Constant Conservative

Let’s read what Lindsey Graham said recently with reference to illegal immigration and new legislation. He’s going hypothetical here:

Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that I need to go home to South Carolina and say: listen, I know we’re all upset that we have 12-14 million people illegally.  I’m going to have to be practical.  We’re not going to deport or jail 12-14 million people.  A practical solution is not awarding this citizenship on day one, but to allow them to stay here on our terms, learn our language, pay a fine, hold a job, and apply for citizenship through the legal process by getting in the back of the legal line.

That to me is a practical solution. But, I have to be able to say, as part of doing that, we looked at all the incentives that led to the 12-13 million coming, and we changed them.  That we did secure our border, unlike any other time in the past, that we now have laws that make it possible to verify employment; we now have a temporary worker program that will allow people to come here and work on our terms temporarily, and help our employers with labor when they can’t find American labor.  I have to be able to say that, because I think most Americans are willing to clean this mess up.  They’re not willing to perpetuate it.

He would like to say “we are all  upset” that millions of people have broken the law, but “I’m going to have to be practical” we are not going to apply the legal penalties to these people. I think he’s just admitted that it is possible to overwhelm our legal system by having a large enough number of people commit the same crime that the cost of prosecution/further action is prohibitive. For years, some (yeah, no need for specificity here) have advocated that if a few million Americans simply did not pay income taxes, the IRS would be overwhelmed and unable to prosecute all of us. It would seem as though those folks were correct in their thinking–except it would appear that the tactic has been adopted by another group of lawbreakers.

Now, the second part of that paragraph makes pretty good sense–the idea that those who have immigrated illegally should get in line to immigrate legally. However, I believe that the line starts back in their home countries–and not where they currently reside in violation of several duly passed US laws.

When he talks about incentives, in the next paragraph, he is not making much sense to me. The single biggest incentive for illegal immigrants is that life is better here than there (wherever there may be). It could well be that they are attracted to a watered down version of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” Not sure how we get rid of that incentive by the actions he advocates. The best way to lessen the incentive for folks to come here from Mexico, for example, would be if that country wasn’t in such shambles, legally and economically. That’s not going to change until Mexico decides that is is responsible for its own problems.

Securing our border is a good start, but we can only secure the border if we ensure that those who are currently here illegally go back to the other side of it. We had a big secure our borders and grant amnesty push in 1986, if I remember correctly–and all we got from it was the amnesty. That served as a lesson to a whole generation of immigrants that when it came to getting into and staying in the United States, it was better to not worry about asking for forgiveness or permission–both of them would be granted if one held on long enough.

Senator Graham wants to be seen as bringing a third way to the table to compete with the “bring them all here” and “send them all home” perspectives. The problem is that his proposal shows a continuing lack of respect for the rule of law. If someone gets his start in business by knocking over a bank, it stands to reason that his business dealings are unlikely to be aboveboard. Likewise, if a person comes to this country illegally (and they are rewarded for doing so) then there is little reason to believe that they will be law-abiding in other matters.

Here is a performing artist who releases a single and decides to give the proceeds to his favorite organization–or at least an organization which will get him plenty of media exposure. Nothing wrong with that. The organization then puts out a press release:

Ry Cooder created his new single “Quicksand” in response to anti-immigrant law SB 1070 and the ongoing Arizona immigration battle. SB 1070 requires police to demand ‘papers’ from people they stop who they suspect are “unlawfully present” in the U.S. As described by Cooder, “Quicksand” is a slow-burning rocker that tells the story of six would-be immigrants making their way from Mexico to the Arizona border. Today, Ry Cooder’s “Quicksand” went on sale exclusively on iTunes, and Cooder has pledged to donate all proceeds from the song to MALDEF.

Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF President and General Counsel, stated that “Defeating Arizona’s SB 1070 – and the potential copycat laws that have since been announced by unscrupulous legislators around the nation – will require a broad national community effort to reinforce the constitutional principles and values that characterize our nation. Our heartfelt thanks to Ry Cooder for being a leader in that necessary community effort.”

Leaving aside the first paragraph, I’d like to look at the part which I have made bold in the second. Defeating a law (passed at the state level) which says we need to enforce the law (established at the federal level) will require that we reinforce “constitutional principles and values”? Allow me to say that these principles and values are apparently derived from a living constitution, because I find no principles whatsoever in the Constitution of these United States which encourages anyone to throw over the rule of law. In fact, I–as a number of apparently “unscrupulous” other people find that the Constitution supports the exact opposite–and in fact vests even more power in the hands of the several states than it does in the federal government.

It would appear that Mr. Saenz (now president of MALDEF) was the former general counsel to Mayor Villaraigosa of Los Angeles during the time that Villaraigosa appears to have accepted tens of thousands of dollars in tickets to sporting and other entertainment events–without declaring them in accordance with the law. Did he (Saenz) have knowledge of these contributions in kind? Hard to know at this point, but I find it improbable that he was unaware of the Mayor’s proclivity to attend high-profile, high-dollar affairs. Perhaps he simply failed to connect the dots. If so, he did his client no favors.

