Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Popular Mechanics asks “Could we build a Ring-world?”
Dude, we can’t even build a FENCE.
Moderate your expectations, folks.
From: Mitch Berg, Uppity Peasant
Re: The Way Forward
Do the following…:
I don’t for a moment think either of you are smart enough, or independent-enough of all that K-street “talent” and US Chamber money, to do this.
But you could sure surprise me.
Go ahead, gents. Make my day. Make being a Republican less humiliating.
That is all.
On the one hand, the President has the right and power to not enforce a law.
Prosecutorial discretion means you are not required to prosecute every crime — which, since doing so would be impossible, is just a nod to reality.
On the other hand, the President doesn’t get tochangethe law:
It does not mean that those crimes the executive chooses not to enforce are now no longer crimes. Prosecutorial discretion has never meant that the passive act of non-enforcement has the legal effect of repealing criminal laws enacted by Congress. And it has never even been suggested, because to do so would be absurd, that under the doctrine of prosecutorial discretion, the executive decision not to prosecute certain crimes means the people who commit those crimes should be rewarded for committing them. That, of course, would only encourage others to commit them on a more massive scale.
Yet that is President Obama’s theory. He is claiming not only the power to determine what immigration laws get enforced and which illegal immigrants get prosecuted — power he unquestionably has. He also claims the power to declare (a) that criminal acts are somehow lawful — that illegal aliens now have a right to be here — just because Obama has chosen not to prosecute them; and (b) that those who engage in this unprosecuted activity will be rewarded with benefits (lawful presence, relief from deportation, work permits, etc.), as if their illegal acts were valuable community service.
That is an utter perversion of prosecutorial discretion and a blatant usurpation of congressional power.
So let’s lay this out there:
John Kline? Erik Paulsen? Michele Bachmann/Tom Emmer? Not one dime of funding to enable this adminstration to declare itself emperor.
You vote to enable this madness, I will do whatever I can to primary your asses straight out of DC.
Enough is enough.
Under the Obama administration’s expanding (and likely illlegal, not that that matters) definition of “refugee”, people fleeing Chicago’s violence, or Detroit’s impending mass of water shut offs, would be considered “refugees” for fleeing to Canada.
Except, of course, Canada isn’t going to take them…
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Liberals don’t mind open borders because those immigrants won’t take their jobs, or their kids. And government spending doesn’t matter because government loans never have to be repaid. Half a million illegal immigrants have swarmed the border this year, all claiming to be refugees entitled to food, shelter, medical care, in-state tuition and public defenders. Oh, and interpreters, because although they don’t speak English they sure as Hell know their rights.
In completely unrelated news, .22 LR shells are still impossible to find on the shelves, as right-wing kook bitter clinging racist homophobes continue to snatch them up the instant they roll off the truck.
This cannot end well.
That which cannot be sustained, won’t be.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
President Obama wants to get tough on immigration but those darn Republicans won’t let him. He has asked Congress to let him borrow an extra $3.7 Billion to beef up border patrols and speed up deportation cases.
No mention of the President’s career-long opposition to immigration reform, his decision to sue Arizona in 2010 to stop the state from getting tough on illegal immigrants, or his decision four weeks ago to stop deportations and give work permits to millions of student-aged illegal immigrants. Here’s where the money goes, 90% for resettlement and public defenders so illegal immigrants can stay in the country.
I wonder why Republicans don’t believe this latest offer is sincere? They must be racisssssssssssssss
What other answer could there be?
No, seriously – after almost six years, you’d think they could come up with another defamatory deflection…
Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, in debate with John Thune of South Dakota.
That’s South Dakota. The one to the south:
A smart fence which is what Senator McCain and I want to build – since he’s from Arizona, I think he knows more about this than the Senator from South Dakota, who only has a border with Canada that is quite different.
Leave aside the logical fallacy -border state congresscritters are just as clueless about our sovereignty as anyone else – huh?
I was apparently born in Canada, and not one of the lower 57. Who knew?
Remember – they’re the smart party.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
As women moved out of the kitchen and into the workforce, the Law of Supply and Demand came into play:
Everybody’s wages dropped.
Is the War on Women a case of Friendly Fire?
If we brought in millions of new immigrants, would the numbers get better or worse?
And if most of the immigrants were female, how much worse would it get?
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Thomas Sowell has an interesting column that contains this line:
“Immigration laws are the only laws that are discussed in terms of how to help people who break them.”
He’s got a point. If we applied Democrat’s immigration logic to other laws in a reductio ad absurdum analysis . . . .
