June 10, 2007

Hugh's Second Amendment

Hatched by Dafydd

Hugh Hewitt is trying to codify his two basic amendments that would make the immigration bill (currently on ice, pun noted) more acceptable to him.

The first is his "let's do all the enforcement first, and only after everybody including all the conservative Republican majority in Congress agree that all the enforcement is finished can we even consider letting the minority Democrats have the scraps they want" proposal. I still find it surreal that he thinks Democrats -- who don't currently imagine themselves to be the powerless minority party -- will go for it.

But leave that aside; I find more interesting his second amendment: the "no parole cards for anyone but illegal English, Canadian, Australian, or Latin American immigrants" proposal. Here it is in its (brief) entirety:

(i)Treatment of Applicants whose primary language is not English or Spanish --

(1)IN GENERAL -- At such time as the president certifies and the Congress by joint resolution agrees that the "Effective Date Triggers" of Section 1 of this act have been implemented, an alien may apply for Z nonimmigrant status. An alien whose primary language is neither English or Spanish who files an application for Z nonimmigrant status shall not be eligible for probationary benefits provided in Section 601(h). These aliens may apply for the Z nonimmigrant status, and will be granted such status upon a showing that

(1) the alien is loyal to the United States and does not support any organization identified as supporting terror by the Department of State or the Department of Justice.

(2) during the pendency of the background investigation into the loyalty of aliens covered by this section, such aliens may not be employed and may not leave the country or the state from which they have applied for Z nonimmigrant status except in such cases where an employer has requested a work authorization and has undertaken to file monthly reports on the status of the Z nonimmigrant applicant.

All right, riddle me this: I understand how one can tell that an alien doesn't "support any organization identified as supporting terror," though of course the alien himself cannot show that -- it must be investigated by the authorities: If the alien's name and fingerprints don't show up anywhere linked to al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, or suchlike, then we assume he is as clean as Barack Obama. (Though I wonder with what alacrity the immigration authorities will move to investigate; will they trouble to do so at all? It would be awfully convenient to spare scarce resources by just letting all such non-English, non-Spanish applications sit in limbo forever.)

But how on earth is anyone to show that "the alien is loyal to the United States?" Bear in mind that by definition, the alien has been living underground, hiding from the authorities -- who could deport him if they knew of his existence.

Will opponents argue that the mere act of being here illegally demonstrates "disloyalty" to America? If so, then among those whose primary language is other than English or Spanish, the only illegal aliens eligible for a Z visa are those who are not illegal aliens.

What other evidence could be adduced to prove "loyalty?" Illegals cannot serve in the military, they cannot vote, they cannot run for office. What would Hugh demand -- a lengthy written history of defending Israel and Jews and attacking jihad in their home countries before they left and came here?

Also, why, exactly, does Hugh Hewitt have such animus for illegal immigrants who came here from Japan, from Norway, and even, alone among all Latin American countries, from Brazil? Somehow, Hugh has expanded his list of exclusions from parole cards from "illegal immigrants originating from countries with well-established jihadist movements" to "illegal immigrants whose primary language is neither English nor Spanish." I find it particularly risible that illegals from Brazil cannot get parole cards -- but illegals from Hugo Chavez's Venezuela and Castro's Cuba can!

Not to mention that illegals from one specific country on the European continent do get access, while the others do not. Yet this one country, Spain, has perhaps the most active jihadist movement of any Western European country.

For that matter, many Israelis' primary language is Hebrew, not English. It's a puzzling anti-jihad measure indeed that extends, with little scrutiny, the privileges of legal residency and a work permit to Communist Cuban illegals -- but not to Jewish Israeli illegals.

I understand Hugh's motive: He wants to apply "special scrutiny" to potential jihadis. But the way he has crafted his amendment displays a frankly disturbing equation of language to privilege: Mexicans, Pervians, Venezuelans, and Cubans get special treatment; Europeans (except those from Spain, including Basque separatists and Moorish-descended Moslems still pining for "al-Andaluz"), Japanese, Taiwanese, South Koreans, and even Brazilians do not. And I don't see how it will help in the war effort at all, as the jihadis will simply accelerate their already extant program to recruit more Jose Padillas and Richard Reids (not to mention expand ever more aggressively into Chavezistan).

I would propose instead that we take a leaf from the way Israelis have successfully protected their airports and El Al from terrorist attack for decades. They reject the absurdity of race-based, culture-based, or language-based profiling, which both denies individualism and has a weak spot a jihadist could find groping in the dark.

