If anyone talks long enough, he or she will say something . . . interesting. Jeb Bush’s turn came recently:
“But the way I look at this — and I’m going to say this, and it’ll be on tape and so be it. The way I look at this is someone who comes to our country because they couldn’t come legally, they come to our country because their families — the dad who loved their children — was worried that their children didn’t have food on the table. And they wanted to make sure their family was intact, and they crossed the border because they had no other means to work to be able to provide for their family. Yes, they broke the law, but it’s not a felony. It’s an act of love. It’s an act of commitment to your family.”
He admits that it is a crime (the behavior is/was illegal), yet he refuses to consider it a felony. Of course, illegal entry of this nation’s borders is a felony and has been for some time. His statement would have been stronger if he had not tried to reduce the criminality, but instead to admit the fact: an act of love (as expressed for one entity) may indeed be a felony (as viewed by another entity).
Mr. Bush may wish it were not a felony, but to say it is not finds him in no better company than our current president who would seem to be simply ignoring many of the current laws with regard to those who come without invitation and stay without (legal) permission.
If the former governor of Florida wants to make a case that those who come here illegally are humans too, with families, and desires and loves, he is welcome to do so. He’s right in that regard. And, as someone said a very long time ago:
Men do not despise a thief if he steals to satisfy himself when he is hungry.
But he’s still a thief. And those who come here without following the laws are still felons, as much as Mr. Bush might want to wish them otherwise.
While people may and will disagree over whether amnesty is appropriate, it is far more disturbing that some, such as Paul Ryan, will argue that the proposed immigration reform package is not amnesty. Drew M takes the good congressman to the cleaners and ends with the following:
To sum up, the “punishment” that illegal aliens will go through involves complying with the the current legal immigration process. The crimes they won’t be charged with or punished for include (but aren’t limited to) border jumping/visa overstay, perjury and providing false documents to gain employment/illegally establishing a business.
How is that not amnesty Congressman?
<photo of an empty chair>
Yes, it’s amnesty. Simply making people who came here illegally go through the same process as legal immigrants isn’t a punishment. Hell, that they get to stay here is a reward! That Schumer-Rubio (after 2010)-Ryan and Obama say otherwise doesn’t change that fact.
Truth sure is taking a beating these days, even from those whom I have in the past admired for their truthtelling: Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio.
The NY Post has the story. Panamanian takes identity of dead American, comes to US and proceeds to bilk government out of more than $50k per year in public (aka taxpayer funded) benefits for 13 years.
Now, he’s looking at possibly 15 years incarceration. Think about that for a minute. If his incarceration occurs in New York, it will cost taxpayers a minimum of $60k per year. That’s a $10k per year increase in his overall cost to society.
Why is he not immediately deported back to Panama with some means of garnishing his wages for the next 30 years to repay what he stole? Maybe that’s not possible. But surely there is something which can be done which does not perpetuate this person’s illegal taking from the taxpayers of this country? Whatever happened to the principle of restitution as applied to crimes against property?
John Hinderaker of PowerLine has a very good question: Why are we bribing welfare recipients to come to the US? As he notes, for more than a century our immigration laws have stated that we are to refuse entry to those who have no likely means of support. That is, those who are coming here merely to take and who have nothing to give to offset the taking.
But our current administration is ignoring these laws, indeed, one could say it is flouting them with impunity. In fact:
the Obama administration is actively recruiting indigent foreigners to come to the United States to receive welfare benefits. Its Welcome to USA.gov page is largely about the welfare benefits that new immigrants can receive. The administration has even partnered with the government of Mexico to advertise the availability of food stamps to Mexican immigrants (including, although this is not officially stated, illegals). In part because of the Obama administration’s recruitment, the number of non-citizens receiving food stamps has quadrupled since 2001, to an estimated 1,634,000 as of June 2012.