There are 750,000 registered sex offenders in the United States, of which 400,000 are child molesters. Applying the same criminal justice probabilities to child molesters as we do to other rape, we can assume there are 10 non-convicted offenders for every offender who was convicted. Therefore:
There are 4 million child molesters in the United States, living in the shadows, unable to freely pursue their dreams. They live in constant fear, looking over their shoulders for government agents. They are forced to live in an underground, cash-based, off-the-books culture. These are hard-working, productive members of society with families. They pay sales taxes. They would vote Democrat if they weren’t convicted felons. Society must legalize their status, bring them out of the shadows, brush away the obstacles and make them full members of society. Do it now, for the children.
Okay, that’s idiotic. And so is this latest round of immigration amnesty. House Republicans selling their souls for Chamber of Commerce donations are killing their own party while they destroy the future of the nation.
Yet another reason the Tea Party really, really needs to complete its takeover of the GOP.
A big chunk of Northern/Northeastern Colorado are actively pursuing secession from the rest of the state, to form – they hope – a 51st state. Sick of the onrushing dim-bulb “progressive’ statism that’s engulfed the Boulder/Denver/Colorado Springs corridor, with its attendant spending, rapacious taxation and suffocating regulation, the more traditional, rural, conservative parts of the state have had enough.
[Weld county commissioner Sean] Conway said the new laws don’t support the interests of the northern part of the state, which is rich in agricultural history. Conway said that’s why he and others are proposing to break away from Colorado to form a new state.
“This is not a stunt. This is a very serious deliberative discussion that’s going on,” he said. “There’s a real feeling that a lot of folks who come from the urban areas don’t appreciate the contribution that many Coloradans contribute.”
Parts of Nebraska are also apparently interested in joining in on what would be a new state.
It’ll likely come to nothing; most Americans have been painstakingly taught that re-arranging our states in any way equals supporting slavery.
But there’s a historical precedent:
Conway says five of the current 50 states were created through a similar process. He says the proposal is “likely” to end up on a Colorado ballot this fall.
“The whole purpose of doing this is to preserve an agricultural way of life and to protect the energy sector, that we feel is very much under assault,” Conway said.
Rep. Cory Gardner, the Republican Congressman from Yuma, told The Coloradoan in Fort Collins he’s not sure how he’d vote on such a measure, but he says he understands why the measure is being floated at this time. He says Democratic leaders controlling the state Legislature and the governor’s office have not been listening to their constituents in rural parts of the state…If voters in those counties decide they want to move forward, then the county commissioners would ask state lawmakers to approve the plan, and then petition Congress for statehood.
Of course, if the proposal ever did make any headway, the urban parts of the state – which depend, as they do in Minnesota, on the exurbs and the rest of the state to keep up a steady stream of tribute to the central government – would no doubt bog the idea down in court actions and worse until kingdom come.
But leaving all that aside – I think it’d be a fascinating idea here in Minnesota.
Clearly, Minnesota is two states that are stuck together, like Oscar Madison and Felix Unger, more out of tradition, a historical accident based on lines drawn in the 1840s when Minnesota was a sparsely populated swampy wilderness, than out of any rational political, demographic or social reason that they should be forever together.
Wouldn’t it make more sense to have an “East Minnesota” – basically what are now the 4th, 5th and 8th Congressional Districts, the Twin Cities and Duluth and the land they’d need to build their high-speed choo-choo between each other – on the one hand, and “West Minnesota” the rest of the state, form separate states? Perhaps with a capitol in Rochester?
The new states would make more economic, political and social sense than the current one does; “West Minnesota” could orient itself economically toward the rest of the region, while “East Minnesota” could then endeavor to prove its long-standing premise that it carries the rest of the state.
In fact, this would be true of many states; Upstate New York would no doubt love to be rid of NYC and Long Island; greater California would no doubt love to cast its lot with Arizona, Utah and Nevada rather than be stuck with the endless money suck of Los Angeles.
(Likewise the Dakotas are all wrong; the eastern halves of both states have more in common with each other politically, economically and socially than they do with their western halves, which are also pretty much alike; “East Dakota” and “West Dakota” make more sense than North and South Dakota do).
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
The rush for immigration reform never made any sense to me and the motive ascribed to proponents (want to import Mexicans who will vote Democrat) is silly because they’re already doing that.
If we wanted immigration amnesty, a simple bill would work: “Anybody present within the borders of the continental United States on July 1, 2013, shall automatically be a citizen with all rights and privileges thereof.” Except, as Glenn Reynolds constantly points out, that solution would provide insufficient opportunities for graft so no politician would think of it.
The reason we need immigration reform is we need is an excuse to dole out more money to our Leftistbuddies who will run the immigrant integration centers to help newly-legal immigrants get their full share of welfare (and vote Democrat).