UPDATE

Speaking of the rule of law:

ALRA [Arizona Latino Republican Association] will become the first group of Latino Americans to “put a foot forward legally” in support of S.B. 1070 by filing a motion to intervene against the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration policy, Klayman said. “This is a way to tell the country that, ‘Hey, we’re Americans too and we believe in the rule of law,” Klayman told Foxnews.com. ”It’s a way to say, ‘We got here legally and we contributed a great deal. We want the rest of the country to recognize that we’re with you’ [in the national immigration debate].

Of course, these people will no doubt be termed traitors by other members of their ethnic group, but that’s a price they are willing to pay to stand up for what is entirely scrupulous.

From some of those brave party people:

Democratic governors expressed “grave” concerns to White House officials this weekend about the Obama administration’s suit against Arizona’s new immigration law, warning it could cost the party in crucial elections this fall, The New York Times reported late Sunday.

The closed-door meeting took place at the National Governors Association in Boston on Saturday, according to two unnamed governors who spoke to the Times.

“Universally the governors are saying, ‘We’ve got to talk about jobs, and all of a sudden we have immigration going on,’” Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee, a Democrat, was quoted as saying. “It is such a toxic subject, such an important time for Democrats.”

The suit is “toxic” because it will cause the Democrats to lose elections? What a remarkably wrongheaded view of things. This thinking is in concord with the statement by Hank Johnson of Georgia that Congress should pass a specific bill to ensure that Republicans are not elected.

The suit does show the citizenry that the Federal government does not care about the security of the states more than it cares about its own power. This dawning realization will tend to cause people to elect fellow freedom-loving individuals to positions of leadership at the state level to counteract (and perhaps reverse) the damage which is being done at the national level.

Perhaps the time is come for a few Democratic governors to consider the source of their authority: the federal government, or the people who elected them?

Someday we’ll figure out just why it is that the federal government does not like to enforce existing federal immigration laws. Meanwhile, Ace makes very good sense:

Yes, a state law cannot conflict with a federal law in an area of federal jurisdiction, but can a state policy conflict with a federal policy if both state the same law?

In other words — Arizona’s law is the same as the feds’. The big difference is not in the law, but in the policy: the feds have a policy of non- or minimal enforcement; they are angry at Arizona not because Arizona has passed fresh law but because Arizona intends a different policy — a policy of actual enforcement.

So yes, federal law trumps state law, but does mere federal policy trump state policy, especially when federal policy is in fact at odds with its own stated law?

If policy does trump the law, then what point is there to having a law to begin with? After all, every administration can simply define its own policies and not worry about the pesky laws at all.

Oh, wait a minute . . . .

Not everyone believes that we should, as Jo from Boca Raton has stated, have completely open borders. In fact, legal immigrants understand what they have better than most:

Gabriela Saucedo Mercer now has fans around the country. Talk radio stars Glenn Beck and Tammy Bruce have spoken about her and the YouTube video in which she stars has received more than a quarter million hits and counting. What did Saucedo-Mercer do to bring herself to national notice?

She stood up and spoke her mind.

On April 27, the 46-year-old nutritional company distributor addressed the Tucson City Council in support of SB1070, the Arizona law requiring police to check the immigration status of those they’ve detained for other violations.

More than approving of the controversial measure, her remarks were a ringing endorsement of the rule of law, and the view that citizenship is a privilege to be earned the right way.

“I’m shocked at the reaction my speech has gotten,” says Saucedo Mercer, who came legally to this country from Mexico in 1986 and become a citizen five years later. “I keep thinking, ‘What have I started?’”

It looks like a political brushfire, and one that’s long overdue. Saucedo-Mercer gave voice to a largely unheard segment of the Hispanic population — those who treasure the law, and understand the danger our open border represents to national security, public safety and the very concepts of sovereignty and citizenship.

Here’s the video:

Kudos to Gabriela for speaking simply and truthfully what others are either unwilling or unable to say.

Decisions have consequences. Period. The city council of LA (backed by the mayor) has stated that it no longer wishes LA to do business with Arizona.

Arizona elected official says–and I paraphrase here– “OK. We can stop doing business with you, too. How about we turn off the power?”

Here’s the skinny:

An Arizona utility commissioner said he’s willing to pull the plug on Los Angeles if the city goes through with a boycott of his state.

In a letter to the city of LA, a member of Arizona’s power commission said he would ask Arizona utility companies to cut off the power supply to Los Angeles. LA gets about 25 percent of its power from Arizona.

“That is one commissioner who has that idea — whether he can do that or not is another idea,” said LA Councilman Dennis Zine. “They are the ones who have to make the move, not us.”

The commissioner’s power grid play is in response to the city’s approval of a resolution directing city staff to consider which contracts with Arizona can be terminated.

