop.”

    That’s an understatement.

  • There is a reason why bishops have near dictatorial powers in their dioceses. They are meant “to know their sheep”. Cardinal Mahony has lost control of his flock. Instead of paying attention to the flood of immorality which rises from his archdiocesis, had he not better address that? Or is he fearful of losing popularity?

    From my own Irish background, I believe he is one of the fast fading [laus Deo] Irish clerics who live in the previous century. Time to retire to a monastery and contemplate the last ends.

    [Footnote: there is nothing new in the Arizona immigration law. It merely copies the U.S. law].

  • “Unbecoming of an archbishop”??? If the Holy Father had said the same thing, I suppose it would have been unbecoming of a pope too. Yet you and your “real Catholics” never fail to criticize the clergy for mincing words about those social ills of which you disapprove. It strikes me that jumping on a prince of the Church for defending Catholic teaching, even if his words sound harsh to the “good people” you know in Arizona, is unbecoming of a Catholic blogger.

  • Calling the people who support the legislation in Arizona Nazis and Communists is completely in line with Cardinal Mahoney’s adherence to the Magisterium. The only problem is that the Magisterium he adheres to is that of the New York Times.

  • Prince of the Church?

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ha!

  • while I don’t find comparisons to totalitarian regimes prudent or useful I agree with his sentiment. this bill is over authoritarian and is unjust. I’m pretty sure if you asked people in general what they thought about cops checikng peoples papers and separating families they would say it was wrong. no idea why that changes when it’s an immigrant getting checked-though I suspect that many (not accusing anyone here mind you) do so out of racist, natvisit, and/or anti-catholic predjudices

  • I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced. I also think Mahoney is a disgrace and has been one for years. I don’t think either of those positions is authoritarian, racist, nativist or anti-Catholic.

  • I think it’s possible to simultaneously hold:

    – US immigration laws should be enforced (even if one doesn’t like their current quotas).
    – This particular law is an unwise and excessive way of trying to attempt that.
    – Mahony’s way of expressing his dislike for the law was foolish and irresponsible (not to mention unpastoral) in the extreme.
    – Mahony deserves a modicum of respect because of his office.
    – Mahony has been pretty at best unhelpful at and worst a disaster for both his own diocese and the Church in the US as a whole.

  • I’m with Don on this.

    This law, which was just clarified again by the AZ legislature, only mandates that police investigate immigration status in the course of “lawful contact”, investigating a crime. It requires police to do the job that the federal government has failed to do.

    It doesn’t mandate or create any sweeping new powers, and it doesn’t violate anyone’s “civil rights”, which in this day and age has come to mean “my right to never be questioned by the police about anything I do, ever.”

    It’s nothing but a politically-loaded catch phrase that partisans of the left use to mask their true belief, which is this: that national borders are inherently unjust, that nations and states have no inherent right to exist, and that the immigration law we do have should not be enforced in order to more quickly and speedily bring about their demise.

    I know because I was in the communist movement. I know because I argued this myself, I believed it, and I promoted the idea through propaganda and agitation. It was the official position of my party and every other party of the far left. Not only should the law not be enforced, “workers” (that is, leftists) should do all in their power to make illegal immigration safer, more efficient, and more permanent, and conspire to break the law or at least test its limits to the extreme.

    This law is not unwise. This law is not unjust. This law is a rational response to a federal failure and a wave of lethal violence from south of the border. Mexico has become a narco-terror state in many regions along the border. On our side we must be empowered to protect lives, liberty and property from a ruthless enemy.

    If the feds actually were doing their damned jobs, would those of you who don’t like this law be claiming that federal immigration law was unjust? If so, then just say it. Admit that you don’t want there to be immigration laws. Because saying you want a level of government to enforce them that has consistently failed to enforce them is tantamount to saying that you don’t want them enforced.

  • Most people in America aren’t against immigration; they’re just against illegal immigration.

    If your problem with something is that it is illegal, then you should favor making it legal.