Instead, we should hire and train a large number (several thousand) of USCIS employees whose job it is to scrutinize parole-card and Z visa applicants for behavioral clues that they might be jihadis... and then empower them to single such people out, put a hold on their applications, and order weeks or months of extra scrutiny before granting them.

As the applicants are neither American citizens nor even legal residents -- they are in fact illegals -- I think a very good case can be made in court that anti-discrimination laws don't apply to them. Hugh must hold that same belief, as his own amendment requires it, too. Thus, there is no legal barrier to granting behavioral profilers the authority to freeze granting of parole cards to anyone they believe is acting suspiciously.

The profilers would also -- as in Israel -- commit to memory the photographs of all those individuals we have already identified as jihadis, so they can spot them in a crowd and call security. They should also memorize known criminals... including Spanish- and English-speaking drug smugglers and other known undesirables. (The Israelis have done this for many, many years, and it has been 100% effective -- in the face of the most concerted terrorist campaign against airports and an airline in the history of the world, there have been no successful terrorist attacks there since the 1970s.) Scores of cameras feeding images to facial-recognition software can also help immeasurably in this task.

And of course, any whose fingerprints are already on file and in our possession (from previous arrests, here or abroad) should be caught by the pattern-spotting software in the ICE system.

That would be a far more effective method of guarding against jihadis or other gangsters or terrorsts getting residency and a work permit here (and, incidentally, far fairer -- though the former is much more important). Better still, it would not allow jihadis to easily skate past the additional scrutiny simply by learning really good Spanish.

Hatched by Dafydd on this day, June 10, 2007, at the time of 1:13 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2163

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hugh's Second Amendment:

» Deconstructing Hugh from Joe's Dartblog
Here is a lovely riposte to Hugh Hewitt's codification of what sort of an immigration bill the anti-immigration folks would approve. The key idea?I would propose instead that we take a leaf from the way Israelis have successfully protected their... [Read More]

Tracked on June 11, 2007 5:06 AM

Comments

The following hissed in response by: Davod

I cannot understand all the fuss about the immigration Bill.

1. The problem is simple - the USG, whether run by Republicans or Democrats has not enforced the laws in force. Yet the proponents of this legislation want everyone to believe it will be different this time.

2. Enforce the current laws. There are already laws in place to cover bringing in painters assistants, carpenters assistants, kitchen hands,etc. It is just to hard and expensive for the average peasant to fill out the paperwork and get a visa to come here legally.

The problem is that the people managing this are private lawyers and others who charge an arm and a leg to process the paperwork. This limits the people who will apply and probably puts those who go thru the process in hock up to their eyeballs (Unless they have no intention of being a diswasher/kitchen hand when they get here.)

Fix this (no I don't have any suggestions) and you will have all the legal immigrants you need.

Does this fix up the illegals in the country, no. I do recall that when we migrated to Australia from England in 1968 my father needed a a sponsor. The sponsor had to have accomodations and a job lined up for my father when he got off the boat. My father started work the day after he got off the boat.

It is possible that something similar could be arranged for the illegals who are already here. They still apply in their home country (send the paperwork to the US embassy in that country) but, if they are good workers, they will have a sponsor who will vouch for them. This should move them a litle closer to the front of the line.

The paperwork has to be vetted. This takes time (another problem with the new legislation, not enough time to check anything).

3. To conclude. The new legislation was conceived in secret by people more intent on pushing legislation than fixing the problem of illegal immigration. This is evident by its timing and the rush to pass it without reasonable debate.

Enforce the laws on the books. The laws can be used to resolve the illegal issue if there was just someone who would care to look and act uoon those laws.

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 2:05 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Davod:

They can not enforce the present laws without additional resources and legislation. If it was that simple this would not even be an issue.

For instance there is a back log of deportations that can not be processed unless they pass a bill and authorize what is necessary.

And besides, I keep hearing that if we build that wall everything will work out and yet that wall has nothing to do with all those old laws that have been watered down by court decisions or a system that has been overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of people involved.

If all that was necessary was enforcing the laws we would not need a wall and more border agents.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 2:33 PM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

I think Hugh is having too much fun with this issue to ever want a solution to come along. Right now he is feeling pretty important.

I think the first amendment is a fantasy. Best of luck on that.

And as for the second one, I don't think it will work. We have people from China and Australia and all kinds of places at Gitmo. Terrorists are not stupid. They may be mad dog killers but they can figure some things out. This will not make us any safer. What does Hugh think they will do? Telegraph their intentions?

