Constant Conservative

For those of you who said that Barack Obama’s words regarding the Second Amendment were of greater validity than his actions regarding the same, the reality of matters is just the opposite:

The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.

“As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons,” Holder told reporters.

How about that. “A few gun-related changes that we would like to make.”How many times have you heard “a few changes” when the person saying it wasn’t try to downplay the number of changes which were coming?

For the record, the 1994 assault weapons ban outlawed a number of guns for cosmetic reasons. That is, such guns were “evil” because they bear a physical resemblance to weapons used by military groups around the world, even though they are invariably one-shot per trigger squeeze and not fully automatic (one squeeze, 2 or more shots).

Holder is couching his plan to reinstate the ban in terms of helping Mexico (because of the weapons being used by the drug gangs). However, some of us see this as an immigration issue. That is, if we actually policed the border as we ought to, there wouldn’t be gang members going back and forth across said border with impunity, and illegally purchasing guns to take south.

For an example of what I’m talking about, take the case of the small town of Granjeno, TX (which now has an almost entirely ineffective wall):

When the government announced plans to build a new fence along portions of the Mexican border, residents of this sleepy town along the Rio Grande feared the barrier would cut them off from their backyards and even destroy some homes.

Nearly two years later, the project is almost finished, and the village of Granjeno has managed to hang on — as have the illegal immigrants who still pour through town by climbing over or walking around the nearly two-mile barricade designed to keep them out.

[...]

But most residents say the barrier has done little to stop immigrant traffic. Some people have reported large groups of illegal immigrants simply running around the ends of the levee or climbing over the top.

Garza, who lives at the eastern end of the barrier, said he’s seeing more traffic than ever.

Before construction began, Garza would see a couple of people run by his house at a time. Now they move in groups of as many as 50, he said.

“Up here you don’t just see a few. You see bunches.”

Right. So Holder and Obama are prepared to trample on the rights of US Citizens instead of protecting us (as government has an obligation to do) from those who flout our nation’s borders with impunity–all in the name of helping out the Mexican authorities who have done nothing to discourage (and not a little to encourage) their citizens to break US laws. Makes sense to me.

Justice is served.

Dakota Beef in Howard has been sentenced in federal court in Sioux Falls to five years of probation and a $45,000 fine, the maximum allowed under the law.

[...]

U.S. Attorney Marty Jackley said seven of the workers are being prosecuted on identity theft-type charges and the other eight people are at large or being processed for immigration violations.

Of course, that sort of response (successful prosecution of those who are in flagrant violation of the law) may well be on the way out:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on Wednesday ordered a review of a raid at an engine plant in Washington State that resulted in the arrests of 28 people suspected of being illegal immigrants.

A high-level official in the Department of Homeland Security said that Ms. Napolitano had not been informed about the raid on Tuesday before it happened, and that she was seeking details about its planning and scope.

“She was not happy about it because it’s inconsistent with her position, and the president’s position on these matters,” said the official, who agreed to discuss the matter on condition of anonymity because the secretary had not authorized the conversation.

Her position on the matter? The president’s position on the matter? What does a “position” have to do with enforcing rather clearly defined laws? If law enforcement had the proper warrants (backed up by the necessary data) then I fail to understand what needs to be reviewed in this particular case.

Remember that lawsuit against the rancher who was trying to keep trespassers off his property? Well, here’s the latest from La Shawn Barber:

This country has degenerated to the point where illegal aliens have standing to sue law-abiding citizens for exercising their own rights! Blood boiling stuff. Anyway, the criminals claimed that Roger Barnett violated their civil rights. It pleases me that a federal jury disagreed. Earlier this week, the jury found in favor of Barnett and against the illegal aliens, who should be sent back to Mexico immediately. (Source)

Unfortunately (an understatement!), the jury ordered Barnett to pay punitive damages for assault and “infliction of emotional distress.” Can’t win ‘em all. Some is better than none, though all would have been what we reasonable people call justice. I hope Barnett will appeal.

I second that, hoping that he will indeed appeal (and be successful). Infliction of emotional distress, indeed.

Property rights are a key piece of what makes us different than many other countries around the world. Even thought we’ve seen poor justice with regards eminent domain issues, we are were still doing pretty well:

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Go read it all. Then think about what you would do if presented with a similar situation as a landowner. Then realize how much is hanging on a single judge and members of the jury to decide (which could establish a literally dangerous precedent of fabricating rights where previously there were none).

We are not the only country in the world which must deal with largely unrestrained immigration. Great Britain is also working with such an issue, but instead of a highly porous southern border, they have a very poor process. Melanie Phillips brings us the latest from a nation that once ruled the waves, but now simply seems to waive the rules (of good sense):

The argument that only immigrants will do jobs that indigenous Brits won’t touch has it precisely backwards. It is because the state pays indigenous Brits to live on welfare that immigrants have to be brought in to do the jobs the Government funds its own citizens not to do.

Disgracefully, the Government has in fact used immigration to avoid reforming welfare. Gordon Brown’s loudly trumpeted three million new jobs have barely dented the jobless total that Labour inherited. Four out of five have gone to new immigrants instead.

The result is already high levels of unemployment — now set to rise sharply due to the financial crisis. In these circumstances, the risk that immigrants will be victimised by racially inspired violence is so obvious it is inconceivable that the Government would not be as worried as Phil Woolas suggested.

Yet until now, ministers have shamefully joined in the vilification of those who have pointed out the devastating consequences of their immigration policy and who are routinely demonised as ‘racists’ for telling such uncomfortable truths.

If you think that some of these issues sound strikingly familiar, you would be right. Unfortunately, the process is so far gone in Great Britain that one despairs of it ever being righted. We ought to take such history to heart, particularly in light of current financial woes (and Barack Obama’s stated intent to “create new jobs” without giving those on welfare a disincentive to remain in such comfy quarters.

Betsy’s got a point with which I generally agree:

I know that there are many in America who would like to see laws enacted making English the official language, but I would hate to see us having a “language minister.” I wish that every immigrant would work hard to master English. The best way to do that is to immerse their children in English at school, not separatist bilingual programs that prolong their lack of fluency in English. Provide free or cheap ESL classes for the adults. But let us not start passing laws like Quebec where they have language police measuring the size of French in store signs compared to the English.

I am an advocate of immersive language training. After all, it is what most of us experienced. We are, as a result, generally quite adept with the English language, no?

I have several friends who are immigrants from around the world. To a person, they have learned English (to the extent that they will sometimes put me to shame with their usage).