    For example, like most of our ancestors, my mother’s parents were immigrants. They came through Ellis Island and followed the various legal steps required in order to establish themselves as true citizens of this country.

    Unless your mother’s parents were war refugees, the fact they came through Ellis Island suggests that they came to the country back when we had open immigration. If today’s law were in place back then your mom’s parents likely wouldn’t have been able to (legally) come here.

  • I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.

    Would you say the same for ObamaCare?

  • Btw, a common refrain in the immigration debate is that the federal government isn’t enforcing the immigration laws. I’m not quite sure what this means. I was talking with an ICE agent this weekend, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t sit around all day surfing the web and watching Oprah. I take it that the assumption the federal government isn’t enforcing the law is based primarily on the fact that there are a lot of illegal immigrants in this country, but by that logic the government isn’t enforcing the laws against drug dealing and murder either.

  • I concur (oddly?) with DC and BA.

  • don: I stated I was not accusing anyone here of that. people like tancredo? absolutely.

    Joe: if it makes you feel better the Feds are doing a better job of stopping illegal immigration than other things. if you don’t believe me come on down to louisiana where we wish the Feds were doing as well ad they’ve done on the borders

  • I don’t know why Arizonans would want to protect their citizens from Mexican drug cartel violence, safeguard the public treasury, or prevent the strain on their already choked social services. I mean, not doing that has done wonders for LA! That movie, American Me, I want to recreate that in my city. Yes!

    I have no idea why they’d want to enforce the laws that have been on the books since the USA formed or why they’d be mad at the Feds for not doing their jobs of securing our borders. Arizonans are racists, red-neck, bigoted, right-wing conspiracists for wanting to protect the quality of life of LEGAL immigrants already living here. What’s up with that? They should enjoy picking up the 2 million tons of trash the illegals leave strewn across our lands as they make their way north because they always have beautiful, sunny skies.

    Did you know that asking for someone’s citzenship papers is the equivalent of slaughtering 7 million Jews in Nazi Germany. If you didn’t, then you’re not reading the main-stream, unbiased, good-intentioned media. Get with the program, Comrades! Read the NY Times, the LA Times or the Washington Post, or any newspaper that feeds off of them. It will really educate you and keep you from losing your public education indoctrination.

    Why not let the entire world into this country, starting with Haiti, Bangladesh, Cambodia and Yemen — oh, and don’t forget a few “mainstream” Castro-loving Cubans. I’m sure the freedom-loving Cubans already living in Miami who hate Castro won’t mind. Let’s blow taxpayers’ money overseas by sending travel vouchers to the Middle East so they can fly to Mexico and come across the border. Can’t we all just get along? If we just sat down and negotiated with them, all war, poverty and disease would end and Obama could save us all.

    After their amnesty, they’ll vote Democrat in order to keep the taxpayer dollars flowing freely and keep Democrats in power. What’s so wrong about that? That stuff going on in Greece — riots, protest. Yeah, I like that. Let’s get some of that. After all, we’re no longer a Republic. We’re a dictatorship. Just ask the folks who passed healthcare with the Slaughter House Rules, instead of abiding by the will of the people. If you can’t afford health insurance, you should be jailed or fined by IRS agents, so there will be no room for locking up illegal aliens. Obama is going to help this country like Chairman Mao helped China take the Great Leap Forward, or how Stalin helped unite the Russians. CHANGE, TRANSFORM. I really love it.

    All I ask is that you don’t complain as your paychecks get smaller and smaller. After all, someone has to pay for all those bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, and bells and whistles, etc. Well, you get the idea. It might as well be you. We know from history that the rich ALWAYS get soaked, so none of it will effect your pocketbook. Right? I mean, look how many millionaires are now living in boxes by the river. Plus, the more money you rob from rich people and give to poor people, the more jobs that are created. Right, Nancy Pelosi? It looks like rain today — maybe too much. I hope the government is doing something about that. Maybe a rain tax is needed.

