Stealth Amnesty

A bipartisan group of senators delivered America from the latest incarnation of immigration amnesty when they voted down the DREAM Act over the weekend. But this is not the death of amnesty. The tricks and dishonest maneuvers will no doubt continue in forms we cannot now even imagine. There are a couple of objections that I feel are fatal to this latest attempt at stealth amnesty.
There was one persistent and common argument advanced for the DREAM Act. The act, it was said, was designed to deal with the situation of kids who had grown up in America and know no other home. It was argued that it is unkind and unfair to send these poor kids to some foreign land of which they know nothing. A kind and caring person would see their sad plight and give them the American citizenship that will solve their problem.
The suggestible portion of the listener’s brain might respond to this hectoring about caring and compassion by imagining itself in the place of the misunderstood immigrant. You might construct mental pictures of yourself yanked from your comfortable life and suddenly placed in a totally foreign and hostile environment. If this is all that happens this trick of emotional blackmail and manipulation might be successful in turning the listener into another advocate for amnesty. Or one might raise above the instinctive fear of being thought unkind and look at more than just one’s own emotional landscape. Maybe my situation and that of the immigrant are not alike enough for this exercise of emotional identification to be sufficiently informative.
First and second generation immigrants do not live in the same middle class, white bread world that I live in. Immigrants tend to gather in and form communities of immigrants from their country of origin. So these kids congregate with and socialize with others of similar background who continue habits and traditions from the country of origin. They continue to speak the language of their country of origin. They are betwixt and between: neither fish nor fowl. America is actually a foreign country to them and many of them see themselves as citizens of their parent’s country first and as Americans only second. There is good reason to wonder if they would be honest when swearing an oath of allegiance. Not exactly the ideal now while the US is at war and daily in danger of civil strife caused by citizens who side with our enemies. The world these imigrants inhabit daily is not so foreign to their home country. I have no sense that they are so comfortable with moving the other direction: they do not seem to be willing integrate more fully into American culture except on their own terms and then only where there is real benefit to them.
This is exacerbated by attitudes frequently noted among many who claim they would be the beneficiaries of the DREAM Act. First, their many public acts demonstrate a total lack of respect for the laws they would be asked to begin following one day. Their actions frequently communicate the message, “Screw you. Screw your laws. We will only obey laws that we find convenient. And if you want us to abide by the law you need to write them the way we want them.” Do we need this in a world that is challenging and complicated enough already? What reason is there to imagine that they would ever become loyal citizens when their behavior thus far reveals them to see loyalty and benefits flowing only in a one way street that leads to them?
When the DREAMers talk about the effect of the act one gets the impression that it is designed to give deserved relief to star student athletes who are academic wunderkinds. There might even be a few hundred who meet this definition and would be given a path to citizenship by the act. Bit there are hundreds of thousands of others who would become citizens who are never spoken of. You have to wonder why the act’s proponents shun a full discussion and endlessly steer the discussion to the few gut wrenching examples that are not very representative. The fact that Reid maneuvered the vote into a very atypical weekend session to be taken by a pack of lame duck lets us know how afraid Reid is of full public disclosure.
My reaction is: not this, not now, not with this package of lies and not by means of these tricks and games.

Uproar Over ‘Mass Firings’ At Minn. Chipotle Restaurants

.

WAR ON THE BORDER

.

US BORDER TOWNS CAUGHT IN CROSS-FIRE OF MEXICAN DRUG WARS

For the president to ignore these threats to the safety of American citizens is dereliction of duty. We can speak at the ballot box this year and and in 2012.

h/t: Breitbart TV

FLASHBACK: TWO YEARS AGO CBS NEWS EXPOSED ANCHOR BABY PROBLEM

.

h/t: Breitbart TV

Ann Coulter on Anchor Babies and the Constitution

Below are a few quotes from a great column.

The louder liberals talk about some ancient constitutional right, the surer you should be that it was invented in the last few decades.
………
The drafters of the 14th amendment had no intention of conferring citizenship on the children of aliens who happened to be born in the U.S. (For my younger readers, back in those days, people cleaned their own houses and raised their own kids.)
……..
In the 1884 case Elk v. Wilkins, the Supreme Court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not even confer citizenship on Indians -- because they were subject to tribal jurisdiction, not U.S. jurisdiction.

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to legal permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan's authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, the Clement L. Bouve -- the one you've heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge -- just some guy who wrote a book.

So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author's intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.

On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement -- who, I'm guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper.

Any half-wit, including Clement L. Bouve, could conjure up a raft of such "plausible distinction(s)" before breakfast. Among them: Legal immigrants have been checked for subversive ties, contagious diseases, and have some qualification to be here other than "lives within walking distance."