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 2:36 PM

The following hissed in response by: Baggi

Dafydd,

You cannot give Cuban's any more priveledges than they already have. Once a Cuban gets to the United States, they are here for good if they want to be.

The above hissed in response by: Baggi [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 3:58 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

That is a crazy amendemsnt. I swear the conservative blogs are reaching new levels of strangeness each day.

ALso wouldnt a lot of the ISlamist be able to say from lets the UK that English is their primary language anyway

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 4:53 PM

The following hissed in response by: GM

“ But how on earth is anyone to show that "the alien is loyal to the United States?" ”

How about this? Have them take this oath:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

If they get caught violating it in any way they’re out of here forever. It might have to be explained in their native language I guess. Quite honestly I don’t have a problem asking native born folks to take this oath. In fact maybe this should replace the standard pledge of allegiance. We can make allowances for those folks like the Amish that can’t swear to use violence to defend the Constitution with some kind of codicil. Beyond that as far as I am concerned if you can’t swear to stand by the Constitution then you don’t belong here.

The above hissed in response by: GM [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 7:18 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

I'm beginning to understand why President Bush wanted to get this bill passed quickly.
Even with the 3-week "discussion" we've had amongst ourselves out here in the Heartland, it only gave the "We don't need no stinkin' amnesty!" crowd time to progress from that to nuanced, detailed and complicated laundry list alternatives like this one of Hugh's.
I like HH in a goofy big brother sort of way but he often can be a real idiot!
(Love his laugh, though.)

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 8:50 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

GM:

Beyond that as far as I am concerned if you can’t swear to stand by the Constitution then you don’t belong here.

How does swearing that oath prove an illegal immigrant is loyal?

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 9:13 PM

The following hissed in response by: lsusportsfan

: JenLArt
I'm beginning to understand why President Bush wanted to get this bill passed quickly.

Isnt that the truth. We need a bill now before the GOP manages to run off every ethnic group that is not white or is not a mainstream Catholic or Protestant.

LOyalty Oaths now taken by American citizens? I suppose we will need a Const amendment for that

In the end is that we have used these peoples labors and we ignored the problem and now time to pay the Piper

THere is be a real amnesty in a few years if we don't do something now.

IN the end the 12 million are here and they will go nowhere.There will be no mass deportations and internal state, local, and other political forces will makes thatan attrition through enforcements policy goes into affect.

If we are worried about assimilation then we better get them legalized somehow because it soesn't get easier over time. Might as well start now

The above hissed in response by: lsusportsfan [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 9:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: RBMN

Now that security cameras are so ubiquitous, and so many cellphones can take photos--more commonly and with greater resolution every day--a "suspicious character" has a much greater chance of being captured in an image that can be made available to the police. And in turn, that makes the collection and maintenance of a large photo database (of resident aliens) increasingly valuable as well.

The above hissed in response by: RBMN [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 10, 2007 11:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

RBMN:

And in turn, that makes the collection and maintenance of a large photo database (of resident aliens) increasingly valuable as well.

It's time for... Joe LibrarianMan, Master of Library Science!

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 1:30 AM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

RBMN:

(To set up the database of parole-card holders, I mean.)

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 1:31 AM

The following hissed in response by: Terrye

Dafydd:

Why does swearing an oath by the Constitution not prove they are loyal? Why, no one planning to commit terrorist acts would fib would they?

This kind of idiotic idea {on the part of Hugh not Dafydd} is no different than saying we need more gun free zones to cut down on gun violence. As if a criminal cares about gun free zones.

The whole thing is becoming anal.

The above hissed in response by: Terrye [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 3:02 AM

The following hissed in response by: Davod

Terry 2:36:

You are writing like a politician.

They can increase the staff and resources` without a new law. The President asks for the resources in his budget or the Congress puts them in as an extra.

They did not use the additional resources or staff they have already been given.

The laws are on the books to do what I suggest for the very same reasons Administrative Judges let people out when we think the law says they should be deported. They use their discretion.

Walls do work and increased enforcement works. When you become serious. I would suggest that a first good step would be to get rid of the senior staff in Washington and transfer the senior staff on the southern border to the northern border and vice versa.

I repeat, the immigration bill is a farce.

As for Hewitt: I agree that his comments seem to be designed to inflame the crowd more than make a positive impact. Either that or he has changed his mind and wants to ensure the bill is passed by driving opponents into such extreme areas that they can be marginalized.