  • Michael,

    Why should what happens in Louisiana have anything to do with the situation in AZ? The feds are not doing a good job in the Southwest. That’s why AZ acted. This was not arbitrary.

    So, no, the idea that some other state might benefit more from federal help doesn’t make me “feel better”, and I don’t know why it should. Though technically I don’t live in AZ, my entire family on my mother’s side does. So that’s what I care about.

  • “I’m not quite sure what this means.”

    You know exactly what it means – you just like making strawmen out of opposing arguments.

  • I, as Joe, know the issues and problems in Arizona.

    What Arizona is doing is lawful, just, and moral.

    How many are portraying Arizona as is disgusting.

    Thank goodness for democracy.

    Otherwise, things will get really ugly.

  • Don: I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.

    BA: Would you say the same for ObamaCare?

    BA, you just demonstrated in this sentence that you are not in the least interested in having an honest debate or discussion on this issue.

  • “’Unbecoming of an archbishop’??? If the Holy Father had said the same thing, I suppose it would have been unbecoming of a pope too.”-ron chandonia

    Yes, Ron, calumny would be unbecoming of a pope too. Praise Jesus that our pope is able to resist such.

    Pray for our bishops.

  • “I have this quaint idea Michael that the immigration laws of our country should be followed and enforced.”

    “Would you say the same for ObamaCare?”

    I have called for the repeal of ObamaCare BA since I regard it as very bad public policy. I support immigration laws which I view as good public policy. The quotas for each foreign nation should be determined by Congress and not by coyotes bringing illegals across our southern border. I believe all nations on Earth have immigration laws and I find the hysteria surrounding the people of Arizona taking action to actually enforce ours rather comic.

  • If today’s law were in place back then your mom’s parents likely wouldn’t have been able to (legally) come here.

    If I am not mistaken, the law allows 800,000 immigrants to enter the country every year, with an additional increment of refugees whose number varies according to circumstance. The principal constraint for the aspirant immigrant are the preference categories which favor the relatives of extant immigrants.

  • Joe,

    Actually I’m serious. The federal government deports about a million illegal immigrants a year; if you don’t think that’s enforcing the law, then you should at least say what you would consider enforcement.

    I suspect that the enforcement issue is a red herring. People favor enforcing laws they like; if it is a law they don’t like they are fine with it not being enforced. Thus, Don has the quaint notion that immigration laws should be enforced, but as he himself admits this is because he thinks our immigration laws are good policy. Arizona in particular has attempted to “nullify” federal law on a number of subjects (including, ironically, the REAL ID Act).

  • “Thus, Don has the quaint notion that immigration laws should be enforced, but as he himself admits this is because he thinks our immigration laws are good policy.”

    Actually BA I believe virtually all laws should be enforced because to do otherwise is a short route to chaos. On this point I agree with Saint Thomas More as I elaborated in this post below:

    http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/03/29/give-the-devil-benefit-of-law/

    My precise position as to obeying the law as set forth in that post: “People should act to change bad laws. If a law so seriously compromises a person’s conscience that obeying it would appear to that person to be active complicity in evil than disobedience of the law, with the willingness to be punished for the disobedience, may be called for by that individual. Otherwise, even bad or foolish laws should be obeyed until they can be changed, short of “a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism” which justifies a rising in revolt by a people. To act otherwise is to reduce the law to mere opinion and to cause our civil society to descend to the rule of the strongest or the loudest.”

  • Joe: you missed the point. I was trying to make a point about federal incompetence.

    to everyone else: I’m not interested in these “we here understand the problem as it really is” arguments. at best those defend the ends of this bill-but that’s not the bills only problem. more important is the means this bill entails-the documentation part. it’s not just.

    unfortunately I think all this is doing is making sure pro-life catholic Hispanics flee to the welcoming arms of the democrats.

  • Donald,

    So you believe virtually all laws should be enforced, but not ObamaCare? Or do you think that ObamaCare should be enforced too (including, say, the individual mandate)?

    Incidentally, I don’t think the passage from Bolt’s play really has much to do with whether laws should be enforced. More is talking about the importance of the legal protections against arbitrary arrest and punishment that were present in English law. He wasn’t saying that you have to enforce every statute to its full extent, and if you were to change the law to remove the legal protections More’s talking about then that would be equally problematic.

  • You will look long and hard on this blog BA without finding a sentence stated by me that ObamaCare should not be enforced. My focus has been on legal challenges to the law, amendments, and the enactment of state laws to attack ObamaCare. All within the realm of the law, and in the realm of attempts to change the law through political victory. Your position BA appears to be that we have no duty to obey laws that we disagree with. That is not my position and I am certain that it was not the position of Saint Thomas More.

  • Don nailed it as usual, and I say that as one who disagrees with Don (I think) on the AZ legislation. I oppose the legislation for several prudential reasons, but find the open borders arguments equally problematic. The failure of the federal government to secure borders is scandalous and unacceptable. As Tom Friedman once put it (not sure if this is a blind squirrel or stopped clock priciple here), we need a tall fence and wide gate.

  • Your position BA appears to be that we have no duty to obey laws that we disagree with.

    No, my position would be that if a law is a bad law, it probably shouldn’t be expanded.

    I apologizes for my error regarding your position on enforcing ObamaCare. There are, however, lots of people who don’t want to see the law enforced, including many of the people responsible for and supportive of the Arizona law.

  • BA,

    You’re make assumptions not based in fact. People opposed to Obamacare did not want the law enacted. They also want the law repealed. No one here has said leave the crappy law on the books and disobey it or that the various bureaucracies it creates should sit on their hands and not do their job. No, folks with an understanding of human nature, economics, and the health care system are opposed to Obamacare because it will make things worse for most folks and greatly increase government involvement in people’s lives.

    For those saying that Cardinal Mahony should not be criticized for his inane and nonsensical comments I can only assume you did not bother clicking the link and reading his inaccurate assessment of what Arizona passed. Consider this comment of his:

    “I can’t imagine Arizonans now reverting to German Nazi and Russian Communist techniques whereby people are required to turn one another in to the authorities on any suspicion of documentation.

    “Are children supposed to call 911 because one parent does not have proper papers?”

    Please show me where in the Arizona law it addresses something as stupid as the idea of requiring children to turn in their parent. That is as silly as being against laws against hardcore drugs because if a child saw their parent shooting up horse they might feel obliged to tell on mommy or daddy. Does the archbishop not have a staff to assist him with his speeches so he would not seem foolish?

    I could respect his position if he would just say “Hey, countries should not have any borders. We are all children of God and should not let artificial borders separate us.” However, he is throwing inaccurate allegation out about the Arizona law instead.

  • Amazing. Illegal aliens are to be classified as criminals… What does “illegal” mean again? — I’m a bit confused here.

  • “I urge everyone who is outraged by Cardinal Mahony’s calumnious remarks as I am to contact the media relations office for the L.A.”

    I gave up on Cardinal Mahony year’s ago. You only have to look at his hideous “cathedral” with its pagan-like altar, his rebellions against the Pope and his weird masses to know that his “Catholicism” is whatever he decides he wants it to be for that particular week. It’s best to just pray for his soul and hope for a Pope who will actually rein him in.

    So am I surprised at what he says about Arizona’s new immigration law. No, it just confirms what I already knew about him.

  • BA will say anything to get under your skin. Best to learn that now.

    “The federal government deports about a million illegal immigrants a year; if you don’t think that’s enforcing the law, then you should at least say what you would consider enforcement.”

    There isn’t enough enforcement. There aren’t enough agents. There aren’t enough funds. And the advanced, military-style tactics of the cartels and the gangs call for higher levels of training and enforcement. The federal government has not taken the problem as seriously as it should. Mexico is destabilizing, there is a violent civil war being fought right on our border. A few more INS agents aren’t going to cut it at this point. This is a national security issue, one far more valid than Afghanistan I might add.

