Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Monday, April 09, 2007

The Citizens Are Pissed

Cricket-reader Pablo emailed the following to several media pundits and cc'ed me.
I respectfully request that you do a story on the subject of why some American politicians, Democrats and Republicans, support amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants. And as a follow-up ask them how they justify supporting bringing more non-citizen guest workers into America.

The telling line in this North County Times article
is Congressman Brian Bilbray calling the president's support for amnesty "felony stupid." The question is, Is President Bush acting as the lapdog of unscrupulous employers, illegal immigrants and non-resident, non-citizen future slave wage guest workers and not representing American citizens and legal immigrants? Is he simply following the wishes of employers of cheap laborers? Or, is this Karl Rove’s master manipulation? Is President Bush selfishly attempting to stack the deck, setting the stage for his 30 year old, half Mexican, nephew George P. Bush (Google him) to be elected the third Bush POTUS. As a Republican or if need be a Democrat it wouldn’t matter. Screw America, screw the Republican Party. History is what matters. Is the lure of being the first three president family in American history so irresistible as to make Bush felony stupid? Viva Bush.

My question posed to Democrats would be, "How do Hillary, Obama, Edwards and the other Democrat presidential candidates justify to blacks and other lower to middle class American citizens, (mostly Democrats) that they have their interests at heart while at the same time they are supporting amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants who are doing the jobs that used to be available to Americans? How do they justify supporting bringing more non-citizen guest workers in to make sure the supply of hard working poor is always plentiful and cheap for unscrupulous employers? It is so anti American worker, anti legal immigrant worker, so anti Democrat. Why aren’t the Democrats representing their constituents?" Are these so-called Democrat leaders so dumb, so blinded by their own egos and ambitions, that they don’t realize that they are being trapped to go against their own constituents, being suckered by Karl Rove. Don’t they realize that the one and only initiative that Bush can possibly get passed and then only with their complicity will stack the deck, set the stage for Bush’s nephew George P. Bush to be elected the third Bush POTUS. Either as a Republican or if need be a Democrat it wouldn’t matter to Rove or W. How gullible are they?

My question posed to those Republican presidential candidates, McCain, Guilani, Brownback, etc., who support the amnesty and guest worker proposals would be "Why?"

Don’t you agree those questions and the answers would make national news and a great story?
Svengali Rove has mesmerized GW and hoodwinked Democrats? There is no reason to invoke paranoid conspiracy theories. Rove and GW are drinking the same koolaid the rest of their Wall Street buddies. "They only come for jobs, jobs Americans won't do."

On this issue Ds and Rs have the same problem: a disconnect between leadership and constituency. The elected officials of both parties misunderstand who they represent and disregard the oaths they have sworn.

It is a great story. But it isn't being told and never will be because our media elite - like the business, political, and religious elite - overwhelmingly favor open borders.

Pablo's NC Times article for example, like virtually every other immigration story told by the for-profit media, subtly slants some issues and ignores others. There is far more truth to be found in the reader comments. There you find the righteous indignation of betrayed citizens and the brazen taunts of La Raza.

Bilbray's "felony stupid" line makes him sound like a hard-liner. He isn't. Only a fool or a knave would pretend that a "guest worker program" will in any way fix the very real problems caused by the immigration invasion status quo. Half the illegal aliens in the US are visa overstays - people who came legally on temporary visas and never left. US judges and politicians have already very thoroughly demonstrated their inability to prosecute visa violations. Another problem is the traditional liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment, which grants automatic citizenship to the children of people here illegally. Guest workers will expect equal or better treatment - and they'll sue and get it by appealing to the 14th Amendment - no matter what the guest worker plan says.

Any lawyer should realize these things, including the ones who become politicians and concoct guest worker lies. This should not come as a surprise. None of the excuses for the immigration status quo make any logical sense, much less the arguments in favor of legitimizing or expanding the mess.

They do not come here only for jobs.

They take jobs Americans would do.

They do not help the US economy, they hurt it. By sending billions home. By bringing disease. By bringing a culture of violence and crime.

The facist, racist, and xenophobic slurs open borders advocates throw at anyone who opposes the chaos and insanity of the status quo are intended to shut down debate. They do so because they have no rational position from which to debate. They did not achieve the status quo by reason or votes, and most are happy to "compromise" by simply stalling and allowing the chaos to continue.

Our legitimate outrage will continue to be minimized by the media and the leadership of both political parties. It is plain to see for anyone with access to the internet.


Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Money, money, money, money.....

Keep those checks to the RNC and DNC coming!

More mythology: The cost to remove illegals far exceeds the cost to legalize them.

The Buchanan family have a good perspective of the issue. Starve them out. Enforce the existing laws: immigration, labor, health care and education. This will not get rid of the problem overnight, but it will the cozy setup created by the Reagan Amnesty and enforcement failure that followed.