The above hissed in response by: Davod [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 3:48 AM

The following hissed in response by: GM

Dafydd

You are correct. The oath doesn’t prove loyalty. Anyone can lie. It just makes explicit in pretty unambiguous terms what is expected of you if you live here. You sign a piece of paper that says you understand enough of what the Constitution means to defend it without reservation in all circumstances. The Constitution, the other founding documents, and the general philosophy behind constitutional democratic republican government are what make this country unique. And you might be surprised at how many who don’t buy into that philosophy might not want to take such an oath.

The above hissed in response by: GM [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 11:58 AM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

They can not enforce the present laws without additional resources and legislation. If it was that simple this would not even be an issue.

For instance there is a back log of deportations that can not be processed unless they pass a bill and authorize what is necessary.

Ok, so what you're saying is, in effect, that we can't enforce the law without a law saying we can enforce the law? "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy..." That is utter hogwash. The INS can enforce the law currently. They simply don't -- going back to Clinton's tenure. You don't need legislation to increase the size of the Border Patrol -- and increasing the size of the BP does absolutely no good when they're not allowed to do anything to illegals crossing anyway! In Texas, for example, two agents were incarcerated for shooting a known felon when he attempted to get away. They're bound hand and foot by what they can and can't do, say, or think with regards to stopping an illegal. Small wonder people are leaving the Patrol in droves -- the government won't let them do their jobs!

Terrye, are you honestly asserting that a federal judge at this point in time with the right convincing couldn't get through the "backlog" of deportation hearings in a matter of days hours? I'll tell you the tune the scene could jive to: 30 days past due for a deportation hearing? Deported. Repeat offender? Deported! Anything over a minor traffic violation? Deported. Have I seen his face before? Deported, deported, deported.

We can even take that one step further -- using a matricula consular? Deported! Possession of a false SSN card? Deported.

And deportees could be taken in buses in daily runs and deposited on the other side of the fence (there is a fence over most of the border, if only barbed wire) with a bottle of water and some trail mix, free of charge, where guards could be posted -right now, all it would take is a wave of the pen by any number of governors or the President himself to dispatch the national guard- with clearance to use deadly force when necessary to secure the border. You think that wouldn't work? Tell you what -- you come immigrate illegally to my house, and we'll try it. I bet you don't get back over my fence.

Who do you think appointed the judges and federal prosecutors who aren't deporting illegals? Who made the laws with the loopholes that allow for multiple hearings and backlogs? If you can be honest and say "The politicians, by golly!" then you're on the first step to recovery.

As I've said time and again, Hispanic illegals are a protected class, vassals under the flag of their feudal lords on capitol hill. Nothing is going to change unless people get mad and hold their politicians to task.

PS I'm not opposed to many of the provisions in this bill. But if border security is so daggum important to them, they could and would pass it as a separate bill. If fixing the immigration system was important, they could and would pass it as a separate bill. They run you around the ring and jump through hoops and add in loop holes because congress is and always will be a circus designed to fool the voters into reelecting them the next time they're up.

How many senators have crafted and brought to the floor a purely border security bill? You tell me that.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 1:29 PM

The following hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh

K2aggie07:

Ok, so what you're saying is, in effect, that we can't enforce the law without a law saying we can enforce the law?

That's about the size of it. "Passing a law" is actually a continuing process that goes on for years and years.

That is utter hogwash. The INS can enforce the law currently. They simply don't -- going back to Clinton's tenure.

Just because it's "hogwash" doesn't mean it's not true. And you gloss over something very important here without realizing it; presidents go and come, but the bureaucracy abides.

I don't know about this particular law, but it's absolutely true that the INS/USCIS bureaucracy refuses to enforce some laws -- just as the CIA refuses to do what it is tasked with doing, U.S. Attorneys don't always prosecute bad guys, the State Department often acts diametrically opposed to what the president has ordered, and so forth.

Alas, there is absolutely nothing that a president can do to affect this. Because of the way we have structured civil service through the decades, there is sometimes no power on heaven or earth that can swerve the bureaucracy from what it has always done in the past.

Civil Service laws were deliberately constructed to prevent civil servants from being fired, replaced, demoted, promoted, threatened, bullied, or forced to do anything. The best you can do is cajole them, bribe them, or slowly -- over many years -- attrite the worst ones.