But most important, Americans have a right to decide, as the people of other countries do, who becomes a citizen.
………
In the Silverios' munificent new hometown of Stockton, Calif., 70 percent of the 2,300 babies born in 2003 in the San Joaquin General Hospital were anchor babies. As of this month, Stockton is $23 million in the hole.

Terence P. Jeffrey, author of the new book Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life.

Below are two quotes from an NRO interview of Terence P. Jeffrey, author of the new book Control Freaks: 7 Ways Liberals Plan to Ruin Your Life.


"There is a reason why liberal politicians like President Obama don’t like school choice, even if they send their own children to very expensive private schools. They see the public-school classroom as a moral battlefield where they can wage a 13-year insurgency to capture the soul of your child."
. . . . . . . . . .
"The Obama administration acts as if it is possible for the government to construct an international regime that can control the global climate, but not a federal agency that can control our southern border. At the same time, it is more interested in protecting what it perceives to be the rights of terrorists than the real and inalienable rights of Americans.
"It wants to engage in activities not authorized by the Constitution while ignoring fundamental duties that are."

Hidden Cameras Show Illegal-Immigrants Streaming Across AZ Border

.


h/t: Breitbart TV

Michele Bachmann & Laura Ingraham Discuss the Economy, the Border, etc.

.


h/t: MsUnderestimated

Rep. Pete Stark Heaps Scorn on Citizens Asking for the Federal Government to Secure the Border

Stark is an elitist wiseass.


h/t: Breitbart TV

Heather MacDonald - The Costs of Illegal Immigration

.

An Administration in Free Fall: They Are Not Trusted

.

Sen Kyl: President Admitted He Purposely Doesn’t Secure Mexican Border;Wants it Open for Leverage

.

h/t: Breitbart TV
I don't think any more is required for impeachment except for the election of a new congress.

Old Greg-alogue

.


h/t: Ann Coulter.com

The Reductio Ad Absurdum of the the Open Borders Position

This caller might be a little extreme but her argument is basically what all advocates of open borders for the US rest upon: burying their heads in the sand and refusing to acknowledge or consider that there might be unpleasant or even unacceptable consequences to leaving the door wide open at all hours to anyone. As Condell says, "It's easy to be tolerant at someone else's expense." In Arizona there has been a bloody increase in murders and kidnappings because of the open border. It is difficult to take serious anyone who will look at the very unpleasant consequences of their approach and just smile and say, "So what. I just want to do things my way regardless of the consequences to anyone." Some political opinions are just too absurd for serious consideration. The open borders opinion is wide spread and patently absurd.

h/t: Fuzzy Logic

************************************
I think supporters of a traditional border are missing out by not making public safety the center of the discussion. I know that there are limits to how much control the safe border side has over what is reported by the MSM. And the safe borders faction has no one natural leader. But I do not see how discussion about the history of borders and the nation state move things forward very far.

Coulter and Panel Discuss Immigration

.Mexican law is much more severe than American immigratiin law so Ann asks why are we welcoming racists into our country.

h/t: Ann Coulter.com

Coulter On ICE, Calderon, Supreme Court Is OK With Appropriate Use of Racial Profiling

'

Palin: Every Border State Should Have Arizonas Law

.


h/t: Hot Air

Fed Government's Written Policy on State Enforcement of Immigration Laws Exactly the Same As Arizona Law

President Obama and his AG are too busy with politics to do actual lawyer word apparently.
This from the Washington Post:
"In the legal battle over Arizona’s new immigration law, an ironic subtext has emerged: whether a Bush-era legal opinion complicates a potential Obama administration lawsuit against Arizona.

"The document, written in 2002 by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, concluded that state police officers have “inherent power” to arrest undocumented immigrants for violating federal law. …

"The author of the Arizona law — which has drawn strong opposition from top Obama administration officials — has cited the authority granted in the 2002 memo as a basis for the legislation. The Obama administration has not withdrawn the memo, and some backers of the Arizona law said Monday that because it remains in place, a Justice Department lawsuit against Arizona would be awkward at best.

“The Justice Department’s official position as of now is that local law enforcement has the inherent authority to enforce federal immigration law,” said Robert Driscoll, a former Justice Department Civil Rights Division official in the George W. Bush administration who represents an Arizona sheriff known for aggressive immigration enforcement. “How can you blame someone for exercising authority that the department says they have?”"

Ed Morrissey from Hot Air comments:
Barack Obama has been in office for sixteen months. Eric Holder has been AG for almost as long, being one of the first Cabinet members confirmed by the Senate after Obama assumed office. During the transition, both men promised to “hit the ground running,” which should have meant a review of policy positions across the board. Immigration reform was a key agenda item for Obama and the Democrats — and yet no one at the DoJ or the White House apparently thought to withdraw this memo. That speaks volumes about competence.

Video: Rush Limbaugh Praises Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

.


h/t: NewsBusters