"the supply of hard working poor is always plentiful and cheap for unscrupulous employers?" - future union members? Another fallacy - outside the agriculture industry, these hardworking illegals are getting paid above the minimum wage, under the table and have no tax consequences - as do their employers! Many live in slum housing in groups (breaking local building ordinances) which benefits the slum landlords, send their children to public schools and receive "subsidized" healthcare AKA emergency room and clinic services.
*** This labor is not that cheap - it comes with a cost! ***

Dont blame loopy liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Without the 14th, ALL PEOPLE WITHIN OUR BORDERS ARE PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION. There is nothing liberal here - thats originalist intent. The 14th actually provides the first anti-immigrant POV -

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Doesnt protect non-citizens. We have changed from an immigrant-friendly society to one who by necessity should shun the "tired, poor and huddled masses".

We dont need new legislation. The problem is simple: ENFORCE THE LAWS.

The Immigration Taboo continues...

4/10/2007 09:33:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Attrition, not amnesty. They got here gradually, they can go home gradually.

On immigration in general both parties have betrayed the US. The problem with the 14th is a loopy liberal interpretation of just one Section. Only a bleeding heart could assume that the lack of an explicit "born to citizens" clause means therefore citizenship must be given to the babies of illegal aliens. The children of diplomats and invading armies don't get this boon, why should illegals?

It also doesn't say, even if the kids are citizens, that we can't deport the parents.

The US has spent the last 200 years explicitly qualifying many such commonsense clauses in the Constitution. Even so, novel misinterpretations are constantly made by liberals, who see federal funds for killing babies, gay marriage, and all sorts of imaginary "privacy" rights endlessly springing from the "emanations of penumbras".

They do this even as they find ways (eg. foreign precedent) to ignore and even contradict explicit protections for private property, the right to bear arms, and free speech.

All while they caterwaul endlessly about Bush tearing up the Constitution.

Tell a big lie often enough...and people will eventually dedicate blogs to it.

4/13/2007 08:32:00 AM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

Cant have it both ways...

The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. The country was not trying to restrict immigration, in 1882 the first "immigration law" appeared:

"in 1882 the federal government asserted its authority to control immigration and passed the first immigration law, barring lunatics and felons from entering the country. Later in 1882, the second immigration law barred Chinese, with a few narrow exceptions. "


The need post dated the law.

- It also doesn't say, even if the kids are citizens, that we can't deport the parents.

Blame your bleeding hearts for not enforcing the laws.

- The US has spent the last 200 years explicitly qualifying many such commonsense clauses in the Constitution.

WTF? Are they "novel misinterpretations" because you dont agree with them? "Qualifying" statements? Like what - Presidential signing statements? This is exactly why "originalist intent" is a farce - because society has changed and our bureaucratic system cannot invoke changes to keep the pace.

Instead in true American-fashion, we go with quick fixes - by reinterpreting ambiguous legislation or more currently interpreting legislation prior to ratification.

As we mince words, the fox gets off with hens.

4/16/2007 11:52:00 AM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

I don't see what I'm asking to have "both ways". It is perfectly within precedent to change the current interpretation of part of the 14th. Illegal aliens are more like foreign diplomats or invading soldiers (whose children get no birthright citizenship) than they are like citizens.

BTW, I don't think anybody but citizens should be able to bear arms. This is qualitatively different than curtailing law-abiding citizens' gun rights. Guess who's doing that?

I don't have a problem with modern day jurists adjusting interpretation of the constitution to reconcile it with contemporary situations. Even originalists know this is as it was intended to be, and it has worked fairly well.

Reason and consistency, however, cannot be built on "emanations" of "penumbras". Such language is just one example of the tricks used by liberals to foist virtually any "right" they desire upon the rest of us. And then call it constitutional!

The word "privacy" does not occur anywhere in the Constitution or Bill of Rights. The word "private" does though, in the form "private property". Leftist judges see the former (Griswold/Roe) but not the latter (Kelo).

Oddly enough leftists don't consider section 1 of the 14th amendment flexible enough to apply to fetal tissue pending birth.

4/19/2007 01:11:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

It is subject to debate:

I would agree that an illegal alien or temporary visitor should (and must) be removed upon discovery. But a child born in the US for a period of time where they have in essence integrated - regardless of the guardian's status - would be "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US if for no other reason they have no claim to citizenship in another country.

My sister-in-law flew back from Taiwan to give birth to her children in San Francisco, specifically to ensure their US citizenship even though she was living in Taiwan (married to a foreign national).

"Even originalists know this is as it was intended to be, and it has worked fairly well." Scalia where art thou?

There is a system by which the law and constitution can be changed. The concept of "contemporary interpretation" is anathema to originalists. What the hell is contemporary anyway? What five supreme court justices think? Ginsburg was born before cars were invented.

"Privacy" doesnt appear; neither does "Money = Free Speech" yet the interpretations stand strong.

Women got the right to vote in 1920. Fetal tissue may take a little longer. In utero electronic voting machines.

5/03/2007 06:49:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home