The more entrenched the position, the longer it takes to push them in another direction... often it takes longer than 8 years, so it's a multi-president project. And that's assuming your successor supports the project (Bush-41 rescued the CIA from some of the Reagan reforms, for example, simply by removing the pressure after Reagan was termed-out).

A lot of people seem to believe that all the president need do is issue an EO, and all the gnomes in the bureaus will fall into line. In fact, most of those gnomes will actively fight him hammer and tooth every step of the way: They do not tolerate change.

The only weapon the president has is to keep pushing Congress for more and more laws to close off each loophole for weaseling around the new policy... a version of whack-a-mole that he sometimes wins; but only when he can exhaust them so much, that eventually the roadblocks retire and are replaced by younger administrators who don't have as much invested in the old policy.

You don't need legislation to increase the size of the Border Patrol -- and increasing the size of the BP does absolutely no good when they're not allowed to do anything to illegals crossing anyway!

Of course you do: More BP means more federal hires; more hires means more money; more money requires Congress to appropriate and disburse said money; see long post above for what happens after that.

And the reason the BP can often not do anything is that frequently, state and local lawn forcement actively fights alongside the inertia-drags within the bureaucracy.

Suppose you are aware that illegals are flooding into some California border cities... but because of a recent election, the county boards of supervisors, city councils, and mayors have ordered the local cops and sheriffs not to cooperate in any way with any federal immigration control.

How, exactly, is the Border Patrol supposed to find, capture, and deport illegals in those areas? In this case, you would need federal or state legislation superceding those county and city ordinances... and even then, it would take months of federal enforcement of those new laws (requiring favorable court rulings) and a bunch of people losing their jobs and pensions before the locals will fall into line... slowly, grudgingly, and bearing-a-grudgingly.

In Texas, for example, two agents were incarcerated for shooting a known felon when he attempted to get away.

Like every other law-enforcement agent, Border Patrol agents are not allowed to shoot unarmed fleeing felons in the back. Even if you changed the law to allow that, the courts would almost certainly overturn it.

What do you expect Bush to do about it? Declare martial law?

Small wonder people are leaving the Patrol in droves -- the government won't let them do their jobs!

Where "the government" means Congress and the courts. What do you expect Bush, or any other president, to do about that?

Terrye, are you honestly asserting that a federal judge at this point in time with the right convincing couldn't get through the "backlog" of deportation hearings in a matter of days hours? I'll tell you the tune the scene could jive to: 30 days past due for a deportation hearing? Deported. Repeat offender? Deported! Anything over a minor traffic violation? Deported. Have I seen his face before? Deported, deported, deported.

Appealed, appealed, appealed, on grounds that the judge is not properly applying the law and precedent. Rehearing, rehearing. Democratic House impeaches judge. Judge narrowly survives in the Senate... but has a suddenly come-to-Jesus conversion, since he does have some desire eventually to move up to the circuit bench.

Who do you think appointed the judges and federal prosecutors who aren't deporting illegals? Who made the laws with the loopholes that allow for multiple hearings and backlogs? If you can be honest and say "The politicians, by golly!" then you're on the first step to recovery.

K2, honest to goodness, everybody reading this blog knows this -- and knew it long before you toddled over here to tell us. You're not revealing some new wisdom here.

But they also know something you appear not to understand: This happened over a period of decades; over more than a century, if we count changing the system as part of liberalizing the actual actors (which we must).

Woodrow Wilson, as Power Line recently reminded us, despised the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence and did everything possible he could to overturn them in favor of an ever larger, ever more liberal parliamentary democracy... which shifts the date of this liberalism back to the 1880s, when he first began agitating about his plan.

Turning this all around is going to be the great conservative task of the 21st century; and its most important component is appointing justices and judges who believe in judicial restraint.

But that very point will retard at least some correction of past problems, because by definition, a proponent of judicial restraint is reluctant to use his judicial power to "right wrongs." So while Justices Roberts and Alito would never have ruled that way seven justices did in Roe v. Wade, they will not necessarily vote to overturn 34 years of established precedent, either: They might see that as judicial activism.

In any event, appointing judicial conservatives to the bench has been one of two areas where Bush is the most strongly conservative (the other being defending the nation against jihadis). Yet he has been thwarted time and again by Senate Democrats and some moderate Republicans, led by iconoclastic Senator John McCain and his "Gang of Fourteen."

What do you propose Bush should have done about that? Got any ideas in mind? Do you suggest Bush arrest those senators who vote against his judicial nominees and hold them in Gitmo?

How many senators have crafted and brought to the floor a purely border security bill? You tell me that.