    As Gov. Brewer pointed out, the costs of housing foreign nationals (which ought to be done or at least paid for by the federal government) costs the state 150 million each year. Thats small beans at the federal level but these are considerably larger sums at the state level.

    As for Obamacare…

    If people want to resist Obamacare, what do I care? You really think the principle here is that laws should be enforced because they’re laws?

    I don’t worship the law, I’m not a lawyer. The fundamental right to self-preservation against violent enemies is a natural right that needs no validation or authorization from any government. If human laws support it, good. If they don’t, to hell with them. No law and no constitution is a suicide pact.

    So, I’m not going to be squeezed into your rhetorical box. This isn’t about the law. It is about what is right and wrong, about survival and self-preservation. If you want to oppose that, you’re welcome to try and see how far you get.

  • In response to you e-mail…….I am among the 70% plus of Arizonans who approve of the Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill!
    Too many people have not read the Bill so how can they be against it when they do not know what’s in it?
    Too many people rather believe in heresy than in facts! The American main media is a classic example.
    Here in Tucson, only one percent of the protesters when asked were register voter, the rest were high school kids (from Tucson High School) and illegals on the day the Governor signed the Bill. NO LIE!

    Like California, Arizona is bleeding from the financial burden that illegals have created in this state. Crime committed by illegals in Arizona is another burden for our State law enforcement agencies.

    When someone walks into a Chase Bank to open an account, the Customer Representative will ask for proper identification. If that someone does not show the proper identification that someone will be ask if he or she is an American citizen. If not, a different form has to be fill out.

    When someone is stop for a traffic violation, is in a traffic accident, acting suspicious, or commits a crime, the police officer will ask for proper identification.
    If that someone does not show the proper identification, that someone will be ask if he or she is an American citizen. If not, that someone will be question further to determine his or her status in this country. It’s not profiling!

    My father arrived in this country from Mexico at the age of six. For seventy-four years he carried with him a U.S. working permit (Green Card). He never complained of profiling! Whenever someone asked him if he was American citizen, he would proudly say no

  • Pingback: Arizona Strikes Back! Ready to Cut Power to L.A. « The American Catholic

Illegal Immigration: A Winning Issue for Democrats?

Thursday, April 29, AD 2010

Some Democrats think that the Arizona law cracking down on illegal aliens will save them from electoral disaster in November.  They think this will rile up the Hispanics, and to fan the flames a few Democrats are making free with their favorite epithet against those who oppose them, Nazi.

I think that these Democrats are pursuing a losing hand on this issue.  Illegal immigration is extremely unpopular in this country and overheated epithets will simply further energize the conservative base.  More to the point, this election is going to be fought on the economy and government spending, and the Democrats are in dire shape on both those issues.  In regard to the immigration issue, I think there is evidence that some Democrats understand that rather than a gift this could be an electoral landmine.  This AP story here indicates that Obama concedes that Congress may not have the political appetite for immigration reform anytime soon, and notes the type of legislation that the Democrats propose eventually may ostensibly put enforcement before amnesty:  “An immigration proposal by three Democratic senators calls for more federal enforcement agents and other border security-tightening benchmarks before illegal immigrants could become legal U.S. residents, according to a draft of the legislation obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press. The bill is being developed by Reid of Nevada, Chuck Schumer of New York and Robert Menendez of New Jersey.”

In an earlier post this week I quoted my favorite living historian Victor Davis Hanson on the issue of illegal immigration.  Here are his current thoughts on immigration as a political issue in the Fall:

A Losing Political Issue

The politics of illegal immigration are a losing proposition for liberals (one can see that in the resort to euphemism), even if they don’t quite see it that way. Here are ten considerations why.
Law?—What Law?