Ahhhh, now it makes sense.
Don’t just follow the money; listen for the sound of backs being scratched.
Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:
Article in Slate, republished in today’s Star Tribune on-line:
“So let’s drop the pretense. Most politicians standing in the way of background checks for firearms don’t really believe in freedom or limited government. They simply care more about controlling immigration than they do about controlling guns.”
You say that like it’s a bad thing.
Lawmakers being more interested in curbing law-breaking than attacking the law-abiding?
There oughtta be a law.
The GOP has been schizphrenic on immigration for as long as I can remember.
Which is understandable – because I think most of us Republicans, as individuals, are schizophrenic about it. Or, to pick a less loaded term, we believe things that seem, on their surface, to be contradictory; we support immigration – we just want people to follow the rules and come to this country legally.
So I’m going to try to state the case, contradictions and all.
Remember the great struggle to end discrimination against shoplifters? And all the parallels that struggle had with the civil rights movement?
How about the long battle to make domestic abuse a form of free speech before the law, equal in legal stature to the fight to bring women the right to vote?
Not that, either?
Of course not. They’re both completely absurd.
Equating a crime - shoplifting, domestic abuse – with bringing the rights in our Constitution to people who, as law-abiding citizens, deserve them profanes logic and, worse, devalues the rights.
Any rational person knows this.
Which is why the media seem to be trying to make the irrational seem rational. As in this AP piece, carried on MPR, on Alabama’s new immigraiton law, titled “Alabama immigration battle recalls past civil rights turbulence”.
Alabama was well-suited to be the nation’s civil rights battleground because of its harsh segregation laws, large black population, and the presence of a charismatic young minister named Martin Luther King Jr., who led a boycott of segregated buses in 1955.
Opponents say the new law’s schools provision conjures images of Gov. George Wallace’s stand in the schoolhouse door to block integration.
But only if you’re an idiot.
Because black children – and their parents – were American citizens, endowed by their creator with the same rights as their white neighbors, notwithstanding George Wallace.
But illegal aliens are violating the law by being here. And to treat their presence in this country as a right devalues that right, and undercuts our sovereignty as a nation.
And stating it any other way – like, comparing a crime to a right – is no better than lumping domestic abuse in with women’s suffrage.
A neighbor emailed me:
How to solve illegal immigration with the least amount of government intrusion.
From Conor Friedersdorf, an idea that will never be implemented: grant amnesty to any illegal immigrant who came forward to show that he’d been hired sans documents, fine his employer, and give him a green card.
It’d spark compliance – and build a whole new reality TV genre, with thousands of new jobs!
Mexican cops cross border, shoot and pilf American hunters:
An ABC-7 viewer contacted the station early Thursday, saying her son, husband and friends were hunting on the Rio Grande levy on the U.S. side when men on the Mexico side fired shots, narrowly missing them. She said more men on the Mexico side drove up with automatic weapons and into to U.S. side. She said the armed men fired weapons and stole hunters’ chairs and drove back into Mexico.
Mosier said Border Patrol agents and Texas Parks and Wildlife officers were sent to the area immediately.
“Upon approach, our agents observed those subjects (Mexican officers) who committed the incursion return back to Mexico,” Mosier said.
Forget “high tech fences”; We need to close our border with minefields, F16s flying with bombs, and machine guns.
We are no longer served as a nation by our open – no, porous – border policy.
New bill in Texas would provide a destination for illegals:
This should get their attention.
A measure filed by State Rep. Lois Kolkhorst (R-Brenham) would allow any law enforcement agency that has custody of an illegal immigrant to take the illegal to ‘the office of a U.S. Senator or Representative’ and leave them there.
1200 WOAI [San Antonio] news reports the measure also allows county sheriff’s deputies or city police officers to ‘request an agent or employee of the United States Senator or United States Representative to sign a document acknowledging the release or discharge of the illegal immigrant at the senator’s or representative’s office.
The measure covers individuals who are ‘not a citizen or national of the United States’ and who is ‘unlawfully present in the United States.’
Kolkhorst concedes the measure is a ‘cry for help’ to convince federal officials to secure the border, but she says she is serious about getting the measure approved by the Legislature.
That might work in Texas.
Here in Minnesota, Keith Ellison or Betty McCollum would register them as voters.
Part of me hopes that a kid in Saint Paul tries to ride his or her bike to school…
…and duly gets told by his or her teacher, principal or school board not to bring flags to school at risk of alienating the school’s America-Hating-American population…
…so we can see something like this:
…and then see Ann Carroll, John Brodrick and Ellona Street-Stewart’s heads explode.