Crafted? Many. Brought to the floor? None... but then, perhaps you didn't know that individual senators cannot simply place a bill on the floor; that is a task performed by the Senate leadership, which controls the agenda.

We used to have a Republican leadership; but we never had an activist conservative leadership, because liberal senators -- whether Republican or Democrat -- would not vote for a conservative activist majority leader. (Nor would conservatives vote for a liberal activist majority leader, which is why Harry "Pinky" Reid has the job instead of, say, Chuck Schumer, Edward Kennedy, Joe Biden, or Pat Leahy.)

The problem with your argument isn't that it's false; the problems is that it is naïve. It is juvenile, based upon a "high-school civics" level of understanding of how government actually works.

I don't find naiveté cute, wholesome, or admirable in any way; I find it annoying as hell. And counterproductive.

You demand why Congress doesn't just pass an enforcement-only bill, considering that a majority of Congress supports such enforcement; but you must know, or you should reasonably know, that regardless of whether a senator or representative supports some policy, he will often withhold his vote as a bargaining chip to get something else he wants.

A large minority of the Democrats actively oppose enforcement because they're "open borders" types. But another large minority, of both parties this time, will only vote for enforcement as part of a trade for something else they want... typically for regularization, for a guest-worker program, or for a change to the rules of legal immigration.

Those two "large minorities" add up to a majority, and Congress cannot grant your wish.

Why don't you know this? What about the point do you not understand?

You seem more interested in standing on your principles and finding someone to blame for their failure than actually putting on your manly gown, girding your loins, and pulling up your socks to actually solve the problem as best you can.

Dafydd

The above hissed in response by: Dafydd ab Hugh [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 6:02 PM

The following hissed in response by: JenLArt

Great stuff, Dafydd!
That is why I love your blog.

Don't forget to add that not only are huge federal bureaucracies like ICE schlerotic and that deportation is hindered by state and local jurisdictions, but also by the states' governors.
When President Bush deployed National Guard to protect the border, almost all of the governors gave him trouble about it, especially Arnold, Bill Richardson and Napolitano of Arizona.
They either refused to deploy as many (or even any?) and/or wouldn't let them have bullets in their guns or have effective rules of engagements when faced with violators.
Part of the enforcement problem is the tug-of-war that's involved between federal/national powers and states' rights and the President's use or abuse of posse commitatus.
Lest we forget, the new bill provides for 1,800 more border agents and a much bigger budget to fund enforcement.

The above hissed in response by: JenLArt [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 7:34 PM

The following hissed in response by: k2aggie07

You call me naiive, and yet you have the temerity to post this "Alas, there is absolutely nothing that a president can do to affect this."? I find that kind of telling. The president can't control what goes on in the coequal branch of congress, either, but...oops.

At any rate, I never personally indicted Bush or any other politician. I think its endemic to Washington. The pro-illegal labor lobby has everyone in that city hooked on their brand of soma and its going to take a miracle to shake them out of it. Thats why I don't trust these guys to give it a fair shake. Thats why I don't buy the "triggers". Maybe I am naiive -- but fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice...? You know the rest.

To be frank, this is why most Americans are upset at their representatives. We say, this is what we want. We are, after all, in charge...being the naiive idiots who voted y'all into office. And elitists like Bush, Kennedy, and (never thought I'd say this) like you say "We know what's good for you! Take your medicine and like it! Grow up! This is the best you're gonna get!". I'm sorry, but that is unacceptable.

At the end of the day the American people get what the American people want; its just a matter of whether they get it short or fast. They haven't cared enough about illegal immigration (or legal immigrants such as Sachi or my mother) enough to get mad about the system -- until now, when its starting to hit their wallets. And, surprise, now you see some action in Washington.

Bargaining chips, log rolling, and whatever other cute deals our representatives have going will all seem real inconsequential when people start yelling loud enough. There's plenty of historical anecdotal evidence to support that.

I don't need to be told how to be a man, and I don't need to be told that I'm some kind of refugee from a high school political science class. I read this blog as a consumer and I post here as a participant. I may not be the most politically astute character around, but I'm also not an idiot. Delete this portion of the post if you will, because its mainly directed at you, but I've been linking, posting, and agreeing here for a few years now -- and I don't really appreciate the patronizing, from you or Bush or anyone else.

The above hissed in response by: k2aggie07 [TypeKey Profile Page] at June 11, 2007 9:32 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)

(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)


Remember me unto the end of days?


© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved