Blog has moved, searching new blog...

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Bad News From Escondido

The battle over immigration took a turn for the worse in Escondido earlier this month. The city council - which endured hours of nonsensical abuse and lecturing from a coalition of belligerent racists, self-interested black marketeers, and militant altruists - suspended their ordinance against renting to illegal aliens:
City officials said Wednesday night they would not proceed with the lawsuit because it would be "unnecessarily costly to the city, and (would) unnecessarily consume the court's time." Several civil rights organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, filed the lawsuit in November challenging the law's constitutionality.

U.S. District Judge John A. Houston last month temporarily barred the city from enforcing the law.
What happened is that the council deemed the fight futile with this particular judge.

The ACLU, MALDEF, and various bleeding heart media pundits tell us the biggest problem here isn't that federal and state officers not upholding the oath they swore to uphold and defend the Constitution, including Article IV, Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
We are lectured that the big problem is that the Escondido city council's attempt to deal with the immigration mess is "unconsitutional". Cities should not "usurp the federal government's authority over immigration".

In order for this to be true the feds would have to be doing something worthy of usurping. And if there's anything unconstitutional going on it's our state and federal agents' dereliction of their duty to protect us from invasion. Escondido's civil servants are doing what their citizens have implored them to do. They've done it peaceably and democratically. Open to public scrutiny and criticism. Contrast this with the sneaking and bullying tactics of the open borders advocates.

Escondido's real problem is a too long tolerated flood of impoverished poorly educated English-lacking illegal aliens. It's second largest problem is identity grievance lawyers singing sob stories to sympathetic dictators in black robes. Their loyalty is not to the Constitution. They care not at all about the illegal aliens' disregard for government authority.

We need the National Guard to go door to door and haul off anyone who isn't a legal resident. What we'll get is more lame ordinances and more threats from the lawyers of the "oppressed".


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a sad turn of events but, presumabley, not entirely unexpected.

Just a note of admonition from an old but introspective carmudgeon re the definition of "racist" - let's not alienate the many truly American Hispanics that agree with our cause of the rule of law.

12/30/2006 07:18:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Sorry amigo. I think anyone who doesn't have the huevos to accept speecho libro without goin jalapeno can vamanos with the rest of the cucarachas.

1/02/2007 02:38:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

Translation for the Spanglish impaired: anyone alienated by free speech can leave with the illegal aliens.

1/02/2007 02:41:00 PM  
Blogger flippityflopitty said...

The sad part is the City Council identified this as "unnecessarily costly" as if the cost for litigating unnecessarily exceeds the cost to house and care for illegals. The same misreasoning can be applied to not suing the fed and state for failure to do their job and incurring additional costs from non-taxpayers. Its just so damn unnecessarily costly!

Sadder still is if they did their job and "fought the good fight" - the taxpayers would bear the burden. Dos whamis!

Illegal loophole! To get yer judgement will cost more than dealing with the problem. Gotta love America.

3/08/2007 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger Tanstaafl said...

How can we consider the cost of any action on immigration when we don't even know who or how many people are involved?

I understand the unconcern of leftists. They don't care what anything costs. (Except maybe war in Iraq.) What I don't get is the Wall Street types who are otherwise fanatical about accounting and evaluation of costs. The problem there I think is that they are perfectly happy if their small profit is dwarfed by everybody else's collective loss.

3/23/2007 12:58:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home