First, there is the simplicity of the argument. One either wishes or does not wish existing law to be enforced. If the answer is no, and citizens can pick and chose which laws they would like to obey, in theory why should we have to pay taxes or respect the speed limit? Note that liberal Democrats do not suggest that we overturn immigration law and de jure open the border — only that we continue to do that de facto. Confusion between legal and illegal immigration is essential for the open borders argument, since  a proper distinction between the two makes the present policy  indefensible—especially since it discriminates against those waiting in line to come to America legally (e.g., somehow our attention is turned to the illegal alien’s plight and not the burdensome paperwork and government obstacles that the dutiful legal immigrant must face).

Why Wave the Flag of the Country I Don’t Wish to Return To?

Second, often the protests against enforcement of immigration law are strangely couched within a general climate of anger at the U.S. government (and/or the American people) for some such illiberal transgression (review the placards, flags, etc. at May Day immigration rallies). Fairly or not, the anger at the U.S. and the nostalgia for Mexico distill into the absurd, something like either “I am furious at the country I insist on staying in, and fond of the country I most certainly do not wish to return to” or “I am angry at you so you better let angry me stay with you!” Such mixed messages confuse the electorate. As in the case with the Palestinians, there is an effort to graft a foreign policy issue (protecting an international border) onto domestic identity politics, to inject an inflammatory race/class element into the debate by creating oppressors, victims, and grievances along racial divides.

Big Brother Mexico?

Third, Mexico is no help. Now it weighs in with all sorts of moral censure for Arizonians — this from a corrupt government whose very policies are predicated on exporting a million indigenous people a year, while it seeks to lure wealthy “gringos” to invest in second-homes in Baja. The absence of millions from Oaxaca or Chiapas ensures billions in remittances, less expenditures for social services, and fewer dissident citizens. But the construct of Mexico as the concerned parent of its own lost children is by now so implausible that even its sympathizers do not take it seriously. Mexico has lost all credibility on these issues, expressing concern for its own citizens only when they seem to have crossed the border — and left Mexico.

It’s Not a Race Issue

Fourth, there really is a new popular groundswell to close the borders. Most against illegal immigration, especially in the case of minorities and Mexican-American citizens, keep rather mum about their feelings. But that silence should not be interpreted as antagonism to enforcing the law. Many minorities realize that the greatest hindrance to a natural rise in wages for entry level jobs has been the option for an employer to hire illegal aliens, who, at least in their 20s and 30s, will work harder for less pay with fewer complaints (when sick, or disabled, or elderly, the worker is directed by the employer to the social services agencies and replaced by someone younger as a new cycle of exploitation begins). In this context, the old race card is less effective. The general population is beginning to see not that Americans (of all races who oppose illegal immigration) are racist, but that the open borders movement has itself a racially chauvinistic theme to it, albeit articulated honestly only on university campuses and in Chicano-Latino departments, as a sort of “payback” for the Mexican War, where redress for “lost” land is finally to be had through demography.

Continue reading...

22 Responses to Illegal Immigration: A Winning Issue for Democrats?

  • I’m not aware of anyone who thinks this will erase the Republican advantage in November. But it’s a long-term blow to the GOP. When Tom Tancredo, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush are running from it, it’s safe to say that this isn’t a political winner.

    Gov. Brewer got a boost among whites which widens her lead against Goddard. But Goddard’s lead among Hispanics just jumped 26 points! Rarely in politics do you ever see such a big swing.

    Whites who are leaning Republican because of this issue can be swayed by other issues like abortion or the economy. The Hispanics who are abandoning the GOP because of this issue aren’t coming back. The GOP is losing a generation of Hispanics and Asians.

  • I don’t think that most Hispanics who are legally here restrainedradical are actually much fonder of illegal aliens being allowed to stay in the country than most other Americans. The Democrats will get majority of the Hispanic votes in the Fall, as they usually do outside of Florida with its Cuban-American population. But I predict a fall off from the percentage received by the Democrats in 2008. Hispanics are primarily economic voters like most other Americans, and a lousy economy is always going to be blamed on the party in power.