Why are we doing this? The list of possible answers is long and none of them are good. And, in brief, neither the reasons for the behavior or the results of such are likely to improve the general welfare of citizens in these United States.
Once again, the President is replacing the rule of law with the rule of the laws he likes.
I realize that he wants to be president of the United States one day, but, despite what one might think, telling whoppers is not presidential:
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said last week that “nobody” had illegal crossed the U.S.-Mexico border in a “long time.”
Bloomberg also advised that it would be easier for those wishing to illegally immigrate to the United States to simply buy a ticket to fly here and then overstay their visa.
Excuse me? The fact that he’s thousands of miles from the border of which he speaks is not reason for his lack of knowledge. While it is indeed easy for some to fly here and overstay their visas, it is far more attractive for those quite poor Mexicans who are already on the ground to make their way across the border and north by foot.
How else does one explain all the illegals who are dying in the desert? Did they fly into Sky Harbor and then turn around and head back into one of the most inhospitable places in the area for fun?
When did we become a monarchy?
The Obama administration has announced a dramatic move to placate the rising anger of Hispanic communities across America by offering a partial Dream Act to young law-abiding immigrants without documents who will now no longer live under the threat of deportation and will have the right to work.
This is effective immediately. The President is making angry people happy–angry people who might not vote unless they are made happy–angry people who might make other people angry. And why are they angry? Well, because some of us believe that our duly enacted laws should be enforced. Not all of us believe that, however:
“Our nation’s immigration laws must be enforced in a firm and sensible manner,” said the secretary of homeland security, Janet Napolitano. “But they are not designed to be blindly enforced without consideration given to the individual circumstances of each case. Nor are they designed to remove productive young people to countries where they may not have lived or even speak the language. Discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here.”
Excuse me? Did I read that right? I though the whole point of having laws was to blindly enforce them. If we do not do so, then the laws are discriminatory in the worst possible way. Is not Justice blind?
It is not Homeland Security’s job to be merciful or gracious to anyone or exercise discretion. Its job is to apply the law. Mercy comes from judges who are to consider mitigating factors and the greater context of each case.
Why in the world is the Executive Branch making law? The Dream Act did not pass Congress. Therefore, it is not law. Obama has no authority whatsoever to implement his own mini-Dream Act.
The one aspect of the Dream Act that is yet to be achieved is the right to citizenship or permanent residency for young undocumented immigrants.
Kelley said that the battle for that reform would continue. “We need Congress to step up and finish the job,” she said.
Yes, Congress needs to finish the job–the job of telling the President that he’s not a Congress of One.
PNR brings clarity to some of the confusion which is reigning in religious circles in Alabama:
As in Arizona, so now in Alabama, various Christian groups are trying to defend illegal aliens against the imposition of the law. They typically bring up the whole bit concerning the biblical injunction to care for the widow, the fatherless, and the alien among us and the Bible does so command us.
But they are making some seriously wrong assumptions. The biggest of their false assumptions is that illegal immigration is a victimless crime. It isn’t.
He goes on to tell us just how many people in the state, particularly young black men, do not have work and how such lack of work (which can be tied in part to illegal immigration) will only serve to exacerbate the labor situation for these citizens as time goes by.
I remember not too long ago when the story was that lack of employment among minorities (pick your favorite group) was a horrible thing and that we should all be ashamed of ourselves because we had let the situation degrade so far. It just wasn’t Christian.
That was then. This is now.
Truth has not changed. A society which functions according to the rule of law is a healthy society–insofar as any group run by and run for humans is healthy. A society which is always tossing over one story (racism against blacks) for another (racism against browns) without digging deeper into what may actually be causing things such as reduced employment opportunities is a society which lives according to the rule of emotion–and not the rule of law.
Do we really wish to be such a society?