I wonder if the city council and mayor of LA really believe that they are an island–able to stand apart from others and make decisions for the good of the island without considering that they are hugely dependent on the mainland for their very basic needs.

John at PowerLine was in the midst of making some observations about the Arizona immigration law when he wrote the following:

Putnam took a lot of heat from fellow liberals when he published data indicating that racially diverse communities tend to have less social capital (less trust in others, for example, including those of one’s own race) than ethnically homogeneous communities. (I couldn’t help noting with some satisfaction that, in Putnam’s research, the community that ranks highest of all in social capital–almost literally off the charts– is rural South Dakota. Footnote: it’s true that rural South Dakota is ethnically homogeneous, which was the variable Putnam was analyzing. I would note that it is also heavily armed. Possibly that, too, has something to do with the confidence with which one views one’s neighbors and the world.) Putnam’s lecture was on immigration and included a review of those controversial data, which, Putnam said, he spent two years of his life trying to make go away.

Interesting, non?

From the Big Fur Hat, we have the following:

Those borders around the sporting events that keep you from realizing the dream of going to a baseball game? Pffffft. SNEAK IN! And if any usher asks to see your ticket to the game, cry out, in a foreign language, that your CIVIL RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED!!!

But it doesn’t end there. You sit in your seat and DEMAND that the people around you pay for your hot dogs and beer. And that line at the bathroom, the bathroom that is for paying customers, why just move to the head of that line, mister. As a guy who sneaked into the arena you have protection status! Moron.org has your back!

Furthermore, if you sneak in with your pregnant wife and she has a baby at the game – SEASON TICKET HOLDER! That’s right!

I think he’s got a point. Here is hoping that MLB and Bud Selig, et al can see it through the massive lens of political correctness which has been erected between them and the quintessential American sport.

From an article which talks about how those illegally in Arizona may be going home to Mexico or to other states with little immigration law enforcement, the following caught my eye:

Natalia Garcia, 35, from Mexico City, says she and her husband – a day laborer – will stay so their daughters – both born in the U.S. – can get a good education and learn English. The couple have been living in Arizona illegally for the last 10 years.

“Mexico doesn’t have a lot of opportunities,” she says. “Here, we work honestly, and we have a better life.”

Olga Sanchez, 32, from southern Mexico, lives in Phoenix illegally with her two brothers, who are 21 and 17. While the youngest boy is in high school, all three work and send money back home to their parents.

“This law is very bad for us,” says Sanchez, who gets about $250 a week cleaning three houses. “I’m afraid of what’s going to happen.”

She says the family is going to wait and see if the law takes effect and what the fallout will be before deciding whether to leave. The law is certain to be challenged in court; Phoenix, Tucson and Flagstaff already are considering lawsuits.

“All I ask from God is a miracle for us to stay here and work,” she says.

“Here, we work honestly.” I understand that English is probably a second (or third) language for Natalia, but she is so terribly wrong. One cannot work honestly if one’s very status is dishonest–and requires that one lie about it on a regular basis in order to keep working.

Then there is Olga, who is asking for a miracle of the wrong sort. Why does she not request a miracle that would allow her to work in Mexico and make what she is making in the US? It would seem that she believes in a God who is unconcerned with lawbreakers and lacks sufficient power to make any real changes to a country which is as messed up as Mexico.

HT: @LaShawn Barber

We have all heard of the modern evils of “human trafficking.” I had not, however, understood it in the following context:

It is now depressingly common for foreign organized-crime groups to bring people to the US under false pretenses and then force those people to work for the criminals under pain of having their loved ones back home murdered if they do not submit. We talk about it using euphemisms such as “human trafficking” or “sexual exploitation”, but we are really just talking about simple slavery.

Some might argue that this is nothing but extortion, but when: (1) An individual uses violence to completely control the movements and actions of another and (2) then uses that control to force the victim to work for the controlling individual’s economic benefit, slavery is the only honest thing to call it.

One of the problems with illegal immigration is that it creates a population in America who can be threatened and controlled by foreign actors. No US jurisdiction can protect an immigrant’s loved ones across the border. No matter how law-abiding any individual illegal immigrant is, they carry the lawlessness of the 3rd world into America by leaving behind hostages in their home country. Authorities in South Texas have been stymied in several investigations because Mexican immigrants have valid fears that cross-border gangs will murder their relatives in Mexico if they cooperate with American law enforcement.

The fact that the world has become so small, in terms of distance meaning very little to most of us, means that evil may have influence far beyond what was once possible. This facet of the discussion of both illegal immigration and modern slavery should not be ignored.

If you haven’t read this article by VDH, please do. He addresses the following:

• Can’t we all just get along?
• Diversity? Not.
• Wind and solar and millions of green jobs!
• Stimulus everywhere
• Illegal what?

The entire article is worth your time.

In a complete aside, I wonder if “stimulus everywhere” owes anything to the Calvin & Hobbes book of a parallel title? Hmm.

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.