A guy can dream.
This just occurred to me: Maureen Dowd may be the Betty McCollum of columnists:
As I sat above the Hoover Dam under the broiling sun, I was getting jittery.
There was Gov. Jan Brewer of Arizona, speaking at the dedication of a bridge linking Arizona and Nevada 890 feet above the Colorado River.
As the politicians droned on and my Irish skin turned toasty brown, I worried that Governor Brewer might make a citizen’s arrest and I would have to run for my life across the desert. She has, after all, declared open season on anyone with a suspicious skin tone in her state.
The Irish never turn “toasty brown”.
And the only “suspicious skin tone” this country should open a season on is that waxy, corpse-like newsroom pallor.
Kidding. I kid.
Having the most interesting – read “depressing” – discussion with a couple of DFLers.
Bobby Jindal is coming to the Twin Cities to raise money for Tim Pawlenty.
Lefties: ”So was Bobby Jindal an “Anchor Baby?” The GOP wants him sent home when they repeal the 14th Amendment!”
Er, geniuses? Jindal was born in Baton Rouge; his “home” is here. His parents, Amal and Raj Jindal, were *legal* immigrants. They followed the rules. Jindal is not an “anchor”, since his parents intended to stay here all along.
Idiots. I’m surrounded by idiots.
¡Arizona es i occupado!
The federal government has posted signs along a major interstate highway in Arizona, more than 100 miles north of the U.S.-Mexico border, warning travelers the area is unsafe because of drug and alien smugglers, and a local sheriff says Mexican drug cartels now control some parts of the state.
But by all means, Left – keep blurring the distinction between legal and illegal immigration. It’s done us so much good so far.
Would it kill you to observe the fact that there’s a difference between an “immigrant” and an “illegal immigrant”?
You really just want to abolish the border, don’t you?
Why won’t liberals ever, ever, ever answer questions on the subject?
Minnesotans support immigration reform:
8* Suppose the new Arizona immigration law was being considered for your state. Would you favor or oppose passage of that law in your state?
14% Not sure
9* Suppose a police officer stops someone for a traffic violation or a violation of some other law. If the police officer suspects that the person they stopped might be an illegal immigrant, should the officer be required to check their immigration status?
11% Not sure
Like most people, Republicans have always supported letting people into this country the same way most of our anscestors, from all countries, came here; through the door. Legally. With the full expectation that they would assimilate into American culture – learning the language, the history, and what made this country important.
Like most Americans, Republicans believe that immigrating to America is an opportunity, not an entitlement.
Wanna talk policy?
Or you wanna dump pennies on candidates?
Here is the attention-whoring, self-promoting face of the Minnesota DFL.
It’s “Robert Erickson”, and we’ve run into him before, of course:
He’s convinced himself that Minnesotans want open borders, and that making sure immigration is safe, available and legal is for squares.
And he interrupted yesterday’s town hall meeting to dump a bag of pennies on Tom Emmer.
So you wanna talk about immigration, DFL?
I think we’re more than ready for that discussion.
Make sure you send that oh-s0-special lad Robert to have that discussion with us, DFL.
I read this, and wondered for a brief moment if the story didn’t have some garbled copy – if it wasn’t talking about Afghanistan, or southern Mexico, or the Congo or something.
No such luck (I’m adding emphasis):
An area in south-central Arizona that was once a haven for family hiking and off-roading, now has signs warning of drug smugglers and human traffickers.
Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu says that his department no longer has control over parts of his county.
At a recent press conference, Sheriff Babeu said, “We are outgunned, we are out manned and we don’t have the resources here locally to fight this.”
It is, in effect, an insurgency on American soil, on behalf of a foreign power (albeit not a soverign government – at least, not directly):
Last month, Pinal County Deputy Sheriff Louie Puroll was ambushed and shot as he tracked six drug smugglers. Sheriff Babeu said the ambush mirrored military tactics.
But for God’s sake, don’t ask peoples’ immigration status!
In regards to Obama’s promise of 1,200 National Guardsmen spread out from San Diego to the mouth of the Rio Grande, Babeu added, “It will fall short. What is truly needed in 3,000 soldiers for Arizona alone.”
OK, open borders people; this is the wages of your lunacy. This is the big reward for casting away our national sovereignty; losing control of our nation, not just fiscally and politically and economically, but in terms of actually controlling this country so that it is safe for law-abiding Americans.
Question for all of you who call Michele Bachmann and the Tea Partiers “seditious” for advocating limiting the power of government – are the Open Borders, anti-sovereignty people not even more, more directly seditious, since their policies lead directly to the loss of government control over the nation is is charged in our Constitution with defending?