    As for Marco Rubio, a man who I expect will eventually be the GOP standard bearer for Presidency some day, here is his position on the Arizona law:

    “Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.

    “States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

    “I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.”

    http://www.marcorubio.com/marco-on-arizona-immigration-legislation/

    The Arizona law is not going to spur a movement to support amnesty, but rather the reverse.

  • I wonder how the average Arizona policeman feels about this new law- by that I mean he/she may be hung out to dry if what they consider to be ‘reasonable suspicion’ is put to countless legal challenges- I’m just trying to put myself in their shoes- and it could be a damned if you do, damned if you don’t scenario where they will constantly be asking themselves- “am I racially profiling?” Police are no different from us in that they will have certain stereotypes and even inadvertant prejudices which could lead them into trouble in Federal Courts and so forth- is there something built into the law that would protect the police from lawsuits that will inevitably occur – except in egregious cases of obvious harrassment or abusive treatment?

  • Cops will feel cautious Tim as they do with any law until it has been through the court mill a few times. The first arrests under the law, assuming that enforcement will not be blocked, will probably be cases so obvious that the cops can’t ignore them. Of course a lot of this also depends upon their instructions from their superiors and the attitude of the local district attorney to enforcing the new law.

  • I don’t think that most Hispanics who are legally here restrainedradical are actually much fonder of illegal aliens being allowed to stay in the country than most other Americans.

    Simply not true. Goddard jumped 26 points against Brewer among Arizona’s registered Hispanic voters after this bill was signed. He’s still trailing but has a 46 point advantage among registered Hispanic voters. The Arizona Hispanic Republicans have come out against the law. Arizona had one of the most Republican Hispanic populations before the bill was signed. Overnight Arizona’s Hispanics became as Republican as California’s.

    If I had to guess, less than 20% of Hispanics here legally, are in favor of this law. Probably less than half that among 1st and 2nd generation legal immigrants. There’s an enormous racial divide on this issue.

  • The polls in Arizona are in conflict restrainedradical. Rasmussen is showing Brewer way up after signing the bill with an eight point advantage over Goddard.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/arizona/election_2010_arizona_governor

  • I would imagine that to the extent this has a long term political effect, it will probably be against the GOP. However, I doubt that (despite the tendency to assume that whatever occupies the news waves at a given moment is the pivotal event in some trend) there will actually be much movement one way or the other in the long term as a result of this particular dust-up.

    However, despite consistent Democratic hopes to the contrary, I can’t see that the Hispanic vote will ever become the uniform and overwhelming Democratic voting bloc that the Black vote has become. Despite the efforts of Latino activists, it’s not an absolutely defining label for most 2nd and 3rd generation Hispanics, and many of us simply stop idenfiying as members of the group consistently after a couple generations anyway. The fact that in the coming decades majorities of the Southwestern states will be Hispanic in origin does not mean that they’ll all act like the self-identified Hispanic voters on polls now.

  • I don’t see the conflict Don. Brewer benefited from this but the bump came entirely from whites.

  • Rasmussen doesn’t break it down by ethnicity restrainedradical. The difference in the polls is that PPP shows Goddard plus three while Rasmussen shows Brewer plus eight.

  • I wonder how the average Arizona policeman feels about this new law

    Well, the Sheriff of Pima County had this to say:

    The state’s sweeping immigration law is a “national embarrassment” that Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said he’ll enforce only if he’s forced to.
    “This law is unwise. This law is stupid, and it’s racist,” Dupnik said Wednesday. “It’s a national embarrassment….”

    It’s probably safe to say he’s not a fan of the law.

  • Last year Dubnik wanted to ask school kids about whether they were in the country illegally. Goodness knows why he was willing to do that and finds this law “stupid and racist”.

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/138491

    Oh, I understand now. As Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a Republican points out, Dubnik is a Democrat. I am shocked, shocked!

    http://hotairpundit.blogspot.com/2010/04/sheriff-joe-arpaio-responds-to-fellow.html