P&R gets to the heart of the matter:
In the first place, we should be clear that the cause of her [a college student who is not a legal resident of the US] discomfort is most definitely not the United States INS, Alabama police, or any of the other law enforcement agencies involved. Her pain is caused by her parents and in this respect is little different from the pain experienced by children of other felons. I assure you, the son or daughter of a prison inmate suffers because of his or her parent’s sin. I understand that Jessica Colotl is not eager to direct attention to her parents, nor should she. But their lawbreaking is the source of Jessica’s pain, not the law, and not the law-enforcement agencies or officials in question.
Mercy may be part of this particular equation, but the truth is that children often–dare I say always–are damaged by the choices of their parents. These damages may be immediate and irrevocable (such as a child’s death caused by a parent’s driving while intoxicated) or postponed and able to be worked past (the case addressed above).
The saddest thing about crime–yes, illegal immigration is still a crime–is that the innocent often seem to suffer more than the guilty. The only way to reduce such suffering is to ensure that the rewards of such criminal behavior are too small to make the criminal act worthwhile.
Go read it all.
I’m generally not an advocate of lawsuits when there are other ways to address/resolve disputes. However, when it comes to the federal government’s recent poor (might one say unlawful?) behavior vis a vis Arizona, a lawsuit may be a good choice:
Governor Jan Brewer just announced ….on behalf of the State of Arizona, she is suing the Federal Government. There are 5 counts….and here is a summary (my notes) from the press conference..1/ failure to achieve operational control over the Mexico/Arizona border…2/ failure to protect Arizona from invasion and Arizona says invasion not just limited to other countries to invade but applies to people and secured border…3 / failure to enforce immigration laws….and their failure causes national security risks…abuse of discretion that Fed only enforce the law they want to and they should enforce all……4/ declaratory relief about reimbursement for Fed govt’s failure to pay for incarceration of prisoners (illegal)….5/ under 10th amendment..powers not delegated to the Fed, are reserved to the people and while control of border is fed responsibility, when criminals cross border illegally and commit crimes, it is a state responsibility and the Feds are interfering with the state to fulfill its responsibilities….
Number 5 resonates very strongly with a large number of people who are in favor of decentralized power. It will be quite interesting to see if any other states (say Texas, and New Mexico) join in the suit. It seems unlikely that California will stop toking long enough to see the possibilities in this for them, so I think Brown and Co will sit this one out.
I would like to be optimistic about things, but considering that our current federal administration is in contempt of court over the drilling moratorium, and not apparently caring in the least about any consequences, I’ll not hold my breath.
Remember the rancher who was sued by 16 illegal immigrants? The 9th Circuit has upheld the lower court’s decision against the rancher:
A federal appeals court has upheld $78,000 in damages to illegal immigrants who were held at gunpoint by a rancher in the southern Arizona desert, a case that prompted death threats against a federal judge who was fatally shot last month in Tucson.
The case is not so much about the judge (Judge Roll, who was killed in the attack on Representative Giffords) but that the angle which this particular story works. Back the hard data, now:
The jury rejected the civil rights claims but awarded damages to four plaintiffs, all women, for assault, infliction of emotional distress and punitive damages for malicious conduct. Barnett argued in his appeal that Roll should have let the jury decide whether he had acted in self-defense.
“When he came across them, he didn’t know who they were,” attorney John Kaufmann said Friday. “They could have been coyotes (immigrant smugglers) or drug smugglers. When he didn’t know who was coming upon, he had the right to pull the weapon.”
But the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld Roll’s refusal to present the self-defense issue to the jury.
No civil rights claim, but here is some punishment for being a frightening person man. What? Leaving aside the ludicrousness the idea that one person might feel sufficiently concerned for himself when faced with 16 people (who were unlawfully in his country and on/near his properly) that he would arm himself to equalize matters, there is the whole question of criminals profiting from their crimes? If they were here illegally, as no one seems to question, how are they able to benefit from this judgment financially since by so doing they receive reward for criminal behavior?
Then again, maybe I should just call the ABA’s new hotline and get the answer for that one.